0
   

O The Times, They Are A Changin'

 
 
Berner
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 12:24 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;89014 wrote:
...Mengele hung...


I know this might not add to the conversation but he wasn't executed. He escaped to South America and drowned sometime in the 80's. He should have been hung but he got away instead.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 12:33 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;89014 wrote:
We've all heard of Josef Mengele I'm sure. How many have heard of Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer? He was the chief of the Keiser Wilhelm Institute (funded by the Rockefeller and Carnegie Trusts), which was the pre-war leader in the sort of horrors we associate with Mengele, who was in fact a student and employee of Vershuer, and was sent to Auschwitz as such on Verschuer's orders. Mengele hung, but Verschuer was not prosecuted. By 1949 he had become a corresponding member of the American Society of Human Genetics. In 1950 the University of Munster offered him a position at its Institute of Human Genetics. He later became a member of the Italian Society of Genetics, the Anthropological Society of Vienna, and the Japanese Society for Human Genetics. That's odd..:whistling:
Berner is correct, Mengele was never caught. The Mossad agents who captured Eichmann had located Mengele as well, but Eichmann was a FAR higher priority for them and they could not capture Mengele at the same time. Mengele freaked when Eichmann was captured and he was never located again before his death, despite his horrific letters that he wrote to his son.

Of course some Nazi doctors DID hang:

Doctors' Trial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
0 Replies
 
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 12:34 pm
@Berner,
Ah yes, thanks. My mistake. In any case though, the point was mainly that, while some NAZI scientists were executed (or as you said escaped only to live in hiding), others were welcomed with open arms into the post-war society.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 12:35 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;89043 wrote:
Ah yes, thanks. My mistake. In any case though, the point was mainly that, while some NAZI scientists were executed (or as you said escaped only to live in hiding), others were welcomed with open arms into the post-war society.
Correct, Werner von Braun and Heisenberg being the two most famous.
Berner
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 02:25 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;89044 wrote:
Correct, Werner von Braun and Heisenberg being the two most famous.


One wonders if they were really sincere during their time in Nazi Germany or if they were just going along to get along.
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 03:29 pm
@Berner,
I would guess that those two fellows went along with it, simply because their work was un-idealistic and technical. Verschuer, on the other hand, I'm sure approved of the NAZI ideology; how else could he direct the brutal torture of innocent children, pregnant women, etc. for the sake of racial science.
0 Replies
 
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 09:46 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;89043 wrote:
Ah yes, thanks. My mistake. In any case though, the point was mainly that, while some NAZI scientists were executed (or as you said escaped only to live in hiding), others were welcomed with open arms into the post-war society.


This shows what I think is essential to human survival: Make your selves useful!
Stay in school, kids.

PS. BrightNoon: I wrote a related post in your Anomalous Century thread a while ago, that I really like.
Haven't you subscribed to those threads any more? I would like to know what you think.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 12:20 am
@Berner,
Berner;89071 wrote:
One wonders if they were really sincere during their time in Nazi Germany or if they were just going along to get along.
Werner von Braun designed Germany's prime terror weapon, the V2 rocket, and he made liberal use of Jewish slave labor at the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp in Nordhausen where 20,000 died. He was frequently present at the camp and knew exactly what was going on there. This is the behavior of a war criminal -- but it's not at quite the same level as the Nazi doctors who were to the last brutally hardcore Nazi idealogues and sadists.

Heisenberg was part of Germany's fairly incompetent nuclear arms program, which was effectively abandoned by 1941 or 1942 anyway, and he always gave lame excuses about trying to sabotage their program though no one ever really believed him.

When you consider the number of physicists who fled Germany because of their political principles, one can't really give either von Braun or Heisenberg a pass just for going along to get along.
0 Replies
 
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2009 08:04 pm
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;89124 wrote:
This shows what I think is essential to human survival: Make your selves useful!
Stay in school, kids.

PS. BrightNoon: I wrote a related post in your Anomalous Century thread a while ago, that I really like.
Haven't you subscribed to those threads any more? I would like to know what you think.


Yea sorry, I've been really busy with alot of things...been neglecting deserving threads all over the forum. Very Happy I'll see what you wrote and get back to you.
0 Replies
 
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 08:17 am
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;87763 wrote:
I have enjoyed watching Glenn Beck for a few months now, almost a year in fact, despite my opinion that he was just another shill, albeit a more clever one, who rather than ignoring the issues, was attempting to redirect the public anger about them. E.g., he, along with FOX in general, attempted to co-opt the 'tea-parties,' thereby making them partisan and easier to dismiss by other media factions. However, I've noticed, especially in the last month or two, an increasing, and shocking, level of honesty in Beck. He's been describing in detail the movement toward authoritarianism in this country, on all fronts: the service agenda, pseudo-environmentalism (i.e. anti-humanism), attacks on free speech, government usurpation of a mind-boggling number of new economic powers, the Fed's role, etc. I've been smiling though as he tried to pin these evils on the 'progressives' and the democrats, while carefully avoiding mention of the obvious connection to high finance. Well, today, towards the end of his show, Beck noted the fascistic and communistic artwork commisioned by the Rockefeller family (arch-capitalists) in Rockefeller center, the NBC building, and elsewhere in NYC, and asked the question I've been waiting for someone with a mass audience to ask; who is really in favor of this new collectivism; who's driving it, a bunch of hippies and college professors? No, the ultra-rich 'capitalists' themselves!


Glenn is screaming about communists and the like in the administration lately.
0 Replies
 
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 06:12 am
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;87763 wrote:
This history only reinforces my basic conviction that there are but two truly opposed political ideologies; individualism and collectivism, and collectivism has always been (despite the hope of idealistic social democrats, anarcho-communists, etc.) a game played by and for the greatest powers that be.


I like to comment on this part. This is more a philosophical notion, but the forum is the right one for it. ;-)
I agree that there are but two truly opposed political ideologies; individualism and collectivism. But my conviction is, that behind them are two worldviews or paradigms; materialism and idealism. A person for some reason either goes one or the other way at an early age. I think as a response to upbringing and society. And our political opinions are based on this base conviction of materialist or idealist.
In the classic left/right dichotomy the leftists are materialists and the rightists are idealists. But I know you don't like the classic left/right dichotomy.
It seems kind of ironic that I define collectivists to be materialists, as they apper to be driven by "noble ideas", and individualists to be idealists when they apparently are driven by profit and material concerns. But I think the materialist is only idealist on the outside and the idealist's material wealth is a result of their idealism.
It's quite a conundrum. :-)

Examples:
A persons success: A materialist would say what determines our success is the socioeconomic class we were born into, the resources we had available for getting educated, and how society treated us (discriminated against or privileged us). In other words: the material that was available to us.
An idealist would say that it is personal commitment, effort, talent, our tendency to want to solve our own problems and not give up, etc. that determine success. In other words: our ideas.
In a similar way, it's the focus on material benefits - getting stuff - that lets a person see the benefits of collectivism. While the idealistic focus on personal liberty (i.e. be able to do and think what you want) would make you a individualist.

I bet you figured out that I define myself an idealist, and in result an individualist. And I think you are too. But I fear we are on the losing side. These days people tend to have materialism as their base conviction.
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 02:13 am
@EmperorNero,
That a good point. Collectivism does appear to be concerned with materiality far more than individualism, in the sense that the collectivst definition of societal well-being usually focuses more on food, housing, employment and so on, than on the abstract concept of freedom. However, and I level this charge against all the utilitarians and pragamatists who like to claim that they're beyond ideology, there is a fundemental ideology beneath their materialism. In order to measure societal well-being by material standards, one already has to believe that the purpose of the society it to promote the collective well-being, as opposed to individual freedom. But maybe those two ideas are inherently linked and one doesn't follow from the other. Either way, I think you're right; it's awfully funny when you consider the charges of materialism that the yippie-left in this country levels against the system. If this U.S. is extremely materialistic, it isn't because it extremely capitalistic, but rather because it is collectivistic in many ways, or simply because in the modern world we have mass culture - under any socio-economic system - and that is materialistic.
0 Replies
 
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 02:56 am
@BrightNoon,
My current theory is that a materialistic mindset is behind collectivism and everything we usually call 'the left'.
They claim and appear to be idealistic, but I think that a deeply materialistic motivation is behind all of it.
I wouldn't say there is a fundamental ideology beneath their materialism. Rather materialism is the basic of all motivations and something has taken away their idealism.
I believe the battle against Christian religion and traditional western structures has to do with this. And that western societies descent into social collectivism and moral anarchy is caused by materialistic thinking.
And God help us, for if there is one thing all atrocities in the last century have in common, then it's the fact that the perpetrators declared their victims to be material.
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 03:49 am
@EmperorNero,
Well, I don't believe that the absence or loss of religious faith leads to materialism neccessarily. I for one am an atheist and definately not a materialist, or a collectivist of course. But I think you might be right that a major force behind the last century's collectivst trend was the collapse of belief and the spread of scientific understanding. It seems that most prominent scientists are atheists and collectivists; I've heard many an atheist and collectivist attribute that to these individual's superior intelligence..:sarcastic: No, I think it makes perfect sense that someone who literally spends his days seeking answers to questions posed under materialist philosphical assumptions (empiric science) would lose understanding of concepts outside of materialism, including any spiritual concept - but also any non-materialist philosophical concept. If you ever check out the philosophy of mind section on this forum you'll see what I mean. Right now the materialistic school of thought is definately dominant. In general, i.e. not on this forum, it seems like these people equate anything outside of materialism with religion or spirituality, which annoys me because, as I said, I'm an atheist and a skeptic re all spiritual claims; I would place the modern scientist along with the priest or the brahman, as a person of deep faith who is unwilling, unable, and uninterested in looking beyond their dogma.

Anway, I ramble. But I think you're on to an important thought re materialism and collectivism, and you're right, a definate characteristic of every totalitarian regime I know of has been to view and treat its people as things.
0 Replies
 
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 04:28 am
@BrightNoon,
Edit.
__________________
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 03:03:20