Sometimes common sense isn't so obvious to everyone. Common sense is derived from the collective commons (which is why it is common sense) and I maintain that the commons is programmed. I don't have much common sense because I deliberately avoid the common popular opinion of things since I discovered it is almost always wrong, often contrived and mostly driven by a corporate, government, religious or other such agenda.
Ok by that logic then monkies can talk, they just have nothing to say, Horses lay eggs and thunder is made by angels playing bowling off in the distance.
I have not supplied proof because to do so would require hours of quoting from sources and an exploration of history.
I do it all the time.... just google something that explains what you seen in the past to help backup your claim. If the second opinion presents a valid argument, then thus the debate can continue on with some substance.
I have arrived at my opinion through diligent research and I have no easy source to back up the claims. I just know it as a truth and so will maintain it as such.
Same here, you don't see me complaining.
Interestingly I have discussed this idea with many nonwhite people and they agree with me very quickly simply because there is less to explain in finding common ground for an explanation. This isn't always the case but predominantly it is.
Yeah, there's less to explain in finding common ground when you want to spread hate and lies, but that's just how I see it.
Feel free to challenge me on my claims and as time progresses I will undoubtedly provide more and more proof of my stance. It is simply impossible for me to make an entire post on this subject without it exploding into a novel sized exposition.
I guess you haven't noticed the level of the majority of my posts.
Possibly but I highly doubt it for a lot of reasons. The primary reason is based on my own inquiry the second reason is the means of argument people use against me. In the art of base lining people you learn how to discern original thought from programmed thought (learned or picked up somewhere) by how it is parroted. This is to say simply telling me my ideas are crazy isn't convincing. Such an argument only tells me my idea goes contrary to your own ideology and is probably frightening because of that. Repeatedly telling me they are crazy only tells me that there is an inner conflict where you know on some level a bit of what I'm saying is true which makes it even more frightening. Using catch phrases and common belief as an argument only tells me you haven't thought about the subject or researched it yourself.
If you want to call yourself crazy, knock yourself out. I believe I only called you ignorant and possibly uneducated on the matters in which you speak. Everybody is crazy, who am I to bitch? (psst... it makes for a good cover when you get in sh*t... just claim you lost your marbles and they give you a lolipop. ;-))
If your really interested in what I'm saying or refuting it then you must make arguments against me in your own words. Otherwise your not being genuine. This may seem harsh, perhaps it is, but it is a truth. Unless something can be explained by means of personal experience and by way of original words then what is being said is only doublespeak - programming. Once this wasn't necessarily true but with our fast paced consumer culture it has become the norm. Most people don't have an original thought in their heads.
Everything I have been posting has been from my mind and my memory. If people have a problem with what I say, then I produce a source, either that or they can shut their pie holes. I explain in my own words, such as right now, such as I have been doing. The only difference is that I am asking you direct questions. What I claimed was foolish about what you claimed about this nazi stuff earlier, is that it contradicts the original concepts which were followed through quite accuatly, by those who created the concept. This current way of life is far from anything one can relate to in the concept. I just some currently rare books about the subject myself just over the weekend, specifically looking into the original concepts, based on a German perspective and neutral, not pro or negative towards any side of the story. Just to the facts and you determine for yourself, such as I.
I presented a counter argument and then you tangented. By all means, I'm waiting.
A good place to start is with this book: German Imperialism It's Past And Present by Arkady Yerusalimsky. It will explain how Nazi socialism wasn't socialism at all. An important fact hidden by modern agendas today.
I know that, it was a side concept contorted for an alternative agenda. That's also why the US like to point out our "Socialism" ways with health care and education, etc.
Check out the book series, The Third Reich, from around the mid-80's.
Another good book is: May Man Prevail by Erich Fromm. It will explain the mechanisms by which society can accept a duality of experience like: Hitler is bad but his economic policies were good, so they must not be his.
I don't need to know which concepts were good and which are bad. I only study the core concepts and their principles, but I won't allow someone or something tell me what is good and bad. I determine that for myself.
