>You're intentionally clueless on the facts of political history "You're this... because.. b-because I say so!"
Probably not.
Mind you, I don't think you need to read Schmitt to understand anything about political action. Why would your primary resource be Schmitt? Do you not see the problem with that? Reference something else, anything else. There are plenty of resources. Don't pretend to not rock the swastika, yet actively choose to reference the one anecdotal piece of work written by a Nazi.
Come on now.
You make excuses for yourself.
A child can see what's wrong with that.
Cooper Carter
We study Pol Pot too but not because he's awesome lulz. It's called a counterpoint and it's often used in education to demonstrate the retarded process we went through to later arrive at the opposite conclusion.
Jonathan Lee
Sounds like a game plan, thanks user.
Attempting to discredit someone's argument simply because of their nationality is a pretty kikeish thing to do. I am American, but you had nothing good to lead you to that conclusion other than the statistical probability as most users on Yas Forums are American.
I also notice that you didn't respond to my question. I'll reiterate. Where are you from, user?
Logan Jackson
OP is a massive faggot This is the gayest fucking thread I've ever seen on Yas Forums and that's including trap and prolapsed asshole threads
Kevin Martinez
>unironically admires Hitler's Germany for it's military prowess as a basis for a sustainable model for other nations I've got some bad news for you, kid.
>but you had nothing good to lead you to that conclusion other than the statistical probability as most users on Yas Forums are American If the statistical probability of you being American was high, then user had a very, very, very, very, very good justification for that conclusion.
It's out of this world.
Matthew Rivera
>2% of the US population controls 95% of the industry and media? 95% is an overstatement. Reminds me of Yas Forums infographics with Stars of David all over the place. Further research shows that many of those people aren't Jews, and are classified as such because of a recent ethnic Jew in the family. It's easy to classify broadly when you use a one-drop rule. Jews are liberal bourgeois, just like the WASPs who occupy the same niches.
>I'm not saying that everything would be turned up, but something tangible would have. Plenty of tangible things turned up. Medical records showing drug use by High Command did not, except insofar as drug use was common in military settings in the mid 20th century.
>Where do you draw the line, user? Probably the line between the army and the SS would be a good proxy for the difference. By the late Nazi era, the boundaries have been muddled enough.
Schmitt (and Heidegger) are not used as Nazi scapegoats in their relative fields as "counterpoints" but as full-fledged thinkers in their own right. You would know this if you didn't LARP as an intellectual on Yas Forums.
I chose Schmitt because he's contextually relevant given the thread's theme and because his analysis is still among the best critique of liberalism with regard to how it regards all of its enemies as "enemies of mankind".
