20
   

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 07:46 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

No one is attempting that. Walter and i have just been pointing out that you claim that the Germans inflicted Hitler on the world is bullshit--like just about everything else you have posted in this bullshit thread.

So that wasn't Germany and Hitler attacking everybody and wreaking havoc in World War II? I guess the history books were all wrong then, Setanta? It takes the modern liberal on A2K to set the record straight?
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 08:45 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I'm no authority, but from what I've read re Chavez plus what has been related from missionary teacher friends who left Venezuela after it became too 'nuts' a few years ago, Chavez doesn't fit the mold of 'ruthless dictator'. Nor, though poor, does he come from a particularly troubled childhood. He obtained power through mostly his own charisma and connections, but did seem to genuinely want to do good for the people who really did adore him.

He more fits the mold of 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. You treat somebody like a god long enough, and many, if not most, begin to believe they have godlike qualities.

But in looking at the common denominators that Okie has been developing, Idi Amin was abandoned by his father and was raised by his mother in a highly patriarchal society. That almost had to be traumatic for him. He joined the army at a young age and rose through the ranks based on ability, but he was also described as being capable of extreme cruelty. And...well...everybody knows the rest.

Hugo Chavez is an interesting case, perhaps one that is not real extreme, however, Foxfyre, I don't think I agree that his childhood was not abnormal. His childhood does not seem really harsh, and interestingly, although he is apparently establishing a dictatorship, perhaps he is not yet anywhere near as cruel and ruthless as some others that we have talked about here on this thread. But the total story on Chavez is not written, and I look for him to get worse.

To discuss some of the points of correlation though, Chavez mother did want Hugo to become a priest, but he more or less became disenchanted with catholicism as an alter boy, etc., and was later sent off from home to live with grandparents. I read somewhere that he refused to speak with his mother for a long time, and this quote from one website:
"The influence of his grandmother and the early separation from his mother have served as fodder for many hypotheses regarding the evolution of Hugo Chávez's personality and character. Some people feel there is a connection between the circumstances of his early life and the incendiary tone of his political rhetoric. Some people sense in him a perpetual aggression that they believe stems from a deep-seated resentment regarding his early childhood experiences. This would be supported by a related theory suggesting that Chávez harbors muted feelings of ill will toward his mother."
Although other things can be cited from his growing up, this quote seems to also indicate he wasn't all that healthy emotionally: "Chávez also had his share of social upsets; for example, when a young woman whom he considered attractive refused to pay any attention to him, Chávez found a rotting donkey head on the side of the road and left it in front of her door." Indeed, Chavez does not seem to have been a wonderful content guy, in 1982 founded the Bolivian Revolutionary movement, led an unsuccessful military coup, and spent time in prison, which propelled him onto the political scene. A quote from a website: "A populist leader backed by leftist parties, Chavez has advocated a ‘third way’ between communism and capitalism", wrote Patrick Moser for the Agence France Presse." So Chavez is clearly a leftist.


http://www.lcsc.edu/elmartin/historybehindthenews/mccoy/bio.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
http://samsedershow.com/node/1190

So, does Chavez fit the template, perhaps not as well as some others, but there does seem to be some correlation, rejection by his mother, and alienation from her, sent off to live with grandparents, a religious experience that gendered anger, and a bitterness about society and life in general, turning him to the study of Marxism, etc.

Now, to look at Hirohito as ican suggested, I am not sure he is a good example because he ascended power through royalty, not by actively seeking it. Also, some believe he was more of a bystander consenting to the cruelties, more than he was an instigator, although he was certainly not innocent. Interestingly, from my reading, I did find that he was separated from his parents shortly after birth, and I think I read that his father may have had some kind of mental disorder. I do think however that Hirohito is not a particularly good example, and does not fit the template very well. If someone has other further information on him, feel free to add it.

http://www.bookrags.com/biography/hirohito/
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 08:59 pm
@okie,
Quote:
"The influence of his grandmother and the early separation from his mother have served as fodder for many hypotheses regarding the evolution of Hugo Chávez's personality and character. Some people feel there is a connection between the circumstances of his early life and the incendiary tone of his political rhetoric. Some people sense in him a perpetual aggression that they believe stems from a deep-seated resentment regarding his early childhood experiences. This would be supported by a related theory suggesting that Chávez harbors muted feelings of ill will toward his mother."


"Some people feel" is the basis for your criteria?

Some people feel everyone has had a terrible childhood. That is why you have to set criteria that can be applied objectively.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 09:11 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
"The influence of his grandmother and the early separation from his mother have served as fodder for many hypotheses regarding the evolution of Hugo Chávez's personality and character. Some people feel there is a connection between the circumstances of his early life and the incendiary tone of his political rhetoric. Some people sense in him a perpetual aggression that they believe stems from a deep-seated resentment regarding his early childhood experiences. This would be supported by a related theory suggesting that Chávez harbors muted feelings of ill will toward his mother."


"Some people feel" is the basis for your criteria?

Some people feel everyone has had a terrible childhood. That is why you have to set criteria that can be applied objectively.

I am simply quoting what I found, parados, so it is not something I made up.

I just had a thought, maybe liberals have more rotten childhoods, so they think it is normal, is that possible, parados? So maybe the experience of ruthless distators don't seem all that unusual? So perhaps not as harsh, does that perhaps explain why liberals are malcontents? Just a thought, that perhaps deserves further consideration. Not suggesting liberals are all ruthless dictators, but just maybe a mild form of the dysfunction can cause somebody to be mad at the country and want to change it? I've never figured out why anyone would want to change the best possible place anyone could choose to live, so something must explain it. I am saying this somewhat tongue in cheek, so I hope the libs here have a sense of humor, but seriously, it does make me wonder, although I am not drawing any conclusions on this. But perhaps libs can tell us where they got their discontent, any bitterness, etc.?

For myself, I had a wonderful childhood, I was not rejected, I loved my parents, they never sent me off somewhere for a few years, I've been married to the same wonderful woman all my married life, I have no axe to grind, except I am here trying to convince everyone that this is in fact one wonderful country, we are totally blessed, be happy, quit complainin, and quit trying to change it all just because you might be unhappy. Changing oneself is the correct solution, not changing the world.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 09:17 pm
@okie,
I didn't say you made it up. I said your standard is "someone has to say it."

Someone said it and you accept it without applying any criteria. Someone is willing to say just about every famous or infamous person had a horrible childhood. It doesn't make it so nor does it make it a valid criteria for judging.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 09:18 pm
@okie,
Quote:
I have no axe to grind, except I am here trying to convince everyone that this is in fact one wonderful country, we are totally blessed, be happy, quit complainin, and quit trying to change it all just because you might be unhappy.

Right, which is why you are complainin about how we are not agreeing with your silly arguments.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 09:44 pm
@parados,
A very funny statement spoken from the king of complaints.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 01:29 am
@okie,
What a great braying jackass you can be, Okie. I guess Hitler would never have come to power unless the Germans, all the Germans, acting in concert, had not made a special effort to inflict misery on tens of millions of people through a conscious program to accomplish those horrors.

The one who consistently tries to re-write history is you, clown. You're the one who is attempting to claim that Hitler was a leftist, you're the one who is attempting to claim that all ruthless dictators have always been leftists, you're the one whose expository skills are so piss-poor that you cannot distinguish between what some people have done, and what an entire people have done. You're the one who is so pig-ignorant that you don't understand how Hitler came to power. You're the one who is so pig-ignorant that you don't realize that not a single German elected Hitler to his position. You're the one who is so pig-ignorant that you don't understand that the NSDAP never have majority support.

And yet you're willing to inflict your oral diarrhea on all of us, smearing the entire German nation in the process of trying to smear everyone who doesn't have your narrow-minded, dull-witted, uninformed political opinions.

Clown.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 01:35 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

I just had a thought, maybe liberals have more rotten childhoods, so they think it is normal, is that possible, parados?


Certainly. Look just at all those millions of Germans, who are members of the Social Democrats or voted for them. Or at the Labour Party members and voters. Or at ....
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 01:40 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

The one who consistently tries to re-write history is you, clown. You're the one who is attempting to claim that Hitler was a leftist, you're the one who is attempting to claim that all ruthless dictators have always been leftists, you're the one whose expository skills are so piss-poor that you cannot distinguish between what some people have done, and what an entire people have done. You're the one who is so pig-ignorant that you don't understand how Hitler came to power. You're the one who is so pig-ignorant that you don't realize that not a single German elected Hitler to his position. You're the one who is so pig-ignorant that you don't understand that the NSDAP never have majority support.

And yet you're willing to inflict your oral diarrhea on all of us, smearing the entire German nation in the process of trying to smear everyone who doesn't have your narrow-minded, dull-witted, uninformed political opinions.

Clown.


Perhaps I'd chosen some different words for okie.

But that's oonly because I'm not a native English speaker.


What really upsets me is that okie claims to have studied the NSDAP's history, yet doesn't even accept all the primary (and secondary) sources, even if they are online and easy to understand.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 05:23 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Not really! The Brits have had their fill of winning


We have won everything. Our languasge is spoken by the elite of the whole world and we have Uncle Sam on the other end of the phone and he will always look after us.

One day the states of the north eastern seaboard will join the Commonwealth and the EEC. And an American team will win a Test Match at Lords.

And corn will disappear from the diet.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 06:14 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

A very funny statement spoken from the king of complaints.

Yeah, we are so blessed and okie is so happy that he is talking about wanting to impeach Obama.

It kind of makes you wonder what the term "happy" means to him.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 06:52 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
What really upsets me is that okie claims to have studied the NSDAP's history, yet doesn't even accept all the primary (and secondary) sources, even if they are online and easy to understand.

It upsets you that Okie's a liar? I think he ought to be upset that he was caught in a lie.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 08:32 am
I've seen a scholarly thesis that Hitler's rise was caused by the Gothic echo enshrined in the German language which was said to be the perfect instrument of rhetoric for the manipulation of atavistic emotions.

There is also the question of agricultural efficiency which leaves large numbers of workers with little else to do but look for excitement.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 09:10 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Perhaps I'd chosen some different words for okie.

I would hope so, Walter.

Quote:
But that's oonly because I'm not a native English speaker.

So you would have if you could have?


Quote:
What really upsets me is that okie claims to have studied the NSDAP's history, yet doesn't even accept all the primary (and secondary) sources, even if they are online and easy to understand.


What really upsets you, Walter, is that I don't agree with you and that I am making an excellent case that Hitler was a leftist, which in fact he was. Now, this is important, the classification of Hitler as a leftist is made in context with the current understanding of left vs right as it is currently understood in America, not in 1930's Germany, and I think this is where you are stuck. Also, what really bothers you as it does all liberals is the suggestion that ruthless dictators may more easily spring out of leftist idealogies than conservative ones. That is an insult to every liberal that believes that virtually all problems can be solved by big and bigger government, which by definition requires force to bring everybody into line, at the expense of freedom and individual thought and responsibility. A good example of that right now is right here in America where Obama wants to force everyone to kowtow to his health plan, whether we all want it or not.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 09:12 am
You've got no case at all that Hitler was a "leftist." What is upsetting Walter, understandably, is that you are attempting to smear the entire German nation for what Hitler did. You've got no case, and you're too pig-headed to admit it.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 09:17 am
@Setanta,
Obviously, you are doing one of two things, you either have not read my posts, or you are intentionally misquoting what I have said, as I have been careful to point out that not all Germans can be blamed. I also have pointed out that human nature is the same, without regard to nation of residence. But the really important point of this whole thread is to try to bring up things that might help us recognize the pitfalls of certain personalities and idealogies, and that is what you and Walter don't like. I am making a case that liberal leftist idealogies are potentially dangerous, especially with some personalities at the helm.

If you disagree with that, fine, but when you misquote and mis-characterize what I am saying here, I have no use for that. It is dishonest.

By the way, to repeat for many times, I looked at the Nazi 25 points and categorized as left or right. They are predominantly leftist, and nobody has successfully or step by step looked at each point to make a good case otherwise. If somebody thinks they have, please point it out, or if you wish to do it now, go back to page 2, look at mine, then redo it and try to make your case.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 09:19 am
@okie,
Quote:
I am making a case that liberal leftist idealogies are potentially dangerous, especially with some personalities at the helm.

No, you aren't making that case at all.

You are however making a case that conservatives don't live in reality.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 09:32 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

You are however making a case that conservatives don't live in reality.

The Obamaites don't live in reality. They actually think a corrupt Chicago politician with no experience in much of anything is qualified to tell the rest of us what is best for the country. Dillusional is what that is.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 09:34 am
@parados,
That settles it - you don't know anything about scripting languages for multicore processors, consequently you don't get the joke. Never mind - at least you're not making comments quite as idiotic as those of Cicerone, who, after acknowledging he doesn't know "what an AI program is" proceeds to express an opinion on the topic. Obama did the same thing for the learned professor's problems, so maybe wallowing in crass ignorance is the fashion <G>
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 09/21/2024 at 01:57:03