If Christians were treated like Muslims.

@electronicmail,

electronicmail wrote:

Quote:
it is obvious that the expression 'confiscation without compensation' refers merely to the creation of possible legal means of confiscating when necessary

Any expansion of central government is socialist. Hitler had a different system than Stalin, the end result was the same, government control of the means of production.

That's the meaning of 'confiscation without compensation'

I agree. The great point, shared by Stalin and Hitler was ANTI-Individualism
Stalin did not actually SAY:
"Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhere" but he meant it,
except that Stalin had a lot more ethnic groups
in his empire, not just "one" and thay both wanted to conquer and enslave the world.

David

1 Reply

@electronicmail,

Both the motives and the methods matter. Neither you nor David have demonstrated that the NSDAP either sought to nor succeeded in controlling the means of production. Nor have you demonstrated that controlling the means of production is axiomatically socialist. Controlling the means of production in order to benefit the dictatorship of the proletariat is certainly the alleged basis of Marxist socialism (whether or not Soviet Russia was actually seeking to benefit the proletariat is another debate altogether)--but even if the NSDAP had controlled the means of production (not demonstrated), the motive matters because the object was not to benefit the proletariat. A simple-minded and shallow understanding of political ideology is a poor basis upon which to make sweeping statements.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Where does nazi ideology say that
"the object was not to benefit the proletariat"?
Is that what Hitler told the S.A. ??
I don 't think so.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

One could allege that during the third crusade, Richard Lionheart and Saladin both wanted to conquer and enslave the middle east. Using what passes for logic in your latest statement, Christianity and Islam are therefore identical. As with your ludicrous and simplistic statements about what constitutes these two political ideologies, such a comparison of the two religions would ignore that neither Richard nor Saladin were actually in it for reasons of religious orthodoxy.

Neither Hitler nor Stalin were in the mass murderer tyrant business for reasons of political orthodoxy. Your rhetoric is the naïve rhetoric which is typical of dishonest American political conservatives.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

One could allege that during the third crusade, Richard Lionheart and Saladin both wanted to conquer and enslave the middle east. Using what passes for logic in your latest statement, Christianity and Islam are therefore identical. As with your ludicrous and simplistic statements

Do u abhor occam's razor? Is simplicity obnoxious to u?

Setanta wrote:

about what constitutes these two political ideologies, such a comparison of the two religions would ignore that neither Richard nor Saladin were actually in it for reasons of religious orthodoxy.

Neither Hitler nor Stalin were in the mass murderer tyrant business for reasons of political orthodoxy.

Thay were not hypocrites about EVERYTHING thay said.
Thay both wanted to have powerful economies.

Setanta wrote:

Your rhetoric is the naïve rhetoric which is typical of
dishonest American political conservatives.

We have no reason to be dishonest.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

What you think about what Hitler told anyone is increasingly revealed to be uninformed. What part of "Since the NSDAP is fundamentally based on the principle of private property" did you fail to understand? Lenin established a soviet government in Russia at least ostensibly to erect the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin was already ill, and after Fanya Kaplan's failed assassination attempt in 1918, his grip on power eroded rapidly until his death at the beginning of 1924. Thereafter, Stalin moved to take control of the Central Committee, and his goal had nothing to do with the socialist welfare of the proletariat.

In Hitler's case, he took over what might have been intended to be a genuine socialist party, but he shaped to his will, for the purpose of personal aggrandizement, just as Stalin would mold the Central Committee of the Communist Party in Russia for the purpose of his personal aggrandizement. Hitler quickly realized that he was not going to get the support of powerful capitalists, and especially the money needed to finance his political campaigns if he alienated those men. So the Nazis in general and Hitler in particular wooed Krupp and Theissen and the other "smokestack barons," assuring them that there would be no confiscations, apart from the confiscations of Jewish properties. He badly needed that support, too. When he ran against Hindenberg for President, he only polled 35% of the vote. When the NSDAP became the largest party in the Reichstag in 1933, they also only polled 35% of the vote. Even after the Reichstag fire, when Hitler succeeded in outlawing all left-wing political parties, the NSDAP still could not get a true majority--in subsequent elections, they only polled 44% of the vote, despite there being no left-wing parties in the election. Thereafter, he formed an alliance with the German National People's Party (the DNVP, the leading right-wing party in the Reichstag after the NSDAP) and the Catholic Centre Party in order to pass the Enabling Act in 1933, which allowed him to govern without reference to the Reichstag. Thereafter, he outlawed all other political parties. His object had nothing to do with the benefit of the German people, and he had already learned that he could get more from the industrialists by favoring those who could further his programs. He did not attempt to control the means of production, and even if he had, the object would not have been to benefit the proletariat. The only object he ever had was personal aggrandizement. This "the Nazis were socialists" bullshit is simply contemporary American political conservative propaganda bullshit.

I've never denigrated you for your IQ, David. I consider IQ to be a load of crap, and essentially meaningless--but i've never belittled you for your IQ. Don't make **** up.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Simplicity is not obnoxious to me, but over-simplification, or naïve simplification are no friends to understanding. Occam's Razor (so called) has to do with logically deducing causes--the causes of the crusades, and of the NSDAP, and their true motives are known, and don't need to be deduced.

That Stalin and Hitler wanted powerful economies is rather obvious. That either of them wanted that to benefit the proletariat would be laughable, had not so many millions died on the respective altars of their personal vanities.

American conservatives definitely do have good reason to be dishonest in order to, for example, characterize Mr. Obama as a socialist, and to equate him and the Democratic Party with the Nazis. It's dishonest, it's a knowing set of lies, and it's all in aid of the hysteria which when whipped up benefits the Replublican Party's liars' club, which is no more nor less despicable than the Demorcratic Party's liars' club.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

That's a complete non-sequitur. At no time have i stated or suggested
that there was great personal freedom in Germany while it was under the control of the NSDAP.

U implied that there was more freedom than what I had indicated.
It was an environment of terror, even for his beloved Aryans. I dissent from your implication.

Setanta wrote:

This is an hilarious example of what passes for logic at your house.

Multiple be the chuckles.

Setanta wrote:

Just because you alleged that socialism is opposed to personal freedom
(leaving aside the issue of your inability to distinguish freedom and license),

Yes; I am VERY STINGY in my recognition of the jurisdiction that has been granted to government.
(See 9th & 10th Amendments.)
I am aware of the historical fact that the American Revolution was a LIBERTARIAN revolution.
Dictionaries define "license" as being *too much freedom*. I disagree qua how much is too much.
I 'm pretty sure that I love freedom more than u do. That 's Y I voted for Barry Goldwater.

Setanta wrote:

you seem to think that you can claim that any system
in which there is an absence of personal freedom is ipso facto socialist.

No. I re-iterate that one wherein government
controls the means of production and distribution
is socialist. Added to that is contempt for Individual rights.
The Individual is subordinated to the collective
as in both nazi Germany and in the commie empire.
As Hitler put it:
"authority from the top down,
obedience from the bottom up."
TELL me that Stalin woud disagree with that, Setanta.

In contrast, with those socialists and ALL socialists,
I advocate very, very weak and feeble domestic jurisdiction of government.

"Every man for himself and let the devil take the hindmost."

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

No, that's bullshit. You're just making **** up now. Absolutely nothing that i wrote implied that there was great personal freedom in Hitler's Germany. Dissent to your heart's content, you're not dissenting from anything which i have either stated or implied. My remarks were to the effect that capitalism was alive and well in Nazi Germany. You're going to have to inform yourself far better than you've displayed yourself to be here to challenge that.

I'm not surprised that you dellude yourself that you love freedom more than i do. Ignoring the implied slur, i'll just point out that this is typical, hysterical right-wing propaganda, which commonly refers to anyone who dissents from your unhealthy firearms obsession as freedom haters. You're not the onlyone around here who peddles that crap, but mere numbers don't make it true. I support all forms of responsible freedom. We don't live in a vacuum.

I will reiterate two things. The first is that control of the means of production (you didn't mention the means of distribution before, so you're attempting to change the playing field, but i don't have a problem with that, because you are, as usual in matters political, ill-informed and just plain wrong) makes a government socialist. That is not true. If the object and the effect of control of the means of production is to benefit the proletariat, then you have socialism. Neither communism as practiced by Stalin, nor nazism were ever interested in the welfare of the proletariat. Furthermore, the Nazis did not control the means of production--once again, you are just plain wrong. The second thing that i will reiterate is that degrees of personal freedom is not a part of the definition of socialism.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

American conservatives definitely do have good reason to be dishonest in order to, for example, characterize Mr. Obama as a socialist, and to equate him and the Democratic Party with the Nazis. It's dishonest, it's a knowing set of lies, and it's all in aid of the hysteria which when whipped up benefits the Republican Party's liars' club, which is no more nor less despicable than the Demorcratic Party's liars' club.

amen, testify brother

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

American conservatives definitely do have good reason to be dishonest in order to,
for example, characterize Mr. Obama as a socialist, . . .

During his campaign, he volunteered a spontaneous objection to a USSC case
which he described as missing an opportunity to force a re-distribution of the wealth.

That is as bad as it has to GET
to constitute advocacy of marxism.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I consider that a lie. Unless and until you provide a reliable source that Mr. Obama specifically said "an opportunity to force a re-distribution of the wealth [sic]," i will consider you to be a shameless liar.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I wonder when was the last time a congressional inquiry into the radicalization of Christians were ever considered much less implemented.

I don't think Bauer and people like him expect people to believe they even believe what they say.

1 Reply

@revelette,

Thank you! Thank you! Revellette. You actually responded to my post. What a concept.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I consider that a lie. Unless and until you provide a reliable source that Mr. Obama specifically said "an opportunity to force a re-distribution of the wealth [sic]," i will consider you to be a shameless liar.

I don 't begrudge u a right to your opinions, be thay as thay may.
I wish that he had not said it; I wish that he did not BELIEVE it.
I saw him and I heard him on the TV news at the time.

For the record:
I am reporting on what he said,
not quoting it. My memory is not THAT precise to actually quote it.

Sadly, that IS the substance of what he said.

I will be jubilant & grateful,
if u demonstrate that I am incorrect.

I don't hold out much hope of that.

David

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

If you think that nazism was a form of socialism, you are sersiously delusional. Of course, i already knew that--this is just further proof.

And if you think Gary Bauer is a Nazi you are seriously delusional.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

In the be careful what you wish for category.

Conservative Christian Gary Bauer today wished Christians could be treated like Muslims. He is upset at the way that Christians are demonized and distrusted, where Muslims are celebrated and trusted in the US.

The funny thing is that I love the idea. If somehow his wish (which is also my wish) could be granted and that he could feel how wonderful it is to be treated like a Muslim, I wonder how long Gary Bauer would last.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40839&s=rcmp

You've blatantly mischaracterized his opinion.

Where in the link you've provided does Bauer even suggest that Muslims are celebrated and trusted in the US?

1 Reply

@talk72000,

talk72000 wrote:

The Rothchilds real last name is Bauer.

Quote:
Europe, towards the end of the eighteenth century or at the time of the American Revolution, was very different from what we know in the same area today. It was composed oil a combination of large and small kingdoms, duchies and states which were constantly engaged in squabbles among themselves. Most people were reduced to the level of serfs -- with no political rights. The meager 'privileges' that were granted to them by their 'owners' could be withdrawn at a moment's notice.

It was during this period of time that a young man appeared on the European scene who was to have a tremendous impact on the future course of world history; his name was Mayer Amschel Bauer. In later years his name, which he had changed, became synonamous with wealth, power and influence. He was the first of the Rothschilds -- the first truly international banker!

Mayer Amschel Bauer was born in Frankfurt-On-The-Main in Germany in 1743. He was the son of Moses Amschel Bauer an itinerant money lender and goldsmith who, tiring of his wanderings in Eastern Europe, decided to settle down in the city where his first son was born. He opened a shop, or counting house, on Judenstrasse (or Jew Street). Over the door leading into the shop he placed a large Red Shield.

At a very early age Mayer Amschel Bauer showed that he possessed immense intellectual ability, and his father spent much of his time teaching him everything he could about the money lending business, and the lessons he had learned from many sources. The older Bauer originally hoped to have his son trained as a Rabbi but the father's untimely death put an end to such plans.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/slavery.htm

Gosh but you are the anti-semite aren't you?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

You've blatantly mischaracterized his opinion.

Where in the link you've provided does Bauer even suggest that Muslims are celebrated and trusted in the US?

OK then Finn, please correctly characterize his opinion. How is his position remotely defensible?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
You've blatantly mischaracterized his opinion.

Where in the link you've provided does Bauer even suggest that Muslims are celebrated and trusted in the US?

OK then Finn, please correctly characterize his opinion. How is his position remotely defensible?

Why?

I don't care what he wrote, I only know it didn't even come close to suggesting that Muslims are celebrated and trusted.

Why do you think I am obligated to defend his position because I have called out a deliberate mischaracterization of it?

That chip on your shoulder must be getting heavy, no?

1 Reply

If Christians were treated like Muslims.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know