Hitler po drugi put među antifašistima

metilda wrote:kako su se antife uskoprcale.. još malo pa će početi braniti hitlera

ja čujem samo tvoje kokodakanje. kokodačeš ko da te pijetao nasadio.

metilda wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

metilda wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

marcellus wrote:

i dalje stoji da je taj citat hitlera naveden u vjerojatno najozbiljnijoj njegovoj biografiji, i da je hitler nesporno bio socijalist

usput volio je marksa, čitao ga je u zatvoru i brijao na njega

gdje su dokazi? osim ovih tvojih pretpostavki nemaš ničeg konkretnog ? znači tebi se treba vjerovati jer si nounar?

pa pročitaj knjigu

i? John Toland je tko ? nepogriješivi autoritet ?  ima li još negdje u kojoj knjizi se spominje da je to hitlerov citat ili samo u ovoj tolandovoj ?

Pulitzer Prize-winning historian John Toland’s classic, definitive biography of Adolf Hitler remains the most thorough, readable, accessible, and, as much as possible, objective account of the life of a man whose evil effect on the world in the twentieth century will always be felt.

Toland’s research provided one of the final opportunities for a historian to conduct personal interviews with over two hundred individuals intimately associated with Hitler. At a certain distance yet still with access to many of the people who enabled and who opposed the führer and his Third Reich, Toland strove to treat this life as if Hitler lived and died a hundred years before instead of within his own memory. From childhood and obscurity to his desperate end, Adolf Hitler emerges as, in Toland’s words, “far more complex and contradictory . . . obsessed by his dream of cleansing Europe Jews . . . a hybrid of Prometheus and Lucifer.”


https://www.amazon.com/Adolf-Hitler-Definitive-John-Toland/dp/0385420536

da da vidiš ja inače nemam tražilicu...pulitzer nagrada? so what? dobiješ pulitzerovu nagradu i svi ti vjeruju ko bogu na nebesima? c'mon give me a break!

Gnječ wrote:

metilda wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

metilda wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

gdje su dokazi? osim ovih tvojih pretpostavki nemaš ničeg konkretnog ? znači tebi se treba vjerovati jer si nounar?

pa pročitaj knjigu

i? John Toland je tko ? nepogriješivi autoritet ?  ima li još negdje u kojoj knjizi se spominje da je to hitlerov citat ili samo u ovoj tolandovoj ?

Pulitzer Prize-winning historian John Toland’s classic, definitive biography of Adolf Hitler remains the most thorough, readable, accessible, and, as much as possible, objective account of the life of a man whose evil effect on the world in the twentieth century will always be felt.

Toland’s research provided one of the final opportunities for a historian to conduct personal interviews with over two hundred individuals intimately associated with Hitler. At a certain distance yet still with access to many of the people who enabled and who opposed the führer and his Third Reich, Toland strove to treat this life as if Hitler lived and died a hundred years before instead of within his own memory. From childhood and obscurity to his desperate end, Adolf Hitler emerges as, in Toland’s words, “far more complex and contradictory . . . obsessed by his dream of cleansing Europe Jews . . . a hybrid of Prometheus and Lucifer.”


https://www.amazon.com/Adolf-Hitler-Definitive-John-Toland/dp/0385420536

da da vidiš ja inače nemam tražilicu...pulitzer nagrada? so what? dobiješ pulitzerovu nagradu i svi ti vjeruju ko bogu na nebesima? c'mon give me a break!

već si u fazi obrane hitlera.. antifa je očito teška bolest

metilda wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

metilda wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

marcellus wrote:

i dalje stoji da je taj citat hitlera naveden u vjerojatno najozbiljnijoj njegovoj biografiji, i da je hitler nesporno bio socijalist

usput volio je marksa, čitao ga je u zatvoru i brijao na njega

gdje su dokazi? osim ovih tvojih pretpostavki nemaš ničeg konkretnog ? znači tebi se treba vjerovati jer si nounar?

pa pročitaj knjigu

i? John Toland je tko ? nepogriješivi autoritet ?  ima li još negdje u kojoj knjizi se spominje da je to hitlerov citat ili samo u ovoj tolandovoj ?

Pulitzer Prize-winning historian John Toland’s classic, definitive biography of Adolf Hitler remains the most thorough, readable, accessible, and, as much as possible, objective account of the life of a man whose evil effect on the world in the twentieth century will always be felt.

Toland’s research provided one of the final opportunities for a historian to conduct personal interviews with over two hundred individuals intimately associated with Hitler. At a certain distance yet still with access to many of the people who enabled and who opposed the führer and his Third Reich, Toland strove to treat this life as if Hitler lived and died a hundred years before instead of within his own memory. From childhood and obscurity to his desperate end, Adolf Hitler emerges as, in Toland’s words, “far more complex and contradictory . . . obsessed by his dream of cleansing Europe Jews . . . a hybrid of Prometheus and Lucifer.”


https://www.amazon.com/Adolf-Hitler-Definitive-John-Toland/dp/0385420536

a evo gnjecinog izvora

Alex Kasprak
Alex Kasprak is a science writer and journalist whose work has been featured in The Atlantic, Motherboard, New Scientist, and other venues. Prior to joining Snopes, he was a staff science writer at BuzzFeed and a science communicator at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He has master's degrees in geological sciences from Brown University and in science writing from Johns Hopkins University. He once found the world’s first Iberian phytosaur fossil, if you are into that kind of thing.

Party programmes


Let us start by considering political party programmes or "platforms" of Hitler's day:

Take this description of a political programme:

A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists".

And this description of a political movement as having a 'revolutionary creative will' which had 'no fixed aim, no permanency, only eternal change'

And this policy manifesto:

9. All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

So who put that manifesto forward and who was responsible for the summary quotes given before that? Was it the US Democrats, the British Labour Party, the Canadian Liberals, some European Social Democratic party? No. The manifesto is an extract from the (February 25th., 1920) 25 point plan of the National Socialist German Workers Party and was written by the leader of that party: Adolf Hitler. And the preceding summary quotes were also from him (See towards the end of Mein Kampf and O'Sullivan, 1983. p. 138).

The rest of Hitler's manifesto was aimed mainly at the Jews but in Hitler's day it was very common for Leftists to be antisemitic. And the increasingly pervasive anti-Israel sentiment among the modern-day Left -- including at times the Canadian government -- shows that modern-day Leftists are not even very different from Hitler in that regard. Modern-day anti-Israel protesters still seem to think that dead Jews are a good thing.



Other examples of Hitler's Leftism


Further, as a good socialist does, Hitler justified everything he did in the name of "the people" (Das Volk). The Nazi State was, like the Soviet State, all-powerful, and the Nazi party, in good socialist fashion, instituted pervasive supervision of German industry. And of course Hitler and Stalin were initially allies. It was only the Nazi-Soviet pact that enabled Hitler's conquest of Western Europe. The fuel in the tanks of Hitler's Panzern as they stormed through France was Soviet fuel.

And a book that was very fashionable worldwide in the '60s was the 1958 book "The Affluent Society" by influential "liberal" Canadian economist J.K. Galbraith -- in which he fulminated about what he saw as our "Private affluence and public squalor". But Hitler preceded him. Hitler shared with the German Left of his day the slogan: "Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz" (Common use before private use). And who preceded Hitler in that? Friedrich Engels at one stage ran a publication called Gemeinnuetziges Wochenblatt ("Common-use Weekly").

And we all know how evil Nazi eugenics were, don't we? How crazy were their efforts to build up the "master race" through selective breeding of SS men with the best of German women -- the "Lebensborn" project? Good Leftists today recoil in horror from all that of course. But who were the great supporters of eugenics in Hitler's day? They were in fact American Leftists -- and eugenics was only one of the ideas that Hitler got from that source. What later came to be known as Fascism was in fact essentially the same as what was known in the USA of the late 19th and early 20th century as "Progressivism", so Fascism is in fact as much an American invention as a European one. The Europeans carried out fully the ideas that American Leftists invented but could only partially implement. America itself resisted the worst of the Fascist virus but much of Europe did not. The American Left have a lot to answer for. I have outlined the largely Leftist roots of eugenics here and the largely American roots of Fascism here.

So even Hitler's eugenics were yet another part of Hitler's LEFTISM! He got his eugenic theories from the Leftists of his day. He was simply being a good Leftist intellectual in subscribing to such theories.

"True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?"

Have a look at the headline quote above and say who wrote it. It is a typical Hitler rant, is it not? Give it to 100 people who know Hitler's speeches and 100 would identify it as something said by Adolf. The fierce German nationalism and territorial ambition is unmistakeable. And if there is any doubt, have a look at another quote from the same author:

This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom.

That settles it, doesn't it? Who does not know of Hitler's glorification of military sacrifice and his aim to establish a "thousand-year Reich"?

But neither quote is in fact from Hitler. Both quotes were written by Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx's co-author (See here and here). So let that be an introduction to the idea that Hitler not only called himself a socialist but that he WAS in fact a socialist by the standards of his day. Ideas that are now condemned as Rightist were in Hitler's day perfectly normal ideas among Leftists. And if Friedrich Engels was not a Leftist, I do not know who would be.

But the most spectacular aspect of Nazism was surely its antisemitism. And that had a grounding in Marx himself. The following passage is from Marx but it could just as well have been from Hitler:

"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".

Note that Marx wanted to "emancipate" (free) mankind from Jewry ("Judentum" in Marx's original German), just as Hitler did and that the title of Marx's essay in German was "Zur Judenfrage" -- which is exactly the same expres​sion("Jewish question") that Hitler used in his famous phrase "Endloesung der Judenfrage" ("Final solution of the Jewish question"). And when Marx speaks of the end of Jewry by saying that Jewish identity must necessarily "dissolve" itself, the word he uses in German is "aufloesen", which is a close relative of Hitler's word "Endloesung" ("final solution"). So all the most condemned features of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels. The thinking of Hitler, Marx and Engels differed mainly in emphasis rather than in content. All three were second-rate German intellectuals of their times. Anybody who doubts that practically all Hitler's ideas were also to be found in Marx & Engels should spend a little time reading the quotations from Marx & Engels collected here.

metilda wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

metilda wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

metilda wrote:

pa pročitaj knjigu

i? John Toland je tko ? nepogriješivi autoritet ?  ima li još negdje u kojoj knjizi se spominje da je to hitlerov citat ili samo u ovoj tolandovoj ?

Pulitzer Prize-winning historian John Toland’s classic, definitive biography of Adolf Hitler remains the most thorough, readable, accessible, and, as much as possible, objective account of the life of a man whose evil effect on the world in the twentieth century will always be felt.

Toland’s research provided one of the final opportunities for a historian to conduct personal interviews with over two hundred individuals intimately associated with Hitler. At a certain distance yet still with access to many of the people who enabled and who opposed the führer and his Third Reich, Toland strove to treat this life as if Hitler lived and died a hundred years before instead of within his own memory. From childhood and obscurity to his desperate end, Adolf Hitler emerges as, in Toland’s words, “far more complex and contradictory . . . obsessed by his dream of cleansing Europe Jews . . . a hybrid of Prometheus and Lucifer.”


https://www.amazon.com/Adolf-Hitler-Definitive-John-Toland/dp/0385420536

da da vidiš ja inače nemam tražilicu...pulitzer nagrada? so what? dobiješ pulitzerovu nagradu i svi ti vjeruju ko bogu na nebesima? c'mon give me a break!

već si u fazi obrane hitlera.. antifa je očito teška bolest

ne branim ja nikoga. totalno sam neutralan. danas ste mi zapeli za oko vašom nesnošljivom lakoćom laganja, manipuliranja i izvrtanja činjenica i ruganja i podjebavanja pa rekoh ček da ustašama čardaklijama razjebem vašu perverznu igru koju pokušavate nametati lažima, upornim revizijama povijesti, difamacijama, i drugim militantnim propagandnim psihološkim metodama svega i svačega. luzeri. fuck you nazi scum.

Lebensraum and the population "problem"


Reading Mein Kampf can be a perverse sort of fun. You can open almost any page of it at random and hear echoes of the modern-day Left and Greens. The points I mention in this present article are just a sampling. I could fill a book with examples showing that Hitler was not only a Leftist in his day but that he was also a pretty good Leftist by modern standards. His antisemitism would certainly pass unremarked by much of the Left today.

Among students of the Nazi period it is well-known that Hitler's most central concern after getting rid of the Jews was Lebensraum for Germany -- i.e. taking over the lands of Eastern Europe for Germans. But WHY did Hitler want Lebensraum (literally, "life-space") for Germans? It was because, like the Greenies of today, he was concerned about overpopulation.

zasto danas antife furaju fasizam

moze se lagat jedne jedno vrijeme..

u americi antifa furaju sarija
jao bato..I hico je vuko tamo

Nacional socijalizam je jedini put socijalizmu da uspije. To je znao i Tito pa pokusao na mala vrata da uvede jugoslovensku naciju. Da je zazivio jugoslovenski nacionalsocijalizam Jugoslavija bi opstala.

prckov wrote:
a evo gnjecinog izvora

Alex Kasprak
Alex Kasprak is a science writer and journalist whose work has been featured in The Atlantic, Motherboard, New Scientist, and other venues. Prior to joining Snopes, he was a staff science writer at BuzzFeed and a science communicator at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He has master's degrees in geological sciences from Brown University and in science writing from Johns Hopkins University. He once found the world’s first Iberian phytosaur fossil, if you are into that kind of thing.

klerofašisti ustaše handžar divizija na aparatimah.

Gregor Strasser was an early member of the Nazi Party. During Adolf Hitler’s imprisonment Strasser attempted to take the Nazi Party in a different ideological direction. He failed in this and in 1934 Strasser paid the price for what Hitler considered a betrayal.

Gregor Strasser was born on May 31st 1892. He served in World War One and was given a commission. Strasser ended the war as a lieutenant. He was awarded the Iron Cross (First and Second Class) for his bravery. As with many other former soldiers, Strasser hated the Treaty of Versailles and the fact that representatives from the Weimargovernment had signed it. He aligned himself with the numerous members of right wing political organisations that existed in Germany post-1918 and eventually joined the newly formed Nazi Party. He and his followers in Landshut tried to help out during theBeer Hall Putsch in Munich. However, he arrived too late and the attempted putsch had been put down by the police. Hitler was under arrest and the party was leaderless. While Hitler served his prison sentence at Landsberg, Strasser took over as co-chairman of the party. He proved to be a hard worker with a skill at organising people. He decided to do the job full time and as a result Strasser sold his chemist’s shop.

He founded a new newspaper with the money he made from the sale of his shop called the ‘Berliner Arbeiter Zeitung’. His brother Otto edited it. He also introduced a party newsletter that went out to party members. This was called the ‘NS-Briefe’ and Strasser called on the 24 year-old Dr Joseph Goebbels to edit it.

While Hitler was in prison, Strasser decided that the party had to go in a new ideological direction. Whereas Hitler had preached the Nazi value of ‘Blood and Soil’ – that all Germans of good blood came from a rural farming background

– Strasser believed in the opposite – that the urban man and industrialisation were the way ahead if Germany was going to retain her old power and authority in Europe. Strasser saw himself as an “urban revolutionary" who wanted to fully embrace “undiluted socialist principles". He believed that he would give the party a far greater intellectual bent than Hitler could ever hope to achieve.

At the 1926 Bamberg Party Conference Strasser was supported by his brother, Otto, and initially by Goebbels. However, it soon became clear to Goebbels that Hitler had more support than Strasser had bargained for and he was able to argue his case for ‘Blood and Soil’ with some cogency. As a result Goebbels changed sides and this resulted in Strasser calling him a “scheming dwarf".

The relationship between Hitler and Strasser did not improve as time moved on. Hitler attempted some form of rapprochement in 1932 when he appointed Strasser Reich Organisation Leader of the Nazi Party. However, for Strasser it was not enough. It soon became very clear just how far the two had drifted apart when in July 1932, Hitler appointed Hermann Goering as Presiding Officer of the Reichstag. The Nazis were the strongest party in the Reichstag after the 1932 election and as party leader Hitler was responsible for appointing the Presiding Officer. The appointment of Goering was a real ‘slap in the face’ for Strasser and a sign that he no longer had a future in the Nazi Party.

Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher sensed a Nazi Party division and decided to use it for his own purposes. He offered the posts of Vice-Chancellor and Premier of Prussia to Strasser. Hitler was furious and confronted Strasser at a meeting at the Kaiserhof. Both accused the other of betrayal. Strasser resigned his positions in the party in December 1932 and for a while it looked as if Hitler had lost control of the party as it seemed to be falling into disarray. However, there was no obvious immediate successor to Hitler and no challenge or resignation occurred. Strasser went on a long term stay in Italy. When he returned to Germany he worked for a chemicals company and stayed out of politics.

Rudolf Hess was appointed to succeed Strasser as head of the newly named Central Political Commission, the old Reich Organisation of the Party.

Once Hitler became Chancellor on January 30th 1933, Strasser’s fate was sealed even though he remained politically inactive after the Kaiserhof meeting. He was murdered on the Night of the Long Knives (June 30th 1934). Hitler had neither forgotten nor forgiven Strasser’s perceived betrayal.

Otto Strasser

Otto Strasser, the younger brother of Gregor, was a leading figure in the early days of the Nazi Party. Otto Strasser sided with his brother when it appeared that the Nazi Party might split into two different ideological groups in the immediate aftermath of Adolf Hitler’s imprisonment.

Otto Strasser was born in Windsheim on September 10th 1897.

He sided first with the Social Democrats but joined the Nazi Party in 1925. He joined the party when it was in a state of flux. Technically the party had been disbanded after the failed Beer Hall Putsch but the ban was barely enforced. However, the real problem faced by the party was that Hitler was serving 5 years in prison – though he only served nine months. While he was away, a dispute arose in the party between two men – Gregor Strasser and Gottfried Feder. Gregor wanted the party to embrace urbanisation and true socialism while Feder wanted the party to remain true to rural Germany and the belief that all true Germans ‘came from the soil’. It was the view put forward by Hitler. However, the party was leaderless while Hitler was in prison.

Feder and Gregor Strasser co-ran the party but the partnership was doomed. However, Strasser made a name for himself within the party because it soon became obvious that he was a very skilful organiser and had natural leadership skills. Not unnaturally, Otto supported his brother. Otto strongly believed that the Nazi Party should be true to the ‘socialist’ and ‘workers’ words that were in the official name of the party.

Otto wanted the Nazi Party to adopt classic socialist principles such as the state ownership of land and industry. He publicly stated his strong support for trade unions right to strike and he expressed sympathy for the way of life in the USSR.

This was completely against what Hitler wanted. Once he was released from prison, Hitler had to reassert his authority over the party. Matters came to a head at the 1926 Bamberg party conference. Here the clash between Hitler and Gregor Strasser was resolved in Hitler’s favour. It soon became clear that far more Nazis at the conference supported Hitler as opposed to Gregor Strasser. Though he initially supported the stand of Gregor, the future Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels crossed over to support Hitler. He realised that Hitler had far more support within the party than Gregor Strasser.

Otto’s association with Gregor did not bode well for his future within the party. Hitler called him a “parlourBolshevik" and labelled anyone who followed the Strasser’s as “doctrinaire fools". Hitler claimed that Otto was the victim of “democracy and liberalism".

On May 21st 1930 Hitler demanded a showdown with the two brothers. As party members they had continued to support the whole idea of socialism including nationalisation and the right of workers to strike. At the same time Hitler was courting wealthy industrialists and landowners. The last thing he needed was two well-known Nazis promoting ideas that were the opposite to those held by these industrialists. He ordered that both Otto and Gregor should submit totally to party discipline. Otto refused to do so and Hitler ordered Goebbels to expel him from the party.

As a result of this expulsion in 1930, Otto, along with former senior SA man Walther Stennes, formed a new political party – the Union of Revolutionary National Socialists, which became known as the Black Front. At this moment in time Otto was relatively safe as Hitler was not chancellor. Otto called Hitler “the betrayer of the revolution" but the Black Front never won mass support and was never a threat to Hitler. However, the Nazi Party had a deserved reputation for violence and Otto and his small band of followers made their headquarters in Prague where the former Nazi Party émigrés believed they were safe.

As the power of the Nazi Party increased in the early 1930’s so did its use of violence. Otto Strasser began to fear for his own life. His brother had withdrawn from politics and started to work for a chemicals company. Even in Prague Otto did not feel safe and he decided to leave Czechoslovakia for his own safety. He moved to Canada. Gregor Strasser was murdered during the ‘Night of the Long Knives’ – it was said that Hitler never forgot what Gregor had done nor forgiven him. It is probable that Otto would have suffered the same fate if he had remained in Nazi Germany.

Otto Strasser returned to West Germany in 1955 after being granted his German citizenship once again. He tried to get involved in politics once again but with little success.

Otto Strasser died in Munich on August 27th 1974.

stvarno su neki forumasi postali maheri u izvrtanju, 
simpatizeri ustaskog pokreta podmecu svima okolo da su simpatizeri hitlera
jebeno
medjutim najgora stvar ce biti sto ce sami sebe uvjeriti da je to istina i na kraju ce se oni sami proglasit antifama slijedom stvari ;D

Leviathan2 wrote:stvarno su neki forumasi postali maheri u izvrtanju, 
simpatizeri ustaskog pokreta podmecu svima okolo da su simpatizeri hitlera
jebeno
medjutim najgora stvar ce biti sto ce sami sebe uvjeriti da je to istina i na kraju ce se oni sami proglasit antifama slijedom stvari ;D

heeh...autosugestija je motjna stvar...

pismejker wrote:

Leviathan2 wrote:stvarno su neki forumasi postali maheri u izvrtanju, 
simpatizeri ustaskog pokreta podmecu svima okolo da su simpatizeri hitlera
jebeno
medjutim najgora stvar ce biti sto ce sami sebe uvjeriti da je to istina i na kraju ce se oni sami proglasit antifama slijedom stvari ;D

heeh...autosugestija je motjna stvar...

jap, to samo dokazuje moje misljenje koliko je veliki dio ljudi sjeban mentalno na nekim ideoloskim uvjetovanjim

Leviathan2 wrote:

pismejker wrote:

Leviathan2 wrote:stvarno su neki forumasi postali maheri u izvrtanju, 
simpatizeri ustaskog pokreta podmecu svima okolo da su simpatizeri hitlera
jebeno
medjutim najgora stvar ce biti sto ce sami sebe uvjeriti da je to istina i na kraju ce se oni sami proglasit antifama slijedom stvari ;D

heeh...autosugestija je motjna stvar...

jap, to samo dokazuje moje misljenje koliko je veliki dio ljudi sjeban mentalno na nekim ideoloskim uvjetovanjim

yahh..!!! ono,sve opcije sjebavaju definitivno narod,ali ovi uporni i nadalje gaza na iste grabulje..neki mazohisticki sindrom..i cure vole da ih triskas po guzi pred orgazam..

Leviathan2 wrote:

pismejker wrote:

Leviathan2 wrote:stvarno su neki forumasi postali maheri u izvrtanju, 
simpatizeri ustaskog pokreta podmecu svima okolo da su simpatizeri hitlera
jebeno
medjutim najgora stvar ce biti sto ce sami sebe uvjeriti da je to istina i na kraju ce se oni sami proglasit antifama slijedom stvari ;D

heeh...autosugestija je motjna stvar...

jap, to samo dokazuje moje misljenje koliko je veliki dio ljudi sjeban mentalno na nekim ideoloskim uvjetovanjim

Pa već i sami vjeruju u to da su ustaše dobro dečki koji su samo branili svoju Hrvatsku. Da je Jasenovac bio sanatorij,a da su u njemu ubijani Hrvati poslije 1945. Da je na Blajburgu ubijeno 600.000 nedužnih Hrvata i sl.

tko o čemu baba o kolačima ...... ak je vute krize glavna tema kije komu kaj bijo i ostao prije cca 7o godina ondak nama i nije tak loše.