you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

it usually stems from the fact that they brought superior technology and civilization

South Africa transformed into a 3rd world warzone overnight.

Meanwhile, everyone wants to live in Japan so badly, that Japan has to put harsh limits on immigration so as to not lose their own country.

Human health and environmentalism have declined significantly since WW2.

But overall, the real reason for why the Allies winning WW2 is such a disaster, is because all our worst fears finally came true. The topic of "racial identity" has been completely censored and subdued,

These are false statements. Though I appreciate that this is a debate sub, and that I should offer an argument and evidence in response to these interesting points, it would take an hour to write up a proper response, and I don't have an hour, nor do I think anyone really wants to read my arguments. But for what it's worth, here are a couple of concerns:

OP's argument could be addressed thoughtfully, and there are a number of books on it, though the factual errors would have to be removed from the argument in order for it to be an informative approach.

Authoritarian regimes like that in Germany and Japan also existed in previous centuries, and one could compare portions of those regimes to see what they might like about each, or especially what they might not like. In modern history, the French Revolution substantially changed Western public perception about the way they could deal with authoritarian oppression. As for China, however, there has always been some form of authoritarian leadership in that region. Indeed, it's argued that they've not been as competitive with the West militaristically because of their authoritarian abuses and lack of initiative to innovate (until recently). German fascism, much like Italian fascism, was a mass worker program (regardless of what one sees in documentaries that focus so much on other problems of fascism), meant to develop national interests. Hardly anyone in that form of society had any freedom to speak of. They were all worker bees. This was the same for Imperial Japan, and today, working conditions for the Japanese are brutal, though they put up with it. What people seem to forget is that post-war US was remarkably successful because young people could get home loans, decent jobs sufficient for the man of the house (and some women, but not by much), and the benefits of the New Deal enacted a few years earlier, along with industrialization, favorable trade with other countries and so much more made the US the richest in the world for decades. Isenhower Conservatism also helped, though it was not 'progressive'. Since the early 1980s, that balancing act between Democrats and Republicans has come to a screeching halt, now with money in politics. There are some Democrats who are however working for the 99%. If Germany had won the war, and if that authoritarianism had continued, life in much of Europe would have been much like that in China today. If however Germany and Japan defeated Russia, England, Canada, and the US abroad, they'd still would have had to invade the US, England and the rest of Russia in order to maintain government leadership. It would have been a bloodbath and would not have succeeded very well if at all. Military conflicts are won with logistical strategy, much more than with "superior technology and civilization." Germany and Japan could never have won in the long term, thanks especially to Russia and the US. Moreover, authoritarian regimes don't work in the long term. They're weak. Democracies are strong, if we want to consider what has more power, united we stand, and all that.

[–]NeoRail 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Moreover, authoritarian regimes don't work in the long term. They're weak. Democracies are strong, if we want to consider what has more power, united we stand, and all that.

Democracies divide the nation by design, though. It seems you have your entire argument backwards.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Democracies divide the nation by design

Not in the least. I wonder why anyone would believe this.

[–]Rob3122 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Who is pushing all this bullshit like CRT, BLM, LGBTQ, etc.? The Democrats who stand for "democracy". It all causes division.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Jews

[–]Rob3122 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Correct! Because they own damn near every single piece of shit politician that we have in this country. They're doing the same thing in every white European country too. The jews are the cancer to the human race

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

lol yep

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

No - it stands for inclusion, free speech, the American Dream, etc, etc. Those pushing hatred for others are trying to divide people. These special groups want to be included. GOP and "alt right" want to sow hatred and division between groups, to let them know they aren't included. (Edit cross through 'special')

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

GOP and "alt right" want to sow hatred and division between groups, to let them know they aren't included.

I have a question for you? Can you explain why this "racist" Nazi is sitting next to a room full of black people?

https://files.catbox.moe/g36m8r.jpg

That's the infamous George Rockwell, and yet he had no hatred for Malcolm X. Both leaders wanted the same thing. Racial separation. Yet their requests were denied. What makes one side more hateful than other, when they were both willing to agree to it back then?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Again - you've plucked from history a micro-example - indeed just a person - to make a very broad point that cannot be argued with micro examples. There is a field of history called, micro history, but it's mainly focused on providing more information about a context, rather than taking examples out of context. I am also not a fan of Malcolm X, who was critical of the Civil Rights movement, preferring - where possible - relatively violent methods of change.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Again - you've plucked from history a micro-example - indeed just a person - to make a very broad point that cannot be argued with micro examples.

No, it's a pretty major example. Segregation had not actually been outlawed in the U.S, hence why Malcolm X & Rockwell were allowed to support their ideas and even opposed the government from taking it all away.

It's like saying the alt-right today is a micro example of anti-immigration, even though Joe Biden or Trump talked about it when they were in office.

I am also not a fan of Malcolm X, who was critical of the Civil Rights movement, preferring - where possible - relatively violent methods of change.

And why do you think that was? He was a black man, so it can't be "white supremacism" that the media likes to smear.

Maybe... just maybe, he wanted racial separation because it was the more moral option? Giving blacks their own country would mean Blacks would be in charge of their own governments, their own schools, their own police force, their own hospitals. No one would be able to pin the blame on Whites or complain they were somehow a bad influence.

[–]Rob3122 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What makes any of those groups "special"? They are trying to push all the bullshit I mentioned in schools to kids. Kids like Democrats act on emotion. Teaching them CRT is teaching them to hate. BLM...I don't even need to explain that bullshit. LGBTQ is trying to convert children to be gay and tranny freaks. Chaos is all it creates which is why the jew scum are pushing it through all the Democrats they own.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This changes the argument.

The argument is about inclusion, not about who is 'special'.

The argument is not about Democrats, but about democracy.

[–]Rob3122 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You said they were special. I asked why and you didn't answer...instead YOU changed the argument. You don't even know what democracy is, all you know is Jewocracy posing as democracy. Wake up!

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Though I've called these groups 'special' the point remains that the topic is 'inclusion', not 'special'. I've now edited the statement so that 'special' is crossed out. You don't have to focus on the 'special' word, but instead consider the argument about inclusion.

It's basic logic, Rob: who wants division? Does the group that wants inclusion also want division? Does the group that wants to exclude other groups want division? Think about it, rather than worry about an unrelated word. Don't fall for the right-wing divisive propaganda. They don't want unity and exclusion. They want to divide and take your money and that of the 99%. They're robbing you.

[–]Rob3122 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know the Republicans don't want it either. But they're not pushing all the catering to negroids, they're not pushing CRT, they're certainly not pushing the acceptance of gay and tranny shit. All that shit causes division.

"It's basic logic, Rob: who wants division? Does the group that wants inclusion also want division". The group that lies to your fucking face and then turns around and does the opposite. Just look at BLM. The dems cater to that bullshit movement and then what do they do? They make sure the attorney general's and judges keep letting the negroids who are shooting people back onto the street. Then they act surprised when the shoot and/or kill again.