Your last 'myth' is really bare bones (and also not really historical). You are absolutely right in that the legal standard is incitement to "imminent, lawless action"
But, when we're asking if President Trumps words rise to that standard what we have is a very fact based (as opposed to the general principle of law based) discussion as to whether his words meet the elements of the crime. And people can have differing opinions on whether those facts rise to the standard. As someone with absolutely no love of Trump I don't think his words are sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he intended them to cause lawless action. If he did intend it however it would probably count as an imminent, Trump knew and referenced that the crowd was marching to the Capitol right after his speech.
-Hitler was a THULEAN. This is a religion. It was this religion that allowed him to secure loans and assurances from outside Weimar.
-Nazis, like the Italians, used KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS extensively in the CENTRALIZATION of their SOCIALIZED economy. They seized the means of production just the same as every other socialist state, but didn't bother with the pretext of "worker owned" anything. I wonder who else has used KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS for the CENTRALIZATION of their economy.
-Nazis were unified by their NATION, not by their NATION'S HATRED. This is difficult for you to comprehend, because you hate your nation and don't believe its history was worth fighting for. Nazis came to power by pointing out Weimar that was infiltrated and subverted by individuals (largely Jewish and Freemasonic individuals) who had no stake in her welfare and success, and conspired to oppress and punish them. It was through leveraging love of a nation and a clear, coherent, comprehensible narrative against subversive groups operating within that nation which gave rise to Hitler.
Statements like "the nazis had nothing but anti-semitism uniting them" are as stupid as they are ahistorical. If you think the average nazi voter cared more about punishing Jews than restoring the glory of the Fatherland, then you are painfully oblivious to the conditions of the Weimar Republic, and how neatly our current conditions are coming to emulate them. I hope you wake up before history repeats itself.
- Johannes Hering's "Beiträge zur Geschichte der Thule-Gesellschaft" from 1939 shows us that there's zero evidence that Hitler ever attended Thule society meetings, let alone was a member.
- Keynesian economics is merely an economic theory; it has no moral value--good or bad--even if it's used by immoral actors. Saying the "Nazis were socialists" is simplistic and doesn't get at the heart of how they understood the world.
- The Nazis did indeed use a love of nation as their pretext--hence why you wouldn't find many "average Nazi voters" voting for anything BUT glory to the fatherland--but if the leaders and architects of the Nazi project weren't animated by a hatred of Jews, then why didn't they just go down the route of Mussolini and become fellow fascists? If you take away the hatred of Jews, there's no coherence to the project; Himmler and Rosenberg go off into eco-fascist mysticism, Goebbels goes off into antitheist ramblings and efforts to destroy Christianity along with the Jews, Goering and Bormann continue their kleptocratic tendencies with no love for Germany as such, and Hitler shouts into a void. Maybe you think the Jews had it coming (since they were apparently "subversive" and "conspired to oppress and punish" the Germans), but then you're really just proving the point that there isn't Nazism with hatred of Jews.
-Dietrich Eckart and Gottfried Feder were the two foremost influences on Hitler, and their theories and writings formed the underpinnings of Thuleanism and the foundations of the National Socialists from the ground up. Whether Hitler was a member or merely their #1 fan is ultimately pretty irrelevant (his religious devotion to their tenants is not a matter of historical debate though). These dichotomies, by the way, are the answer to the question on your third bullet point. They didn't become Italian Fascists because they were busy being German Thuleans.
-Keynesian economics justifies undue influence by the government in its economy. GDP is a far inferior metric of a country's productive capabilities than GNP was, and the rule changes that it permitted have spawned the financialized, stagflated economies we see the world over. Saying the nazis somehow weren't socialists in spite of them socializing their economy is a lie: so you can take your choice between being simplistic or lying I guess.
-It's not a matter of what I think, so much as it was a matter of what the people at the time thought. They thought that within their lifetimes they went from a stable currency, a culture they could be proud of, and a government that represented the interests of their nation... to hyperinflation, degenerate culture, and a throng of corrupt outsiders masquerading as a government and profiteering off the misery and sorrow of the Volk: enough so that they democratically voted for Adolf Hitler. Is it possible to have the Nazis without antisemitism? I dunno: were the conditions in Weimar possible without Jews?
What I think is that those same conditions are repeating themselves, and antisemitism is creeping into the American Overton window from left, right, and completely apolitical circles alike. Whether that is coincidental or not, you be the judge. I think that consistent attempts to censor this discussion away while demonizing very pro-Jewish right-wing politicians (EG TRUMP) are both underway and supremely dangerous, because the old neoconservative (vigorously pro-Jewish) guard is dying; young right-wing Americans hate them and want them rotting in the ground ASAP.
Young right-wingers want a gun rights, absolute free speech for everyone to the fullest extent possible, a secure border, healthy communities (good schools, family-centric culture, pride in local and provincial government, wholesome food), inflation consistent enough that they don't have to think about it, less foreign intervention (and checkwriting), secure elections. Trump likes all that stuff too. How the Jewish community reacts to these demands will determine the relationship between Jews and the young American right, and so far I'm very concerned with what I'm seeing.
Your last 'myth' is really bare bones (and also not really historical). You are absolutely right in that the legal standard is incitement to "imminent, lawless action"
But, when we're asking if President Trumps words rise to that standard what we have is a very fact based (as opposed to the general principle of law based) discussion as to whether his words meet the elements of the crime. And people can have differing opinions on whether those facts rise to the standard. As someone with absolutely no love of Trump I don't think his words are sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he intended them to cause lawless action. If he did intend it however it would probably count as an imminent, Trump knew and referenced that the crowd was marching to the Capitol right after his speech.
-Hitler was a THULEAN. This is a religion. It was this religion that allowed him to secure loans and assurances from outside Weimar.
-Nazis, like the Italians, used KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS extensively in the CENTRALIZATION of their SOCIALIZED economy. They seized the means of production just the same as every other socialist state, but didn't bother with the pretext of "worker owned" anything. I wonder who else has used KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS for the CENTRALIZATION of their economy.
-Nazis were unified by their NATION, not by their NATION'S HATRED. This is difficult for you to comprehend, because you hate your nation and don't believe its history was worth fighting for. Nazis came to power by pointing out Weimar that was infiltrated and subverted by individuals (largely Jewish and Freemasonic individuals) who had no stake in her welfare and success, and conspired to oppress and punish them. It was through leveraging love of a nation and a clear, coherent, comprehensible narrative against subversive groups operating within that nation which gave rise to Hitler.
Statements like "the nazis had nothing but anti-semitism uniting them" are as stupid as they are ahistorical. If you think the average nazi voter cared more about punishing Jews than restoring the glory of the Fatherland, then you are painfully oblivious to the conditions of the Weimar Republic, and how neatly our current conditions are coming to emulate them. I hope you wake up before history repeats itself.
EULOGIA
- Johannes Hering's "Beiträge zur Geschichte der Thule-Gesellschaft" from 1939 shows us that there's zero evidence that Hitler ever attended Thule society meetings, let alone was a member.
- Keynesian economics is merely an economic theory; it has no moral value--good or bad--even if it's used by immoral actors. Saying the "Nazis were socialists" is simplistic and doesn't get at the heart of how they understood the world.
- The Nazis did indeed use a love of nation as their pretext--hence why you wouldn't find many "average Nazi voters" voting for anything BUT glory to the fatherland--but if the leaders and architects of the Nazi project weren't animated by a hatred of Jews, then why didn't they just go down the route of Mussolini and become fellow fascists? If you take away the hatred of Jews, there's no coherence to the project; Himmler and Rosenberg go off into eco-fascist mysticism, Goebbels goes off into antitheist ramblings and efforts to destroy Christianity along with the Jews, Goering and Bormann continue their kleptocratic tendencies with no love for Germany as such, and Hitler shouts into a void. Maybe you think the Jews had it coming (since they were apparently "subversive" and "conspired to oppress and punish" the Germans), but then you're really just proving the point that there isn't Nazism with hatred of Jews.
-Dietrich Eckart and Gottfried Feder were the two foremost influences on Hitler, and their theories and writings formed the underpinnings of Thuleanism and the foundations of the National Socialists from the ground up. Whether Hitler was a member or merely their #1 fan is ultimately pretty irrelevant (his religious devotion to their tenants is not a matter of historical debate though). These dichotomies, by the way, are the answer to the question on your third bullet point. They didn't become Italian Fascists because they were busy being German Thuleans.
-Keynesian economics justifies undue influence by the government in its economy. GDP is a far inferior metric of a country's productive capabilities than GNP was, and the rule changes that it permitted have spawned the financialized, stagflated economies we see the world over. Saying the nazis somehow weren't socialists in spite of them socializing their economy is a lie: so you can take your choice between being simplistic or lying I guess.
-It's not a matter of what I think, so much as it was a matter of what the people at the time thought. They thought that within their lifetimes they went from a stable currency, a culture they could be proud of, and a government that represented the interests of their nation... to hyperinflation, degenerate culture, and a throng of corrupt outsiders masquerading as a government and profiteering off the misery and sorrow of the Volk: enough so that they democratically voted for Adolf Hitler. Is it possible to have the Nazis without antisemitism? I dunno: were the conditions in Weimar possible without Jews?
What I think is that those same conditions are repeating themselves, and antisemitism is creeping into the American Overton window from left, right, and completely apolitical circles alike. Whether that is coincidental or not, you be the judge. I think that consistent attempts to censor this discussion away while demonizing very pro-Jewish right-wing politicians (EG TRUMP) are both underway and supremely dangerous, because the old neoconservative (vigorously pro-Jewish) guard is dying; young right-wing Americans hate them and want them rotting in the ground ASAP.
Young right-wingers want a gun rights, absolute free speech for everyone to the fullest extent possible, a secure border, healthy communities (good schools, family-centric culture, pride in local and provincial government, wholesome food), inflation consistent enough that they don't have to think about it, less foreign intervention (and checkwriting), secure elections. Trump likes all that stuff too. How the Jewish community reacts to these demands will determine the relationship between Jews and the young American right, and so far I'm very concerned with what I'm seeing.