Nani ni mkali wa kimombo kati ya Nyerere, Mkapa, Kikwete na Slaa!

[Kiranga]

Excuse me Sir, you hailed Hitler's charisma in wooing the German people by delivery.

But if delivery was part of his content, and he had no admirable content, then it is contradictory for you to hail Hitler's.

For some, even the third time is not the charm!

Your Kafkaesque penchant for hunting contradictions with predilections for pedantic pugilism amidst vehement Vogon verses fit for a latter day Ottoman ombudsman is bemusing in bellicosity and shortchanging those with warranted inquiry.

You fail to respect compartmentalization in your signature typically mechanical thinking that "if delivery was part of his content, and he had no admirable content, then it is contradictory for you to hail Hitler's".

You probably need a Venn diagram to appreciate that it is not contradictory to say "delivery was part of his content, and he had no admirable content" and still admire the part of his delivery that was not tainted by his despicable content.

I suggest you revisit set theory and look up the intersections and union of sets.

Delivery was part of his content, not all of his content.

The joke is on you jack!

 

[Anheuser]

Delivery was part of his content, not all of his content.

That is correct Sir.

Delivery was part of his content, not all of it, you say.

And he had no admirable content.

That means his delivery and the rest of whatever constituted his content were not admirable!

Because "he had no admirable content."

Then, what wooed the German people?

Hahahahaa....

 

[Kiranga]

That is correct Sir.

Delivery was part of his content, not all of it, you say.

And he had no admirable content.

That means his delivery and the rest of whatever constituted his content were not admirable!

Because "he had no admirable content."

Then, what wooed the German people?

Hahahahaa....

First of all, it does not follow that just because "delivery was part of his content" and "he had no admirable content" then "his delivery and the rest of whatever constituted his content were not admirable".

I see you did not take my advise to consult your schoolbooks regarding set theory.

That delivery "was part of his content" does not mean there was no delivery that was not part of his content".

Again, you need a Venn diagram.

Second of all, there is no reason to assume that that which wooed the German people was admirable.

One could easily argue that the German people were under a perilous time from the WW1 armistice, reparations, stripped of their world power status and prone to succumb to the empty oratory of a cantankerous figure who gave them the easy target of Jews, a feat that is neither admirable nor lofty.

You will see that your final question, in context, betrays an unnecessary high regard for that which wooed the German people where none was needed.

 

[Anheuser]

That delivery "was part of his content" does not mean there was no delivery that was not part of his content".

Right, Sir.

But you told us "delivery became part of his content."

Now you are talking about delivery that was not part of his content.

So, which part wooed the German people? You are still contradicting yourself Sir.

One could easily argue that the German people were under a perilous time from the WW1 armistice, reparations, stripped of their world power status and prone to succumb to the empty oratory of a cantankerous figure who gave them the easy target of Jews, a feat that is neither admirable nor lofty.

Was that part of his content?

The cantankerous oratory targeting the Jews to which the German people succumbed to, was it or was is not part of his content? Hahahahaaaa...

Second of all, there is no reason to assume that that which wooed the German people was admirable.

Admirable to who? To the German people it must be, according to you. Because you hailed his "charismatic delivery" that wooed the German people. So, it is the German people and you who admired his "charismatic delivery."

Beyond that, you and the German people, who said it was admirable?

for that which wooed the German people where none was needed.

"None was needed" to woo the German people, so they were wooed by nothing, out of the blue sky the German people suddenly began to get wooed for no reason!

You are a unique Hitler historian.

 

[Kiranga]

Right, Sir.

But you told us "delivery became part of his content."

Now you are talking about delivery that was not part of his content.

That delivery became part of his content does not mean all delivery became all of his content, nor all his content fluxed into all his delivery.

So, which part wooed the German people?

I painstakingly layed this out in my previous post.

You are still contradicting yourself Sir.

Pray tell.

Was that part of his content?

Again, that delivery became part of his content does not mean all delivery became all of his content, nor all his content fluxed into all his delivery.Empty rhetoric does not rise to the level of content.

The cantankerous oratory targeting the Jews to which the German people succumbed to, was it or was is not part of his content? Hahahahaaaa...

Again, empty rhetoric does not rise to the level of content.This, in the Venn diagram mentioned above, could be said to coincide with the part that does not make the intersection of content and delivery.Even as it can be granted it's pure gamesmanship and sordid exploitation of the gullible and ignoble.

Admirable to who? To the German people it must be, according to you. Because you hailed his "charismatic delivery" that wooed the German people. So, it is the German people and you who admired his "charismatic delivery."

Students of oratory the world over have hailed the electrifying pace and delivery, even as they deplored the racist content.

Beyond that, you and the German people, who said it was admirable?

This is already answered above.

"None was needed" to woo the German people, so they were wooed by nothing, out of the blue sky the German people suddenly began to get wooed for no reason!

No admirable content was needed, they were in such a stupor that an electrifying orator with a snakes oil salesman delivery was able to sell them ignoble visions of a better Germany that was rid of the Jews.

You are a unique Hitler historian.

Not only that. I am a unique everything I am.

 

[Anheuser]

empty rhetoric does not rise to the level of content.

Correct Sir, empty rhetoric does not rise to the level of content, meaning his empty rhetoric could not have become part of his content, or if it did it found admiration.

I am going to recap it briefly before we put it to bed because I don't wanna keep beating a dead horse, I know you need some closure from it all.

The take home here is that if a delivery is charismatic then it must be captivating to its audience. If it is captivating, hailed and followed line hook and sinker, then it must admire it. If that admired delivery then becomes part of a content then that content must be admirable to the audience. So Hitler's content, to the German people, was admirable.

Now the homework: a good re-read here would be Claudia Koonz' The Nazi Conscience, which lays out a case for the arguable content which galvanized the German people, beyond the pomp of delivery and charisma.

 

[georgeallen]

JK anatisha..angalia hapa chini

Kwa aina hii ya mtazamo, ndiyo maana wajanja wanamaliza rasilimali zetu

 

[simplemind]

Nyerere communicates, Mkapa speaks, JK says nothing. People listen to Nyerere, people hear Mkapa,people strain to get JK.

 

[Twachie]

Kwa jamii yetu english tatizo

 

[Mshana Jr]

Kwanini kimombo? Kwanini c kifaransa? Kijapan? Kispaniola? Kiarabu? Kichina?kwanini kimombo???? Ukoloni hautaisha

 

[Jimmy Kadebedebe]

JK anatisha..angalia hapa chini

ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

 

[kingukitano]

Slaa wa mwisho kabisa

 

[Kiranga]

Correct Sir, empty rhetoric does not rise to the level of content, meaning his empty rhetoric could not have become part of his content, or if it did it found admiration.

I am going to recap it briefly before we put it to bed because I don't wanna keep beating a dead horse, I know you need some closure from it all.

The take home here is that if a delivery is charismatic then it must be captivating to its audience. If it is captivating, hailed and followed line hook and sinker, then it must admire it. If that admired delivery then becomes part of a content then that content must be admirable to the audience. So Hitler's content, to the German people, was admirable.

Now the homework: a good re-read here would be Claudia Koonz' The Nazi Conscience, which lays out a case for the arguable content which galvanized the German people, beyond the pomp of delivery and charisma.

We have established that empty rhetoric does not rise to the level of content.

Claudia Koonz's The Nazi Conscience, which I own, have read and informed my input (see attached) made a strong case highlighting complicity and concluded that the German people were gullible and or ignoble. Which I have stated above.

 

[Wandugu Masanja]

sijamsikia hata mmoja kuzungumza kimombo, sio Kikwete wala Nyerere kuzungumza Kimombo
mleta mada anauliza nani mkali wa kimombo ? vipi watu wa Meru na wao wakija kuuliza nani mkali na vipi Kibosho
Meku hebu njoo upande huu hawa wanazungumza lugha yako

lugha gongana hapa watu wasije toka mapovu

 

[Anheuser]

... German people were gullible and or ignoble.

What was their conscience?

For a Hitler historian I assumed that you will have read the book, that's why I suggested a re-read, because you missed that point. Far from lambasting the Nazi's, the crux of the book is to help readers understand what the Nazi's were thinking. If you come out of it with "the book concluded complicity.... gullible...ignoble" then a re-read is in order.

If you set out to narrate a book called "The Conscience of Iddi Amin" and you tell us it concluded that Iddi Amin was a coldblooded killing machine who enjoyed sharing his human liver dinners with his alligators, you haven't said anything we didn't know. What was his conscience?

We have established that empty rhetoric does not rise to the level of content.

Correct Sir, so next time don't claim that that became part of his content. Such unrespectable claim erodes the pull of a Hitler historian.

 

[kibol]

Some would say the premise of this thread is frivolous.

Ally Hassan Mwinyi spoke better Swahili than all, but that did not help him in being decisive.
Mkapa spoke English better than all but lacked charisma and couldn't give a live speech. His English did not help his integrity.
Nyerere was the most conversant, eloquent and capable live speaker and writer, but he still managed to butcher his Swahili.
Kikwete can't speak, can't write, can't think. In either Swahili or English. And doesn't have either integrity or a spine.

mkuuu hapo kwenye red umeniacha hoi sana

 

[minyoo]

Kimombo ni Lugha ya Mkoloni iweje iwe sifa eti kuizungumza Lugha iliyotumika kuandika Mikataba Mibovu iliyotugharimu ! inaelekea Kama bado hatukuwa tayari kukiendeleza kiswahili Ndio Maana Viongozi wamekuwa mstari wa mbele Kuwa wanazungumza kiswanglish pasipo kujali Kiswahili kinamezwa na Uswanglish matokeo yake Kiswahili kitakuja kuyeyuka na kuzaliwa lugha mpya

 

[Mshana Jr]

sijamsikia hata mmoja kuzungumza kimombo, sio Kikwete wala Nyerere kuzungumza Kimombo
mleta mada anauliza nani mkali wa kimombo ? vipi watu wa Meru na wao wakija kuuliza nani mkali na vipi Kibosho
Meku hebu njoo upande huu hawa wanazungumza lugha yako

lugha gongana hapa watu wasije toka mapovu

Well said ...! Kiroba kinapanda nikutoe na kimoko?

 

[Kiranga]

What was their conscience?

For a Hitler historian I assumed that you will have read the book, that's why I suggested a re-read, because you missed that point. Far from lambasting the Nazi's, the crux of the book is to help readers understand what the Nazi's were thinking. If you come out of it with "the book concluded complicity.... gullible...ignoble" then a re-read is in order.

Who said the book lambasted the NAZI? Why is a re-read in order?

If you set out to narrate a book called "The Conscience of Iddi Amin" and you tell us it concluded that Iddi Amin was a coldblooded killing machine who enjoyed sharing his human liver dinners with his alligators, you haven't said anything we didn't know. What was his conscience?

I was not narrating a book, you brought the book into this thread.

Correct Sir, so next time don't claim that that became part of his content. Such unrespectable claim erodes the pull of a Hitler historian.

I suggest you look up ignoble, and go back to that now long overdue set theory lesson, particularly the representation of set intersection and union using Venn diagram.

For I fear mere words are not enough to convey the complexity and deceitful appearance of of phrases like "delivery became conetnt". I have explained before that not all delivery became content and not all conted derived from delivery.

If you are not able to get that through your head, that is hardly my doing Mr. Pedantic pugilist with a predilection for hunting non-existent contradictions.

 

[Anheuser]

Who said the book lambasted the NAZI?

"Complicit, ignoble and gullible..." does that sound like praise to you? You said the book concluded as much. That's more lambasting than applauding them!

Nazi Conscience means the Nazi had some kind of a moral compass that spurred them to their actions, and historians grappled to get more insight into that. That can't be the same old "ignoble... gullible... complicit..." narration that's well chronicled. Your fellow Hitler historians are still studying that consternating epoch from different angles. Thus such scholarly efforts as The Nazi Conscience.

delivery became conetnt. ... not all conted derived from delivery.

You said delivery became part of his content. Period. That was your slip up. You praised Hitler's delivery, said it became part of his content, then slammed the content, then said it wooed the German people! The content which was not bolstered by addition of charismatic delivery wooed the German people! Completely muddled up.

I was not narrating a book, you brought the book into this thread.

You summed up the book. With the wrong theme. Doesn't matter who brought it up. You brought up praise for Hitler's eloquence in debate about Mkapa and Nyerere. Which was okay except you were atrociously jumbled up there too.

How can Mkapa "speak English better than all" and then Nyerere be "the most eloquent"?