Are you claiming Hitler never said anything sensible? It would be impressive for someone to do such a thing. Sure, he said a lot of bad stuff, but you sure nothing he said was correct?
Anything Hitler said that wasn’t horrible was also said by multiple other people. The only reason to defend Hitler with the phrasing the horse does is to try to make Hitler look like he might be reasonable as a way to suggest maybe his horrible stuff was also reasonable.
It’s also worth doing to see HOW he got to power. He successfully convinced a large number of sensible people to support him. He also successfully rebooted Germany back to a superpower.
As the phrase goes, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Understanding how Hitler managed to look reasonable to do many is critical to stopping future Hitlers.
There’s a huge push to simplify a lot of history from that era. Probably because there’s a lot of uncomfortable things that actually happened. It’s way easier to say nazis bad and Hitler dumb, than confronting that nazi Germany was economically superior to most of Europe at the time. That a huge amount of nazi policies enjoyed popular support globally. That holocaust included, the nazis really weren’t that bad compared to Japan/USSR during the same period.
The “Jewish relocation” was wrapped up in a lot of pretty lies to get the German people to swallow it. Thankfully, the people at the time realised the need to document exactly how fucking bad it actually was. Otherwise, we would have a lot of people arguing that it “wasn’t actually that bad”.
It’s an uncomfortable truth how well they camouflaged what they were doing, and how easily the German people (and the rest of the world) accepted it.
“Where will he go next? This phantom from another time, this resurrected ghost of a previous nightmare. Chicago? Los Angeles? Miami, Florida? Vincennes, Indiana? Syracuse, New York? Anyplace, everyplace, where there’s hate, where there’s prejudice, where there’s bigotry. He’s alive. He’s alive so long as these evils exist. Remember that when he comes to your town. Remember it when you hear his voice speaking out through others. Remember it when you hear a name called, a minority attacked, any blind, unreasoning assault on a people or any human being. He’s alive because, through these things, we keep him alive.”
Richard Nixon advocated for UBI but that doesn’t negate every horrible thing he did. What’s the point of saying Hitler said reasonable things other than thinly veiled fascist apologia?
If you ignore the good, you ignore how fascism gains power. Hitler made Germany better for a majority the citizens than any other European country. The difference was also far greater than just stealing wealth from jews. Failing to confront and acknowledge this allows fascists to succeed. You don’t fight fascism by punching them, you fight them by making a country pleasant enough to live in that the masses don’t listen in the first place.
You don’t fight fascism by punching them, you fight them by making a country pleasant enough to live in that the masses don’t listen in the first place.
Why not both?
Punching Nazis is also pretty effective. The OG Nazis were beaten through superior force, not rhetoric.
Plenty of Germans punched nazis, it didn’t stop them from rising. Removal of them is different than preventing their rise in the first place. Kind of like pests, you don’t tent a house to prevent termites.
The man suffered from chronic flatulence. Yes, he had uncontrollable farts. I’m not making this up. You really think someone who shit themselves that often had anything valuable to say?
Hey now, I’ve got chronic diarrhea due to autoimmune bullshit and I’ve shat myself a couple of times in the past few months, and I occasionally have something valuable to say. Granted it’s not very often, but still
So much for your assumptions. I’m just a person who can see that people aren’t black and white, and while Hitler did mostly bad things, no one doesn’t have any good qualities.
He basically did only bad things for Germany and the world. From the get go.
Are you aware of what’s happening in Germany right now?
We’re witnessing the same as with the MAGA movement right now. Millions of people from the ex-GDR chose to elect the far-right extremist AfD into the EU parliament. Millions of them Gen-Zs who were allowed to vote for the first time at the age of 16. They were mobilized by AfDs strong TikTok game and their parents who clapped when refugee homes burned in the 90s.
Most of the people of east Germany are as lost as MAGAs when it comes to reintegration into society. Most of the 25M of people with immigration background are way better integrated.
One of the key figures of the AfD Björn Höcke wrote articles praising the Nazis under the moniker Landolf Ladig. He said in an interview with Wallstreet Journal “You know a great problem is that we depict Hitler as the absolute evil”.
In addition the magazine correctiv.org uncovered a Wannsee-Conference 2.0 at the beginning of the year organized by another Austrian neo-nazi and members of the high society and AfD in which the planned the mass deportation of immigrants when AfD will come into power. Those immigrants are the back bone of many societal branches like health care.
Is there a point that you are making here? Are you unhappy that the single panel of a comic does not describe Hitler with enough nuance and defail? Or that it may paint him in an undesirable light due to it’s brevity? Were you looking for a disclaimer below the panel to kill it’s own punchline and say ‘actually Hitler did occasionally say something correct in his life’?
I know it’s hard to convey tone through words but I am genuinely baffled as to what you were looking for.
I’m not sure I’d like the actual guy, either. The stories we have are the result of several decades of embellishment before eventually being written down. Some no doubt make him look better than the actual story, and others are just made up entirely.
From what we do know about him, he was a weird apocalyptic peasant preacher. He probably was executed for exactly what he was accused of before the Romans: trying to make himself the king of the Jews by leading an overthrow of the Romans. People like that aren’t healthy people to be around; see your modern apocalyptic cult leader for details.
That’s why 60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck! All they have to do is invest the pennies they have left over! Crazy how a group of people that motherfucking huge aren’t just pulling themselves up by their bootstraps!
I think the moral of that story is that you should at least make a bare minimum effort in order to justify your existence. The Parable of the Wedding feast has a very similar lean: there, a guy gets thrown out of the wedding (after having been invited for free because the original guests wouldn’t come) because he wouldn’t even dress up for it.
The point is, there ARE examples of Jesus cutting people off because they’re not worth his continued investment in them.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your point sounds like, “[The god of my religion] does not find your existence is worth enough to help, therefore, the United States Government is not obligated to change a system where 60% of it’s citizens are not financially stable.”
I just want to point out that in the wedding illustration, that guy who gets thrown out it’s not because he didn’t put an effort dressing
He was thrown out because he he could not have got inside the building without the wedding garment
So he shouldn’t be there
That’s why they thrown him out
Because he was not recognized as being one of the invited AND chosen in any of the 3 rounds of invites that went out , the dude had to go.
The whole deal is basically telling people at the time that each rejected invitation made you part of his enemies, and even then if you tried to pass as if you had been invited and chosen, you’d be found out
Okay but it still roughly fits the situation in the OP, doesn’t it? He got thrown out because he wasn’t producing the expected result (i.e. being a proper wedding guest).
The meme is attempting to caricature Conservative’s idea of Jesus by alleging that the biblical Jesus would never put profit over people. But as the parables I mentioned show, that is in fact inaccurate and thus promotes a liberal caricature of Jesus who feeds people endlessly without ever asking for anything in return.
yeah remember when Jesus said “if I were to feed you, it would disincentivize you from finding a job and just enable your laziness. Use your god-given talents to feed yourself you moocher” and then gave all the fish and bread to the rich?
It’s almost like I worded the end exactly like that because I know that’s LiTeRaLlY what it says you utter cabbage. I was just parodying your Supply Side Jesus concept further; it’s not like that was the central message that Jesus had, except in conservative readings of course
I mean, I hope I’m not saying anything too controversial here, but I think it’s pretty well understood that one of the major theological differences between Christians and Jews is how they feel about Jesus.
Are you seriously taking something that is called a “parable” literally? Do you need help in understanding what a parable is? The whole thing is not even about money, but about god (the master) and his stewards who shall work on spreading the gospel while Jesus is gone. Those who spread the word of god shall be rewarded and those who are resentful of god will be punished. It has nothing to do with that capitalist shit people like you interpret into it.
Okay, but that’s exactly what’s happening in the OP’s picture, isn’t it?
I mean, without any context we are left to assume what “lack of results” means but if all he did was eat and made no effort to spread the gospel, then he’s basically the wicked servant in that parable, no?
It is about carrying their responsibilities to his kingdom with diligence
The talents, a thing of Great value then, represent the mandate to go about preaching and making disciples
Each of the receivers were expected to carry out their duties using the talents diligently, that is, doing said preaching/ disciples work
That one who worked against his master interest by hiding that talent, showed bad faith and a bad spirit and is to be a warning on the need to remain diligent in multiplying that talent, basically exhorting them to do “business” with it to increase it (that is, to keep on preaching and making disciples)
I did, and though we can expect those with a talent to be profitable, what about those with a tenth of one?
Let’s put that parable in modern terms. One day a hedge fund manager decided to leave the country for a while to his other home overseas. He went and told His workers to go and be profitable with the money. And so he gave one a million dollars , another 100, 000, and another $50,000.
The one with a million dollars, invested his money and time into making a new business. He managed to turn that $1 million into $2.3 million. The one with 100,000 managed to make $170,000 with shrewd investing. But the man with $50,000 sat on it and didn’t do anything. He put it in a savings account and left it there.
The hedge fund manager came back, and saw how successful the other managers were. And he asked the one with 10k "Why didn’t you do anything with what I gave you?
The one with the 50 k said “I didn’t want to lose any of the money.”
The manager rebuked him though because he could have at least taken 1 year bonds and beat interest.
It’s a parable about using what God gave you. God gives us gifts to bring in profits. Not in money, as that’s not what God really needs, but in faith. You could live for a while with 50k even. But there are people who live paycheck to paycheck who don’t have that 1 talent of silver in the first place. They’re paid 800 dollars bi-weekly. Rent is 800 dollars. Good luck living with 800 left for everything else. And you still call them lazy
What does Jesus say about people with money? Two things stick out to me. The first one are the Rich donors to the the synagogue, and the poor woman who gives a quarter of her wealth to it. Jesus remarks that the woman gave more than those Rich donors ever will. The other is about a rich man who seeks to enter the kingdom of God and ask Jesus how to do this. Jesus tells him that he must give all his money to the poor. The man was disappointed because he had a lot of wealth.
What boggles my mind as a Christian is that we idolize Rich people and shame poor people. When in fact The most pious people I know, are poor
Prosperity Gospel is a scourge and a poor excuse to claim that God is on the side of the rich.
Thanks for your response, but I don’t think I was promoting prosperity gospel? I understand that this parable is a favorite of theirs, but as you correct pointed out, there’s more to Jesus than that, and the point of the parable is by no means to rag on poor people, but on people who make poor decisions.
My understanding is that if someone has little talent but still makes the most of it, that person is still more welcome in the Kingdom of Heaven than someone who has a lot but makes little use of it. In other words, if it was the servant who received the most money who ended up burying it and making no profit, it would have been him who would be cast out instead. See also the Parable of the Wedding Feast, where everyone receives exactly the same (an invitation to the king’s wedding), but one person shows up without the proper clothes on.
What types of poor decisions? Decisions in faith? Family? Finance? Fitness? From the top level comment of the comment thread I read it as finance as that’s the thing related to food in the original post. I read this story as our stewardship of things God gives us. (Everything from the work of our hands to our minds to our relationships to wealth) He who is given much should use them and not keep them hidden away for later
little talent
Talent refers to money in the literal sense (Or more accurately a weight for metals which could be traded as money) It is a large amount of money.
The parable of the wedding feast is about people neglecting their faith and still expecting to be a part of the Kingdom of God. It’s not about how much money they have, but instead if they actually practice their faith. If you know the scriptures, but say you’ll be righteous later, then you’re that person who isn’t clothed for the feast. We are called to keep our faith and grow faith in others with the gifts that God gives us.
Supply Side Jesus on the other hand tells us that it’s not worth investing our time and resources into people who are poor, and that instead the rich will lead us to have an efficient church. That is fundamentally backwards to Christianity, as it is the poor, the hurt and the suffering who need it the most. There’s a reason why some churches put the Beatitudes in their liturgy. But at the same time, this is how our welfare system is run. To get the freeloaders off
Poor decisions with regard to the use of their natural (i.e. God-given) talents. Nobody is ever going to make perfect decisions in all areas of their lives, and that’s not what Jesus requires, either. After all, the whole point of people having different talents is for them to work to together so they can complement each other’s abilities.
From the top level comment of the comment thread I read it as finance as that’s the thing related to food in the original post.
My point was merely to show that the biblical Jesus does in fact stop investing in people because he’s not seeing any results from them. It’s not really my fault if you’re reading in things about shareholder value or whatever, is it?
Supply Side Jesus on the other hand tells us that it’s not worth investing our time and resources into people who are poor, and that instead the rich will lead us to have an efficient church.
Yes, but remember that Supply Side Jesus is a caricature, and it’s created by exaggerating certain aspects of Jesus and diminishing others. But so is socialist Jesus, who only heals and feeds people for free and never asks for anything in return.
That is fundamentally backwards to Christianity, as it is the poor, the hurt and the suffering who need it the most.
I agree, and there are plenty of exhortations on that in the Gospel where Jesus reminds people to use their riches to take care of the poor among them. But he does not let the poor off the hook either, like in the story you mentioned earlier with the poor woman giving what little she has being more righteous than the rich man who donates very little. Meanwhile, proponents of socialist Jesus seem to think they should only ever receive blessings and not be asked to give anything back. They are like the guy in the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, who had his debt forgiven by his master and then beat up his fellow man for owing him a fraction of that.
The long and short of it is that in order for the whole Jesus thing to work, you cannot just sit around all day and wait to be fed. You do at least have to make an effort to contribute something, however little it might me, otherwise you’re wasting your talents.
Interestingly enough, right after feeding about 15k people, these same people tried to make Jesus their king. I mean, free food right?
And the absolute Chad just went out and retreated, refusing to involve himself in politics as he was to be already king of another kingdom
Even more interesting than that, the next day, the same people were expecting to be fed again…he clearly understood people were associating with him for material gain. He does exhort them to work for their sustenance.
But it’s important to understand that at the time, Jesus was putting more focus on exhorting people to work on the pursuit of his father’s kingdom and excellent deeds, declaring himself the son of god, and himself (as the word of god) living bread to be fed on
At which point most of these people lost all interest, being shocked as, as always, they suffered of literal thinking, asking themselves in disgust, “how can we eat this man’s flesh?”. This was the people who literally wanted him as King the day before.
This was basically all it took for everyone except the 12 apostles to leave
Interesting take. There’s the standard conservative anti-welfare message, but also very old-fashioned anti-catholicism. I guess this is from a conservative US version of Protestantism. But which denomination exactly? Or is that standard fare for evangelicals these days?
It always comes down to transubstantiation versus consubstantiation.
-Lisa Simpson
I don’t think that the whole transubstantiation issue is big for Catholics, in practice. But they are supposed to believe that during mass, bread and wine literally turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Protestants have a slightly different take. Maybe it only becomes an issue in the context of the British domination of Ireland. I’m not sure, but at least in some Protestant/Anglican circles the Catholic belief was/is considered barbaric. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Anglican…
Maybe it’s derived from 19th century Anglicanism, when there were poor houses and Famine Roads?
Side note: As a neutral person (ie atheist), I find the retelling of the “feeding of the multitude” rather dubious. The anti-welfare message isn’t there. It’s a common conservative talking point in the US, that government welfare makes people dependent. The thing about eating Jesus is from elsewhere. It doesn’t belong in that story. The author adapted these pieces from the bible and made inserted their own teachings.
It’s funny how little connection there is between scripture and actual teachings. For abortion, they bothered to change the text.
sopuli.xyz
Active