Yup, a lot of engineers here letting their egos be stroked. "Lawyers are bad people unlike me, a noble and rational engineer. If I controlled the government I would do things right, because I'm an engineer."

And as further evidence, this idea was already tried in the Soviet Union and it did not produce benevolent leaders free from human failings.

Money laundering, give the money to a shell company and have them report it as income. Obviously not that simple but that's the basic explanation.

> Communism has no future so long as it's supporters refuse to understand that Marx's magnificent philosophical and political system rejects borgeous human rights.

Stalin couldn't have put it better himself.

Glad to know I was a fool for ever joining the military...

From contemporary ethnologists who used the term to refer to the proto-indo-europeans? Because the term aryan is common amongst the languages descended from the proto-indo-european language (Arya, Iran, Alans, Arios)?

Nazi philosophy grew out of 19th century ethnology which was heavily influenced by Darwinism. They believed the proto-indo-european ("Aryan") homeland was in northern Europe and that the spread of "Aryan" language was do to "Aryan" immigration to those regions and that in ancient times those regions were led by an "Aryan" "master race" who ruled over the "lesser races" do to their natural superior genes developed through generations of natural selection in the harsh northern climate.

To be clear, I believe that is all BS but I wrote all that to clarify that the Nazis didn't steal the term Aryan from the Hindu, it's a term used by the Indo-Iranians to self-designate which was erroneously misattributed to the proto-indo-europeans by early European ethnologists.

So Hitler was jealous of the fact that the Romance speakers had history and the Germanic speakers didn't. And he solved that problem by appropriating the history of India and claiming it was also the history of the Germans. He used Indian symbols and Indian words.

But that doesn't mean that he took them from India? That's crazy. What else would you say he did? That they were from India was the point. Without their Indian identity, they would have failed to serve his purpose of giving a history to the Germans.

You are missing Reasoning's point (although I think you're right about the Nazis needing to create or appropriate some other people's heritage). 'Aryan' was a linguistic term previously mistakenly used to mean Proto-Indo-European. Hitler didn't personally invent Nazi master-race ideology and look to India, it's a small pseudo-intellectual extension of (European) 19th/early 20th century ethnology and eugenics, and that's a very important distinction to make, to understand how the Nazi came to believe what they did through a product of many often-plausible steps and all-too-common character flaws, not through one man.

> You are missing Reasoning's point

Note that the comment here is from HK-NC:

>>> I'm not sure who decided that Hitler stole the swastika from the Hindus, but it's false. The symbol appeared in the decorations of his childhood church IIRC and wasn't an alien symbol to germans elsewhere.

You're saying I shouldn't be reading this as a claim that the Nazi swastika was an indigenous development, unrelated to the Indian symbol despite the fact that it symbolized an official ideology naming the Indians as a sister tribe to the Germans and adopting the tribal name of the Indians for the Germans, and the fact that it was referred to by its Sanskrit name?

> Hitler didn't personally invent Nazi master-race ideology and look to India

Why is this relevant? He is the one who adopted the ideology on behalf of the German state.

Did it have to be written? Who's the hypothetical person who is confused that a 1,500 year old gold disk is older than the Nazi era.

Nobody is confused about that, but people are confused about whether the swastika represents something similar to Nazi ideology before the Nazis appropriated it.

Definitely a manipulative framing on his part. He originally was convicted for MDMA and marijuana, was released on probation and then was convicted for synthetic opioids. He's probably serving time right now for the marijuana for breaking his probation but he's not in prison now because of it.

I'll add on, he mentions in his blog that he was making "tens of thousands of dollars a week" selling drugs. He was not a small time dealer and certainly wasn't just buying drugs for himself.

His current sentence also (15-30 years) isn't his first prison sentence. He was released and reoffended which absolutely contributed to the longer sentence.

MDMA and weed was his initial sentence. He's in prison now for selling synthetic opioids.

Are you concerned that if you make prison too expensive society might resort to capital punishment to reduce prison costs? Or we end up releasing prisoners who are legitimate dangers to society.

And to be clear, I'm opposed to capital punishment and dangerous conditions in prisons. I'm just pointing out that I don't think your argument is very good. If you think we as a society are willing to flippantly put people in prison because it's cheap I don't see how you can trust us to no resort to other flippant measures if the cost was high.