I have started seeing some of these types think that any German name is Jewish. So when you have the likes of Grosskreutz in the Rittenhouse trial, a name that literally translates as "Big Cross", there were people claiming it was the Jewish Connection for everything.
The German names in the US came after WWI and thus are most likely jews. This is because there was a major push during WWI for German descended Americans to change their names. For the same reason, pretty much anyone with a Polish last name in America is a jew.
Of course anytime someone tries to point this out, retards like ghostfag come out of the woodwork.
It is true that German names are assumed to be jewish which is weird because like half of white americans have German ancestry. There are lot more goys with German names.
One thing I've noticed is that whites tend to have anglicized their name at some point, while jews didn't. You can see how this would lead to more of an association between German names and jewishness.
Part of this is when people came over. Massive German immigration happened when people were more blending in. By the time Euro-jews started coming en masse, we were near multiculturalism.
They just can't help themselves. It's a cult. They're no different than their communist friends in all respects except one, they're pro white instead of anti white.
anyone adopting defensive white identity politics is a communist
It’s such an obviously tailored attack. White racial consciousness threatens the primacy of a certain competing ethnic cohort, so how do the latter prevent the former? By branding white identity as somehow inherently communist, which the “ebil neo Nazis” view as a Jewish ideology.
Essentially: reforming white identities in order to oppose and repel the aggression of other identity blocs is “totally super Jewish”, says a Jewish advocate.
It’s like when sjws call you a snowflake.
But only white collectivism is communist. Jewish collectivism gets a free pass because “reasons”.
If you don't like getting called communists, don't advocate for communist ideas.
Really easy.
Most of the left is predicated on communism, and especially cultural Marxism. Stormfaggery is the same thing, just pro white.
Essentially: reforming white identities in order to oppose and repel the aggression of other identity blocs is “totally super Jewish”, says a Jewish advocate.
Interesting how you read communist and think "jew". Really weird. I just mean communist.
Also weird how butthurt you guys get about getting called out on it. Maybe it's too close to home? Is self awareness about to break out?
Loljk, just like leftists, the cult is too strong to get out of for most of you.
The crypto leftists pushing "racial collectivist socialism but OUR guys" on right wing websites are rarely actual true believers. It's a fed op. They're faggots attempting to subvert or destroy right wing sites and it is funny that they act exactly like their stereotype of a jewish manipulator while doing it.
It’s a lot harder to take advantage of a host population if the host RECOGNIZES you as an outsider.
If all the Jews had blue skin, or glowing eyes, or a trait that made them easily recognizable and was unable to be removed I believe many Americans and westerners and general would immediately recognize the people pushing for the destruction of their values and society conspicuously don’t belong to the society they are destroying. Furthermore you would see things more obviously like Chuck Schumer advocating for as much abortion as possible here, while pushing against it in Israel.
Or big ugly noses, repulsive BO, creepy-looking smiles?
The whole "Whites are more likely to be pedophiles" canard is just another "fellow Whites" bait and switch. Truth is rabbis prey on children far more than Catholic Priests, and a vast number of "White" child molesters are actually jews (something like 10x overrepresentation).
Except those of us telling you socialist maggots that your socialism is not special, are not defending other racial collectivist socialists. All leftists deserve the rope. The difference is you faggots try to slide in and subvert right wing spaces in service of a federal psyop aimed at poisoning the well.
Nice Kafkatrap, faggot. Of course you'll accuse anyone denying they're in a cult of being too deep in the cult to realize. Ironically, leftists absolutely love using Kafkatrapping against their enemies.
Unlike you and your faggy friends, I'm not a leftist.
When all you have is deflection and downvotes, everyone else sees you fags for what you are. Forum sliding retards.
I could have also used this argument for the hundreds of times I get called a leftist, just like you're doing now, and then when I point out I'm not, you just go "that's what a leftist would say". Weird how you guys project about everything. Sure is a pattern with leftists. Really interesting, Something a lot of people are noticing about the stormfags.
His name is literally WEISS, which means white. Clearly, the Jew was doing his "hello fellow whites" routine with use of his last name. Same for Grosskreuz.
Jewrmany is now fully Jewish after the good guys lost in WW2.
Because they're a matrilineal people, the family name isn't important to them like it is to us. Which is kinda weird when you consider how patriarchal the folk in the Old Testament were. Even in New Testament times you had guys like Paul identifying by the tribe of their forefathers.
I looked it up. Matrilineal stuff comes from the Talmud, but of course the find evidence of it from the OT. yet they acknowledge that the priesthood is patriarchal. This must be something they picked up in their extra-Christian excursions: Those portions of jewish history post-Christ that make up part of Judaism but not part of Christianity.
During the mass migration period of the late 1800's, almost all the immigration was from white countries, the names of European immigrants get changed for "Americanization" purposes.
That's not really true. Jewish populations in the US have been around as long as it has, and if jewish migration came later, the jewish mafia wouldn't have been such a major force in the early 20th century.
Hell, the US has the largest population of jews on Earth, and most of them aren't post-war immigrants.
I'm honestly impressed by how they think that 1 possible Jewish ancestor outweighs 3 demonstrably white ones. It's like Greek mythology, where parentage by a god would count for so much more.
It's something weird you see in white supremacist ideology that is tied to a very archaic understanding of "blood". White blood can only be pure white, and it can only decrease. You can't get more pure, only less. So, in a weird result, you get people who are almost entirely white, and declaring themselves to be something else (See: Fauxcahontas). Using this bizarre definition, there's hardly any white people in the US, but in reality, whites very likely make up 73% of the population, but a ton aren't identifying as white. Especially the """white hispanic""" population.
Yet somehow, people like Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Don Lemon, and Megan Merkel are all just as Capital B Black as Shaka Zulu, even if they are mullato, indian, mostly white, and actually white.
Unless, of course, you didn't vote for Joe Biden. That's when we know you ain't black.
Carl Weiss was likely just the fall guy for friendly fire from the guards, Long had 45s throughout his body while the gun Weiss had was a diff caliber. The nurse in the chamber also said Long had a busted lip and said "he got me good" while pointing to it
Why are you pretending like FDR wasn't a communist himself? If it were between an anti interventionist commie vs a interventionist commie who would you chose?
If Huey long wasn't assassinated he would be elected and his economic policies would be relatively the same as FDR's whilst the main difference between him and FDR is that he was against America being involved in ww2. So what does it tell you about the motivation of the assassin? it means he wanted America to be involved in ww2.
Dude, Long was decomposing in the ground for two and a half YEARS before the Anschluss even happened. Hitler had only been chancellor for about 18 months when this assassination happened.
In 1935, most politicians in the world were ok with if not outright friendly to Hitler. Heck, in 1937, FDR's administration was formally apologizing to Germany after the mayor of NYC called Hitler a brown-shirted fanatic.
Plus, Long wasn't even in the Senate for 3 years before he got shot. It was another 4 years from his assassination to the invasion of Poland.
Was Long on the more isolationist side in 1935 when he got shot? Looks like it. Would he have stayed an isolationist over the next four years (or, 6 years if we go out to 1941 when FDR entered the war)? Who knows.
What you are saying is that a politician was murdered by someone to prevent him from maybe unseating a popular, sitting president in his own party to increase the chances of the US getting involved in a war which was still four years from even starting. You do know that, right? Loosen the tinfoil hat a bit.
If Huey long wasn't assassinated he would be elected and his economic policies would be relatively the same as FDR's whilst the main difference between him and FDR is that he was against America being involved in ww2. So what does it tell you about the motivation of the assassin? it means he wanted America to be involved in ww2.
I'm still waiting as to the source for your claim that Huey Long would have been 'elected'. For one, he was a Democrat. How often have incumbent presidents been defeated in the primary? Once? 1856?
The guy who won 48 states would not be defeated in a primary.
Not to mention that for all the benefits Long brought to his people, he was still a crook with a long and bad history that would easily destroy any political career outside of Louisiana (where he was relatively clean compared to the slop that was the norm).
Yeah, I disagree. The guy responsible for millions of deaths is clearly more hostile to human existence than the guy responsible for the 'thaw' and who put into motion all the changes that led to the peaceful end of communism - which the great George Kennan called the greatest peaceful revolution in human history.
Why are you pretending like FDR wasn't a communist himself?
Because he wasn't, and he was a rich aristocrat?
If Huey long wasn't assassinated he would be elected
You are sure?
So what does it tell you about the motivation of the assassin? it means he wanted America to be involved in ww2.
Apparently, he could foretell the future, because in 1935 there was absolutely no indication that there would be a WW2. This was before the French did absolutely nothing in response to the Germans taking the Rhineland in 1936.
If it were as obvious as you claim, there would have been no appeasement (which was intended to prevent war) and the French would have sent in 4 battalions in 1936 and ended the Nazi regime (so said Hitler).
If FDR wasn't a communist then neither was Huey Long. The point is that they both had very leftist economic policies and there's a reason why the lefties love FDR
Populism, like nationalism, is neither inherently right nor left. Those are decided by economic policy and actual government structure. Controlled economies, massive totalitarian central government socialist policies like wealth redistribution (theft) - that's leftist.
Good question. Let me cite a comment I just pointed.
I'd define it the way people in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period did. They made a sharp distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor, the latter being poor due to their own laziness and misbehavior, the former due to no fault of their own.
I can see how someone would be poor through their own laziness, but you can only be rich in spite of your own laziness ("through no fault of your own"). The two situations are different.
Voluntary charity to care for the involuntarily destitute is entirely different from the state taking money under threat of force to distribute as it sees fit.
There's a huge number of questions before an accurate answer can be given, and you horribly skewed the question, but the answer is generally "yes".
But some of the most basic questions:
You phrase it as $10, but we're realistically talking $3500 per year, because feeding the guy for just one day is useless. Are we also giving him housing? Medical care? Clothing? Where do we stop? Long's UBI plan, if it were inflation-adjusted, would mean giving him $46000 per year annually.
What makes the poor man "deserving", and what makes the billionaire's money undeserved? Or rather, who decides what "deserving" and "undeserving" is? Because if you gave most left politicians in the Western world control over it "deserved" would mean not-white-male and undeserving would mean white-male. But on a more practical level, what restrictions are there on what the poor man can spend money on before he is no longer deserving? And what is he allowed to do with his time before he no longer counts as deserving? Similarly, does the fact that Musk and Ellison made their money through providing useful goods and services make them more or less deserving of keeping it than someone like Buffet who made it playing the stock market or Zuckerberg, Paige and Brin who made it through selling ads?
You do know the money you think is there isn't, right, and you have no sense of economics or scale? Go ahead, liquidate all of the assets of the 10 richest people in the US, and redistribute it evenly to everyone in the country. Do you know how much money everyone gets? Assuming that:
a) you actually recover all the money (which you won't because most of it is tied up in investments which will crater in value once you start "redistributing" it) and
b) the government doesn't take their usual cut of the money (and they almost certainly will want their share, either when selling/seizing the assets or from the money going to the people - likely both) and
c) the online figures for the US population are accurate, then
everyone in the country gets a 1-time check for..... $4,423.51. Now, sure, I wouldn't say no to a 4k check, and it would probably (briefly) help a lot of people. But that is basically the average rent payment for one month in NYC. Congratulations on your massive accomplishment! You just cratered the entire US economy and reduced the retirement accounts of every single working person in the US to basically toilet paper to pay a couple months rent! And most of the people you gave the checks to (many of whom likely spent most of it on a shopping spree - look at what people did with their Covid stimulus money) are probably clamoring for you to give them another check now. So you need to liquidate more people, and more people, and more people, etc. Which leads to:
Given that virtually every single tax that has ever been proposed throughout the entirety of human history has been scaled "down" to take money from more and more people over time, the most relevant question is actually
How much are you personally willing to pay to someone you never met but who the government claims is more deserving of your money than you are? And at what point do you consider it theft? And who are you to tell other people when they should consider it theft?
There's a huge number of questions before an accurate answer can be given, and you horribly skewed the question, but the answer is generally "yes".
The question was horribly skewed, by design. I'm trying to probe if you think any attempt to help the deserving poor at the expense of the undeserving rich is by definition bad.
You phrase it as $10, but we're realistically talking $3500 per year, because feeding the guy for just one day is useless. Are we also giving him housing? Medical care? Clothing? Where do we stop? Long's UBI plan, if it were inflation-adjusted, would mean giving him $46000 per year annually.
It's just an example. Suppose feeding him for the day would enable him to go to work and actually support himself. I didn't ask as a policy proposal, just to figure out where you draw the line, if you do.
What makes the poor man "deserving", and what makes the billionaire's money undeserved? Or rather, who decides what "deserving" and "undeserving" is?
I'd define it the way people in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period did. They made a sharp distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor, the latter being poor due to their own laziness and misbehavior, the former due to no fault of their own.
Similarly, does the fact that Musk and Ellison made their money through providing useful goods and services make them more or less deserving of keeping it than someone like Buffet who made it playing the stock market or Zuckerberg, Paige and Brin who made it through selling ads?
There is a reason I like to use Zuckerberg as an example. What he provided, if you leave behind narrow economic definitions of value, has no value or even negative value, to individuals and to society. But he has extracted vast amounts of wealth from that society.
You do know the money you think is there isn't, right, and you have no sense of economics or scale? Go ahead, liquidate all of the assets of the 10 richest people in the US, and redistribute it evenly to everyone in the country. Do you know how much money everyone gets? Assuming that:
I am well aware of that. It wouldn't accomplish anything, and for those who actually provide useful stuff... would put an end to that. I'm not proposing to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
a) you actually recover all the money (which you won't because most of it is tied up in investments which will crater in value once you start "redistributing" it) and
I accept this, but I'll point out a technical point: a firesale leads to lower prices, but not to lower value. The value, and normally the price, of these instruments is based on estimates of long-term dividend yields and stock price increases.
everyone in the country gets a 1-time check for..... $4,423.51.
The economic damage done isn't even comparable to the "benefit".
How much are you personally willing to pay to someone you never met but who the government claims is more deserving of your money than you are? And at what point do you consider it theft? And who are you to tell other people when they should consider it theft?
It might be theft, but I find that a facile argument. We do need roads, we need security. This is not a motte and bailey fallacy. This actually brings me to my original point. If it is theft, it is not justified even for worthy goals.
We in Europe have far bigger problems. They take our money and send it to Ukraine and on immigrants. That is theft, because it's not spent on their own corrupt interests rather than that of the people.
There is a large difference between an individual stealing to feed themselves (less of a fraction of theft than women getting abortions because of rape and not as birth control).
And the state taking the power to unilaterally sieze property from private citizens. Destroying property rights and making all men slaves. All government policy is backed by force - armed robbery by the state to give to whoever sociopathic bureaucrats deem "deserving" is not charity.
People that support using the state to rob people, to force others to "be charitable" rather than doing it themselves, do not actually have such altruistic motives. If you want to help people, foster a strong community. Trying to use government to force everyone ELSE to give money not only fails due to corruption, it actively destroys real charity - because why would private citizens spend what they have left on charity when the government is already taking from them for it?
I know you're a eurofag so you don't understand american taxation - there are enough holes in the system that the middle class pays more taxes than the rich, and the same goblins that constantly cry that the rich aren't paying their fair share are the ones who made that possible. Using government to control economics has never worked, and never will. It will always be corrupt, so the solution has always been keeping government as minimal as reasonably possible.
There is a large difference between an individual stealing to feed themselves (less of a fraction of theft than women getting abortions because of rape and not as birth control).
I'm aware. I'm just using that as an example. If it's 'theft' to take part of the money of a billionaire, does it became less wrong if that theft is done to feed people who would otherwise starve?
armed robbery by the state to give to whoever sociopathic bureaucrats deem "deserving" is not charity.
It's not charity, it's distributing goodies to their own supporters.
People that support using the state to rob people, to force others to "be charitable" rather than doing it themselves, do not actually have such altruistic motives
Of course not.
I know you're a eurofag so you don't understand american taxation - there are enough holes in the system that the middle class pays more taxes than the rich,
Sounds very much like the system here. There are few European countries where the marginal tax rate for the middle class isn't about 50% in income taxes alone.
Using government to control economics has never worked, and never will. It will always be corrupt, so the solution has always been keeping government as minimal as reasonably possible.
You say corruption like it's a bad thing. It's a good thing for the people who benefit from it. The fact that it doesn't work for you and me is immaterial to them.
He was kind of a southern big-man too. This is the traditional form of government in the South. It's basically Africa. And it was even when whites were in charge.
Huey Long was a crook whose main interest in politics was lining his own pockets, but in the process he did a lot of good for the people of Louisiana and his constituents loved him. That’s magnitudes better than the scum in office today.
I have. And I’ve visited the state capitol and I’ve seen where he was shot. At this time, it seems to me the investigation was so botched, nobody knows if Weiss shot Huey, if Huey was shot by his own bodyguards in the crossfire, or if he died of a sulfa allergy.
About the only thing I can say for sure is: I want an FN 1910. In addition to (allegedly) capping the Kingfish, it also got the Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
This? LOL
It's amazing how much they stretch because "muh jews".
Rent. Fucking. Free.
I have started seeing some of these types think that any German name is Jewish. So when you have the likes of Grosskreutz in the Rittenhouse trial, a name that literally translates as "Big Cross", there were people claiming it was the Jewish Connection for everything.
The German names in the US came after WWI and thus are most likely jews. This is because there was a major push during WWI for German descended Americans to change their names. For the same reason, pretty much anyone with a Polish last name in America is a jew.
Of course anytime someone tries to point this out, retards like ghostfag come out of the woodwork.
It is true that German names are assumed to be jewish which is weird because like half of white americans have German ancestry. There are lot more goys with German names.
One thing I've noticed is that whites tend to have anglicized their name at some point, while jews didn't. You can see how this would lead to more of an association between German names and jewishness.
Part of this is when people came over. Massive German immigration happened when people were more blending in. By the time Euro-jews started coming en masse, we were near multiculturalism.
Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz is a stones throw from Rosencratz and Guildenstern, it's making me giggle.
A man of culture. Antonio likes.
They just can't help themselves. It's a cult. They're no different than their communist friends in all respects except one, they're pro white instead of anti white.
It’s such an obviously tailored attack. White racial consciousness threatens the primacy of a certain competing ethnic cohort, so how do the latter prevent the former? By branding white identity as somehow inherently communist, which the “ebil neo Nazis” view as a Jewish ideology.
Essentially: reforming white identities in order to oppose and repel the aggression of other identity blocs is “totally super Jewish”, says a Jewish advocate.
It’s like when sjws call you a snowflake.
But only white collectivism is communist. Jewish collectivism gets a free pass because “reasons”.
If you don't like getting called communists, don't advocate for communist ideas.
Really easy.
Most of the left is predicated on communism, and especially cultural Marxism. Stormfaggery is the same thing, just pro white.
Interesting how you read communist and think "jew". Really weird. I just mean communist.
Also weird how butthurt you guys get about getting called out on it. Maybe it's too close to home? Is self awareness about to break out?
Loljk, just like leftists, the cult is too strong to get out of for most of you.
Okay, let's look at the leaders of the attempted communist revolution in Bavaria after WW1.
Oh... oh no...
Plenty of white communists, and black communists, etc.
You guys have a jew fetish.
Like for example Leonid Brezhnev’s 1981 speech condemning anti-semitism.
You are a communist.
Or the Doctor's Plot, or the campaign against 'rootless cosmopolitans'.
You are a Stalinist.
More projection from the stormfag brigade. The salt is good. Something about taking flak means you're over the target comes to mind.
The crypto leftists pushing "racial collectivist socialism but OUR guys" on right wing websites are rarely actual true believers. It's a fed op. They're faggots attempting to subvert or destroy right wing sites and it is funny that they act exactly like their stereotype of a jewish manipulator while doing it.
50/50 shot between feds and real believers.
But yes, it's ironic how much they act like the thing they claim to hate. Really makes you think.
How exactly?
It’s a lot harder to take advantage of a host population if the host RECOGNIZES you as an outsider.
If all the Jews had blue skin, or glowing eyes, or a trait that made them easily recognizable and was unable to be removed I believe many Americans and westerners and general would immediately recognize the people pushing for the destruction of their values and society conspicuously don’t belong to the society they are destroying. Furthermore you would see things more obviously like Chuck Schumer advocating for as much abortion as possible here, while pushing against it in Israel.
Or big ugly noses, repulsive BO, creepy-looking smiles?
The whole "Whites are more likely to be pedophiles" canard is just another "fellow Whites" bait and switch. Truth is rabbis prey on children far more than Catholic Priests, and a vast number of "White" child molesters are actually jews (something like 10x overrepresentation).
You managed to name one example. I also don't see Schumer opposing abortion in Israel.
If it makes you feel better, I think Zionist collectivism is Communist. (well, Socialist, but still)
Except those of us telling you socialist maggots that your socialism is not special, are not defending other racial collectivist socialists. All leftists deserve the rope. The difference is you faggots try to slide in and subvert right wing spaces in service of a federal psyop aimed at poisoning the well.
Nice Kafkatrap, faggot. Of course you'll accuse anyone denying they're in a cult of being too deep in the cult to realize. Ironically, leftists absolutely love using Kafkatrapping against their enemies.
It's not a kafkatrap for you to say it's not a cult.
It's just a cult, you denying it changes nothing.
Yeah, this is pointless. You clearly don't even get how Kafkatrapping works.
You denying being in a cult is not evidence of you being in a cult. You're just in a cult, period.
Unlike you and your faggy friends, I'm not a leftist.
When all you have is deflection and downvotes, everyone else sees you fags for what you are. Forum sliding retards.
I could have also used this argument for the hundreds of times I get called a leftist, just like you're doing now, and then when I point out I'm not, you just go "that's what a leftist would say". Weird how you guys project about everything. Sure is a pattern with leftists. Really interesting, Something a lot of people are noticing about the stormfags.
Nice reading comprehension, catamite. I clearly said you ironically argue like a leftist, not that you were one.
More deflection and faggotry. "No, I just said you argue like a leftist, not that I'm calling you one (just heavily implying it)".
Sorry for noticing your tactics. Go to the back of the short bus and think about what you've done.
His name is literally WEISS, which means white. Clearly, the Jew was doing his "hello fellow whites" routine with use of his last name. Same for Grosskreuz.
Jewrmany is now fully Jewish after the good guys lost in WW2.
They change their names a lot. In the modern era, white people don't change their names. They used to.
Because they're a matrilineal people, the family name isn't important to them like it is to us. Which is kinda weird when you consider how patriarchal the folk in the Old Testament were. Even in New Testament times you had guys like Paul identifying by the tribe of their forefathers.
I looked it up. Matrilineal stuff comes from the Talmud, but of course the find evidence of it from the OT. yet they acknowledge that the priesthood is patriarchal. This must be something they picked up in their extra-Christian excursions: Those portions of jewish history post-Christ that make up part of Judaism but not part of Christianity.
During the mass migration period of the late 1800's, almost all the immigration was from white countries, the names of European immigrants get changed for "Americanization" purposes.
Right and the bulk of jews came later.
???
That's not really true. Jewish populations in the US have been around as long as it has, and if jewish migration came later, the jewish mafia wouldn't have been such a major force in the early 20th century.
Hell, the US has the largest population of jews on Earth, and most of them aren't post-war immigrants.
I know a Jewish family called Drumpf. They changed their names to not appear as Jewish.
That checks out.
That's odd, since "Drumpf/Drumf" is a very, very old German/Norse name. Origins in Viking times.
I'm kidding of course.
I'm honestly impressed by how they think that 1 possible Jewish ancestor outweighs 3 demonstrably white ones. It's like Greek mythology, where parentage by a god would count for so much more.
It's something weird you see in white supremacist ideology that is tied to a very archaic understanding of "blood". White blood can only be pure white, and it can only decrease. You can't get more pure, only less. So, in a weird result, you get people who are almost entirely white, and declaring themselves to be something else (See: Fauxcahontas). Using this bizarre definition, there's hardly any white people in the US, but in reality, whites very likely make up 73% of the population, but a ton aren't identifying as white. Especially the """white hispanic""" population.
Yet somehow, people like Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Don Lemon, and Megan Merkel are all just as Capital B Black as Shaka Zulu, even if they are mullato, indian, mostly white, and actually white.
Unless, of course, you didn't vote for Joe Biden. That's when we know you ain't black.
"Octoon" Jewish apparently.
Like I said, it's the NatSoc version of "6 Degrees From Kevin Bacon", except it's "6 Degrees from literally any jew".
Carl Weiss was likely just the fall guy for friendly fire from the guards, Long had 45s throughout his body while the gun Weiss had was a diff caliber. The nurse in the chamber also said Long had a busted lip and said "he got me good" while pointing to it
Huey long was a radical leftist, and evil, though I don't need to repeat myself.
Odd how one of the "muh jews" people is crying about him getting killed. Very interesting. Almost like there's a pattern we should notice...
Yeah. I hadn't heard of this before, but on reading about Long
And that "share our wealth" program (as if the name isn't bad enough) included gems such as maximum income caps, free education, UBI, and more.
Dude sounds like a raging commie, even if he was an anti-interventionist.
(Edit - Plus, there's a big difference between an anti-interventionist in 1935 and in 1939/1940)
He'd have absolutely been a communist had he been around a few years later.
Sure makes you wonder why the shortbus brigade defends him, since they're on the right. Supposedly.
Really activates the almonds.
Why are you pretending like FDR wasn't a communist himself? If it were between an anti interventionist commie vs a interventionist commie who would you chose?
If Huey long wasn't assassinated he would be elected and his economic policies would be relatively the same as FDR's whilst the main difference between him and FDR is that he was against America being involved in ww2. So what does it tell you about the motivation of the assassin? it means he wanted America to be involved in ww2.
Dude, Long was decomposing in the ground for two and a half YEARS before the Anschluss even happened. Hitler had only been chancellor for about 18 months when this assassination happened.
In 1935, most politicians in the world were ok with if not outright friendly to Hitler. Heck, in 1937, FDR's administration was formally apologizing to Germany after the mayor of NYC called Hitler a brown-shirted fanatic.
Plus, Long wasn't even in the Senate for 3 years before he got shot. It was another 4 years from his assassination to the invasion of Poland.
Was Long on the more isolationist side in 1935 when he got shot? Looks like it. Would he have stayed an isolationist over the next four years (or, 6 years if we go out to 1941 when FDR entered the war)? Who knows.
What you are saying is that a politician was murdered by someone to prevent him from maybe unseating a popular, sitting president in his own party to increase the chances of the US getting involved in a war which was still four years from even starting. You do know that, right? Loosen the tinfoil hat a bit.
No, you don't understand. It's DA JOOS
They're behind everything. Even moving ops stair muffin. And rotting the food in their fridge. And them stubbing their toes in the morning.
Neither, because all communists are worthless, and the only good thing they've ever done is kill other communists.
I'm still waiting as to the source for your claim that Huey Long would have been 'elected'. For one, he was a Democrat. How often have incumbent presidents been defeated in the primary? Once? 1856?
The guy who won 48 states would not be defeated in a primary.
Not to mention that for all the benefits Long brought to his people, he was still a crook with a long and bad history that would easily destroy any political career outside of Louisiana (where he was relatively clean compared to the slop that was the norm).
Alternatively, that he hated communists. Or had a personal grudge. Or didn't even shoot long, which appears to be likely.
The cultist mindset is strong here. I can't believe the jews moved your stair muffin too. It's awful.
yeah surrreee....
keep telling yourself that
Living under a Khrushchev was far more pleasant than living under Stalin.
And I'd rather breathe carbon monoxide than chlorine gas. They're both hostile to continued human existence if those are your only options.
Yeah, I disagree. The guy responsible for millions of deaths is clearly more hostile to human existence than the guy responsible for the 'thaw' and who put into motion all the changes that led to the peaceful end of communism - which the great George Kennan called the greatest peaceful revolution in human history.
Because he wasn't, and he was a rich aristocrat?
You are sure?
Apparently, he could foretell the future, because in 1935 there was absolutely no indication that there would be a WW2. This was before the French did absolutely nothing in response to the Germans taking the Rhineland in 1936.
just like there's no indication that there's going to be war with Iran despite the hostily between America/israel and Iran for ages?
If it were as obvious as you claim, there would have been no appeasement (which was intended to prevent war) and the French would have sent in 4 battalions in 1936 and ended the Nazi regime (so said Hitler).
If FDR wasn't a communist then neither was Huey Long. The point is that they both had very leftist economic policies and there's a reason why the lefties love FDR
Nearly every communist leader is the pampered child of rich assholes.
It's populism.
Populism, like nationalism, is neither inherently right nor left. Those are decided by economic policy and actual government structure. Controlled economies, massive totalitarian central government socialist policies like wealth redistribution (theft) - that's leftist.
Is taking $10 from the undeserved wealth of a scurrilous multi-billionaire so that a deserving poor man doesn't starve 'theft'?
I'd like to see how you define "undeserved"/"deserving" there.
Good question. Let me cite a comment I just pointed.
I'd define it the way people in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period did. They made a sharp distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor, the latter being poor due to their own laziness and misbehavior, the former due to no fault of their own.
I can see how someone would be poor through their own laziness, but you can only be rich in spite of your own laziness ("through no fault of your own"). The two situations are different.
Voluntary charity to care for the involuntarily destitute is entirely different from the state taking money under threat of force to distribute as it sees fit.
There's a huge number of questions before an accurate answer can be given, and you horribly skewed the question, but the answer is generally "yes".
But some of the most basic questions:
You phrase it as $10, but we're realistically talking $3500 per year, because feeding the guy for just one day is useless. Are we also giving him housing? Medical care? Clothing? Where do we stop? Long's UBI plan, if it were inflation-adjusted, would mean giving him $46000 per year annually.
What makes the poor man "deserving", and what makes the billionaire's money undeserved? Or rather, who decides what "deserving" and "undeserving" is? Because if you gave most left politicians in the Western world control over it "deserved" would mean not-white-male and undeserving would mean white-male. But on a more practical level, what restrictions are there on what the poor man can spend money on before he is no longer deserving? And what is he allowed to do with his time before he no longer counts as deserving? Similarly, does the fact that Musk and Ellison made their money through providing useful goods and services make them more or less deserving of keeping it than someone like Buffet who made it playing the stock market or Zuckerberg, Paige and Brin who made it through selling ads?
You do know the money you think is there isn't, right, and you have no sense of economics or scale? Go ahead, liquidate all of the assets of the 10 richest people in the US, and redistribute it evenly to everyone in the country. Do you know how much money everyone gets? Assuming that:
a) you actually recover all the money (which you won't because most of it is tied up in investments which will crater in value once you start "redistributing" it) and
b) the government doesn't take their usual cut of the money (and they almost certainly will want their share, either when selling/seizing the assets or from the money going to the people - likely both) and
c) the online figures for the US population are accurate, then
everyone in the country gets a 1-time check for..... $4,423.51. Now, sure, I wouldn't say no to a 4k check, and it would probably (briefly) help a lot of people. But that is basically the average rent payment for one month in NYC. Congratulations on your massive accomplishment! You just cratered the entire US economy and reduced the retirement accounts of every single working person in the US to basically toilet paper to pay a couple months rent! And most of the people you gave the checks to (many of whom likely spent most of it on a shopping spree - look at what people did with their Covid stimulus money) are probably clamoring for you to give them another check now. So you need to liquidate more people, and more people, and more people, etc. Which leads to:
How much are you personally willing to pay to someone you never met but who the government claims is more deserving of your money than you are? And at what point do you consider it theft? And who are you to tell other people when they should consider it theft?
The question was horribly skewed, by design. I'm trying to probe if you think any attempt to help the deserving poor at the expense of the undeserving rich is by definition bad.
It's just an example. Suppose feeding him for the day would enable him to go to work and actually support himself. I didn't ask as a policy proposal, just to figure out where you draw the line, if you do.
I'd define it the way people in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period did. They made a sharp distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor, the latter being poor due to their own laziness and misbehavior, the former due to no fault of their own.
There is a reason I like to use Zuckerberg as an example. What he provided, if you leave behind narrow economic definitions of value, has no value or even negative value, to individuals and to society. But he has extracted vast amounts of wealth from that society.
I am well aware of that. It wouldn't accomplish anything, and for those who actually provide useful stuff... would put an end to that. I'm not proposing to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
I accept this, but I'll point out a technical point: a firesale leads to lower prices, but not to lower value. The value, and normally the price, of these instruments is based on estimates of long-term dividend yields and stock price increases.
The economic damage done isn't even comparable to the "benefit".
It might be theft, but I find that a facile argument. We do need roads, we need security. This is not a motte and bailey fallacy. This actually brings me to my original point. If it is theft, it is not justified even for worthy goals.
We in Europe have far bigger problems. They take our money and send it to Ukraine and on immigrants. That is theft, because it's not spent on their own corrupt interests rather than that of the people.
There is a large difference between an individual stealing to feed themselves (less of a fraction of theft than women getting abortions because of rape and not as birth control).
And the state taking the power to unilaterally sieze property from private citizens. Destroying property rights and making all men slaves. All government policy is backed by force - armed robbery by the state to give to whoever sociopathic bureaucrats deem "deserving" is not charity.
People that support using the state to rob people, to force others to "be charitable" rather than doing it themselves, do not actually have such altruistic motives. If you want to help people, foster a strong community. Trying to use government to force everyone ELSE to give money not only fails due to corruption, it actively destroys real charity - because why would private citizens spend what they have left on charity when the government is already taking from them for it?
I know you're a eurofag so you don't understand american taxation - there are enough holes in the system that the middle class pays more taxes than the rich, and the same goblins that constantly cry that the rich aren't paying their fair share are the ones who made that possible. Using government to control economics has never worked, and never will. It will always be corrupt, so the solution has always been keeping government as minimal as reasonably possible.
I'm aware. I'm just using that as an example. If it's 'theft' to take part of the money of a billionaire, does it became less wrong if that theft is done to feed people who would otherwise starve?
It's not charity, it's distributing goodies to their own supporters.
Of course not.
Sounds very much like the system here. There are few European countries where the marginal tax rate for the middle class isn't about 50% in income taxes alone.
You say corruption like it's a bad thing. It's a good thing for the people who benefit from it. The fact that it doesn't work for you and me is immaterial to them.
He was kind of a southern big-man too. This is the traditional form of government in the South. It's basically Africa. And it was even when whites were in charge.
Huey Long was a crook whose main interest in politics was lining his own pockets, but in the process he did a lot of good for the people of Louisiana and his constituents loved him. That’s magnitudes better than the scum in office today.
For reference. Huey P Long is so popular in Louisiana that an entire 1/3 of our year of "Louisiana History" is spent meticulously going over him.
Especially among older black women. They fucking loved that guy.
I have. And I’ve visited the state capitol and I’ve seen where he was shot. At this time, it seems to me the investigation was so botched, nobody knows if Weiss shot Huey, if Huey was shot by his own bodyguards in the crossfire, or if he died of a sulfa allergy.
About the only thing I can say for sure is: I want an FN 1910. In addition to (allegedly) capping the Kingfish, it also got the Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
Wish there was a way to insert a photo here…
But which caliber was used in the Long assassination? Gavrilo Princip used the much less common .380 chambering.
The alleged Weiss gun that’s on display in the old state capitol is a .32 ACP, according to the display.
That makes sense, since there's significantly more FN 1910s in .32. Supposedly it's not terribly pleasant to shoot in .380, much like the PPK.