this isn't obscure history, it's the kind of thing i remember learning about in the third grade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Monday, February 5, 2018
ok, so, what does it mean to be a polish or ukrainian nazi?
well, what does it mean to be white? and, what does it mean to be white in the context of eastern european history, rather than the context of american history? an american may want to talk about some kind of white privilege in the context of a racialized labour hierarchy, and not be able to put the discussion of asian migration into eastern europe into any context. an eastern european would have completely different concepts of what race is and frame the discussion completely differently.
to an american, a slav is obviously white. to a nazi, a slav is not white, but an inferior race to be conquered and enslaved. so, how can one be a slav and a nazi at the same time? how can one think they are superior and inferior at the same time? one cannot - this is a contradiction in terms.
the reality is that the nazis thought that the slavs - poles, russians , ukrainians and other slavic speakers - were an inferior race, because they had been corrupted by mongolian blood. the germans sought to exterminate the slavs, just like the jews, for this reason. they called them 'useless eaters' and promised to expel them from eastern europe, to open up _liebensraum_ - living space for the superior german peoples.
so, do you explain the existence of these people in poland that aided the nazis, however miniscule a part of the population that they actually were? how do you explain people that would align with a group that seeks to enslave them?
the first thing to point out is that being a slavic nationalist, or a white supremacist, is not the same thing as being a nazi, and the nazis' perception of slavs - who most americans would consider white - is a prime example of that. this is probably the point that is confusing people like sharmini, because they're ignorant of the european perspective on race, and only able to see it through more liberal american filters. so, there's no particular contradiction in the phenomenon of white nationalist poles attacking jews, while defending themselves against nazis, at the same time. you can present arguments in terms of self-preservation. they could have been focusing on the jews to distract from themselves. but, this is probably an example of the madness of war more than anything else...
the other thing to point out is that the majority of the people that the germans worked with in eastern europe were actually ethnic germans. this is another thing that an american may not understand about europe. when somebody moves to america, they become an american. but, when a european moves from one country to another, they maintain their tribal allegiances and do not adopt the nationality of the country they're living in. a german living in poland would identify as a german first and probably not as a pole, at all.
in fact, the histories of the topic are usually very careful to point this out: they speak not of polish or french collaboration, but of the german occupation. this may seem like a minor point to americans that simply don't understand the tribalism of europe. but, they need to better understand that tribalism before they start making accusations, like this.
the way that i understand the law is that it is attempting to discourage linking the crimes that occurred on polish soil to the acts of polish nationals, and i actually think this is a historically correct position. one really should _not_ talk of polish camps, but of german camps on polish soil.
to force that in law is extreme. but, the position is technically correct.
well, what does it mean to be white? and, what does it mean to be white in the context of eastern european history, rather than the context of american history? an american may want to talk about some kind of white privilege in the context of a racialized labour hierarchy, and not be able to put the discussion of asian migration into eastern europe into any context. an eastern european would have completely different concepts of what race is and frame the discussion completely differently.
to an american, a slav is obviously white. to a nazi, a slav is not white, but an inferior race to be conquered and enslaved. so, how can one be a slav and a nazi at the same time? how can one think they are superior and inferior at the same time? one cannot - this is a contradiction in terms.
the reality is that the nazis thought that the slavs - poles, russians , ukrainians and other slavic speakers - were an inferior race, because they had been corrupted by mongolian blood. the germans sought to exterminate the slavs, just like the jews, for this reason. they called them 'useless eaters' and promised to expel them from eastern europe, to open up _liebensraum_ - living space for the superior german peoples.
so, do you explain the existence of these people in poland that aided the nazis, however miniscule a part of the population that they actually were? how do you explain people that would align with a group that seeks to enslave them?
the first thing to point out is that being a slavic nationalist, or a white supremacist, is not the same thing as being a nazi, and the nazis' perception of slavs - who most americans would consider white - is a prime example of that. this is probably the point that is confusing people like sharmini, because they're ignorant of the european perspective on race, and only able to see it through more liberal american filters. so, there's no particular contradiction in the phenomenon of white nationalist poles attacking jews, while defending themselves against nazis, at the same time. you can present arguments in terms of self-preservation. they could have been focusing on the jews to distract from themselves. but, this is probably an example of the madness of war more than anything else...
the other thing to point out is that the majority of the people that the germans worked with in eastern europe were actually ethnic germans. this is another thing that an american may not understand about europe. when somebody moves to america, they become an american. but, when a european moves from one country to another, they maintain their tribal allegiances and do not adopt the nationality of the country they're living in. a german living in poland would identify as a german first and probably not as a pole, at all.
in fact, the histories of the topic are usually very careful to point this out: they speak not of polish or french collaboration, but of the german occupation. this may seem like a minor point to americans that simply don't understand the tribalism of europe. but, they need to better understand that tribalism before they start making accusations, like this.
the way that i understand the law is that it is attempting to discourage linking the crimes that occurred on polish soil to the acts of polish nationals, and i actually think this is a historically correct position. one really should _not_ talk of polish camps, but of german camps on polish soil.
to force that in law is extreme. but, the position is technically correct.
at
21:39
the american system of capitalism is such that only public investment will lead to economic recovery, and only public investment can lead to sustainable growth.
the stock market was in a bubble, but the tax cuts were supposed to inflate that bubble, not collapse it. it was supposed to be a one time boost to stock prices, and was timed to maximize it's effects for the 2018 cycle - then evaporate, immediately. and, so what is happening, instead?
because the administration is operating on economic ideas it found in a cereal box, it seems to have not understood that ending quantitative easing would completely negate any effects that the tax cut might have on the market. instead of having money dumped in the market by already rich people trying to figure out what to do with their windfall, money is being pulled out by institutions that are reacting to the end of the expansion.
oops?
no. it's not oops. it's DERP. because this was completely obvious.
the chain reactions for the next crisis have now already been set in motion, but don't confuse yourself as to the cause. after the last crisis, the federal reserve had actually nearly stabilized the economy.
at this point, we have too much data to in any way soften the reality: it is trump's interference in the policies developed by the bank that will be the cause of the next recession.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
the stock market was in a bubble, but the tax cuts were supposed to inflate that bubble, not collapse it. it was supposed to be a one time boost to stock prices, and was timed to maximize it's effects for the 2018 cycle - then evaporate, immediately. and, so what is happening, instead?
because the administration is operating on economic ideas it found in a cereal box, it seems to have not understood that ending quantitative easing would completely negate any effects that the tax cut might have on the market. instead of having money dumped in the market by already rich people trying to figure out what to do with their windfall, money is being pulled out by institutions that are reacting to the end of the expansion.
oops?
no. it's not oops. it's DERP. because this was completely obvious.
the chain reactions for the next crisis have now already been set in motion, but don't confuse yourself as to the cause. after the last crisis, the federal reserve had actually nearly stabilized the economy.
at this point, we have too much data to in any way soften the reality: it is trump's interference in the policies developed by the bank that will be the cause of the next recession.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
at
20:05
the root cause of the problem is that the liberal party has a
twentieth or even nineteenth century view on veterans, in that it
actually sees returning veterans as a potential increase in economic
growth.
this is what the liberals imagine ought to happen:
1) army people get recruited.
2) army people get trained, which may or may not mean going to a post-secondary institution.
3) army people go to war.
4) army people come back from war.
5) army people use the training they received to get jobs and be good taxpayers.
and, they honestly believe that this is a workable model, that veterans can be reintegrated, and that there isn't any difference between a veteran and a non-veteran on the job market, in the end. and, this is the actual reason they're pushing back: their economic models say that veterans are not supposed to be a net drain on resources, but should actually lead to economic growth.
they see a broken system in front of them, and they blame it on the soldiers, for not pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps, rather than look at the endemic problems that exist within the system.
the previous minister was heavily criticized, before he was removed on unrelated charges. but, he was just reading the notes the party gave him. the party wants veterans to get jobs, not checks.
the only thing the liberals have ever cared about is economic growth. the reason we have all these systems in place, like universal health care, is because they're supposed to lead to growth. they often make the right decisions on social issues, but it's generally by accident - what they actually care about is growth. they just have a more academic understanding of economics than their republican cousins do - they're really more like actually smart republicans than they are like progressive democrats.
so, that is to say, that they seem to be fundamentally in denial as to the long term psychological damage that is inherent in modern warfare: they don't seem to be willing to accept that even when these veterans get sent back with all of their limbs in working condition, that that merely masks the years worth of therapy that they're going to need to go through to be reintegrated.
this is what the liberals need to actually do, here: they need to properly integrate the costs of reintegration into their war budgets. the costs of taking care of veterans from their return to their graves needs to be better integrated into war planning.
what i would say to the prime minister is this: if you didn't want to pay the costs associated with sending people into combat, you should have thought about that before you sent them into combat, in the first place. and, no, you can't blame it on other governments. as it is, these costs have already been spent, even if they weren't budgeted, and it is not acceptable for the government to blame their own poor or ideologically broken economic planning on the workers they hired to curry favour with american military and business leaders.
i'm not a veterans advocate. i would consider these people trained sociopaths, and argue they should be kept away from children. they're monsters. but, that's just the point. the government can't go around breaking people, and then sending them the bill for it, and whistling in the wind when the consequences present themselves. it's a preposterous model.
if the government is going to put people through this kind of training, and then send them to kill people, it is going to have to absorb the costs that arise as a consequence for their anti-social behaviour. and, if they don't want to incur those costs, they should stop sending people to fight wars on behalf of the empire next door - often in opposition to, and not behalf of, our own economic interests.
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-trudeau-in-a-fight-he-cant-win-with-veterans-and-his-frustration-shows
jagmeet singh must cut his beard
this is what the liberals imagine ought to happen:
1) army people get recruited.
2) army people get trained, which may or may not mean going to a post-secondary institution.
3) army people go to war.
4) army people come back from war.
5) army people use the training they received to get jobs and be good taxpayers.
and, they honestly believe that this is a workable model, that veterans can be reintegrated, and that there isn't any difference between a veteran and a non-veteran on the job market, in the end. and, this is the actual reason they're pushing back: their economic models say that veterans are not supposed to be a net drain on resources, but should actually lead to economic growth.
they see a broken system in front of them, and they blame it on the soldiers, for not pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps, rather than look at the endemic problems that exist within the system.
the previous minister was heavily criticized, before he was removed on unrelated charges. but, he was just reading the notes the party gave him. the party wants veterans to get jobs, not checks.
the only thing the liberals have ever cared about is economic growth. the reason we have all these systems in place, like universal health care, is because they're supposed to lead to growth. they often make the right decisions on social issues, but it's generally by accident - what they actually care about is growth. they just have a more academic understanding of economics than their republican cousins do - they're really more like actually smart republicans than they are like progressive democrats.
so, that is to say, that they seem to be fundamentally in denial as to the long term psychological damage that is inherent in modern warfare: they don't seem to be willing to accept that even when these veterans get sent back with all of their limbs in working condition, that that merely masks the years worth of therapy that they're going to need to go through to be reintegrated.
this is what the liberals need to actually do, here: they need to properly integrate the costs of reintegration into their war budgets. the costs of taking care of veterans from their return to their graves needs to be better integrated into war planning.
what i would say to the prime minister is this: if you didn't want to pay the costs associated with sending people into combat, you should have thought about that before you sent them into combat, in the first place. and, no, you can't blame it on other governments. as it is, these costs have already been spent, even if they weren't budgeted, and it is not acceptable for the government to blame their own poor or ideologically broken economic planning on the workers they hired to curry favour with american military and business leaders.
i'm not a veterans advocate. i would consider these people trained sociopaths, and argue they should be kept away from children. they're monsters. but, that's just the point. the government can't go around breaking people, and then sending them the bill for it, and whistling in the wind when the consequences present themselves. it's a preposterous model.
if the government is going to put people through this kind of training, and then send them to kill people, it is going to have to absorb the costs that arise as a consequence for their anti-social behaviour. and, if they don't want to incur those costs, they should stop sending people to fight wars on behalf of the empire next door - often in opposition to, and not behalf of, our own economic interests.
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-trudeau-in-a-fight-he-cant-win-with-veterans-and-his-frustration-shows
jagmeet singh must cut his beard
at
19:29
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)