It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's play a quick game: "Who's really a Nazi?"

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Are you still obsessing over your fixation on transcripts when I clearly posted it in my original comment?

Every one can read and or watch it for themselves, you're never going to convince me otherwise of what I heard him say. Nor was it ever my intention to convince others. I posted the info, so readers can decide for themselves.

Clearly you heard what you wanted to, and heard what I wanted to. Let agree to disagree with plain facts already.

You love kicking dead horses evidently.

+2 for being a dedicated troll.

Here is a medal;




posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: ADVISOR
a reply to: Ohanka

Ever heard of Hitler Youth?

Children were a key aspect of creating the next generation of Nazi's. There's a thing called Google, maybe use it once.


and this applies in Horthyist Hungary, how exactly?

and membership in the Hitler Youth was not optional.

I've actually read and written on the Third Reich extensively so perhaps you are the one who should use google.


Again, it is useful to be aware of which time period is being discussed.

From late 1944 to 1945, it was not "Horthyist Hungary". It was the Arrow Cross regime until the Soviets occupied Pest.

Been a long time since I looked at the Arrow Cross, but I'd bet they had people under the age of 18 in the ranks of their armed bands. Not a direct comparison to the HJ, but similar.

Not that I believe Soros was associated with the Arrow Cross.

Cheers


I’m well aware of the arrow cross party. They ruled Hungary under the Nazi puppet government after Horthy was deposed

I dont recall them having a youth wing like the HJ.

Regardless Soros was not a member, nor were his family.



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka


I dont recall them having a youth wing like the HJ.


I can't find it offhand on the internet. Suspect it would take digging into books, probably written in Hungarian.

Yeah, I don't think Soros was part of the Arrow Cross either.

Cheers



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ADVISOR

Ah. So it's blatant dishonesty from you then.

Soros was 14 and stated clearly in your source that he didn't take property away from Jews for the Nazis.



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: JohnProctor

Why do people always feel there has to be Nazis in a political discussion.

It's not always good guys vs Nazis... More frequently I imagine it's just people who disagreed with some assholes peppered in. Quite often both sides have people who'd be ok with taking freedoms, or keeping them gone.


Well, this is the OP and not some tangential attempt at derailing another thread. It's a good comparison post based on historical truths.

Did you answer 'yes' or 'no' to most of them? Me, I answered 'no' to them all.



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: ADVISOR
a reply to: Ohanka

Ever heard of Hitler Youth?

Children were a key aspect of creating the next generation of Nazi's. There's a thing called Google, maybe use it once.


and this applies in Horthyist Hungary, how exactly?

and membership in the Hitler Youth was not optional.

I've actually read and written on the Third Reich extensively so perhaps you are the one who should use google.



Doesnt seem to me that you have don all that much studying. Had you done so you would know that children as young as 12 would often get jobs to help support their families. Nazis used forced labor and child labor to keep the economy going.

Child labor was common after world war 1 where many families had lost their primary means of support in the war. odd you claim to be an expert but know nothing on the economics. Soros working at 12 would not be unusual at all.



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I can say exactly the same about you.

However I didn't, I just figured you chose to be ignorant deliberately for the sake of being contrary.

Or a defiantly dedicated troll.

However, now I see you have an agenda of trying to create an issue of question, where none exists.

Have you noticed, you're the only one commenting in favor of your argument, of trying to paint me as a liar when I said no lies. I just posted what he said with his own words.

I quoted him, so if a lie exists it's his, not mine.

If anyone else is lying, it's you lying about exactly what he said.

Again, people can read and or watch it for themselves.

Also, I so don't care what you call me, it's irrelevant.


In fact, I never asked any one to believe me. That's for each their own. Clearly you really can't drop this, oh well sucks to be you then.

But go ahead and keep egging me on in an attention grabbing attempt to derail a thread. We all see what you're doing. So, inevitably this conversation has to end.

Do you want to have the last word?

Go ahead by all means, have it.



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: ADVISOR
a reply to: Ohanka

Ever heard of Hitler Youth?

Children were a key aspect of creating the next generation of Nazi's. There's a thing called Google, maybe use it once.


and this applies in Horthyist Hungary, how exactly?

and membership in the Hitler Youth was not optional.

I've actually read and written on the Third Reich extensively so perhaps you are the one who should use google.



Doesnt seem to me that you have don all that much studying. Had you done so you would know that children as young as 12 would often get jobs to help support their families. Nazis used forced labor and child labor to keep the economy going.

Child labor was common after world war 1 where many families had lost their primary means of support in the war. odd you claim to be an expert but know nothing on the economics. Soros working at 12 would not be unusual at all.


I knew all of that. Im not sure how it is relevant.

Soros working at 12 may very well be quite normal. However a 12 year old Soros working for the Hitler Youth as a Hungarian Jew living in Horthy’s Hungary would be extremely unusual indeed.



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka

Hey Ohanka, did find this. Can't vouch for how rigorous it is as a source.


The Regent ‘s October 15 proclamation, the hope of the end of the war and persecution filled the Jewish population of Budapest with euphoria. Many tore off the yellow stars and ran to the streets to celebrate. However, by the evening the radio broadcast Szálasi’s military orders. Within hours all hell broke loose on the streets of the capital. Arrow Cross militiamen drove labour servicemen onto Chain and Margaret Bridges and shot them into the Danube. In Népszínház Street and Teleki Square some servicemen got weapons and put up scattered resistance. With German help, the Arrow Cross quickly restored control and, in reprisal, killed numerous Jews captured in the area. Arrow Cross gangs, often composed of teenagers not older than 15-16, were allowed to go on a rampage


Arrow Cross

Cheers



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: JohnProctor

I recall, years ago, slowly beginning to recognize what I considered to be patterns in American beliefs. Simple examples of how a person who was pro-gun was also anti-abortion. That of course being a gross over simplification mentioned only to demonstrate that I think I know from my own experience that I recognize your own realization.

Until that time I had always thought that each of these political and social issues were independent of each other, that people took on positions on issues on on the merits of those issues alone. But at that point I allowed myself to begin looking at this phenomenon as if it might be a genuine trend of belief systems. The more I watched it the more I found that there was some kind of ''flocking'' going on, that individuals, or what I had considered to be individual decision making was now having the appearance of being groupings into two camps, liberal and conservative.

Now, whether or not that trend was ''genuine'' or contrived entered into my thinking. Genuine as in a natural function of human thought patterning or contrived as in propagandized conditioning. I now think it is both.

This struck a chord in me from my early Christian training. Rather than slipping into the easy channels of patternized thinking and standing tall in belief that what I believed was the truth and what those who opposed those beliefs was false, I entered into that equation the mote and the log in ones eye metaphor. If it was easy to see in others what I considered to be false, I needed to use at least that amount of inspection into my own beliefs. This ended up nullifying much of my thinking that I was an arbiter of truth and instead just one more collector of information upon which I placed my own hopes and desires.

To your notion on anti-American and anti-human I likely come down on a side that is different from yours.
One, I think this is a false grouping because in considering myself to be pro-American I see how easy it would be to group those who do not believe as I do as themselves anti-American. I suppose there are those who are though I would be hard pressed to single out any one that I know or even anyone here on ATS as being of such a nature.

And for the anti-human, well that is a deeper accusation. I guess that is centered on the question of a woman's right to her body and the rights of the incubation process. This drags several hot topic issues into consideration. One being freedom of choice. But as this is still part of our introductory discussions I will leave it at that. I, for my own sense of priorities leave those decisions up to the individual, primarily being the woman and secondarily if she wishes the inseminater.

But back to the ''morphing'' you have noticed. I can see it as well, this morphing. So what I for the longest time considered to be genuine thought processes on the part of individuals is now glaringly manifesting as two groups, the left and the right. Both sides think they see the world from the correct perspective, the ''true'' perspective.

I think there are power brokers on both sides and I do not trust one over the other.



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnProctor

Change the word nazi to fascist and the this thread will make more sense



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

With the abortion argument, or with any argument, I place myself in a position of being wrong. I, being pro-life say, " if I'm wrong what does that mean?"
That would mean that I have been promoting the obstruction women's rights in the name of saving lives.
When the opposite is put out however, we find it is inconceivable. If a pro-choice person was wrong, then they have been promoting the slaughter of innocent human children in the name of convenience.
I can entertain that I'm wrong but I suspect the latter cannot.
Now, the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side that unborn children, at the least past six weeks, are fully human and sentient; everything that defines a living being exists at that point. I'm not going to argue over the claptrap of conception. But the fact remains if someone is pro-choice, I daresay they cannot entertain the weight and consequence of them being wrong.
Comparison to the average German citizen in the late 30s, they also could not entertain this thought because the consequences would be too horrible.
They knew Jews were human. Many were their neighbors or relatives. They were sending them off to the state out of fear. And they knew they were being executed. But they couldn't entertain that thought. They were doing what was right and they could never think otherwise.
The use of my original post is multifaceted. There's a lot of things we do that we don't think about. There's atrocities we accept as normal or just-the-way-it-is, but societies have fallen before for the same reasons. Descended into madness and death worship. I'm just trying to shine a light on that here in what little way I can.

And my anti-human statementg. isn't necessarily about abortion. It's about the push for depopulation in the name of saving the planet. Think about what that would mean if that was wrong.

What I see a lot of in the modern left is projection. They hate the human race, they hate the United States, they hate the family, but most importantly they hate themselves for being any or all of these things. They become social suicide bombers.

I saw a lot of argument earlier over George Soros. Sure, he's using well funded organizations to disseminate Nazi like tactics into society; propaganda and disinformation, it's nothing new.
What would be new is if people took personal responsibility for their beliefs and actually thought them through; not acting as a collectivist or a cult member, but really thought about what they believe and why.

Why is it that only white people are racist?
Why is it that only men are sexist?
Why is it that only Christians should have their religious rights repealed?
Why should nations rip down their borders?
Why should everyone be disarmed?
Why should Free Speech become illegal?
Why should there be less humans?
Why should I be silenced for disagreeing with these things?

There's a pointed and shaped agenda being rammed down our throats. It has a purpose. It has a reason. All I'm asking is that people think about it. We are being told to not reproduce or have families, not have rights or a nation, not have a means to self defense, not have a right to speak our minds...just not exist.
I have to look at that and say there is a pattern to this propaganda and that it is evil.
edit on 10-11-2019 by JohnProctor because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-11-2019 by JohnProctor because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 03:53 PM
link   
This thread....
The quality of ATS really seems to have dropped off a #ing cliff lately.



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: dug88
In what way?



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnProctor

You make a great and very insightful point.

Dug88 (I assume born in 88) is still too young to be able to see clearly that your deep thinking and questioning all sides is something people should do. Unfortunately, it is unfashionable to think deeply, to question any ideology that the media support in such strong numbers. Media is the propoganda arm of society and for some reason society (TPTB) don't want us thinking right now, just reacting.

So when someone thinks deeply and asks tough questions, they are told it is bad "quality" of discourse to vary from the prescribed Liberals must think and defend...... Conservatives must think and defend ..... If we vary from the proscribed way we are supposed to think, well, the young are trained to find that lacking in real substance. However, they have never been taught what real substance is. They haven't been taught the value of thinking for themselves.

I saw this when I taught in University. I had a student tell me, what you say in class and what my Women's Studies prof says are very different, who is right. I told her she was in school to make that decision for herself. When taking a test, in Womens Studies that prof was right, when taking a test in my class I was right. But the purpose of learning is the ability to ponder, think deeply, and be able to think and decide for oneself what is true and what is right. This is a concept many have trouble with and see as "dumb" or evading the question of pondering who is right and therefore not providing quality discourse.




edit on 11/10/19 by The2Billies because: addition



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
a reply to: Ohanka

Hey Ohanka, did find this. Can't vouch for how rigorous it is as a source.


The Regent ‘s October 15 proclamation, the hope of the end of the war and persecution filled the Jewish population of Budapest with euphoria. Many tore off the yellow stars and ran to the streets to celebrate. However, by the evening the radio broadcast Szálasi’s military orders. Within hours all hell broke loose on the streets of the capital. Arrow Cross militiamen drove labour servicemen onto Chain and Margaret Bridges and shot them into the Danube. In Népszínház Street and Teleki Square some servicemen got weapons and put up scattered resistance. With German help, the Arrow Cross quickly restored control and, in reprisal, killed numerous Jews captured in the area. Arrow Cross gangs, often composed of teenagers not older than 15-16, were allowed to go on a rampage


Arrow Cross

Cheers



Good find! It does imply they had a youth organisation of some kind. Perhaps nobody felt the need to write it down. Scant is out there about them (perhaps rightfully so) in general.

Or maybe they just inducted teenage members.

Regardless this is well beyond the subject matter of the op.



posted on Nov, 11 2019 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka


Regardless this is well beyond the subject matter of the op.


Actually, not. It may be a -bit- beyond the original "questionnaire" of the OP, but it all ties into the notional question of "who's a Nazi ?"

I posed pointed questions about which years in Hungary were being discussed for a reason. The reason was, that by discussing what happened during the German occupation of Hungary in the Second World War, we left the realm of speculation, as it is well known in which year that occupation took place.

That brings us back to G. Soros and the statement by a participant in this thread that, in his belief, Soros was/is a Nazi.

I mentioned a LOT of information is required when one assesses questions of complicity. I also made a point of noting that by late 1944, Soros had reached an age, that while not of legal majority, was certainly beyond being a "small child" and well on his way to being a young man. Beyond that, I do not think it a stretch to assert that, in the wartime environment of 1944 Hungary, Soros' emotional maturity was accelerated by the sheer force of Hungary's situation in general, and his personal situation of being Jewish at a time when other boys, of his same age, were hunting and killing Jewish people. Thus, my mention of the Arrow Cross and its mobilization of teenagers.

I have noted in the last decade or so, that too often, the actions of individuals in regimes that were under Nazi occupation are discussed and judged as if these people had performed their acts in a normal, law-abiding society that was at peace. It doesn't take much reflection to guess that wasn't the case in Budapest in late 1944. "Hell on Earth" might be a closer description, but even that doesn't begin to note how pervasive was the utter fear that most people felt -- a fear that they would not survive the war, or worse, their loved ones would not survive.

It is easy to condemn a statement like the one attributed to Soros -- he took (whatever) from the homes of people that had been dispossessed and did (whatever) with those items. But in the context of those times, Soros was in survival mode. So here is where the "LOT of information" regarding complicity is needed to really assess his behavior.

If Soros KNEW the people who had owned those items were arrested, then he probably understood they weren't going to return to claim those items. For him, it would have been a survival tactic -- grab what he could and either give it to his family to use or attempt to sell or trade on the black market.

If that sounds bad, consider how dead soldiers were treated, BY THEIR OWN COMRADES, in that war -- anything of use, clothing wise, was stripped off the dead soldier -- boots, overcoat, etc. This didn't occur as an act of disrespect -- it was an act of supreme practicality -- other guys needed the items, period.

Now imagine someone in Budapest who knew where Jewish families were hidden and decided that revealing their location to people like the Arrow Cross was profitable. Complicit? Hell, yes.

But let's modify that situation. Now the person revealing where Jewish families are hidden is doing so because the Arrow Cross is holding a bayonet to their child's throat. Complicit? In wanting to protect their child ... yes.

And we should not imagine that all of these situations, and a thousand variations besides, did not occur. Military occupation by a foreign power, alone, is a very disruptive situation that throws normal civil behavior out the window. Military occupation by a foreign power, when a second foreign power is at war with them and besieging the city in which one lives ... is borderline insanity. Then, add on a factor like ideological loose cannons like the Arrow Cross are roaming the streets and outright murdering people ... well, the picture should be clear.

So, no, I don't think Soros is a Nazi ... but, more broadly, bringing out some of the situation in Budapest in late 1944 illustrates why the tendency of some to label any politics they don't like as "Nazi" is so ill-informed as to be ignorant. Condemning the behavior of individuals without understanding the context of their actions is ignorant. How those people whose lives and families were threatened by the Nazis behaved under Nazi occupation ... is no reason for them to be labeled Nazis as well. There were genuine collaborators -- people Quisling and DeGrelle -- who were very complicit, in their behavior, with the Nazi regime. But people on the street, trying to survive, were hardly "collaborators".

A postscript of sorts. The Soros of today is not an individual I admire. He is a poster child for a problematic element of our societies: the person who enjoys exercising authority by virtue of his wealth, but because he is not a public official of any kind, holds zero formal responsibility for problems caused by the exercise of this unofficial authority. Lack of transparency and lack of accountability, but far too much influence. THAT, for me, is the real issue with Soros -- not how he behaved in survival mode as a teenager in a besieged city.

Cheers



posted on Nov, 11 2019 @ 08:59 AM
link   
What's all the Fuhrer about???
a reply to: JohnProctor



posted on Nov, 11 2019 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnProctor
"Nazi" is thrown around allot in these discussions, so let's see who really is closer to one.

Do you believe more to total government power will make a better society?

Do you believe some speech, thoughts, and ideas should become illegal and punishable?

Do you think citizens should be disarmed?

Do you believe the unborn is not human and can be eradicated?

Do you believe depopulation is a good thing?

Do believe those who dissagree you on these ideas should be silenced?

If you answered "yes" to all of these, congratulations! You're more a Nazi then you thought!

If you answered "no" then congratulations! You're a conservative or a libertarian!

I hope that clears some things up. You may now all resume with the endless arguing.


Is this meant to be satire are are geuninely that clueless about politics, history, and what the words nazi and well....everything.

Considering the Nazis made it illegal for doctors to mention abortion was possible and banned all adverts about it - a law which was only overturned this January and Hitler's core ethos was to send German birth rates skyrocketing so he could create what he thought was a masterace - you might want to read up about them before claiming you know the first thing about the Party or their politics.

Not to mention the thousands of years where right wing governments cut out tongues and similar of 'political dissidents' - still happens to this day on the left and right in many nations - both groups use the same execution tactic against political rivals of placing a car tyre around their neck, soaking it in petrol and burning them alive. MIC, wars for profit, 'war presidents' and warlords.

I'd look up the word conservative after that - seeing how for thousands of years conservatives were generally artistocratic authoritarians who disarmed, starved, conviscated all weapons from the peasanrs, denied them any rights, ability to vote, own land.

Then how the left wing contains pascifists, terrorists, anarchists, despots, or half the population of every country spending every waking hour shooting or murdering anyone who may not 100% agree with them while desperately trying to reach a new abortion PB per day.

---

Once that's done reread your original post and the obvious parrallel to how the Nazis used similar groundless, divide and rule, dehumanising poulations to untermentino to further his agenda that one group were 100% saviours ad the other 100% evil because they didn't believe the same stuff.

In the real world people from all political spectrums have done good and bad things.
edit on 11-11-2019 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2019 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnProctor
"Nazi" is thrown around allot in these discussions, so let's see who really is closer to one.

Do you believe more to total government power will make a better society?

No, of course not.


Do you believe some speech, thoughts, and ideas should become illegal and punishable?

No, of course not.


Do you think citizens should be disarmed?

No, of course not.


Do you believe the unborn is not human and can be eradicated?

No, of course not.


Do you believe depopulation is a good thing?

Not necessarily...


Do believe those who dissagree you on these ideas should be silenced?

No, of course not.


If you answered "yes" to all of these, congratulations! You're more a Nazi then you thought!

Actually, I'd say if you answered yes to 2+, you are a very good candidate, 3+, and very likely.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join