On 11/5/2025 at 2:56 AM, Mike_Hunt said:

 

These people have no idea how bad the Nazi’s were. 

 

Or rather, how bad they became. Hitler didn't pick votes on a basis of "I will open up death, camps, make your neighbours skin into lampshades and wage war to the death". Nah, he promised none of that. Even in 1945, Germans would claim they had no idea. That was the point. Thomas Mann, an academic who thought he saw how things were going, by fleeing Germany in the 1930s, came back to Germany in 1945, and was shocked. He remarked there was no such thing as a Good German or a Bad German. Just Germans (an important speech to enable the rehabilitation of the german people). All of them were responsible for the rise of the Nazis, because of who they voted for, who they didn't vote for, not saying anything.

 

Hitler never made a speech about establishing concentration camps. Himmler put an announcement in the papers in 1933 that he was going to open a concentration camp at Dachau, for political prisoners, in order to "restore" law and order in Germany. At first, 5000 inmates. During 1932-33, there had been violent street protests in German cities, blamed by the government on the Roter Frontkämpferbund, a supposed left wing paramilitary group. Most of those first Dachau inmates though were not RFB members. It suited the Nazis to create and maintain a security crisis in order to get buy in from millions of German voters who didn't want to kill Jews, invade countries, experiment of children and gypsys. The Nazis were apparently not that bad to start with. The mask slipped when they were stressed.

 

In 1939, if you listened to this speech, would you have believed him, that Hitler always strove for peace, that he treated foreigners in Germany, that he made some good points. Or would you have concluded he was a liar, who even then, as absolute ruler, was so scared of the People, he still had to lie.

 

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/gp2.asp

 

 

42 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

 

It says something about your country, and you, that your immediate reaction to a statement, that David Duke is a Republican, is Soviet-style whataboutery, rather than commenting on Duke himself. Its a tactic the Soviets used to justify their evil crimes. So why did you deflect?

 

The Republicans told people to vote against David Duke.

 

what country are you from?

On 11/4/2025 at 10:30 PM, JAG said:

A classic "big lie" as espoused by Joseph Goebels - "Hitler was a Marxist, Nazis were really socialists!"

 

Do you (and others on here) actually believe it, and thus fly in the face of and reject 90 odd years of history, are you simply deluded, or are you constantly pushing it in an attempt to justify a foul political creed?

 

 

Quite correct. The NSDAP was originally known as the German Worker's Party. It was founded by Anton Drexler, who was anti-Capitalist, but also anti-Marxist. Hitler, out of work, and without a future, was attracted to Drexler's rhetoric, and Drexler effectively mentored him. To suppose that Adolf Hitler was a "Marxist" is utter nonsense. Drexler drifted around various parties during WW1 , basically opposed to the war. He hatched an idea to form an organisation to "combat the Marxism of the free trade unions". He wanted something that was Nationalist, ie loving Germany, but which also represented the working man, because the established conservative parties represented the imperial classes. He espoused something called "National Socialism". In 1919 Germany, that didn't mean the same as the shakey understanding held in 2025 America. He utterly repudiated Marx and the Left. Today, we would call him a Populist politician.

 

Hitler had this idea to rename the party; his ideology utterly repudiated Marx, and he felt he had a third way between capitalism and socialism, but the word socialism was winning votes, and he needed those, so he rebranded using a term he defined as his third way. 100 years on, idiots spout that he was really a communist-marxist, and all those fights between Brownshirts and Marxists were just fiction.

On 11/5/2025 at 11:04 PM, Cameroni said:

 

Everything. Truly a moronic question. He brought a scientific approach to philosophy that puts even Foucault in the shadow. He was a leading light in academia and an academic superstar. Another example of where Germany lost the great Adorno, the excellent Cassirer and the underrated Marcuse, they still kept the cream of the crop with Heidegger in unassailable pole position, but notable giants like Carl Schmitt and Kar Jaspers staying in Germany.

 

This whole notion that the Nazis did not tolerate dissent was another crock of sh"£, Karl Jaspers openly opposed Nazism and suffered no consequences at all.

 

Yes, Heidegger was obviously too bright to be an out and out antisemite, and he studied under Edmund Husserl after all, who became a Jewish emigre, but his support for Nazism is well documented.

 

Says a lot about female nature that Hannah Arendt was all her life deeply devoted to Heidegger, despite his antisemitic reputation.

 

So the Nazis were different because they turned on fellow Germans? Have you studied no history at all? And  the Brits did not turn on their fellow Brits when the Americans fought over independence? The English civil war?

 

The Nazis were not different at all in this regard. They justified their conquests. Like Americans did before them.

 

These families who lived for hundreds of years in Germany, did they have their own courts? Their own morality? Their own cementeries?  Granted some were assimilated, but many were not. They remained foreign bodies in their host country all their life.

 

 

Yes, and you forget in finance, where they financed war after war, for all sides, not just for Germany, for many other countries. 

 

 

This science was not "fake" and "pernicious". Much of science produced  by the Nazis is the foundation of the modern world as we know it. Nuclear fission. Jet planes. Rockets that bring us to other planets and launch satellites.

 

Obviously, as with all science there were some false avenues, as we saw them in our time. Who could forget the fraud that was Daniel Goldhagen from Harvard? Not so long ago. Not to mention the never ending sea of slime and drivel that is gender studies and other pseudo-academia today.

 

Actually when you read some of these racial science works, they are remarkably empathetic, for instance, they attested high cultural ability to Indonesians in one prominent work.

 

Your figures for physics look completely false. With Heisenberg, Max Planck and Otto Hahn Germany had the leading scientists of the day working in German academia. Nobody could touch them. Even Einstein would have kissed their feet.

 

 

Well, neither do we, what use has theoretical physics brought us? Fringe theories and a lot of hot air. Certainly not as much as nuclear fission, quantum mechanics as developed by Heisenberg and other German physics achievements.

 

 

Einstein does compare unfavourably to Heisenberg in many ways. But why would I be upset when jews add to the knowledge of the world. Wonderful that they, too, can do so. And yes some of their successes in Israel are remarkable today, but again they are the result of jews suckling at the teat of American academia. Just as they suckled at the teat of German academia before. Have you noticed they have been unable to build any academic infrastructure worthy of the name, that even compares remotely with what the Germans or Americans achieved? Despite their great achievements. Where is the Israeli Harvard? The Israeli Heidelberg? Nowhere to be found.

Bringing a scientific approach to philosophy does not make philosophy a science. 

 

Their is a huge amount of correspondence between Heidegger and Arendt that shows the attachment was mutual. Give up your moronic sexism which is thoroughly refuted by the evidence.

 

Jews had their own courts? Official courts under the law? Or just religious courts to settle disputes among Jews over matters that weren't criminal. 

Actually it was Lise Meitner, a Jewish scientist, who shared credit with Hahn for his major discoveries, who figured out that what Hahn had achieved was fission. Not Hahn. She had to do that from America because she had fled Germany. Strassman, another brilliant German scientist who worked closely with Hahn on his work, was fired from his position because of his anti-Nazi beliefs.

 

And your evaluation of scientists is just anti-semitic BS. Trying to downgrade the achievements of Einstein, among others, is just nuts. 
What's more, giving credit to the Nazis for the work of Heisenberg is more B.S. He published his great work in 1927. How can the Nazis claim credit for that?

 

The Nazis turned on their fellow Germans murderously. Tens of thousands of non-Jewish political opponents of the Nazis were murdered by them.

 

And more of your academia craziness. "Jews suckling at the teat of American academia"? What does that even mean? Jews are an integral part of American academia. Do I really need to list how many Jewish-American scientists have won Nobel prizes in the sciences?  I guess I do.

 

Biology, Medicine, and Physiology

• Baruj Benacerraf: Received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1980 for his work on the major histocompatibility complex.
• David Baltimore: Awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1975 for his work on the interaction between animal viruses and the genetic material of the cell.
• Baruch Blumberg: Won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1976 for his discovery of the Hepatitis B virus.
• Gerty Cori: The first American woman to win a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1947), for her work on the Cori cycle.
• Gertrude Elion: Received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1988 for her contributions to drug development.
• Eric Kandel: Awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2000 for his work on the physiological basis of memory.
• Arthur Kornberg: Won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1959 for his work on DNA replication.
• Fritz Lipmann: Received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1953 for discovering coenzyme A.
• Daniel Nathans: Awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1978 for his work on restriction enzymes.
• Rosalyn Yalow: The first American-born Jewish woman to win a Nobel Prize in science (1977), for the development of radioimmunoassays.
• Howard Temin: Won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1975 for his work on reverse transcriptase.
• George Wald: Received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1967 for his work on vision.
• H. Robert Horvitz: Awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002 for his work on programmed cell death. 
• Chemistry
• Alfred G. Gilman: Won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1994 for his work on G-proteins.
• Richard Axel: Received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2004.
• Michael Brown and Joseph Goldstein: Shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1985. 
• Physics
• Murray Gell-Mann Awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1969 for his work on elementary particles.
• Richard Feynman: Awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965 for his work on quantum electrodynamics.
• Robert Hofstadter: Received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1961 for his research on electron scattering.

And these are Jews from the Postwar period who did their research in America. 

And if you were to look at the roster of researchers at MIT, Harvard, and other leading scientific research centers, do ya think you might find a hugely disproportionate number of Jewish names as compared to their percentage of the population?

 

 

On 11/5/2025 at 11:04 PM, Cameroni said:

 

Where is the Israeli Harvard? The Israeli Heidelberg? Nowhere to be found.

REHOVOT, ISRAEL — October 29, 2025 — The Weizmann Institute of Science ranks sixth in the world in the 2025 ranking of research quality published today, Wednesday, Oct. 29, by the Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) of Leiden University in the Netherlands (Leiden Ranking). This represents a jump of four places from the 2024 ranking and the institute’s highest position since the ranking of academic institutions was introduced some two decades ago. The 2025 ranking puts Weizmann at the top alongside such leading institutions as Princeton, MIT, Harvard, and Stanford. In rankings focusing on research quality in the biomedical and health sciences and in the life and Earth sciences, the Weizmann Institute is placed even higher — in fifth place worldwide. 

https://www.weizmann-usa.org/news-media/news-releases/the-weizmann-institute-of-science-ranked-sixth-in-the-world-for-research-quality/?utm_source=chatgpt.com