Heaven on /b/. Oh, welcome, stranger, on my content. I will guide to towards peace, understanding and love. Also, I will hug you, love you and..... Except there would be a lot less gay porn, and that would be bad. fuck you
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (60)
[ 60 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
55 comments displayed.
#2 - heartlessrobot
Reply +17
(05/02/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Except there would be a lot less gay porn, and that would be bad.
#14 to #2 - captainfuckitall ONLINE
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
Actually, based on what I heard on Q.I. (Quite interesting. A british fact show hosted by Steven Fry), there were many gay officers and even homosexual/bisexual S.S. troops, I think it was more of the fact that Hitler wanted to have more couples with many children in order to have a greater number of troops and workers
#24 to #23 - captainfuckitall ONLINE
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/

www.theholocaustexplained.org/ks4/the-nazification-of-germany/impact-on-n on-jewish-minorities/why-did-the-nazis-persecute-homosexuals/#.UYJLjbU3seo

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005261

You are correct sir in that Nazi's did, in fact, persecute homosexuals. However, it seems that this persecution stemmed more from the fact that homosexuals were seen as poor soldiers and didn't make children, which was a problem for the expanding Reich; but at the same time, homosexuals who, in fact, proved themselves to be useful and supporting of Nazi ideals were let off and given much slack regarding their sexuality, as seen with Himmler covering for bisexual and homosexual S.S. members. Given this evidence, I personally believe that if the Reich had won the war and took control over Europe and much of the modern world, laws against homosexuality would have probably been abolished and you would be free to practice homosexuality as you pleased, as the need for more children and soldiers would no longer be there
#25 to #24 - felixjarl
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
Hmmm, i could partly agree except the part ''after the war'' merge that into after the lesser races had been eliminated and replaced with germans.
#26 to #25 - captainfuckitall ONLINE
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
I don't know if they wanted to 'replace' people with Germans, more-so, wanting to raise the German empire back to its former glory. Than again I have no idea, I'm no expert

Still, many of the laws put into effect, even by modern governments, are made to fit the times as well as certain threats. After the certain era or threat is over, there is no longer need for the laws. The problem with German Homosexuals is that Nazi's saw them as too feminine to be of use, but if they survived to a point where there wouldn't have to be a 'use' for them in the first-place, there would be no reason to persecute them for their sexuality.
#19 to #14 - hrg
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
and then Hitler had all of them killed off shortly before he became furher
#20 to #19 - captainfuckitall ONLINE
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
Do you have any links of proof for that?
#21 to #20 - hrg
Reply +1
(05/02/2013) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

knight of the long knives, Hitler had all of his high ranking officers killed, because they proposed a threat to him or his image, on of the mail leaders, was believed to be homosexual and was very close to Hitler
#22 to #21 - captainfuckitall ONLINE
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
After reading the summery, it seems that he killed them more out of old vendettas as well as political/lawful reasons (as many of those he killed were associated with public disturbance/crime/assault), and a fear that they may try to usurp him. Although a few of them WERE homosexuals, I highly doubt that was the reason for the coup
#37 to #14 - byposted
Reply -2
(05/02/2013) [-]
A british fact

lol nice fact ********. I have a fact too...YOU'RE A ****** LITTLE ISLAND FILLED WITH BROWN PEOPLE.
#46 to #37 - captainreposty
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
LOL.
I hope you're American, because that just shows how moronic you are.
And even if you're not, Britain literally modernized the world (for the better and worse).
But without us, you'd all be uncivilsed ******* or, even worse, French or Spanish.... eurgh.
#47 to #46 - byposted
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
shhh ahmed
#49 to #47 - captainreposty
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
If you're insinuating that I'm an Arab, then you're gravely mistaken.
I could lecture you on the superiority of the (former) British Empire, and what it gave to the world, but I fear those worlds would fall on ears incapable of understanding them.
#50 to #49 - byposted
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
The old British empire is dead, ahmed. Now you have ********, a 2nd class member of the EU.
#51 to #50 - captainreposty
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
Have you even been to England?
You can talk about ratios, et al irrelevant factors, but America has a much larger Muslim population, Akbar.
#4 - KayRed
Reply -30
(05/02/2013) [-]
No ******* means ****** music, you know that right?
#16 to #4 - veryspecialagent
Reply -2
(05/02/2013) [-]
her have a thumb up, as your comment sinks to oblivion
her have a thumb up, as your comment sinks to oblivion
#5 to #4 - anon
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
Implying music wouldn't have still developed without *******.
#6 to #5 - KayRed
Reply -1
(05/02/2013) [-]
Music existed before black people were even brought to the united states, and it would continue to exist and develop if they were gone, but it would go in a much different direction, a ******** direction in my opinion.
#7 to #6 - anon
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
It would've been different, but in reality we can't know where it would've gone, so to say it would've been worse or even better is a stretch.
#8 to #7 - KayRed
Reply -1
(05/02/2013) [-]
You can base it off of the musical trends before black people came into the music scene.
#9 to #8 - anon
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
Had there not been blacks a number of things could've happened or not happened to influence the trend of music, there's literally no way to tell exactly where we would've ended up.
#10 to #9 - KayRed
Reply -1
(05/02/2013) [-]
Be that as it may, what we do know now is that black people have made music as we know it, awesome (and in some cases they have made it ******). Would you be willing to take that chance?
#11 to #10 - anon
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
I'm not arguing that they didn't have a profound effect on music, i'm saying it wouldn't have necessarily been ******, just different.
#12 to #11 - KayRed
Reply -1
(05/02/2013) [-]
And I agree with you, but I wouldn't want to take that chance.
#40 to #6 - wackaboom
Reply -1
(05/02/2013) [-]
It would go in one direction.
#17 to #4 - anon
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
You probably meant more good music and less ****** music
#18 to #17 - kosicandavid
Reply +5
(05/02/2013) [-]
Have you ever heard about jazz? or reggae? I think this music can be called good and also black.
#34 to #4 - toughactintinactin
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#45 to #4 - captainreposty
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
Oh no, the loss of god-damn niglets like Chris Brown and Lil' Wayne would be such a loss...
I understand what you mean, with the development of the blues and jazz having tremendous influence on many other genres, but what can ever justify Chris Brown?
#29 - anon
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
Hitler didn't do anything to black people, there were black people living in Germany they just couldn't fight in the war, the most that would happen is they'd get sterilised so they couldn't have children..
#33 to #29 - toughactintinactin
-1
has deleted their comment [-]
#38 to #29 - byposted
Reply -1
(05/02/2013) [-]
The only blacks who lived in Germany then were productive people. Much unlike ******* today.
#32 to #29 - anaraledien
Reply +1
(05/02/2013) [-]
so it means that there wouldn't be any black people.
#27 - honditar
Reply +1
(05/02/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#48 - infektio
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
One of the biggest reasons for the nazis losing is that they started using too advanced technology and warfare machinery. Because this sort of **** took way longer to produce than older machinery, they didn't have as much of it than the Allied forces.

That's what my friend said at school today. Not sure if correct. Correction appreciated if needed
#54 to #48 - thedutchs
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
No, that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

Germany pissed too many countries off to keep fighting. Hitler was still doing fine against France and England and then he felt like declaring war to America and Russia and got totally ******.
#56 to #54 - infektio
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
That's what I've also learned. Don't know where my friend got his info from but I thought it sounded sort of believable
#57 to #48 - sundanceholiday **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#44 - captainreposty
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
This I can get down with.
Maybe spare the blacks, they are good manual labourers.
However, those pesky Jews and their conniving ways to 'jew' people out of their money, would be a welcomed loss to the world.
If Hitler had won, then there wouldn't be such a massive wealth gap in countries like America, where the privately owned Federal Reserve, and the IRS, literally steals people's money in the disguise of "taxation".
Alas, t'is but a dream.
#53 to #44 - ronyx
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
America would not even exist anymore.
#31 - mussyo
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
This is not even funny, just racist.


All it says is, i wish most non whites would die and i like that idea...
#39 to #31 - sorrowofdaedalus
Reply -1
(05/02/2013) [-]
Actually, it states a fairly simple fact.


Racism has plagued the world from the earliest beginnings of man. If one race killed off all of the others, there would be global unity and instead of war people would seriously focus on progressive technologies, government planning, REAL issues.

It's widely regarded as fact that a benevolent dictator is the best form of government, and while Hitler was certainly evil to those outside of his circle, he did revitalize the german economy.

It's ****** to think about, but if Hitler had won, the world would be a better place. That has nothing to do with racism, it's simply because something near a Utopia would be built on the blood and bones of the defeated, which is sickening.
#41 to #39 - mussyo
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
Better to teach unity then to exterminate people who do not fit into the majority.

Regardless of whether it would be better, eradicating a race is racist, and support for it also is racist, even if it is true what you say..
#42 to #41 - mussyo
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
That is a definition of racist.
#43 to #42 - mussyo
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
The*
#58 to #41 - sorrowofdaedalus
Reply -1
(05/02/2013) [-]
That's true, but consider this next;


In the same way that a homosexual has a right to be homosexual, shouldn't a racist have the right to be racist? They don't have the right to insult or persecute others in the same way that a homosexual can't insult or persecute a heterosexual.

Do people have a right to be hateful, if they also recognize and respect the fact that they can not mistreat people as a result of that hatred?
#59 to #58 - mussyo
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
Racism breeds hate, homosexuality or the freedom of it, breeds love.

So no.
#60 to #59 - sorrowofdaedalus
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
Is hatred bad?
#61 to #60 - mussyo
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
Contextual, it can be a strong emotion for change, which can be good, but not when it helps no one, or rather just a select few people. There is empathy to consider here, I would rather people not feel discriminated against at the risk of change, but hating things that cause us nothing but harm, now that's hatred used to move people for change, in a good way.
#62 to #61 - sorrowofdaedalus
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
Why don't racists have the right to discriminate mentally, in the same way someone is allowed to discriminate mentally against someone who is particularly homeless, unattractive, or otherwise disarming?

I'm not saying that Racists have the right to physically harm or discriminate against another person, what I'm asking is, if you have a right to hate racists, why don't racists have a right to hate too? Because they don't hate what you hate? Because you hate them BECAUSE of your hatred?

Hate is hate, context does not change what it is, only how it's applied. Hating for a good cause is not a good thing. By this logic, then Hitler's hatred was a good hatred, because as we've already established, he would've created an essential utopia. You claim that hating things that cause us nothing but harm is good, but what Hitler would've done would've caused a lot of good, as well as bad. Consider that he revitalized the German economy from millions in war debt in the time he lead the nation alone, so by your logic, Hitler, or the Nazi Regime, are not causes worth hating. I personally believe that they are causes worth hating, because what he did was extremely immoral. It wasn't immoral because of racism though, it was immoral because he killed people.
#30 - mussyo
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#28 - anon
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
at least that stupid jew davidavidson would be dead and funnyjunk would be better place
#13 - herecomesjohnny
Reply 0
(05/02/2013) [-]
eh bland typical response
eh bland typical response
[ 60 comments ]
Leave a comment