搜索结果: *

Well, Trump's bringing back the 60s, the 1860s, with sen. Jeff Sessions, or Jefferson Beauregard Sessions. I guess then resurrected Leroy Walker will take over the Department of Defense.

And all those that disagree with me get their share of the cake with cyanide, fascist scumbags.

It' ok,I get it. Quite reasonable. Hitler would have agreed with you. You can't expect him to treat Jews and Communists like normal people because of their role in Germany's defeat, thousands of years of oppression of the German people(blah blah Nazi arguments). Therefore, Jews, Socialists and Communists can be disfranchised, persecuted and killed. You'll certainly agree with that, but you'd on the list too. If I were Hitler, I could quote dr. Evil: "We're not so different, you and I"

masterborn12 说:

but my opinions are true and honest as I've would have no regret in "reeducating" future genoiciders.

点击展开...

Oh yes, I agree. Individuals who harbor or may harbor fascist or imperialistic thoughts should be "reeducated". Preferably in good ol' Soviet gulags. Or a' la Mao's cultural revolution. Or simply in "intelligentsia reeducation camps" like they had in Cambodia, very peaceful and successful.

It's funny how a Bernie supporter roots for Trump. Chaim Rumkowski would be proud.

The Weimar Republic never succeeded in fighting the Great Depression, that's kinda why Hitler was elected. One of his election promises, which he kept, was to combat the Great Depression. Reich Autobahn, railroads, canals- they were all built primarily to reduce unemployment. The Weimar republic had a constant problem with money and later could not get a stable majority/coalition in the Reichstag, so how would they even begin a large scale building of public infrastructure ?

Yeah Reich Autobahns were anti-depressants. You could get a whole turnpike in your local drugstore, worked especially well if your depression was really great...

Geez, you don't know anything about history if for you the Reich Autobahn was a military installation. Aside from being a German New Deal, it was supposed to become a great German landmark and promote motorization, its military applications were never the primary reason for it.
Do look into the history of Great Depression, and you'll see how Adolf Hitler tackled it.

What I'm saying is that these "Swedish type" i.e. today's Scandinavian type of social-democracy aren't exactly the same as folks back at the Nazi party. Because people would otherwise cry out that I'm saying that Hitler was a socio-democrat, or that I believe socio-democrats to be Nazis.

MrMundy 说:

Do you know what they did in the HJ?
Prepare you for war, to march, and all that. It wasnt something socialist.
He supported Motherhood that heavily because you need to get your soldiers from somewhere, dont you? Aswell as having "your race grow".
How do you get the insane idea that they build the Autobahn simply so that people would get work? Thats like claiming the same about the Armour Factorys.
And no ****, the Dritte Reich was not democratic? Jesus christ! Such a surprise!

点击展开...

Y'know, it was the time of Great Depression. Ever heard of the New Deal? Of the Tennessee Valley Fund? Hoover Dam? Other acts and funds that brought by FDR? Were people of Nevada desperate for a electrical dam and that's why they built it? Nope, unemployment was raging so the government has decided to get people to work by building roads, dams, schools, whatevah. Sure, it's nice to have them all right. But the idea was to build anything, so that unemployment levels would drop.
And I don't care why Hitler supported Motherhood. Maybe he was growing an army, maybe he wanted Germany to be Great Again, who cares. The whole idea of it is socialist. He spent public money to convince women to stay home and breed like hell. By definition, a right-wing government should not do that.
Nope, HJ wasn't meant to be fighting. Sure, breeding good soldiers was important, but the principal aim was to build a good Nazi. Again, a right wing government (economic) by definition does not take part in such ventures.

Bluehawk 说:

Hitler busted the unions and replaced them with a singular organ of the state, the Labour Front, and failed to increase wages in step with the cost of living. Anyone who attempted to combine or protest were arrested. That's what I mean by the suppression of the old socialist base of the party.

点击展开...

Hitler was an authoritarian socialist, so having multiple trade unions did not sit well with him. He did however install several governmental projects to support the traditional ideas such as athleticism (Hitler's Youth), motherhood (Kirche etc.), building infrastructure to provide work for masses (Reich Autobahn). Hitler also supported the idea of killing those who did contribute to the state (not what your conventional socialist would have done, but certainly fitting into the idea of collectivism and lack of individual rights), indoctrination in school, once again, praise of collectivism over individualism. I'm not saying that socialists (well some are, but they're usually nuts) advocate things like that today, but I'd say this is not a typical democratic government.

So Stalin was not a communist, because he purged other communists, like Trotsky? I also never said that Hitler=SPD, especially that SPD stands for Social DEMOCRATIC Party, so it's the Swedish-type socialist once again.
And no, having social policies does not mean that you're a commie. It's like saying: This watch is waterproof, it must be a boat! It's all about the magnitude.

Yeah no ****. What I'm saying is that fascist is not that different from socialism.

MrMundy 说:

隐藏

Last time I checked North Korea wasnt all that Democratic either.

点击展开...

Just because it's not fascists doesn't mean it's not communist. If I'm not black, I must be Asian!

jacobhinds 说:

Omzdog 说:

National Socialism was somewhat left wing in the idea that it was socialism for nations.
At least that was the revolutionary aspect behind it.

点击展开...

It was state corporatism which is totally different. The myth of "government control = leftist" is why the word "liberal" is so meaningless in american politics now.

And you really can't use the name of a political party as an indication of their true beliefs. The word "socialism" is completely meaningless in this context.

点击展开...

Bluehawk 说:

There was an actual socialist wing to the NSDAP, but they ceased to be relevant after the Night of the Long Knives.

点击展开...

I wouldn't say it was meaningless. Nazi government had very strong socialist accents in it. VERY strong. I'd say it was socialist in nature. State controlled most of the means of production. State funded the strong youth, state funded the motherhood, giant state-funded projects, teh Reich Autobahn. Does it seem like a democratic, capitalist government to y'all?

They certainly are not fascist. If you understand right and left wings in terms how they view the government, then Hitler was a leftist. It was, National Socialism after all. You really want to convince me that a country where the state controls the means of production, the government is authoritarian and entire groups are disfranchised and persecuted supports free trade, capitalism and democracy? 

I'll give you that quote after I'll finish writing my Magnus Opus "The Political Views of Warband Players". But seriously.

Actually, younger generation in recent years has really been the backbone of all authoritarian groups in Europe. Demagogic emotional content is better suited for them than weighted facts and careful analysis. Also, I used the term right-wing, because most people perceive them as right-wing, but they're really left-wing conservatives (so you're right that they lean to the left). They believe in strong government, tariffs, immigration control et cetera- so left-wing conservatives.

Also, on forums like this one, you don't have an entire political spectrum. There's a heavy over-representation of guys. There's a heavy representation of people who like history (they take from it their strong government and conservative beliefs, as well as a sense of injustice against their country, which makes them support revanchist and conservative parties like Front Nationale, ideas like Brexit, or candidates like D. Trump). So yeah, the typical friends on my Facebook who post BLM stuff wouldn't really play Warband, while Polandball fans could.

jacobhinds 说:

Facebook shows and hides media from you based on what it thinks you'll like. Nobody can properly detect bias among their facebook friends because facebook creates the bias intentionally.

How this works is unknown, but basically it's gaslighting on a global scale. For example I get an inordinate amount of meme spam on my feed, and barely any political posts at all. Facebook has even hidden some friends' posts from me entirely, while giving me notifications for every single action of others.

点击展开...

Facebook can't figure out my ****, so I get a pretty balanced feed- my friends mostly post anti-Trump stuff, some are staunch BLM supporters, while pages with memes, like Polandball, usually give me far-right content. So basically I see posts like "10 reasons why Trump is mentally sick" under "10 reasons why Hillary is legit carrying the Plague". But my point is, you don't see many Trump haters here, because a typical Warband player leans rather to the authoritarian spectrum.

I suppose that medieval massacre simulators and games in general attract a certain demographic, so I wouldn't be surprised that there is an over-representation of Trump. On Facebook I've got an over-representation of Trump hating, on YouTube- Hillary hating. (i.e. your typical internet liberal can be found on Facebook making and liking anti-Trump content, while your typical internet conservative is more likely to be found be found on games-related forums accusing Hillary of carrying the Plague)

AelleCyning 说:

Hugh Laurie for US President.

点击展开...

Fry and Laurie #2016

I'm talking more about an individualistic system of governance- like capitalism, or more collectivist systems, like feudalism or communism.

Gestricius 说:

AdamKur 说:

(again, not what the Swedes call socialism)

点击展开...

We always referred to it as social democracy, others referred to it as socialism.

点击展开...

Just making sure no one will interpret it that way, it is the way I refer to it as well.

Not every country got the Communism + Soviet Tanks Limited 1945 Edition , Yugoslavia even had its own communist guerrilla that kicked the Germans out, but as a rule of thumb, communism in Central and Eastern Europe was enforced by the USSR. East Germany, Poland, Romania, all had rigged elections and were kept in the Soviet block against their will.
Some countries were doing a pretty decent job, and it's argued that while the USSR was communist, its block was socialist (again, not what the Swedes call socialism). And yeah, '68 in Czechoslovakia was certainly not a popular movement against communism, but more of a liberal communists v. egghead communist clash, sorta like Yelcyn in Russia. Demanding capitalism was really impossible at that time, but honestly, will you tell me that the Czech Republic (or Slovakia, whichever one you're from) is NOT better off than it used to be 25 years ago? That Central and Eastern Europe is not closing the gap between them and the West?

kurczak 说:

AdamKur 说:

If you don't like individualism, I invite you to go to North Korea or to have a talk with anyone who lived in the Soviet block.

点击展开...

As someone who spent 17 years in the Soviet block and 27 years in a "capitalist" country, I can assure you that the individualist West v collectivist East dichotomy is 99.99% illusion and rhetorics. I would even go as far as saying that your average American/Westerner has more of a collectivist mindset than your average Eastern European. Yes, the West has had the system of (mostly) free enterprise, but that's about it. I was extremely surprised when I learned English how Americans phrase things in terms of how things affects "families" and "communities", how they talk about their country as something they are part of, how they actually like to interact and spend time with each other and generally have much more evolved sense of living together, while back home it's just every man for himself.

点击展开...

Now, I did not refer to particular cultures. In most of Central and Eastern Europe communism was enforced and brought along with the Soviet tanks, so the idea of communism did not sit well with the people. Paradoxically, as the state came  to control every private and public matter, the only people you could safely interact with were your friends and close family, so it's not a surprise that many things might feel more individualist in the former Soviet block than in the West (close family and friends fall into the individualist category- it's not just you who you care about, its your family and people that you selflessly like). In the West, you can be friendly with him, because you know he won't report you to the state police for your political views. In Communism, collaboration was common, so obviously being friendly was somewhat suicidal.

jacobhinds 说:

...But mostly collectivist. The idea of going off and doing your own thing without consulting the tribe/family is obscene in a lot of the world. Communism allows you to do what you want (except form a monopoly but who does that), so does Fascism to an extent, but in most of the world you have to consult the family before making any work/relationship/travel decision -- even if your decision doesn't directly affect them at all.

Like right now I'm compiling a detailed list of all the jobs I've ever applied for because my parents won't let me make any decisions without their approval.

点击展开...

As I said earlier, family=individualist.
But I presume you have to consent to your family's wishes because you are  financially/emotionally dependant on them? It's your choice, nobody's forcing you to do that. Only your parent's wallet or your wish to remain friendly with them.