Hitler didn't kill himself as stated by the unverifiable official narrative full of holes.
Hitler grew old in Argentina.
Look into it.
All governments are evil mafias and all leaders are despicable, including Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, Mao, Trudeau, Poilievre, Biden, and Trump. Don't focus on the characters and puppets - focus on the corrupt matrix of rigged systems.
Destructive personality? I have thought it was funny that he was all about preserving the German race, but he participated in one end of something that killed a lot of them in a short period of time.
I don't agree with Hitler on much. Certainly not on ideology or political structures. I do agree with his desire to preserve a group of people. People act that that in and of itself was evil, but I find that silly. But besides his flaws in political theory I think he was flawed in his sense of how to actually get things done without it backfiring, generally. Someone with a more nuanced mind could have possibly navigated his goals more gracefully.
That's the thing, he didn't care about doing things gracefully. And his story is the perfect case for why you should care to be graceful. Because when you aren't you end up getting the opposite of what you want almost every time. This applies to everyone.
I wouldn't have supported either of the alternatives on an ideological basis but there were alternatives to Hitler basically in his primary. Some of them may have been more balanced individuals.
Now Hitler claims in his speeches that he made every attempt to pursue diplomacy. I think there may be some truth and non-truth to that, to potentially close to zero. My point on that front is even if there were significant truth to that it's always ok to say he didn't do enough because it was necessary. There is always an opportunity to use more grace and more intellegence to get a better diplomatic outcome and it was his responsibility to do so. It was also the responsibility of western powers to do so. War happens when everyone fails. It takes a whole lot of shitty people to make a war.
I don't though I would still yield 10% probability. But that's 10%. I think it has more to do with human psychology and foibles. Not everything that goes wrong with the world has to be a conspiracy. Only about 70% involves a conspiracy, and that only because organization is involved in every effort because humans organize themselves if we try to do anything at all (positive or negative).
Sometimes that organization is stupid people trying to do what they calculated to be good while doing it stupidly and being 100% transparent about it rather than operating on some hidden agendas.
In fact most agendas aren't hidden. Sometimes they are just suppressed or hushed. But usually someone has some argument for what they are doing and they are being honest about it in some circle.
I believe 100% of not-natural large events are planned - and by definition conspired by planners, secretly or not. Sure not everything goes exactly to plan or perfectly as predicted, and then there are other high-level counter-planners, but it's all engineered to go in specific directions to specific ends serving special interests - and they won't stop until these are met.
The further down towards poverty things get much more random, though also controlled in specific ways.
You don't even need to suppress information if you just don't propagate it on your controlled networks. Beyond that there's Dynamic Silence.
There is no such thing as perfection, so you can't have a perfect defense. I'm not trying to defend Hitler in any way, but to be fair there are things to consider. A century onward we are not the target demographics he was appealing to. His artistic vision was compelling to his followers and history - from architecture to fashion to whatever. Grace or style or both? History written by victors will spin grace into disaster by focusing on imperfections and minutia. I have not and will not study Hitler much, much less to critique his grace.
Yes, his diplomatic pursuits are smothered by decades of revisionist propaganda.
War isn't just about collective failures - it's about unstoppable cycles, egos, greed, power, self-interests, and "special" interests.
But how can we build an immovable object to counter their unstoppable force?
To note England absolutely lost WWII. Possibly more than Germany did. Last I checked Germany is still a country and retained 90% of its land today that it started with when the belligerent regime took power. England not so much. The victors of WWII were the soviet union and the US.
So Churchill lost a war that he didn't need to be in because he's an idiot.
Too be fair I think the allied powers were ingraceful. I think a perfectly graceful person can always avoid conflict and any time you have conflict you have evidence that all sides are less than perfectly intelligent or developed. Besides the responsibility to avoid conflict it is almost always in your interest to avoid conflict. Smart and socially developed people are able to get the outcomes they want and form an interest in the right sort of outcomes. Peace is something you should want if you want to preserve your people, and so if you don't get it you are kind of an idiot.
But it's worth mentioning that in every way I am calling him an idiot the same metric applies to all the other powers. I'm calling Stalin and idiot, Churchill and FDR.
The same question as OPs can be re-posed onto them. Why did FDR, a conservationist blow up all of Europe? Because he's an idiot. Why did Churchill engage in a war that bankrupted the British empire and ultimately lead to the collapse of it as an empire? Because he's an idiot. Stalin was a marxist. It's already established he's an idiot. Why did he adopt an ideology that hoped to save poor farmers from intermittent starvation only to cause mass starvation? Because he's an idiot.
So the real reason for WWII is that it was an era of morons, and you have to go beyond assuming an negative outcome was a result of their intent. Hitler did not intend to play a part in killing millions of Germans.
Now you point out that Hitler was smart enough to identify some problems and make predictions about the future. Identifying problems requires far less intellegence than actually fixing them. If there are people dumb enough to not see the problems he saw then it is just an admission that the sea of human ignorance is broad and deep. But in particular I think he lacked the social intellegence to get the outcomes he wanted.
I really do not buy that there are intractable conflicts that would occur no matter how smart or developed a leader is. State powers have far too much flexibility over their policy and communication to make conflict unavoidable. And it is always in your interest to avoid it once you calculate the costs. Any smart person would see that. Any smart person could make it happen. Wars only come from idiots, including our current ones.
I think a perfectly graceful person can always avoid conflict
I wish this were true. Always is way more than mostly. Sometimes predatory asstrolls won't relent.
Smart and socially developed people are able
Half of everyone is stupider than average - and "everyone" includes those in power. A few hundred thousand bad apples ruins the world.
Peace is something you should want if you want to preserve your people
I don't think the ruling class identifies with "their people", much less has any compassion for them. They care more about their bubbles, cliques, and clubs.
Yes the "leaders" were idiots. But they are just puppets of higher powers. In the 1800s the Opium trade was making $150 Billion in that era's currency. Those secret families are now Trillionaires if not Zillionaires. They're still flawed humans, but with great means and great apparatuses - like comparing us a skateboard to them as a jumbo jet. Back to point, they were just following orders. All the chaos and destruction still transfers wealth and power upwards.
Regardless, more problematic than shitty leadership are the faulty systems and procedures - especially when steadfast and inflexible to adapt, ideologically and intentionally. This is where the evidence lay that everything is intentionally broken - all through history, time after time after time.
Hanlon's razor may work for the common folk, but it applies to the ruling class so rarely as to make its existence moot.
What's this stuff about Hitler killing Nazis?
After WWII, Terror Storm was much worse to many Germans than the war itself.
Before those wars, German was almost adopted as the USA's second language.
I don't know enough about Hitler to comment on his social intelligence, but I can challenge your line of reasoning. Many of us, some before and some since COVID, can see the rising global tyranny. A few years ago I actually started shifting gears from endlessly observing and obsessing over problems to focusing on solutions a few months before James Corbett announced his own shift to solutions. That's the only time I can ever claim to be slightly ahead of him. Regardless, we see the tsunami coming but how many of us can adequately prepare and weather the onslaught? And likewise, how could folks do the same a century ago with much less awareness and/or technology?
IMO, both contracts and conflicts are dances, demanding all involved to participate, willingly, stupidly, greedily, or not. They're all Machiavellians. They rarely ever actually die while countless thousands of young men always do.
Log in
Hitler didn't kill himself as stated by the unverifiable official narrative full of holes.
Hitler grew old in Argentina.
Look into it.
All governments are evil mafias and all leaders are despicable, including Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, Mao, Trudeau, Poilievre, Biden, and Trump. Don't focus on the characters and puppets - focus on the corrupt matrix of rigged systems.
Destructive personality? I have thought it was funny that he was all about preserving the German race, but he participated in one end of something that killed a lot of them in a short period of time.
I don't agree with Hitler on much. Certainly not on ideology or political structures. I do agree with his desire to preserve a group of people. People act that that in and of itself was evil, but I find that silly. But besides his flaws in political theory I think he was flawed in his sense of how to actually get things done without it backfiring, generally. Someone with a more nuanced mind could have possibly navigated his goals more gracefully.
That's the thing, he didn't care about doing things gracefully. And his story is the perfect case for why you should care to be graceful. Because when you aren't you end up getting the opposite of what you want almost every time. This applies to everyone.
I wouldn't have supported either of the alternatives on an ideological basis but there were alternatives to Hitler basically in his primary. Some of them may have been more balanced individuals.
Now Hitler claims in his speeches that he made every attempt to pursue diplomacy. I think there may be some truth and non-truth to that, to potentially close to zero. My point on that front is even if there were significant truth to that it's always ok to say he didn't do enough because it was necessary. There is always an opportunity to use more grace and more intellegence to get a better diplomatic outcome and it was his responsibility to do so. It was also the responsibility of western powers to do so. War happens when everyone fails. It takes a whole lot of shitty people to make a war.
Do you think he was controlled opposition to cause exactly this? He's also the father of Israel with the Havaara agreement.
I don't though I would still yield 10% probability. But that's 10%. I think it has more to do with human psychology and foibles. Not everything that goes wrong with the world has to be a conspiracy. Only about 70% involves a conspiracy, and that only because organization is involved in every effort because humans organize themselves if we try to do anything at all (positive or negative).
Sometimes that organization is stupid people trying to do what they calculated to be good while doing it stupidly and being 100% transparent about it rather than operating on some hidden agendas.
In fact most agendas aren't hidden. Sometimes they are just suppressed or hushed. But usually someone has some argument for what they are doing and they are being honest about it in some circle.
I believe 100% of not-natural large events are planned - and by definition conspired by planners, secretly or not. Sure not everything goes exactly to plan or perfectly as predicted, and then there are other high-level counter-planners, but it's all engineered to go in specific directions to specific ends serving special interests - and they won't stop until these are met.
The further down towards poverty things get much more random, though also controlled in specific ways.
You don't even need to suppress information if you just don't propagate it on your controlled networks. Beyond that there's Dynamic Silence.
http://InfoGalactic.com/info/Dynamic_silence
There is no such thing as perfection, so you can't have a perfect defense. I'm not trying to defend Hitler in any way, but to be fair there are things to consider. A century onward we are not the target demographics he was appealing to. His artistic vision was compelling to his followers and history - from architecture to fashion to whatever. Grace or style or both? History written by victors will spin grace into disaster by focusing on imperfections and minutia. I have not and will not study Hitler much, much less to critique his grace.
Yes, his diplomatic pursuits are smothered by decades of revisionist propaganda.
War isn't just about collective failures - it's about unstoppable cycles, egos, greed, power, self-interests, and "special" interests.
But how can we build an immovable object to counter their unstoppable force?
To note England absolutely lost WWII. Possibly more than Germany did. Last I checked Germany is still a country and retained 90% of its land today that it started with when the belligerent regime took power. England not so much. The victors of WWII were the soviet union and the US.
So Churchill lost a war that he didn't need to be in because he's an idiot.
Churchill had sooooooooo many problems, including his problematic birthright with problematic privilege that gained him his problematic power.
Too be fair I think the allied powers were ingraceful. I think a perfectly graceful person can always avoid conflict and any time you have conflict you have evidence that all sides are less than perfectly intelligent or developed. Besides the responsibility to avoid conflict it is almost always in your interest to avoid conflict. Smart and socially developed people are able to get the outcomes they want and form an interest in the right sort of outcomes. Peace is something you should want if you want to preserve your people, and so if you don't get it you are kind of an idiot.
But it's worth mentioning that in every way I am calling him an idiot the same metric applies to all the other powers. I'm calling Stalin and idiot, Churchill and FDR.
The same question as OPs can be re-posed onto them. Why did FDR, a conservationist blow up all of Europe? Because he's an idiot. Why did Churchill engage in a war that bankrupted the British empire and ultimately lead to the collapse of it as an empire? Because he's an idiot. Stalin was a marxist. It's already established he's an idiot. Why did he adopt an ideology that hoped to save poor farmers from intermittent starvation only to cause mass starvation? Because he's an idiot.
So the real reason for WWII is that it was an era of morons, and you have to go beyond assuming an negative outcome was a result of their intent. Hitler did not intend to play a part in killing millions of Germans.
Now you point out that Hitler was smart enough to identify some problems and make predictions about the future. Identifying problems requires far less intellegence than actually fixing them. If there are people dumb enough to not see the problems he saw then it is just an admission that the sea of human ignorance is broad and deep. But in particular I think he lacked the social intellegence to get the outcomes he wanted.
I really do not buy that there are intractable conflicts that would occur no matter how smart or developed a leader is. State powers have far too much flexibility over their policy and communication to make conflict unavoidable. And it is always in your interest to avoid it once you calculate the costs. Any smart person would see that. Any smart person could make it happen. Wars only come from idiots, including our current ones.
I wish this were true. Always is way more than mostly. Sometimes predatory asstrolls won't relent.
Half of everyone is stupider than average - and "everyone" includes those in power. A few hundred thousand bad apples ruins the world.
I don't think the ruling class identifies with "their people", much less has any compassion for them. They care more about their bubbles, cliques, and clubs.
Yes the "leaders" were idiots. But they are just puppets of higher powers. In the 1800s the Opium trade was making $150 Billion in that era's currency. Those secret families are now Trillionaires if not Zillionaires. They're still flawed humans, but with great means and great apparatuses - like comparing us a skateboard to them as a jumbo jet. Back to point, they were just following orders. All the chaos and destruction still transfers wealth and power upwards.
Regardless, more problematic than shitty leadership are the faulty systems and procedures - especially when steadfast and inflexible to adapt, ideologically and intentionally. This is where the evidence lay that everything is intentionally broken - all through history, time after time after time.
Hanlon's razor may work for the common folk, but it applies to the ruling class so rarely as to make its existence moot.
What's this stuff about Hitler killing Nazis?
After WWII, Terror Storm was much worse to many Germans than the war itself.
Before those wars, German was almost adopted as the USA's second language.
I don't know enough about Hitler to comment on his social intelligence, but I can challenge your line of reasoning. Many of us, some before and some since COVID, can see the rising global tyranny. A few years ago I actually started shifting gears from endlessly observing and obsessing over problems to focusing on solutions a few months before James Corbett announced his own shift to solutions. That's the only time I can ever claim to be slightly ahead of him. Regardless, we see the tsunami coming but how many of us can adequately prepare and weather the onslaught? And likewise, how could folks do the same a century ago with much less awareness and/or technology?
IMO, both contracts and conflicts are dances, demanding all involved to participate, willingly, stupidly, greedily, or not. They're all Machiavellians. They rarely ever actually die while countless thousands of young men always do.