PLEASE help me debunk white Supremecy

Great Debates
41

[Nitpick]

Although anything about Hitler’s immediate person is at best difficult to disecern from myth, it is fairly accepted that Hitler was not known for loving his family, if you don’t qualify courting your own niece and then driving her to suicide by ignoring her when she gets lovesick ‘loving your family’. In fact his relationship with close and extended family was rather distant especially post his mothers death in 1907.

Hitler was notorious at maintaining hardly any personal relationships according to the entourage he kept who survived the Nuremberg Trials. Even Eva Braun complained about it and attempted suicide a couple of times saying she felt abandoned and lonely. Hitler only avowed to having one friend whom he confided in namely Ernst Röhm, the founder and leader of the SA and eventually Hitler’s only serious competitor for NSDAP leadership. Hitler had Röhm murdered during the “Night of the Long Knives,” January 30 1934 - so much for being friends with Hitler. The only evidence we have of Hitler being soft hearted in any way is that against a stated unwillingness to marry, he did after all marry said Eva hours before they committed suicide in the Berlin bunker. He was pretty close with his German shepherd dog though…

Regarding taxes, although I have no good cite at the moment, I’d say that this is pretty unlikely. The only paid jobs he had in his life was as a soldier in WWI and as a clerk at the Soldiers Union in Munich 1918-23. I don’t know off hand how the Bavarian standing army employees were remunerated, but I suspect that their sold would have been under mild if any tax, which was until not so long ago the military norm. As of 1925 Hitler has no real private life and all that he owns, does and lives from comes from the NSDAP. From 1933 and on Hitler and state are synonymous. If he at all paid tax it was a paper issue in the Reich administration. In any case tax in the Third Reich is a pretty complex matter. The NSDAP dissolved private management of industry, agriculture and trade, but did not collectivize. Owners of business were allowed to collect profit and workers were paid taxable income. Hence there was such a thing as tax, but it more resembled tariffs and profit sharing than actual tax.
[/Nitpick]

Re the OP, Godwin’s law holds out. Comparing anything or anybody with Hitler is futile – he remains a singular and very, very strange personal phenomena in history, both psychologically, historically as well as through his actions.

It would be better to compare the friendship here discussed to the young men, women, boys and girls that joined the various Nazi youth organizations in the 20s and 30s in Germany. A large part of the success of the NSDAP was that they were able to provide a disenchanted, disillusioned and embittered young generation with a social structure where they could find meaning and safety in world that was otherwise very confusing and threatening. They attracted these youths through the sporting nature of the organizations, the superficial ideals of a better world a la NSDAP and the social communality they provided. The internal group pressure and mass psychology then played a large part to uniform the ideas of these pliable minds, still in development. Turning these youths into an instrument of hate and destruction was a small matter after that. Hate groups and ethnic gangs operate under pretty similar dynamics, although thankfully they have far worse leadership and less resources.

I once rode with a cab driver through Munich and as we passed by the old HQ of the NSDAP and the SS, we came to talk of the Nazi years. He looked over at me and grunted as I laid out a rather complex argument about the German national guilt that still mires the people here 57 years later. ‘Nah, it’s not the German’s fault at large. It’s my fault. Me and all the other stupid 16 year olds who thought it was cool. We were so angry you know, like 16 year olds are, and when the ‘Jugend’ came along we just let it sweep us away. We built Hitler’s foundation and we carried him to power. Our parents they were just happy that we seemed to be doing something sensible and outdoorsy with our free time. We were so stupid though, so, so stupid. Not only were we wrong, not only did it kill millions of innocent people, look at what it brought us personally,” as he said that he lifted his right leg up a bit and knocked hard on it sounding wood. He glanced over at me through the rearview mirror; “Stalingrad… I was 19 and lucky, most of my friends never came back.”

On that note I think it’s important, very important that if we have the opportunity, strength and bravery that it takes, we should always provide a better alternative for anyone about to walk down or already on that road.

Sparc

42

Hmmm… Good discussion so far. As to my friendship with “Joe” (assumed name for the sake of identification). I simply refuse to hate this man back for his racist views. I look at someone like Martin Luther King as a perfect example. Here in this speech Dr. King speaks about loving your enemies. If anyone ever had a reason to hate the white supremecist, it was Dr. King. He had hundreds of death threats and I don’t know how many firebombings. Yet throughout all this, he maintained a “Hate the bigotry, love the person” mentality. I’m not saying I’m skipping down the street holding hands with Joe. But what is more powerful, showing him why love is stronger than hate or just choosing to hate him back?

I would also use the opening scene of “Les Miserables”. Jean val Jean steals from the priest and assaults him. The priest, when presented with the opportunity to destroy val Jean instead says “Why didn’t you take the candlesticks as well?”. This act proves to the catalyst for a life change in val Jean. I leave you with this quote from MLK.

And this is what Jesus means, I think, in this very passage when he says, “Love your enemy.” And it’s significant that he does not say, “Like your enemy.” Like is a sentimental something, an affectionate something. There are a lot of people that I find it difficult to like. I don’t like what they do to me. I don’t like what they say about me and other people. I don’t like their attitudes. I don’t like some of the things they’re doing. I don’t like them. But Jesus says love them. And love is greater than like. Love is understanding, redemptive goodwill for all men, so that you love everybody, because God loves them. You refuse to do anything that will defeat an individual, because you have agape in your soul. And here you come to the point that you love the individual who does the evil deed, while hating the deed that the person does. This is what Jesus means when he says, “Love your enemy.” This is the way to do it. When the opportunity presents itself when you can defeat your enemy, you must not do it.

43

Please re-read what I have actually said.

I have said that a person who cannot countenance the presence of a racist is under no compulsion to befriend one. I have made no judgement of you or monstro or anyone else who cannot, personally, befriend racists. Friendships cannot be imposed on other people and I have neither the power nor the desire to attempt to force such associations.

I have, however, said that when person A demands that person B avoid friendship with racist C, then person A is verging on the actions of the “thought police” and is behaving in a manner similar to the prejudicial actions of racists, religious extremists, political extremists, and others who impose hatred and disassociation on others based on their prejudgments of beliefs or appearances.

I am making no comment on any individual’s quality as a person as he or she deals with the people around them. I am judging, if you will, the actions of people who wish to impose their beliefs on the actions of others.

If a person cannot abide the presence of athiests, I do not condemn them.
If a person cannot abide the presence of Fundamentalist Christians, I do not condemn them.
If a person cannot abide the presence of homosexuals, I do not condemn them.
If a person cannot abide the presence of athletes, I do not condemn them.
If a person cannot abide the presence of effete intellectual snobs, I do not condemn them.
If a person cannot abide the presence of conservatives, I do not condemn them.
If a person cannot abide the presence of liberals, I do not condemn them.
If a person cannot abide the presence of racists, I do not condemn them.
If a person cannot abide the presence of [insert race or ethnic group here], I do not condemn them.

If a person tells me that I must not associate with athiests, Fundamentalist Christians, homosexuals, athletes, effete intellectual snobs, conservatives, liberals, racists, [insert race or ethnic group here], or any other class of people, then I reply that they are out of line in trying to set limits on my associations.

44

I stand corrected. I got my information from a tv documentary, but I will gladly defer to your obviously more extensive knowledge of Hitler’s life. However, I think my point still stands. Just because a person loves his mommy does not absolve him of being a hateful bigot. And remember that we are not merely talking about someone who makes the occasional disparaging remark about people of color - we are talkig about a person who believes that white people are INTRINSICALLY superior to all other races.

I disagree. You want to compare boys and girls who succumbed to a very strong political climate during a time of institutionalized racism, with an adult who, in this day and age, believes in his own racial superiority despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Your comparison is no more valid than my Hitler comparison.

Yes, but you said it in response to MY post. And since I never “demanded” that anyone do anything, not only did you judge me, but you judged me incorrectly based on your strawman characterization of what I said.

I stated my opinion that a white supremacist doesn’t deserve the OP’s friendship. I don’t think that qualifies as “imposing my beliefs on others”.

45

And I think that telling a person that a supremacist doesn’t “deserve” that person’s friendship (reinforced by calling for such “garbage” to receive a “kick in the ass”) is imposing your belief on others.

Obviously, we disagree.

46

ummm… yeahh…, right, what do you think would happen if your new found friend found out that you either:

a. Had black friends
b. Had a black significant other
c. Had jewish friends
d. Had a jewist significant other
e. all of the above

Would you still remain friends?

47

blowero I retain and reaffirm my stand on this. That Germany in the 20s was a nation were there was a rampant racist climate or even anti-Semite such is a common misconception. Germany was one of the most liberal nations in the West during Weimar. The Jewish population was relatively (by the standards of the time) well assimilated and increasingly accepted as just German. When the NSDAP came to power in 1932 the majority of people brushed their anti-Semite agenda aside taking it for harmless, dogmatic diatribe. In the first half of 1934 Hitler tries to rally the Germans en masse against the Jews for the first time. Ghastly events ensue as the SA and SS go rampant against the Jewish population, but the German population don’t follows suit. In the period that follows some journalists and the few remaining opposition politicians (especially conservatives) even dare criticize Hitler. This eventually leads to the Night of the Long Knives were Hitler purges the SA and SS. It is well documented that Hitler was absolutely furious and declares that the German population might not be ready for their ‘great task’.

Afraid that he doesn’t have the nation behind him it will be until 9 November 1938 and Reich Kristallnacht or Night of Broken Glass that he tries again. By then he has gradually imposed one restriction and oppressive measure on the Jews after another while the rest of the nation look the other way. BTW Older Germans that were alive back then still call those years ‘Hitler’s good years’ due to the economic wonder they also carried and the fact that they still thought that all this rubbish about the Jews was just propaganda. Actually by 1937 a large portion of the world thought so, that’s why Chamberlain carried on with appeasement. Anyway, back to the Night of Broken Glass; this time the SA and SS are better organized and hundreds maybe thousands of Jews die in the streets and burning synagogues, and tens of thousands are deported, the German population still stay at home and the next day express deep chock over the devastation and loss of life. The historian and journalist Sebastian Hafner attributes the name given to it by the people to a desire to try to repress that it was blood that flowed and not just windows that broke. Once again Hitler is furious at the lack of support and from then on the violent pursuit of the Jewish is largely carried out through the SS covertly.

Now I am not trying to say that the German electorate at the time could swear themselves free from all this. They were indeed responsible since they both put the guy in power and looked the other way while he and his cohorts oppressed and terrorized whoever they thought were guilty of partaking in ‘the international conspiracy’ and ‘pollution of the German peoples blood’. I must however take issue with the well spread myth that Germany was unusually rife with racism and anti-Semitism before the NSDAP took over. That might be true of the eastern European countries and Austria at the time, but Germany was about as bad or as good as much of the rest of Western Europe, and when it comes to the general situation of the Jewish even a little better. Hitler and NSDAP used angst and worry about other things and fueled it in that direction. Now are we free of angst and worry in these times?

My point stands.

Sparc

48

This type of analogy drawn to nature in the wilderness is simplistic and erroneous. It focuses narrowly on the relationship between pray and predator. Darwinism does indeed postulate “survival of the fittest”. But to begin with, you need to define what the article “the” refers to. An individual or a group? The evolution of a species isn’t merely driven by the strengths of the individual but the abilities of the group as a whole.

A strongest type of group is a system where the individuals are highly specialized but serve a common good. We’re talking about complex symbiotic relationships. As a matter of fact, the human body itself can be seen as a system of symbiotic organelles. For example, mitochondria and chloroplast (that help produce energy on a cellular level) are believed by some to have been distinct self-sufficient organisms in early stages of evolution. They were eventually “swallowed up” into the contemporary cellular structure that evolved into animals and plants. Or rather, they formed a symbiotic relationship.

The argument could still be made: “Fine, specialization. That’s what I’m saying. Race X is the head, the mind, the intelligent. Inferior Races are good for manual labor”. This falls apart when you consider that the most efficient systems of all are those where the individuals are highly specialized yet fully flexible in their function. For example, the human brain (itself a system!) consists of neural groups that serve very specific functions (such as reading, motor skills, etc.). But if a neural group is damaged, other groups may compensate over time. Take hemispherectomy, the surgical removal or disconnection of one side of the brain from the other. Amazingly hemispherectomy patients who lose their speech center can, with enormous effort (but nonetheless), learn to talk again.

The efficiency of our species comes from the fact that we specialize through nurturing rather than by nature. Some of us aren’t born with arms but no legs while other’s have legs but no arms. Sure, our genetic disposition may predispose us to develop along certain phenotypic paths. But the level of flexibility in what function we serve within the context of a group remains extremely high. The disadvantage: it takes our children 12-15 years to fully “developed”. During this time they remain vulnerable and require a lot of attention. The advantage after surviving those fragile years? As Steve from Blue’s Clues would say: You sure are smart. With me and you, we can do aaaanything, that we want to dooooo. OK, maybe not anything. But almost :slight_smile:

Example: John, Jack and Gill are out hiking in the mountains. They have set their goal for a safe cabin. John reads the map and Gill checks for landmarks while Jack watches out for dangers. Rapidly, they make their way towards the cabin they hope to reach in a few hours. Suddenly, Jack spots a puma with her cubs. The poor nervous creature decides to defend her turf. Despite Jack’s, Gill’s and John’s best efforts, John is killed before they can chase her away. If Jack and Gill had some innate inability to spot dangers, they would now be very vulnerable. But, fortunately for them, they are cooperating flexible humans. Gill takes on the responsibility of reading the map and spotting landmarks while Jack focuses on potential dangers. Although they progress at a much slower pace, they eventually make it safely to the cabin. Had John been the sole carrier of a "danger spotting” gene, the demise of the human race would be imminent.
Using the words of Argument # 1, we conclude that life can be purchased (whatever that means) by obedience to nature-ordained capabilities for cooperation and flexibility.

We may not be created equal, but overall our similarities, our smarts, far outweigh our differences.

49

You weddos wrinkle faster, and age worse, than any other “race” on the planet.

Blue eyes are weaker than brown.

You’re WAY more susceptible to skin cancer.

You can’t sing as well as blacks.

You can’t dance worth shit.

Your food is bland.

Swedish sounds silly and German sounds spit-y.

“White trash” are just as bad as the worst “niggers”,
(begging your pardon)
and notice there isn’t any such thing as Asian trash, or Jewish trash!
Tell your obviously white-trash man to shut his pie-hole,
or I’ll sick The Rock on him.
Seriously, girl, you should forget about this twisted guy…
Nearly all “white supremacists” are also misogynistic chauvinist pigs, and abuse their females.
Ask him how he feels about MALE supremacy …if you must continue the e-relationship.

Pure-whites are weak, man, they’re weak.

Even though,
some of my best friends are white!

Well, they’re pale, anyway.

Me?
I’m a mutt.
:cool:

50

Wait a minute…
you said this guy “wrote you a long letter”…

What is he, in prison or something?
Seriously.

If that’s the situation, I suggest you go rent “American History X”
and watch it through.

If your friend isn’t in prison, he could do the same.

If this aspect/point has already been brought up and discussed, forgive me…
I just recently jumped in, and this is a LONG thread; I admit I didn’t read it in its entirety.

51

I said he deserves a kick in the ass. I didn’t tell anyone to actually do it. (duh). Try not to take EVERYTHING 100% literally, o.k.?

Obviously.

52

Sure. Now you try to not misread statements by other people to set up a straw man so that you can erroneously claim that you have been attacked.

Go read my first statement in which you were quoted. I quoted you and I quoted msmith537. I noted that I disagreed with the specific comments you had made (while noting that they were not identical in content) and indicated that I would possibly disagree with similar statements. I then went on to express a general statement regarding my perception of friendships and how they are or are not affected by each friend’s beliefs. I concluded with a general statement (not directed to you or to [b[msmith537** or to any other specific person) that telling a person who they may or should be friends with approached the actions of the thought police.

You are the one who then decided to take umbrage, invoke Godwin’s Law, equate people who hold racist views to people who are “just plain evil”, and generally toss angry outbursts around the thread. It has only been in the context of your later posts that I have inferred that you might actually be someone who could tell another person to avoid certain friendships–and I have still refrained from leveling that charge directly at you.

53

tomndebb:

I have better things to do than argue with someone who wants to play the “I never said that” game.

Have a nice day.

54

Doh!