Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

You post: Point 7 : "I did NOT say that the Communist movement (in the US ) was swarming with Ivy League members and that the Communists (in Latin America ) were swarming with Jesuits, but I said the opposite : that Jesuits and Ivy League are swarming with communists, fellow travelers,etc."

I know. My point was that even if you add all the Ivy League graduates and Jesuits together, they are a vanishingly small proportion of the Marxist movement, even presuming ALL of them were Marxists, which is just ridiculous!

University funding and its influence are an issue. I recall the way the Saudi Goivernment put pressure on Cambridge University to suppress the book Hagarism twenty or thirty years ago.

However, you have to provide evidence not just of money being donated, but of it influencing outcomes.

So far you have provided none.

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

To repeat:

You post, "8 About the First Amendment: its content is irrelevant: it is not the First Amendment that defines a violation of the Constitution, but a majority of Supreme Court : if 5 judges are saying that what big tech is doing is a violation of the First Amendment , it is so ." No, its content is key. The Supreme Court does not make laws, it interprets them. Anyway, when did this judgement extending the First Amendment to public and private companies occur? I must have missed it.

If there is no original law, then there is nothing for SCOTUS to adjudicate upon. The content of the First Amendment is fundamental.

And the content of the First Amendment says absolutely nothing about it applying to public or private companies.

It may be objectionable to ban Parler for other reasons, but not on First Amendment grounds. Try reading it.

Cheers,

Sid.

The Content is irrelevant , because US judges no not judge using the law, the constitution, but using their political convictions .
If tomorrow the Supreme Court is saying that the US government has the right to impose the wearing of mouth masks for every one who is leaving his house, no one can nullify this decision .
If the Supreme Court is saying that the government has the right to forbid all statements that it (the government ) considers as hate speech,no one can do anything against this judgement .
The interpretation of the law by a court means that the court is saying what the law means , Thus the court is replacing the law by its own political conviction .
See 1896, see 1954, see Roe v Wade, Dred Scott, Citizens United,Bush v Gore .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

To repeat:

"If there is no original law, then there is nothing for SCOTUS to interpret and adjudicate upon. The content of the First Amendment is therefore fundamental.

And the content of the First Amendment says absolutely nothing about it applying to public or private companies.

It may be objectionable to ban Parler for other reasons, but not on First Amendment grounds. Try reading it."

I ask for the third time, "Anyway, when did this judgement extending the First Amendment to public and private companies occur?"

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

You post: Point 7 : "I did NOT say that the Communist movement (in the US ) was swarming with Ivy League members and that the Communists (in Latin America ) were swarming with Jesuits, but I said the opposite : that Jesuits and Ivy League are swarming with communists, fellow travelers,etc."

I know. My point was that even if you add all the Ivy League graduates and Jesuits together, they are a vanishingly small proportion of the Marxist movement, even presuming ALL of them were Marxists, which is just ridiculous!

University funding and its influence are an issue. I recall the way the Saudi Goivernment put pressure on Cambridge University to suppress the book Hagarism twenty or thirty years ago.

However, you have to provide evidence not just of money being donated, but of it influencing outcomes.

So far you have provided none.

Cheers,

Sid.

The donation of money is influencing outcomes . That is a fact .Otherwise Big Pharma would not donate billions to politicians .Lockheed gave money to prince Bernhard of the Netherlands so that the Dutch government would buy its aircraft, it did the same in the US, Agusta paid the party of the Belgian Minister of Defense a lot of money so that Belgium would buy its helicopters .Kadaffi gave the French president Sarkozy millions, but not for free,the German Chancellor Kohl received millions from German industrialists .
Corruption always works .
There is nothing for free in this world : everything and everyone has its price .

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

To repeat:

"If there is no original law, then there is nothing for SCOTUS to interpret and adjudicate upon. The content of the First Amendment is therefore fundamental.

And the content of the First Amendment says absolutely nothing about it applying to public or private companies.

It may be objectionable to ban Parler for other reasons, but not on First Amendment grounds. Try reading it."

I ask for the third time, "Anyway, when did this judgement extending the First Amendment to public and private companies occur?"

Cheers,

Sid.

And I answer for the third time : such a judgement is not needed : the Supreme Court is not bound by the law : it makes the law .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadwq,

OK, so name me one law that the US Supreme Court has made that wasn't an interpretation or adjudication of an existing law or the Constitution?

Read Article III of the US Constitution.

I also ask, for the fourth time, ".....when did this judgement extending the First Amendment to public and private companies occur?"

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

1 The Supreme Court has not the right to make laws, but an activist Supreme Court does not care about this .
2 The Supreme Court can only interpret literally an existing law,or an existing amendment of the Constitution,but activist Supreme Courts and their interpretations change the existing law or existing Amendment .
3 Why do your wast my time with asking a question I have answered already ?
The Supreme court does not need a judgement extending the First Amendment to public and private companies to condemn something as a violation of the First Amendment by public and private companies . I did not use what the Supreme Court said/not said to label the censorship by Big Tech as a violation of the First Amendment .
The Supreme Court can argue that ,as is declared in Citizens United, as Big Tech has the right on Free Speech ,and that Congress can not nullify this right, the average citizen has also right on free speech and that this right can not be taken away by Big Tech.
Feinstein and McCain said that private companies had not the right to meddle in politics ( the meaning was to prevent them to support conservatives ) ,but SCOTUS declared this illegal .
Thus, as every one is equal for the law,one can argue that private companies can not do what Congress can not do .

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,



I know. My point was that even if you add all the Ivy League graduates and Jesuits together, they are a vanishingly small proportion of the Marxist movement, even presuming ALL of them were Marxists, which is just ridiculous!


Cheers,

Sid.

That is an irrelevant point ,because
1 No one knows the exact number of Marxist, crypto communist,.. graduates of the Ivy League and members of the SJ
2 Their number is not decisive, but the posts they are occupying : a Marxist chief of the SJ is much more important than 5 ordinary Jesuits .For a lot of people, the present pope , a Jesuit, has communist sympathies .In his function,he is more important than dozens of Jesuits .The influence of Krugman is much bigger than that of someone who teaches economy in a college .

[George L Gregory]

How bizarre that a topic about Adolf Hitler’s pan-German beliefs has been hijacked by a village idiot who is posting conspiracy theories, made up stuff, denialism (not genuine revisionism) and other such nonsense.

May a moderator step in and stop this crap?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi GLG,

Welcome to the ljadw rabbit-hole. There are others.

If the moderators don't take action against him for derailing threads, never providing links when asked, concentrating mainly on political content and almost invariably refusing to answer questions, then we are stuck with replying to his nonsense or it becomes set in stone here. I wouldn't like to see AHF become just another default purveyor of "alternative facts".

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

I see that of the 3,100 officers in the Austrian Army, only 1,600 (or barely half) were accepted into the Wehrmacht. Is this true?

If so, it does not speak of overwhelming support in the Austrian officer corps for Hitler's project for Austria.

Cheers,

Sid.

[JKim]

Austrian nationalism began as a cultural nationalism centered on religious identity, particularly Catholicism. As a result, it was opposed to unification with Protestant-majority Prussia, which was seen as a potential threat to Austrian national identity's Catholic core. And based on that reason, Hitler did not advocate Austrian nationalist ideas as suggested by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page.

[ljadw]

I see that of the 3,100 officers in the Austrian Army, only 1,600 (or barely half) were accepted into the Wehrmacht. Is this true?

If so, it does not speak of overwhelming support in the Austrian officer corps for Hitler's project for Austria.

Cheers,

Sid.

Bertrand Buchmann gives in '' Österreicher in der Deutschen Wehrmacht '' the following strength of the Austrian Army :
58000 men,of whom 2128 officers and 30000 conscripts and that 1324 officers and 275 reserve officers were accepted in the Wehrmacht .
Whatever these figures, the dismissal of half of the number of officer/or less ,could indicate not a hostility of the Austrian officer corps towards the new regime , but a hostility/lack of trust of the Nazis ( especially Austrian ones ) to the Austrian officer corps for a lot of reasons :
example : what happened in 1934 .A lot of those who participated in the suppression of the coup of 1934,would also have served the Nazi regime ,but were fired .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

Fair point.

But it does show that the Nazis feared real disaffection from both within the elitist right of centre officer corps, as well from the left of centre workers in Vienna.

Cheers,

Sid.

[George L Gregory]

Austrian nationalism began as a cultural nationalism centered on religious identity, particularly Catholicism. As a result, it was opposed to unification with Protestant-majority Prussia, which was seen as a potential threat to Austrian national identity's Catholic core. And based on that reason, Hitler did not advocate Austrian nationalist ideas as suggested by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page.

The Austrians weren’t willing to give up their non-German lands and take second place to the Prussians. The Bavarians, who are largely Catholic like the Austrians, accepted being part of the German Empire with the Prussians being the top dogs.

The reason why Hitler didn’t advocate Austrian nationalism is because he didn’t consider the Austrians to be a separate group from the Germans, he considered the Austrians to be Germans and he certainly wasn’t alone with that thought.

It’s almost ironic that a native Austrian who ruled Germany and advocated for the Austrians and Austria to be a part of Germany is the main reason today why the majority of Austrians do not consider themselves to be Germans and do not wish for Austria to be a part of Germany. The idea of a Greater Germany is mainly only advocated by those on the far-right political spectrum these days.