You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
5

[–] shrink 1 point 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

there is a lot of Jews who are worthy friends and allies.

Yeah, nah.

Too many jews have done too much damage too often to deserve anything other than complete removal, at best, or complete elimination, at worst. Anything else is just plucking the weeds out of your garden and waiting for them to regrow. It's happened hundreds of times throughout history, we're far past the lesson of buying into the "but there are good jews!" subversion. You want to believe that, go ahead, but they, as a people, have proven themselves to be a massive detriment and vector of societal destruction for far too long and far too consistently to simply be allowed to rebrand themselves and move into remission only to pop up as their usual cancerous selves later.

In summation, fuck no. GTKRWN.

0
0

[–] MasivGam3 ago  (edited ago)

Ah, well... Jedem das Seine, but I believe that this is wrong and it also was one of the grave mistakes Hitler made - indiscriminately hating all Jews, even those who kept Deutschland über alles and had faithfully served it over generations.

My point is - there indeed are the "good Jews" and there are disgusting traitors and selfish opportunists among your countrymen who are not Jews. To think otherwise is to live in delusion, in an oversimplified world. To the very least it is unproductive.

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia ago 

Too many jews have done too much damage too often to deserve anything other than complete removal

If you think about it, most of these problems are caused by democracies. Democracies are easy to subvert with clever arguments and propaganda, a society based on private property can only be subverted if you convince literally everyone to do stupid shit with their property, and people tend to be much more careful about their own stuff.

0
0

[–] shrink ago 

This is a question for which I have not personally arrived at the answer yet. The question "what is the best government" is apparently not so easy to respond to. I've thought about enfranchisement, and who should be excluded or not; I do agree that a direct democracy is a guaranteed shortcut to disaster. To make a better government do we change it to something else, or somehow restrict voting to whom it was only originally intended for in the first place (i.e. white male landowners)? Hitler had a successful system of national socialism, but even operating on the assumption that the government itself was the inherent cause of its success, Hitler seemed to have the best interests of the people in mind. What happens if you set up a system like that and a self serving monster like Clinton takes control? What's to stop a national socialist government from falling victim to an unethical soulless abomination? If the answer is "well the citizenry would have guns and revolt," that's already something supposedly put in place, in our own very Constitution. And yet look where we are.

The whole thing is a mess.