Name one issue of the 1980s that was significant and demonstrated strong divergence of viewpoints amongst anyone that was a part of the major mass media propaganda organizations.

What is amazing is how people like yourself can make such claims. Such is the power of propaganda.

A thinking person would simply question all accounts of "genocide" as it is a criminal offense in virtually all of Europe to refuse to believe that such genocide even occurred. What kind of truth requires that level of coercion?

Moreover, it is simply a book. Wouldn't a thinking person want to read the autobiography of a man so vilified?

Apparently not, because if you did - you would be able to see for yourself that 1) Most of Adolf Hitler's criticisms were indeed quite reasonable and 2) he did not advocate genocide at any point.

What causes people like yourself to simply accept everything you see on television? I just couldn't imagine being such a follower that I lack any ability to think critically.

That is not what Geert Wilders is claiming. See, the reason we have different countries is because people are different. Muslims and Arabs and Africans are free to practice their unique ways in their own countries. There is simply no reason for those people to be in Europe, and there is no reason for them to import their particular ways of life into a society against the will of those people already there.

Ultimately however, your personal belief in radical equality just doesn't matter. War is coming. Multiculturalism has failed, and Muslims will cease being in Europe within a generation. This will occur peacefully or violently. It is probably best if you simply accept this, and encourage all people to practice their unique ways in their own countries. When in Rome, do as the Romans do and all that. You know, basic common sense.

It was the budget surplus that crashed the economy. Clinton and congress were responsible.

This is actually a bad thing. We need massive fiscal deficits to reduce the impact of private debt.

Nazis did not persecute blacks at all. There were perhaps 20,000 in Germany. They could not join german specific groups like the SS or hitler youth, and could not get into many university programs, but they were otherwise left alone. There was no segregation. They could hold most jobs, or join the regular german army.

A great personal account.

http://www.amazon.com/Destined...

See, why do you care? Why does this cause such an emotional response?

Does it make you feel special?

"I, Pumpkin Tuna, believe everything my teachers taught me, what is shown to me on television, and what 25 nations enforce under penalty of imprisonment."

Do you really feel courageous?

You are indeed correct, oh wise member of the tribe of Levi.

I don't really care one way or the other regarding the number, but I will never believe in any truth that comes with a prison sentence for nonbelievers. 60 million is way higher than anything I have heard, but I suppose it could be true.

As for evolution, you need to learn about science. It is a hypothesis I consider almost certainly correct, but it has never been observed.

See, this is what people like you do. You demand blind faith, and desire to punish those who disagree with you. You either mock people or outright persecute them. This ultimately is why your people are hated all over the world .

60 million is the number now?

Let me guess, if I don't believe your statements - which is a criminal offense in most of Europe - I should be thrown in jail?

And, what precisely was the crime committed by Goebbels? Writing? Public Speaking? Thought crimes?

Do you post such vitriol to feel better about yourself? Is this supposed to be a persuasive counter argument?

Banks don't lend deposits. Loans create deposits. You really don't understand banking at all. Start here.

https://www.youtube.com/playli...

Evolution is not established science. It is an interesting hypothesis for which much circumstantial evidence is present, but it has never been observed. The same is true for climate change. If the scientific method can't be used to test the hypothesis, it is not science. Period.

"Sure, that never causes a problem. Why, every time it's been tried in history it has ended well. Wait, sorry, it always ends the other way, but hey, maybe this time will be different!"

All decisions can be made well or poorly in all things, not simply governance or social organization. The error you make is believing that there is some kind of perfect system, when the reality is humans are imperfect, irrational creatures. Money is like religion and mass propaganda. It is a high level abstraction that organizes society. In all cases, such organization can be beneficial or detrimental, what matters is not the system, but the people making the decisions.

The reality is there are relatively few examples of the hyperinflation bogeyman in civilized countries. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming that unrestrained creation of money by banks is far more dangerous than a sovereign running fiscal deficits, as every single major depression was predicated upon reckless creation of money my banks that severely misallocated capital, and resulted in massive defaults and impoverishment.

Regardless, the fact remains that this is our financial system. You have either banks creating money with loans, or you have the sovereign authority running fiscal deficits. The former method requires more money to be created to pay interest, the latter does not.

You are free to propose a new economic order, but it is cruel and irresponsible to suggest a currency issuing sovereign can or should run budget surpluses or have a "balanced budget". This, again, shows a total lack of understanding of how banking works, and has ever worked.

Your post shows a fundamental lack of understanding of money. The sovereign does not have any need to tax to raise revenue. They can create as much money as they wish. Taxation is about social control. Further, the sovereign power must always run fiscal deficits. 97% of all money is created by banks as loans, all of which has interest attached. Only the sovereign can create money without future interest. Without deficits, interest will consume all money in time.