🚀 go-pugleaf

Matt Giwer wrote:
> Tom McDonald wrote:
>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>>> Tom McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Doug Weller wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3 Apr 2006 06:36:51 -0700, in sci.archaeology, Tom McDonald 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Doug Weller wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seppo's really getting crazier and crazier.  Obviously I've never 
>>>>>>> promoted
>>>>>>> a Nazi site, nor is suggesting that someone had bad judgment a smear
>>>>>>> (actually the suggestion originally came from a KRS supporter).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LIAR! You know you have posted links to a site dealing in Nazi
>>>>>> propaganda material!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had no idea who Lenoir was when I replied, but whoever she/he 
>>>>>>> is, it's
>>>>>>> clearly not hyperoglyphe (funny, every post I could find by 
>>>>>>> hyperoglyphe
>>>>>>> that mentions Jews is anything but anti-Semitic, it couldn't be 
>>>>>>> that Seppo
>>>>>>> is wrong about him, eh?).
>>>
>>>>>> Oh dear..... so NAZI ideology is ONLY relevant to JEWS, is it? 
>>>>>> Perhaps
>>>>>> Doug Weller is resorting to "white" washing the NAZIS now - of course
>>>>>> they hated BLACKS as well
>>>
>>>>>     Actually I can't find one word in their literature on the 
>>>>> subject of Blacks. If
>>>>> you can please post the URLs.
>>>
>>>>>     There were so few in Germany they were treated mostly as a 
>>>>> novelty. As Jesse
>>>>> Owens observed, he didn't have to ride in the back of the bus. Yes, 
>>>>> I know
>>>>> Hitler did not congratulate him but neither did FDR. Jimmy Carter 
>>>>> was the first
>>>>> to issue the traditional invitation to the White House to 
>>>>> congratulate him.
>>>
>>>> 1. Specify the black people the German Nazis considered 'Herrenfolk.'
>>>
>>>     You do not get away with changing the subject in the middle of a 
>>> thread.
> 
>> And you don't get away with avoiding the subject. Answer my perfectly
>> reasonable question.
> 
>     The subject in my newsreader is Homo Neanderthalis. Perhaps your 
> newsreader or ISP is fucked.

You replied to a post that was not about H.s.n. (or H.n.; YMMV). 
Now you want thread purity. Phah! Answer my question.

> 
>>>     You have presented not one word from the Nazis about Blacks. 
>>> Please do so
>>> before you continue.
> 
>> Alan did. Now answer my question.
> 
>     No he didn't. Read the response. And please do not pretend you knew 
> what he posted before you piggybacked on his post. You would have 
> presented your own without refering to the loser.

He responded to the satisfaction of everyone but you.

Alan is not a loser; but, since you see one every day in your 
mirror, I can see how you might become confused.

> 
>>>     And I have never found herrENvolk in their literature only 
>>> herrNvolk which has
>>> a different meaning.
> 
>> Define 'herrnvolk.' Define 'herrenvolk.' Give references. I have
>> actually studied German, although it was a while ago, so it would be
>> interesting to me to see what you come up with.
> 
>     As you know Herr is singular and Herren is the pluural you know 
> Herrn is neither.
> 
>     And none of the above is Master rather to the modern the modern 
> Mister. Herren und Damen is Gentlemen and Ladies. All refer to the 
> meaning of Senor or Sire as in the modern Sir.

Funny man. If you want to chop linguistic logic, learn the 
language. In the combined form used, Herrenfolk refers to a 
particular class of people. It emphatically does *not* mean 
"Mister people" or "Gentlemen people."

And it has not escaped anyone that you failed to define "Herrn," 
which was part of your assignment. So you agree that "Herrn" was 
a red herring.

>     No matter how hard you try you cannot get MASTER out of a word that 
> at worst meant gentleman or mister as in Mr.

Herren also has the meaning of superior or boss.

>     So if you really wish to make a cat fight of Herren and Herrn you 
> wind up in the same place, a FRAUDULENT translation to Master Race.

No. I wind up with yet another thing about which you will lie and 
evade and bluster about rather than admit you are talking out of 
your posterior nether region.

>     But lets say it is not fraudulent. How do you explain the absense of 
> the translation not being in the open literature as all the 
> propagandists used it from the 30s onward. There has to be something 
> glaring right there in the 1930s German-English dictionaries which give 
> this translation.

Perhaps if you could tell me where you have access to all the 
work of all the propagandists from the 1930's (presumably you 
mean the 20th century) onward. Not all usage is found in 
dictionaries, especially bi-lingual dictionaries that quickly 
become bulky to the point of uselessness if they try to include, 
oh I don't know, the several million English words and the 
hundreds of thousands of German words (and all the German 
combination forms--which you would know if you knew German).

But I will concede that perhaps you really do think all real 
words are found in the dictionaries you have access to, and mean 
only what you understand them to mean. We have another poster on 
s.a. who has the same handicap.

>>>> 2. Learn that Nazism was not limited to Germany. You even had some
>>>> Heroes of the American Nazi Party with whom you could commiserate, or
>>>> could have commiserated.
> 
>>>     In fact Hitler said it was only applicable to Germany and did not 
>>> support the
>>> imitators outside of Germany.
> 
>> Hitler said a lot of idiotic things. He certainly did find it useful to
>> export elements of Nazism. Recall the ausland volunteers in the Waffen
>> SS.
> 
>     Actually there is no evidence he did except to counteract the much 
> more extensive British propaganda campaign in the US. Fuck the Brits! 
> They suckered Americans into both world wars.

...and the goalposts shift yet again.

>     As for the Waffen SS. They all faught against Communism. They all 
> deserved medals. 

I await your irrefutable physical evidence with baited breath.

I suspect the nations the Ausland Waffen SS came from would 
generally agree with your sentiment today. But since you say so, 
I guess everyone else is wrong. Huh.

> The only good communist is a dead communist. Communism 
> is worse than Nazism by every measure.

I'm glad that you responded to this with calm, dispassionate 
evidence and logic. I mean, hell, one might find one's self 
becoming irrational and emotional when discussing the relative 
badness of Communism and Nazism. But not our Matt Giwer; no sir, 
he's a rock of physical evidentiary proof.

>> He is dead, burned and buried, and his political views rule
>> nowhere--except perhaps in your head.
> 
>     His economic principles rule the entire western world. No gold 
> standard, deficit spending, forcing non-free enterprise to implement 
> political objectives such as social security and prohibiting foreign 
> trade in time of peace.
> 
>     Frankly I don't see any difference at all for the majority of Nazi 
> policies which we now live under as a matter of course and happy with them.

Wow. You are as poor an economist as you are a historian and a 
human being. Huh.

>>>     If you mean Lincoln Rockwell, that was not his name and he was 
>>> born and raised
>>> Jewish.
> 
>> So what, even if true? He was not the first American Nazi 'leader,' and
>> was not the last. What does being Jewish have to do with anything?
> 
>     He was not a Nazi. He was something else regardless of what he 
> called himself. The political agenda of the NSDAP is well known and I 
> will give you a URL if you have not read it. He did not advocate any of 
> it. But in his time it was all a matter of US government policy.
> 
>     If you want to advocate a Nazi policy, advocate universal health 
> care for all Americans. That was their policy for Germans. Advocate 
> restricting smoking. That was their policy. A research group Hitler 
> funded from royalties from Mein Kampf established the first link between 
> smoking and lung cancer in 1939.
> 
>     You really have to learn something about the subject before you 
> pretend to talk about it.

I am so sorry if my undergrad minor in history is giving you fits.

>     If you want to start picking and choosing among what they said to 
> selectively condemn then you are going to accepting what they advocated 
> like universal health care of at least 99.5% of the population.

The picking and choosing you do is enough for the entire ng.

And if you think the 'universal' in 'universal health care' 
leaves out anyone, you have a...unique idea of the definition of 
'universal.' This is one word you may find interesting to look 
up. Especially the '99.5% = 100%' part of the definition.

>>>> Hint: Nazism finds its catagorical hatreds where it lives. [That's one
>>>> you can have for free to add to your silly 'Iron Webmaster' blather.]
> 
>>>     You are a really stupid shit to adopt the "hate" idea which is 
>>> totally
>>> irrational as are you.
> 
>> Hate may indeed be irrational. Its use and manipulation has been a
>> staple of political regimes since Christ was a  corporal. The Nazis
>> literally made hatred into a science. If you deny that, well, you're a
>> denier of yet another true thing.
> 
>     Please to not introduce your religious nonsense into the discussion. 
> You are ignorant enough already.
> 
>     Theologically speaking he still is corporeal in heaven. Get with the 
> 10th century.

Oh dear. Matt is fixated on something tangential so as not to 
address the main point. I've never seen that before.

>     Hatred is defined as an emotion. An emotion cannot be a science by 
> definition.

Perhaps I should have said the Nazis made 'manipulation of hatred 
into a science.' I didn't think anyone would need that extra bit 
of exposition. Thanks for reminding me how deeply flawed you are.

>>> Hint: You are an idiot.
> 
>> I may be. After all, I sometimes reply to you, and that's a bit
>> idiotic.
> 
>> But I'm right, all the same; and you are waving in the breeze.
> 
>     The difference is I know the subject and you do not.

No. The difference is that you have studied the subject with an 
eye to showing Nazi history in the best possible light, and their 
enemies in the worst. Possible light. (Added to be sensitive to 
your comprehension problems.)

>>> Someday I'll smack Matt Giwer in the head and tell him to grow up.
> 
>>>     -- The Iron Webmaster, 3612
>>>  nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
>>>  Lawful to bomb Israelis 
>>> http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11
> 
>     Thanks for not deleting the URLs in the sig. I usually do delete but 
> now it is in my first, your reply and my reply to you. And in this reply 
> there is another.
> 
>     I might have the most common sig on a groups.google.com search by 
> now. I know there are 130,000+ hits on my name alone.

Macht machts Rechts. You are a funny, if disengenuous and deeply 
stupid, man.