LustfulAngel Posts

Do forgive us for supporting an ally on the world stage(The South), if we were to leave completely that would open up a vacuum in that part of the region. One could see such drills as a threat to it...if it were meant as such.

What purpose would the U.S. Government have in antagonizing the North? Several U.S. Presidents have longed to fix the situation. And we didn't "leave", the opposite happened. We sent our Secretary of State, John Kerry to North Korea and we made our intentions perfectly clear about the Korean Penisula, about Asia and about the world. Above all, no doubt our American Citizens.

Now, perhaps you believe you can't take the U.S. Military at its face surrounding the South's de-nuclearization, but a non-proliferation policy has been a longstanding U.S. Policy since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Perhaps those bombs once existed, at the height of the Cold War tensions but with the fall of the Soviet Union(early 90's), there was no need to establish mini states if you will against Soviet Russia.

I'm sure our foreign leaders would be perfectly willing to withdraw those nuclear submarines and more than willing to accord to peace if North Korea does the same.

If North Korea guarantees the political freedom of South Korea, should North Korea subjugate the South by means of military, it would go against any sense of the word of a peace treaty. A political union can only be had with political talks.

I'll even accord to you(and Fiery) the absurd notion that all of this is our fault and that we should concede to every legitimate North Korean demand, but "feeling" threatened is an entirely different story than being threatened.

Never again will a Nation State prostrate its intentions of using nuclear weapons against our country, against our citizens. For we never threatened the death, starvation or disease of hundreds of thousands of North Koreans! The North, on the other hand does precisely that(and blames the Western economic model, laughable).

Where me and Fiery will concur is this: America is politically dead, it's citizens are literally doormats who will vote Democratic or Republican simply based on the name tag. Whereas there was once a major difference between the North and South, there's really only a media manufactured "difference". The vast majority of Americans in the North/South will continue to vote for their respective politicians, irregardless of any actual differences.

No, seriously, try to work your way around American Logic:

President Obama: 45-47-ish% approval rating(depending on which poll you choose)
Congress approval rating: 10%

Does it not concur to our brain doormat citizens that Obama came from parliament? Hell, for that matter that every politician that ever held senior position COMES from parliament? Approving of a parliamental politician, just because he/she holds the title of "President" is just what an American would do.

The reason England can't copy American "Politics" is that for better and for worse, your citizens in Europe aren't brain dead tools. The Scottish want a Scottish government for them and I say "more power to them." If Britain can't sufficiently gain approval of her colonies and they have the right to independence, Britain will suffer the loss.

Libertarianism concurs with me: I remember an animated video on Libertarianism



Those who violate the premise of Liberty, are eventually punished for it. When North Korea violently threatens the premise of Liberty of Eurasia, America and the world, I as a hypothetical head of state can't simply just sit there and watch.

If we were to enter negotiations, I would be very clear that we can't enter this state of affairs in another decade or so.

A newborn child, doesn't violate the premise of Liberty. Nor is that child necessarily "property" of the parents. No Human Being, at any stage is another's property. This is the essence of Libertarian philosophy.

So I'm not acting in contradictory fashion to Human Goodwill, by saying some oppressive tinfold dictator can suck it, and if worse comes to worse I'll defend the rights and liberties of everyone.

I don't feel like replying to an overtly long post of yours Biglundi(You make my posts look modest in comparison), so allow me to shorten it.



That's the basic gist of it, without all of the links and stuff.(Heck, that's the argument those links make)

Did you happen to take a look at the comments? The vast majority of them disapproved of it as what it is: Fluff. For the record, there probably are quite a deal of lobbying "companies" and "interests" for the more "better" causes.

But even those companies, which lobby for whatever cause they lobby for is an upfront to the "Democratic" Process. In other words, lobbyists shouldn't exist. Period.

If everyone "lobbied", U.S. Politics would be more corrupt then it is now. With more money being flung left and right, more courting politicians, more parties and bribes.

Lobbying is a cancer on the U.S. Political process, a citizen shouldn't have to lobby. And even if a citizen does lobby, a politician's main job is to lead through his convictions. He was elected in general for the general ideas he represented.

The lobbyist is an affront to this goal, as through money and pandering he diverts the politicians attention away from his agenda. Obamacare's actually a great example of this. The people said jobs were most important, Obama proceeds with Obamacare. Democrats lose power to the Tea Party Republicans.

Ironically, the Tea Party Republicans make the same mistake by focusing on the "obstruction" of Obama, rather than proposing alternatives to cut down the
deficit. The result being the Tea Party became insufficient.

This is merely on the national scale, the truth is every politician in sufficient power(IE: House, Senate) faces the obstructionist called the Lobbyist, who pulls the strings of the U.S. Government.

And you, are more then perfectly content with this disruptive force of government on the account that it can be used for 'good'.

Local Government doesn't face this political collusion, but unfortunately that's largely because local provinces don't have the political power to govern themselves. The vultures have no interest in a powerless body(such as a city or state government.)

Next, your comment on what I said about treason. It's ironic that you say that I treat the Founders like gods, when in fact they did "many things wrong"(a classic Liberal argument, if there was one.)

And it's sorely mistaken. Their position was heavily supported at the time by the general public of their time. There's this wonderful thing called hindsight.
The United States as a continent was incredibly weak at the time, so the Founders in political savvy understood that the Slavery Problem for example could only be solved through a resolution of the Public. After all, the Great Compromise was very difficult to achieve.

Even with the differences between the North and the South, after the civil war Abraham Lincoln reached out to the Southern Neighbors, and when Abe was assassinated, many on the South felt the same sense of loss and patriotism to stick by the country.

But I bring this up to concur with you, what the Founders did back then has no implication on our modern era. Namely, the constitutional phrase regarding treason. It needs to be tweaked a bit.

Treason:
The Act of sabotaging a nation's social, economic or geopolitical good. An Action that puts the American Public at risk.

In short, the constitutional clause only covers wartime and effects to that nature(treaties and so forth). It doesn't look at social or economic sabotages of the same level.

The country was meant to be governed through their principles, not necessarily what they did at the time. But because of their "mistakes", political think tank "experts"(incompetents) have foregone the philosophies that made this country today.

No one would in today's age think of African-Americans as "two thirds" of a person for instance, but the Founders in general opposed an open ended immigration policy. Why? Because they saw the Boston Marathon bombing some 230+ years before it happened.

They foresaw foreign agents(in much the same way of the German merchants hired by the British), who could sabotage their country. You may think it's all fine and dandy to bring 11 million(heck, millions more. Why stop there!) undocumented immigrants into the nation but there's alot of risk that comes into play.

The article you brought up in regards to the Immigrant problem, basically says that newly legalized immigrants will bring in jobs, as they are employed and make higher wages. There's a problem with this: Those jobs they "create" will be taken by fellow immigrants.

In other words, a new socio-political group has been created in the country and for this political gain of jobs to actually manifest itself, they by nature must be ahead in the line. Of course, the article in question has said these jobs would go to Americans. However, for the "new" jobs to go to Americans, these undocumented immigrants, must become documented and they must be employed.

Get it? I'll go a limb and say at the very least: Even if the successful employment of new "citizens" creates jobs, the unemployment rate will not significantly decrease(IE: Few Americans who are currently actual legal citizens will see any results). That's the very least.

I'll go on a further limb(and my suspicion): New citizens will not create new jobs, but a greater logjam on the unemployment line.

On your comment regarding your miserable interpretation on what I said. I wasn't necessarily linking Reagan and his efforts in 1986 to the present crisis. In fact, the only reason for mentioning Reagan was his efforts back then. As a reference point, little more.

What I was saying, was that TODAY'S Republicans, and todays ONLY are more than willing to sell this country out for political power. This is the type of political thought that grips Washington today:

I originally read this comment on MSNBC, which didn't clarify whether a Democrat or Republican had said them

But it doesn't matter, it doesn't make the comment any more outrageous. Do you think that I as a legal American will elect a politician to the oval office based on whether he legislated for or against illegal immigrants becoming citizen?

To be fair, I would make a judgment, albeit the opposite of the one Menendez anticipates. If said political leader voted AGAINST this sham, he has my vote. If he voted FOR it, he should resign from office the following day.

I will give Yuki this one liner, and that's it. Because I've found him detestable from the first post he made. Xenophobic, towards immigration and other cultures? Nonsense, considering I'm on a hentai forum, with a great deal of love towards the Japanese culture.

Considering my own family is an immigrated family, I hold nothing against legal immigration. In fact, I want to protect the meaning and importance of legal immigration. I do not believe every jock who wants to come here, deserves to come here.

It's interesting that you post that graphic, look at it more closely. Are any of those demands unreasonable? In my opinion, they're not. You should only be allowed in the country if you have legitimate connections to the country. If you actually have talents or something to bring to the table. This isn't a welfare nation, neither for our nationals nor for other country's nationals.

The only thing "unreasonable" about them is the length of time it takes to become a citizen. IMO, that's the only "reform" that should take place. And perhaps, a close examination among the current 11 million or so who are undocumented, legalize the most talented, the most capable and loyal. And those who don't meet the criteria, try again.

Why, Yuki? It's funny you mention Britain. Between this, racial violence, etc. Among a many host of other reasons why I don't want to copy this part of European traditions today.

You may believe we're headed on the "right path of history", but the entire European union as well as the clash of naturally different cultures begs differently. The world cannot be shaped to meet the ideals of the idealistic.

Ideals must be shaped by pragmatism. The world has always been led in the right direction by pragmatists, as people universally opposed the true right direction. Example: The World being flat is a classic. Opps, it's round.

I don't want to take it off topic, but I will defend my positions. North Korea's rhetoric was incredibly dangerous at the time, with graphic propaganda threatening the use of nuclear weapons against our citizens. In addition, it had also positioned its arsenal and threatened against our ally Japan.

When a regime threatens the lives of hundreds of millions, and thinks it can do so with impunity, it is no longer a legitimate regime on the world stage. Nosferatu agrees when he says that the disposing of a dictator is a radical action taken in preservation of the natives of the country in question and the world at large. It's also seen as a dictator is different in a sense from the masses of Humanity.

I had said in that thread, that I would be more than willing to see a North Korean response if it feels our soldiers at the South are threatening their sovernignty(though it's not). The same if the terrorists were to limit their operations to defending their home country.

But the moment they start attacking government officials, or citizens of a country their grievances are not legitimate, but pure and malicious criminal acts of intended murder.

Also, I'll leave it up to your intepretation as to whether or not North Korea holds actual, legitimate elections

Seriously? Seriously? And you say I have no idea what I'm talking about? Since I have no idea what I'm talking about apparently, I'll reference you to people who do know what they're talking about.

See Here

And here

Lobbying is an affront to any sort of "democratic" or even "representative" practice. Here, a college oriented paper for you to read.

Surely, these people know more than I correct?




Oh no, it's not overstated at all

We have become what our Founders fought against: We've become an organized crime state with laundering dirty money and vastly organized churches running the country. And to you, this degenerating state is not only okay but somehow laughably democratic?







Let's say you have a legitimate quip with "President" Romney. Oh, wait, your just an average citizen so you cannot protest this monopoly of a government.
Heck, forget the President. This is the reality with your congressional and house representatives.

But hey, what do I know? Nothing. So let's continue with the highly oligarchic political state of affairs in America.

The Founding Fathers fought against taxation without representation, if they were alive today they would see Americans face a far greater taxing system and far more obligations, with as little political response as the British overlords gave the English commoners.




Since you dared to question my intelligence, can I question yours? Do you even know what the word theory means?

Well, here's the definition: "abstract thought : speculation"

Not only is the 1986 Amnesty Law NOT a theory It actually happened

Furthermore, it's widely acknowledged to have failed and in fact encouraged illegal activities.



The Amnesty Law of 1986, and our current political climate are not only perfectly compatible, but I've just shown evidence of how they were connected.

In addition, the NYTimes is a pro-Liberal newspaper in general. Not to mention the fact the legislation was wrote under Conservative Rule.

But in case that paper isn't enough, I'll get you something else.

The Washington Post, another close Liberal ally. And this comparison of the two legislations was made in January of 13!





You've got to be honest, while being dishonest about my statements.(Or rather, you truly actually believe that's what I said in which case your reading comprehension is truly sad.).

I've never said to "get rid of all of the immigrants", there's 11 million undocumented people who currently have jobs, who currently have resources that could otherwise go to American children, young adults. To you for god sakes! The Washington Post, concurs with what I believe. Let us effectively make it so that legal immigration is pursued, to do that punishing those who've crossed the border is essential.

Since these 11 million people are taking away American Jobs, we aren't "losing" a chunk of the work force. We are nationalizing the work force! Much like how money that flows overseas is viewed as a "black hole", every time an illegal alien holds a position that could be held by an American, it should be seen as a black hole.

Just as the minimum wage prevents growth opportunities, in the name of low wage paying jobs to otherwise highly qualified Americans who are being taken advantage of by corporations!

Employment, by itself doesn't equal prosperity. Americans need to be employed to respectful wages. A combination of "immigrant" workers and the minimum wage is actually a HUGE part of this recession.

As to why the Government has not truly taken a true priority to protecting our National citizens, our legal immigrants. Simple: I believe it to be treason and high treason. Ironically, the ultimate consequence of big lobbying politics.

Liberals in general, are guilty and committed to this high treason. Against your own brothers, sisters and mothers and fathers you'd put us all at an economic competitive disadvantage and your too gullible and naive to realize it.

Corporations will win, illegals who get to slip under the cracks will win. Hispanic-Americans will win. Every other minority in America however LOSES big time, as well as the national.

The Liberal? Is too busy hording political power to even recognize it.

Also, it appears women, not necessarily immigrants(legal or otherwise) are a growing faction in the U.S. Consumer Economy





Since I've invoked people who supposedly know alot more than me, you will now be charged to do the same if you want to stick to that insult.

BigLundi: You REALLY don't think things are corrupt in the Homeland? The President, for instance campaigned against lobbyists, then he invited lobbyists to join his White House Staff....Opps(I don't even think he mentioned them in his re-election attempt)

Or what about Mitt Romney's 47% comment? While many Liberals were opposed to that sentimental comment, what they neglected to mention(in their own favor nevertheless) was how the comment was made in a private donation by a bunch of millionaires!

The greatest political collusion is occurring right before our eyes: As soon as Republicans lost the 2012 elections, they decided to agree to sabotage the American Public. IE: Amnesty. The Reagan Republicans conceded to it in 1986, and proclaimed it to be the last time. What has happened since? 11 million illegal aliens. Let me put in perspective how this situation could easily have been avoided: My grandmother immigrated to the country around the height of the Cold War(1965-ish). She had since been a Green card holder and when it was time to renew it: Bam, got it done in a matter of weeks to a month.

I don't want to hear their excuses, for various reasons they're undercutting U.S Law!

With 300 million lawful Americans, among them we have a very talented and LEGAL immigration pool, these 11 million criminals will only bog down jobs and discriminate against legal Americans(and legal immigrants)

There's literally no reason to justify this encroachment of millions of Americans and Immigrants, with the exception of a vote for the Democratic Party.

Whether my political career succeeds or is a dud, I will always speak out against Amnesty. For all those who lawfully crossed the border, and for all those who lawfully were born here, raised here, cultivated here and have helped to continue to cultivate our great nation.

Then I present one of your fellow Canadians to do the arguing for me, problem?

Seriously, this in of itself kills the conversation. If I cannot present any objective facts or analysis of facts to contradict your miserable sensational wailing then what are we doing here?

To supplement the counterargument, the Quebec Act of 1776 virtually makes Quebec an English Colony.

"And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all His Majesty's Canadian Subjects within the Province of Quebec, the Religious Orders and Communities only excepted, may also hold and enjoy their Property and Possessions, together with all Customs and Usages, relative thereto, and all other their Civil Rights, in as large, ample and beneficial Manner, as if the said Proclamation, Commissions, Ordinances, and other Acts and Instruments, had not been made, and as may consist with their Allegiance to His Majesty, and Subjection to the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain; and that in all Matters of Controversy relative to Property and Civil Rights, Resort shall be had to the Laws of Canada."

TLDR: All Canadians enjoy laws which come from Canada, Quebec 'sovernignty' need not apply.

Where I got this historic piece of legislation? From my Campus library, thank you :).





Marxism, in all of its well meaning words is merely equality in slavery. With which, those at the top will eventually rule. An Autocracy with peace sounding words

Fascism, on the other hand is the unification of nationalities and individuals. Both with recognizing individual value, yet at the same time removing individual restrictions(IE: Bias).

Fascism asks, not that you give up your rights. But that you equate your rights to be the same as everyone else's. That you recognize other citizens of the country as citizens.

In short, where marxism fails is the complete elimination of the Human Element. Whereas fascism embraces the true nature of mankind.

Sensationalism, much. Without any proof of claims. I searched through google, and I couldn't find anything verifying that the Quebec government "makes it illegal to treat English people" Or hell, that it's "illegal for english people to own businesses"

Not only didn't I find anything, but what I did find seems that Canadians would rather have Quebec as a separate nation from Canada period.

Here, it speaks specifically of rising costs(and even here, I highly doubt their small businesses are going to suffer) but not an actual ban on speaking English per say.

Bilingual philosophy, taken to its natural conclusion would threaten every native speaking country on the face of the continent!

Americans vastly hold the same position(including yours truly)

You also make more hyperbolic statements, such as "giving up your rights to a militaristic government" NS Germany, for example was one of the more progressive regimes in the 19th century. Yes, I said progressive!

Unification allowed for one of the greatest modern innovations, as well as welfare programs known today

What most depictions and 'educations' on Fascism depicts is literally one blip of the radar. Fascism was and is the greatest political system the world's ever seen.

Not even Noferatsu disagrees. Though he states that such a system requires an enemy. Which is another common misconception. I do not require an enemy per say, but rather I require appealing to the highest reasoning of Americans.

If Americans see opportunities opening up, if they see the reason in caring more for themselves than say, Syria then strengthening the community is but a simple matter.

I did not notice this post addressed to me, but I think it's a red herring(and obviously false) to call the Quebec government "Fascist nazis". Quebec merely has the correct notion, that their culture and their territory should be preserved.

Internationalism perverts the individual, in fact completely negates the individualist. To be a Fascist, or in other words to be an individual is to have a sense of self. Politically, geopolitically or personally in your own persona is a natural right.

People born in our current generation may very well be indoctrinated(at a time in their youth) but, as long as information is available(and as long as people are individually conscious), they will choose to preserve that which is important to them: Their own identity.

Also, you made another false notion that I ever endorsed war crimes committed by either the Axis OR the Allies. I simply made the correct political move that not only would have cost much less for America but it also would've actually lessened the lives lost.

A true intellectual or even a true leader doesn't allow emotionalism to get in the way of cold hard facts. A unified European/Western-Asian front would and still IS the key to unifying all of Humanity.

Warned, by you? Laughable. In fact, it wasn't even 3 pages of argument. The topic of relevance that you're complaining about started on the 9th page! It also seems you have some conceited notion of your own abilities or even connections with the moderators. I've had various in runs with Tegumi, but I think she'd agree your condescending arrogance is out of line. She'd also note that Yuki originally started what would be the "off topic" discussion.

Since when did you ordain to be the god of the conversation? You started a thread discussion, that discussion reached new premises, evolved and then from that evolution reached new premises. Nosferatu didn't make an accusation, he stated a fact.

Discussions aren't linear in premise, the type of discussions that are singular are the types in a bar or in a public setting. This is the Serious Discussion thread. This is more akin to a debate room.

However, unlike debates between colleges, we don't have a moderator which is actually better in that a linear intellectual discussion is but perhaps a step up from the gathering place in the living room. We all reached a unanimous conclusion(that, as independent thinkers we don't even agree with) and as such it's a front.

A true debate, isn't necessarily one with some moderator acting as a third party observer. But rather, two people intellectually engaging in conversation.

In other words, intellectual honesty cannot be had in an intellectually limiting setting. And yet in each forum I participate in, where I take a circular intellectual approach to the topic in question, I'm often accused of being "off topic".

But that's incorrect, the topic is the same as it always was. It just evolved from its original premise, because we're not discussing in a matter of agreeance. We are discussing, for the point of interpretation, realization and perhaps an even different perspective.

A linear discussion cannot accomplish any of this.

With due respect, intellectual conversation is not gibberish. And at its origins, it had premise. I was attacked by Yuki for suggesting that aligning with the Axis would have been(quite obviously IMO) better policy for America and for the Western/European World.

I perhaps made the mistake here, by bringing up the Holocaust specifically, and I ended up muddling the main point being that War happens. I never once, in any post condoned any murder, or any war crime which we know to be an obvious fact.

I just doubted the level of which is proclaimed, which I believe to be nothing more than propaganda which has served its purpose wonderfully(for the Jewish Community anyway). And hey, that's not blaming them for stretching the truth either. If I could twist things a little, and get a benefit out of it I'd do it too. Heck, Bush did it with Iraq. Hell, all Human Beings would do it.

I'll contend that the main point of this topic however, had been finished by around the 7th-8th page. The truth is, American Opinion will swing on both sides of the pendulum, I as an American Nationalist believing in the dignity of the Homeland, yet that the Homeland has lost all such dignity, pride and honor and is little more than host to millions of politically apathetic people.

Yet at the same time, others such as Jacob will proclaim me arrogant. That America hasn't staked a historic place in World History, and that America's very existence is somehow the doom of worlds.

We wish we were the doom of worlds, or that is to say if we were we'd be the first ones to take reform and these geopolitical problems would simply go away here in the Homeland. Tragically, it's not as simple(nor as truthful) as putting the blame on us for the inability of every 2nd or 3rd world cesspool for its obvious failure to develop.

If we're to blame for anything, it's the faulty investment in the first place which was a blackhole of U.S. Dollars, men and armed equipment(as well as in Libya, the case of diplomats)

Obama proclaims there's a red line in Syria for example, to me, there's no line. Even if Syria collapses, even if the entire Middle East were to burn aflame, not a single American Citizen would or should lose any sleep. Our beautiful American children will continue to be educated. Our army may actually finally be able to return to the frontiers, no longer having to fight this meaningless battle against pathetic brigades of "terrorists".

Let's let the Middle East settle their affairs, and become stronger for our neutrality.

It's kind of sad that those other four million lives aren't paid nearly any respect(or if at all any). One of the above links points out a discrepancy: If the Nazis had indeed killed 6 million Jews, then the post WWII numbers should've reflected that. Instead, they reflected growth? That makes no sense.

Instead, the numbers reflect a far more accurate detail of about a couple hundred thousand to a million lives slaughtered.

Only Soviet Russia has ever approached these numbers, officially. Of course, if there's valid evidence in comparison. Mao's China was by far the greatest killer the world's ever seen:

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

But if you remove Soviet, China out of the way you see numbers in the thousands, to maybe a few million. Which I believe is probably a government's maximum capacity for mass murder at this time.

I deny the veracity of 6 million lives. It's still very much questionable as to whether or not Hitler himself authorized or even wanted a "Holocaust" Final solution. As early in the mid-30's, he understood that brutal violence leads to uprising from peasants and that frankly, it wasn't a solution.

All the text that's been referenced to, refers to a policy of deportation. Policy that eventually was supported by the European Jews, as they agreed to immigrate to Palestine, with all of their cash and goods in tact.

We simply do not know what occurred in the war, the evidence is mostly fabricated, the testimony is mostly heresy and in the 21st century historians on both sides can finally examine the veracity of the claims in a unbiased fashion.

I just now edited my post a bit to clarify my statements. I'm more than willing to believe that people have died, hell that they were butchered and murdered. I'm not willing to believe to such a great extent(the numbers). It just seems preposterous. After all, in America, today in modern 21st century we're speaking of what a great difficulty it would be to deport the illegal aliens from the country.

I'd also state from a purely political perspective that Fascism shouldn't be looked at in that way. If the Holocaust occurred as foretold, it was indeed a racial prejudice policy, not necessarily a political one.

I believe strongly in a centralized political system, in the efficiency of individual unity and the strength that would result from such a transformation.

Why? Because you said so? You referenced to computers, of all things. In the mid-1930's no less! Am I supposed to believe this? Hah, hardly on good faith but we now have the internet for glorious confirmation.

Read this on Computer History and enjoy.


I believe your referencing to this

That said, the connection isn't really established or proven(as compared to say, Herbert Walker's connection to the regime). For all we know(and it's highly likely. I cannot imagine a company being so cold blooded as to participate in mass slaughter merely for corporate profit.) Nor can I imagine such a company evading prosecution. Since the cases have been dropped and dismissed, I can only assume the connection can't even be established. Critics themselves state that.

Take from this link what you will

I was merely 9-11 years old, when I immediately knew that anyone who entertained the 6 million theory was easily duped. I couldnt contemplate 6 million people in the world no less(Obviously, I know now the Human Species to be much larger than that :D). And I couldn't imagine from an empathetic standpoint that a civilization would just watch 6 million people die.

Or that an army would butcher and slaughter people across continents.....

Yeah, I'll believe that. And Pigs will fly.

Edit: This is another good link I won't go as far as some of these links though, I'm more than willing to 'admit'(acknowledge is the better word) that due to racial tensions I can see butcherings and deaths up to the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even a million.

But Denial of Plausibility(Something all Humans thankfully inherit from birth) kicks in regarding the six million number.

It was a war, people die. The war also happened for a reason. From Germany's perspective, the Versallies treaty was both unfair and unfounded. You make the point that the war didn't happen until 1939, until that time Germany had asked for the world and indeed the League of Nations to uphold it's premise to the rest of the world.

It hadn't, much the same way as the U.N holds up absolutely nothing. As such, Germany left the League of Nations(and it shortly collapsed thereafter)

Also, this takes us so far away from the original premise of the post. But when you mention "bloodthirsty", you are obviously referencing to the Holocaust. Which is as complicated of an issue as any(You can actually be arrested for so called "Holocaust Denial", which is proof if anything on the inconsistencies).

So I'll give you this:

1: Yes, Jewish People died. To the number of Tens of thousands.(even Hundreds of thousands).

2: It wasn't anywhere close to 6 million though. Heck, there weren't 6 million Jews in all of Europe, let alone Germany.

Even as a child, far before learning of fascism(and of course, being educated in the 'horrors of Hitler'). I made the immediate correlation to the improbability if not impossibility of one man, let alone one government systematically rounding 6 million people and executing them.

Of course, I said nothing during my school days(who could? Surprisingly, our democracy is as similar as a supposed 'authoritarian regime'.) Nevertheless, whether the number is thousands or millions, it's still a horrific crime. But it's also warfare. Also not mentioned is enemy(Soviet fire) on the German home territory when they had broken through German lines. No doubt those executions also had a part to do with it.

It's quite similar in Japan, Japan in recognition that to be a technologically savvy country is to have territory for itself, expanded out to the East Asia areas and China. The Rape of Nanking is especially cruel, but it could've all been avoided.

If we had agreed to supply Japan, in exchange for loosening their territorial grips on East Asia, Pearl Harbor doesn't happen. Had we lowered our arms, similarly to the Germans under the Versallies treaty, the war doesn't happen.

Hell, scratch that, Hitler doesn't even get elected! I recognize war crimes to be, while cruel, natural in a state of war. If we need any proof of this, our 'noble' military rapes our uniformed women. There is no honor in warfare, as Nosferatsu wisely points out.

The point being, U.S. geopolitical considerations were utterly incompetent. So incompetent, your only defense to their stupidity is the genocide that occurred during the war.(With which the Allies are also partially responsible. Or are Civilian Russians, Germans and the civilians of their respective allies not people?)

The U.S. and Britain(as well as all of Europe) had everything to gain from recognizing centralized, individual power within governments and communities. An alliance with the Axis would have made a Boom that would last centuries, eons even.







My due apologies to getting the year wrong, but that doesn't take away the fact that the programme came at a time when the Germans were encroaching on British Territory.

War happens, War Crimes happen(even on our side) but that doesn't take away from geopolitical considerations. We know the world we live in today, and the decision the leaders of our respective countries took then.

What if they took the opposite? The merging of U.S. raw resources, German and Japanese technology and knowledge. We ourselves received the benefit of one Albert Einstein. Can you imagine a far more coordinated effort?

Being a Fascist doesn't mean I condone those war crimes(nor acknowledging them as natural in a state of warfare means that I condone them). But I do understand the why behind the war, how it all could've been prevented.

As evidence, look at Japan today. With U.S. Alliance and trade flowing through, Japan has no need for territorial claims. Of course, hovering a nuke over the world will change things but the U.S position on not using nukes is so strong, a nation state couldn't possibly take us seriously even if we threatened its usage.

Our impact in the Second World War is both over and under-stated. There's no denying that without Lend-Lease, the allied forces would have collapsed far before 1938. But at the same time, we entered the war at such a late stage that it hardly mattered in terms of on the grounds.

But we kept Japan occupied in the Pacific, we also fought successfully in the Battle of the Bulge which was crucial.

You mention that without a U.S. Presence in Europe, Soviet would've obtained more territory which was crucial. U.S Leadership even back then(as well as British leadership) did not want intrusion by Soviet. Even more so under the Stalinist regime of mass murder.)

IMO, we should've aligned with the Axis. A far more potent political machinery. Japan as a rising technological industry, along with Germany. With U.S. Raw materials? We could have secured a united Europe/Asia for as long as Humanity was alive.

Joining the Allies meant the rise of terrorism, Soviet continued to live on for the next 40 years and now the Russian Federation is linked with China. Hindsight's 50/50, but honestly even before the conclusion we knew the dangers of Soviet Russia.

And? Isn't that better than outright giving away one's own assets to the rest of the world? For what benefit? Another nation's "appreciation and thanks?" Lend-Lease gave benefits later on, but at the moment we were spending millions in a war Americans specifically didn't want.

See this

I wish we were more proactive in our trade agreements, in a similar fashion to Lend-Lease. I wish we had a proactive government that plugged holes in a U.S Economy where millions of dollars go to either defunct programs, middle of the road countries or all of the freaking above!

Now is the time for our youth to be educated, to have doors open to them for career opportunities. The only way we can do this, is to replace a "Global Economy" with a Nationalistic outlook.

For Americans, By Americans and Our America.