-->
@FLRW
Oh, sorry I thought this topic was about Trump.
Or about GreyParrot. Isn't it? Lol.
The Political, Social, and Religious Ideology of Hitler
Posts
Total:
71
-->
@FLRW
TDS is strong
-->
@sadolite
Well, Trump did keep a copy of Mein Kampf on his nightstand.
7 days later
-->
@Critical-Tim
I am just going to repost what I posted in a debate about Hitler's motivations.
The Earth has a finite amount of resources. There is only so much oil, food, trees and many more valuable things to go around. A man named Thomas Malthus in the late 18th century observed that the human population could increase and an exponential rate (ex. 2,4,8,16,32) while food production increases at a more linear rate (ex. 1,2,3,4,5). [1]
What happens when population exceeds our abilities to create enough resources are what Malthus refers to as positive checks. These checks include (war over resources, famine, or disease due to things like more condensed and close together population (ie. Covid19). The other option Malthus brought up was preventative checks such as encouraging later marriages, making abortions easy to access and promoting and encouraging homosexuality.
Hitler seemed to be applying Malthusianism to his policies for Germany. in Mein Kompf Hitler states;
"The annual increase of population in Germany amounts to almost 900,000
souls. The difficulties of providing for this army of new citizens must
grow from year to year and must finally lead to a catastrophe, unless
ways and means are found which will forestall the danger of misery and
hunger." [2]
As you can see, Hitler was very concerned about the Malthusian dilemma. according to an article by Bryan Caplan writing for [econlib.org](http://econlib.org) [3] Hitler went on to weigh all of the options Malthus presents and then states;
"Of course people will not voluntarily make that accommodation. At this
point the right of self-preservation comes into effect. And when
attempts to settle the difficulty in an amicable way are rejected the
clenched hand must take by force that which was refused to the open hand
of friendship. If in the past our ancestors had based their political
decisions on similar pacifist nonsense as our present generation does,
we should not possess more than one-third of the national territory that
we possess to-day and probably there would be no German nation to worry
about its future in Europe." [2]
I assume that con will of course agree with Hitler about the right to self preservation, so I won't digress into that. As we can see from Malthus and Hitler, Germany was headed for disaster and their right to a good life would soon be taken from them, if Hitler was not going to be proactive.
**Lebensraum**
Hitler had a plan to deal with this Malthusian disaster, swiftly heading towards Germany. An overall plan to preserve his German people that involved taking preventative measures as Malthus had suggested. Hitler would go on to reduce the world population by 60 million people and push back a global Malthusian disaster. [4] A population that could easily double every 25 years. That would be 3 doublings by now and an additional 180 million current people. Despite how much Hitler helped the globe, his main mission was to do right by the German people he led. Seriously about 800 million people are currently starving to death. If not for Hitler it would most likely be 1 billion people. [5]
Lebensraum (meaning living space) was an answer to the Malthusian problem of population growth exceeding resource growth. It was a philosophy of conquering other parts of Europe so that way Germans could live more spread out with more resources to sustain their population. There is something else to consider about Lebensraum before we move forward, but first a better definition of lebensraum from chat GPT that is lightly edited by me to remove it's anti Nazi bias.
"The Nazi philosophy of Lebensraum, which means "living space" in German, was a belief held by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party that emphasized the expansion of German territory by acquiring more land in Eastern Europe. The Nazis believed that the Germanic people, needed more living space to grow and flourish, and that acquiring land in Eastern Europe was necessary for their expansionist goals." [1]
continued...
**Freedom Fighter**
Hitler wasn't just some boring conservative politician who only cared about the economic success of his country. He also was deeply concerned about freedom, but even if he wasn't than expansionist Lebensraum policies, were still good at obtaining those freedoms. It's a well known fact that can be observed in any country and in any period of history. people that live in the country care more about autonomy than those in urban areas whose neighbors actions can be more easily felt on a day by day basis. By expanding the living space of the German people so they weren't crowded in big cities, Hitler could also, whether deliberatively or not expand freedom in Germany.
**Doing What's Right**
My opponent will not be be able to deny the truth of Malthusianism. It is obviously true that the Earths resources are limited. It is obviously true that any poor mother with 8 children, knows it will be less of a struggle to feed all of her kids if she had 3 less of them. We all know that the Malthusian trap has already significantly contributed to global warming, covid 19, and famines.
Germany wasn't the only nation to realize this. Western nations know that in order to maintain a wealthy nation, they have to take the resources from poor countries and reallocate them to their own wealthy countries. IMF loans are used to get a strangle hold of nations to force policies that increase exports, effectively stealing the resources of people who can barely feed themselves. In the book titled "Stories of an Economic Hitman", the writer who worked to steal resources from small nations explained how the CIA would work covertly to overthrow governments so the United States could put a person in charge who would work to export resources. The west may no longer have slavery, but we export labor to countries where we can exploit the poor and the resources of poor nations for a paycheck of $2 a week.
Hitler realized that the Malthusian trap was a real thing, so he had to either start slaughtering his own people, exploit the poor from other countries or create more living space for Germans to be able to live with plenty of resources. It takes at minimum 2 acres of land per person to feed them {6]. The higher your population the more land you need, especially when you consider other resources like breathable air, lumber, copper and oil.
As you already know from history, Hitler decided to create some Lebensraum for his people, which he had an obligation to do. Remember as per the definition provided for this debate, we are debating whether the action taken or no action is preferable. The impending Malthusian trap was all the reason Germany needed to begin it's expansionism. Other countries were aware of this Malthusian trap and it is why at the time, Great Britain had colonized so many nations they effectively ruled over 30% of the globe. [7]
The cold hard truth is that Western nations have a choice between exploiting developing nations, so they starve or sacrificing our quality of living. Your shoes would be expensive without Nike exploiting children for pennies a day, You wouldn't be able to give your wife a diamond ring without the suffering and exploitation of miners and their homelands in Africa. Hell we would be spending half of our paycheck on gas, if not for the fact that our governments from time to time take over and exploit oil producing countries like Iraq.
It isn't pretty, but the alternative is we all live in squalor and suffering numerous Malthusian traps. Well, the other options include things like fighting for women's rights in the middle east because an educated working female population reproduces less or having sex-ed programs that encourage abstinence but also teach kids how to use protection, giving people access to abortions and promoting homosexuality through Budlight's marketing team etc... .
**The black death**
Population reduction and expansion basically achieve the same thing. more available living space per person. The west or "Global North" as referred to by dirty commies, have answered the Malthusian trap by exploiting the land and resources of poor people in third world countries. Germany chose another method, a similar method to what America chose when they employed the philosophy of "Manifest Destiny". Germany wanted to answer the Malthusian dilemma by expanding into the lesser used portions of Western Europe. It's not Hitler's fault that colonial countries like France and England wanted to have a monopoly on the ability to prevent a Malthusian trap and actively worked to destroy Germany, even after Germany begged for peace just prior to and after the expansion into the portion Poland, where a lot of their own people resided. [8]
The reason I bring up population reduction when talking about the expansionist policy of Germany, is because we have a real life example of the success having more land to exploit (as opposed to people) has created for a nation, particularly the lower classes of a nation. The working man, basically. The black plague shows what can happen when a society suddenly escapes the Malthusian trap and gets more Lebensraum.
The black plague killed an estimated 50% of people.[9] Here is a bit of what one publication says about the prosperity of people following the black death ;[10]
"the rural worker indeed demanded and received higher payments in cash (nominal wages) in the plague’s aftermath. Wages in England rose from twelve to twenty—eight percent from the 1340s to the 1350s and twenty to forty percent from the 1340s to the 1360s. Immediate hikes were sometimes more drastic. During the plague year (1348—49) at Fornham All Saints (Suffolk), the lord paid the pre—plague rate of 3d. per acre for more half of the hired reaping but the rest cost 5d., an increase of 67 percent. The reaper, moreover, enjoyed more and larger tips in cash and perquisites in kind to supplement the wage. At Cuxham (Oxfordshire), a plowman making 2s. weekly before the plague demanded 3s. in 1349 and 10s. in 1350"
**Conclusion**
I appreciate the judges reading this far. I have argued that nations should be primarily interested in the self preservation of their own people and not in a way that trades prosperity for a few more years of life, but one that primarily concerns itself with the quality of the lives of it's own citizens. I have shown that with Germany's increasing population, lebensraum was needed for the success of the German people and as we can see from the initial stages of Hitler's rise to power, the nation was an economic powerhouse. So the plan worked and historical examples such as the black plague's economic effects, means that there was good reason to believe that the lebensraum plan would work. The alternative of doing something, was doing nothing and allowing the great powers to continue exploiting Germany through the unfair Versailles treaty, while the German people suffered having to burn their massively inflated money to keep warm., and to quite literally starve. Hurt people, hurt people.
sources
1. Chat GPT
2. Mein Kampf (Adolph Hitler) ch. 4
8. Random post I remember reading on stormfront about Hitler requesting peace in several letters
-->
@FLRW
'My New Order', which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed.
-->
@WyIted
"Lebensraum," a term deeply rooted in the historical and philosophical discourse, translates directly from German as "living space." Originally used in the context of biology and human geography, it referred to the habitat or territory required by an organism or a population to thrive. The concept encapsulates the idea that populations grow and, as a result, require more space to continue their development and maintain their existence.
However, the term gained infamy and a specific political connotation in the early 20th century, particularly through its adoption by Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler. In this context, Lebensraum became a key ideological element underpinning the regime's policies and expansionist aims. It was used to justify the territorial expansion of Germany, under the pretext that the German people needed more space to live, grow, and prosper. This justification was employed to legitimize the annexation of territories and the displacement or extermination of their inhabitants, based on a belief in the racial superiority of the Aryan race and the perceived necessity for its growth.
Thus, while "Lebensraum" can be understood in a neutral, ecological sense, its historical usage imbues it with a much darker significance, reflecting ideologies of expansionism, racial discrimination, and the justification of aggression under the guise of natural and national necessity.
In summary, "Lebensraum" refers to the concept of living space necessary for populations to thrive, but is historically notorious for its appropriation by Nazi ideology to justify territorial expansion and associated atrocities, marking it as a term laden with implications of aggression and racial discrimination.
- ChatGPT4
Conviction is the enemy of understanding. - Myself
Conviction is the enemy of understanding. - Myself
15 days later
-->
@FLRW
Well, Trump did keep a copy of Mein Kampf on his nightstand.
That’s one child I wouldn’t mind the IDF bombing.
-->
@FLRW
Well, Trump did keep a copy of Mein Kampf on his nightstand.
You mean Trump can read?
I know you love to worship your favorite scoundrel, but this is taking it way too far, Mencken.
Of course Trump can't read.
-->
@FLRW
Wasn't the source of his ownership a disgruntled ex? Additionally, when a topic is too emotional for someone to read, they will never understand and will always be baffled by the topic. Part of my reasoning for being here at debate art is because I want to engage in enlightening debates and understand the most about the world and put my emotions in check while not disregarding them but understanding them and allowing myself to comprehend the world with the least skewed view possible. I have read the book, and before having done so I couldn't understand why Hitler did such things based on everything I was told about him. This is because no one could provide me accurate information because their emotions were too disturbed to comprehend. I recommend that people challenge themselves to face things that they normally couldn't and regardless of what it is try to accept it from the perspective of another until you can understand why it was done and then decide whether this new perspective is more accurate or not than your original and even if you discover that it is nothing more than a subjective skew, at least you can now say I understand. This is my ultimate goal.
-->
@Critical-Tim
Wasn't the source of his ownership a disgruntled ex?
Yes, the one he pushed down the stairs.
Trump's and Hitler's statements are not quite the same, and there is obvious, significant context that separates these sets of quotes.
However, it is true that phrases and statements used by Trump, like "vermin," "poisoning the blood," and "threat from within," bear a remarkable similarity to some quotations and writings attributed to Hitler.
However, it is true that phrases and statements used by Trump, like "vermin," "poisoning the blood," and "threat from within," bear a remarkable similarity to some quotations and writings attributed to Hitler.
-->
@FLRW
Regardless of if its true, I don't think ownership of the book, or reading it, is necessarily bad.
455 days later
Hitler was a man like any other man, except he had fire and passion. There are those who talk about what they want to do, and those who do it. The Nazis were the latter kind.
-->
@FLRW
Do you dream about Trump?
-->
@yachilviveyachali
Hitler had fire and passion and also a raft of negative qualities.
And Nazi's joined the club.
Pride and over confidence eventually led to his and their disgraceful downfall.
-->
@zedvictor4
I did not know him personally, so cannot speak to his negative qualities. The fire and passion is exhibited in his speeches and unrelenting desire to put his party in power and get on with business, some of which wasn't all bad. Saving Germany was a good idea at the time.
Pride and over confidence eventually led to his and their disgraceful downfall.
Not pride, delusion. Hitler believed that if you willed something to happen, it would happen.
Göring would have made a great Reichskanzler. He knew things had to be done in Germany (Berlin was a moral cesspit after WWI), but wouldn't have gone as far. He was always against invading Soviet Union, tried very hard to avoid war with Britain, and showed compassion and kindness to Jews he knew.
He took a bullet for the Nazis in the early years, which is how he developed his morphine addiction. For a man addicted to morphine, he remained impressive.
There is moral decay in countries without great leadership.
-->
@yachilviveyachali
OMG, does your company make gas ovens?
-->
@yachilviveyachali
Moral decay lies in the minds of the moralists.
And intolerance is what it is.
And so is murder.
Is there anything less moral than genocide in the name of morality.
-->
@FLRW
Trump did keep a copy of Mein Kampf on his nightstand.
I keep a copy, and have read, cover-to-cover [else, why own a book?] of Marx "The Communist Manifesto," Hitler's "Mein Kampf," and Mao's "Little Red Book," but that hardly means I agree with their claims. It means I support knowing my enemy, advice from Sun Tsu "The Art of War," which I own, too, and which is more about avoiding war than waging it. I even have a copy of "Malleus Maleficarum," but that does not mean I am either a midieval Catholic, or a current witch. Judge people by what they read, which any decent democracy/republic will allow, we condemn ourselves, for we are clueless to motivation.
-->
@zedvictor4
You speak as a man belonging to the “live and let live crowd.” Most of the educated westerners are in this crowd. They are blind to the moral rot, and often the cause of it.
I wonder, what would you do if your daughters were being prostituted? Is poverty somehow liberating? What about child prostitution?
Is there anything less moral than genocide in the name of morality.
It is no more or less moral. The degenerates of the Weimar Republic are no different from Nazis who murdered the innocents.
Things get out of hand, once the machine is up and running. Who had the chance to sit and think about it? We can think about how disgusting we want ourselves and others to be all day, but what could they do in Nazi Germany? The morally repugnant intellectuals have all the time in the world; Nazi Germany had no time.
-->
@FLRW
OMG, does your company make gas ovens?
Why, are you looking to buy one?
-->
@fauxlaw
Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed ... Hitler’s speeches, from his earliest days up through the Phony War of 1939, reveal his extraordinary ability as a master propagandist.
-->
@FLRW
Judge people by what they read, which any decent democracy/republic will allow, we condemn ourselves, for we are clueless to motivation.
As I said...
What's changed since that commentary?
-->
@yachilviveyachali
You need to define morality...In your mind, what is it specifically, and how and from where does it manifest?
And I am a part of a tolerant "crowd" that exercises tolerance with restraints.
Rather than for example, part of a "crowd" that exercises strict intolerance in the name of an archaic ideology.
And there are elements of all crowds that will take advantage of others.
And I would suggest that sexuality, is something that the intellectual human crowd have overthought for millennia, and all crowds are the same in this respect.
Though in terms of respect and family, I would further suggest that your sub-crowd is perhaps similar to mine...Which is why my daughters are now, what you and I might refer to as respectable young women...Wherein we exercise tolerance and understanding , but "live and let live" is never part of the deal.
-->
@zedvictor4
Morality is manner, character, proper behavior. We are all immoral, but the sexual immorality and lack of regard for life infesting the planet are the worst sins of all. A moral person should be able to treat others well, yet not show weakness and cowardice when confronted with immorality. Prostitution is profoundly immoral, and we should not be afraid to say it. Once we stop saying it, people begin to think they are correct in their actions, despite the vile things they are faced with upon being immoral. Society becomes confused and it begins to infect the brains of our children. There is nothing good about sin.
Rather than for example, part of a "crowd" that exercises strict intolerance in the name of an archaic ideology.
Morality is never archaic. It continues to be, whether you like or not. God is the one who determined the laws. I believe science follows His laws. Why is it a promiscuous person is more likely to become diseased? Surely, if their indulgences were good or neither good nor bad, they would not be vulnerable to disease? Don't you see?
Though in terms of respect and family, I would further suggest that your sub-crowd is perhaps similar to mine...Which is why my daughters are now, what you and I might refer to as respectable young women...Wherein we exercise tolerance and understanding , but "live and let live" is never part of the deal.
It seems you don't want your daughters to become prostitutes, or to be promiscuous without getting compensated for it. Why is this?
-->
@yachilviveyachali
Morality is a made up concept relative to a made up concept...As are GOD hypotheses
And sex is a base function relative to procreation, which intellectual man/woman has overthought ever since they first realised that sex was also enjoyable.
So, global societies evolved separately and therefore differently, with different attitudes towards sex and theism.
And none of those societies have a greater or lesser authority over human behaviour.
It seems you don't want your daughters to become prostitutes, or be promiscuous without getting compensated for it. Why is this?
WTF does this mean?
If you weren't so naive, I would perhaps take exception to this remark.
Though somewhat ironically, repressive cultures are generally the ones that sell their daughters into arranged marriages.
-->
@zedvictor4
Manner, character, and proper behavior are supported by science. This is why I raise the issue of sexual degeneracy; science seems to think it bad too. Not only does it hurt a person spiritually, it hurts their physical body. Other excesses have the same effect. Animals exhibit a morality, a fundamental morality. The problem with we humans is that we believe we are something we are not.
And sex is a base function relative to procreation, which intellectual man/woman has overthought ever since they first realised that sex was also enjoyable.
Animals have sex, and they procreate. Humans use sex for pleasure because they have gone astray.
So, global societies evolved separately and therefore differently, with different attitudes towards sex and theism.
Examples?
Though somewhat ironically, repressive cultures are generally the ones that sell their daughters into arranged marriages.
Who sells their daughters into arranged marriages? This happens in impoverished countries, often countries decimated by war that powerful and developed countries have a hand in. Arranged marriage has historically been a common occurrence, even in the western countries until 200 years ago. In the 19th century, they were still common among aristocracy and were less formally upheld in the 20th century. It would be unwise to assume that our parents do not know what is best for us. In almost every circumstance, perhaps all circumstances, they know what is best. Marrying for what people think is “love” can be a folly, although there are many in arranged marriages who love their spouse or who came to love their spouse.
Do you think high divorce rates are a good thing? Marriage in the west has become shambolic. It also shambolic in my native Russia. Communism embraced feminism. Sad.