20
   

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

 
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 04:25 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre has me on ignore.. but.. Here are okie's words that she will say doesn't sound like him

okie wrote:
You can speak in relative terms but it doesn't prove much, you have to actually examine the policies of the Nazi Party, which I have done, and have challenged you to do, but as yet you have not met the challenge.

http://able2know.org/topic/66117-15#post-3711150

okie wrote:
And besides, one would think railing against capitalists for Hitler would be common knowledge for a self proclaimed expert on German history, that lives in Germany.

http://able2know.org/topic/66117-18#post-3712637

okie wrote:
Walter. Again, examine the 25 points of the party and try to convince everyone that it isn't liberal leftist thinking. Try it. If you are so smart, go ahead. We can take each point at a time, but I think one of the central points pretty much ends the debate in favor of my conclusion here.

http://able2know.org/topic/66117-17#post-3711886

http://able2know.org/topic/66117-14#post-3710395


okie wrote:
I am continually amused at the intellectuals on this forum that just can't abide a hick from Oklahoma puncturing their long held beliefs that they were indoctrinated with at some point in their past. Sorry to rain on your parade, but I would think you should welcome a fresh perspective that can challenge some of this stuff.

http://able2know.org/topic/66117-14#post-3710101

okie wrote:
I find it amusing alot of people have denigrated my information here, but at least you now dare to admit it has credibility, but not until after making a few cute comments about teaching you about German politics and history.

http://able2know.org/topic/66117-14#post-3710395
Which is an interesting statement considering what Walter had actually said.
Walter pointed out the supposed quote could not have come from a speech since at the time Hitler was not allowed to speak publicly.

okie wrote:
I don't care what papers you wrote or what university you went to, frankly, Walter. And if you think you have pearls and I am swine, that tells everyone here about your attitude doesn't it, but as they say, if you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen. If you can't defend your opinion with any substance, then quit bothering me here. This forum is about posting evidence once in a while at least.

http://able2know.org/topic/66117-14#post-3710418
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 10:50 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, if that was misleading, I'll say/write it again:

okie has told me on this thread a couple of times that he had studied the NSDAP history and that I don't understand it.


And would you link those couple of times, Walter?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 11:36 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Setanta wrote:

By the standards of virtually every other country in the world, Mr. Obama and the Democrats are right-wing. It is only the hysteria of reactionaries in the the United States which brands them as dangerous socialists.


Centre-right, some, perhaps.


I think this identifies the problem, you guys are using a yardstick out of Europe or somewhere else, maybe from past centuries even, who knows, but I have been clear I think that I am using a yardstick of left vs right, as currently understood in American politics today. Did you not know this? Do you consider Obama a right winger? Incredible, if that is the case, and no wonder you guys are confused. I stated the left vs right context several times, going back to Page 2 when Hitler was discussed in more detail, where I said:

Quote:
One of the running debates here in politics has been with mainly "old europe," but other as well, in regard to whether Hitler was an extreme rightist or a socialist or leftist. I have now read some of Mein Kampf and have also read the 25 points of the Nazi Party. I believe the evidence is clear from these documents that Hitler was leftist or a socialist, in context with American politics, left and right. I am going to list the Nazi 25 points of the party in the following.


I think we need to try to agree on what a leftie or right winger is defined as, before tackling any other disagreement here. And as the author of this thread, I would ask that everyone please try to do this in context with todays politics, and primarily in America, as I think that is more applicable, instructive, and pertinent to the subject here.

P.S. Apparently, Setanta, you must believe America has been a place run by reactionaries for over 200 years? Maybe that is what Obama thinks too, and that is why the guy is trying to change the entire country into something different. He does not, nor did he ever understand the country, as most of us have. I say most of us, because I think most of us have viewed the country far differently than Obama has or does.

okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 12:26 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Note, Setanta has accused of ignoring some of his examples. I think some of these have already been addressed on previous pages of this thread, but we can do so again. I have been sort of out of pocket the last few days, but in a few days will be more able to spend more time to address specific dictators, such as Pinochet.

Setanta, I will give you Pinochet as a feather in your cap (he does appear to have endorsed more right wing policies, such as free market solutions to the economy), but a pretty small feather. After all, according to web search, Pinochet's brutality pales in comparison to the leftists I have cited. Killing one person wrongly is too many, but we do need to place some context here. Also, Pinochet eventually voluntarily stepped down, which is a rarity among dictators, especially brutal ones. And his more right wing policies, such as free market solutions to the economy, it has been argued that they were successful, certainly more successful than the alternative.

Setanta, I want to make clear that right wing dictators are not unknown in my opinion, I have never claimed that, what I have claimed is that leftists generally provide more fertile ground for the worst dictators. I have never claimed that right wingers cannot be dictators. To repeat however, those people that believe that big government is the answer to success and prosperity, that fits a leftist idealogy, so it is entirely logical that leftists are to be the most feared as having the most potential to be ruthless dictators. And I think history has much evidence for this assertion, certainly during the past 100 years.

http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/20thcenturylatinamerica/p/pinochetbio.htm

"Pinochet Steps Down:
In 1988, a nationwide referendum on Pinochet resulted in a majority of the people voting to deny him another term as president. Elections were therefore held in 1989, and the opposition candidate won, although Pinochet’s supporters continued to hold enough influence in the Chilean Parliament to block many new reforms. Pinochet stepped down as President in 1990, although as an ex-President he remained a Senator-for-life and kept his position as commander-in-chief of the armed forces."


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZThkMDlkZDUzNTExYmEzMWZmMTkzY2E2ZThkYjAwNGU=

"That brings us to Pinochet. His victims are estimated at approximately 3200. One innocent murdered is one too many. But if we are talking comparisons, Pinochet’s total of innocents murdered is about one-twentieth of Castro’s " partly because Pinochet exiled many of his dissidents while Castro sinks his “boat people” so that the sharks get them.

As for Pinochet’s economic legacy, it outstrips that of most advanced democracies, let alone the economic rubble of all the communist dictators. Within a decade of the 1973 coup, Chile was a stable growing economy transformed by monetary, supply-side, trade, and labor market reforms introduced by Pinochet. When Chile returned to democracy in the late eighties, the Christian Democrat government of Patricio Aylwin continued his free-market approach. The whole word noticed this. As communism was collapsing in 1989-91, one encountered self-described “Pinochet Marxists” in the Soviet bloc who sought an extension of one-party totalitarian rule to impose the free-market reforms now needed to repair the ravages of socialism."
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 12:41 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

I think this identifies the problem, you guys are using a yardstick out of Europe or somewhere else, maybe from past centuries even, who knows, but I have been clear I think that I am using a yardstick of left vs right, as currently understood in American politics today. Did you not know this? Do you consider Obama a right winger? Incredible, if that is the case, and no wonder you guys are confused.


What you quoted above is my opinion - as of today - about the Democrats, as they would be here.

However, I've tried it a couple of times as has Set and others: you talk here about a time period about 80 years ago.

Even if you choose to compare it with the USA, you have to compare it within that time window.

But that be no help considering if Hitler or the NSDAP was left or right: non of the US-parties could be elected in Germany.

On the other hand, it really would be a funny game to look at history and only using not only today's parameter but only those which we like today in our own neighbourhood.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 01:08 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Even if you choose to compare it with the USA, you have to compare it within that time window.

Well, FDR was to the left I think, he certainly ushered in alot of left wing policies, such as the New Deal here, and I don't think you would want to try to say that Hitler was to the right of FDR, would you???????

And using todays parameter from the United States is entirely logical, after all, what is so hard to accept that at certain times in Europe or Germany, almost all the political leanings were to the left. If the sky is various shades of red at a particular time of day, as in history, that is what it is, and trying to argue that part of it is blue when it isn't, just to prove that it is different than another shade of red, that is totally inaccurate. If part of the sky is not quite as red, that does not indicate that it is blue. Similarly, if a political party is not quite as socialist as another, but still socialist, that does not make it right wing, it only makes it not quite as leftward, but still left.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 01:29 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

And using todays parameter from the United States is entirely logical, after all, what is so hard to accept that at certain times in Europe or Germany, almost all the political leanings were to the left. If the sky is various shades of red at a particular time of day, as in history, that is what it is, and trying to argue that part of it is blue when it isn't, just to prove that it is different than another shade of red, that is totally inaccurate. If part of the sky is not quite as red, that does not indicate that it is blue. Similarly, if a political party is not quite as socialist as another, but still socialist, that does not make it right wing, it only makes it not quite as leftward, but still left.

Alright. I rest my case about this now really.

However, okie, what do you think about those two books/essays I've mentioned above?

And where, do you think, was the first Social-Democratic party founded?

What does, in your opinion, the term 'Nazi' mean and how did it come in use?
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 01:34 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:

And using todays parameter from the United States is entirely logical, after all, what is so hard to accept that at certain times in Europe or Germany, almost all the political leanings were to the left. If the sky is various shades of red at a particular time of day, as in history, that is what it is, and trying to argue that part of it is blue when it isn't, just to prove that it is different than another shade of red, that is totally inaccurate. If part of the sky is not quite as red, that does not indicate that it is blue. Similarly, if a political party is not quite as socialist as another, but still socialist, that does not make it right wing, it only makes it not quite as leftward, but still left.

Alright. I rest my case about this now really.

You rest your case, on what?

Quote:
However, okie, what do you think about those two books/essays I've mentioned above?

I thought you rested your case?

Quote:
And where, do you think, was the first Social-Democratic party founded?

What does, in your opinion, the term 'Nazi' mean and how did it come in use?

I think we've covered all of that. I've discussed the 25 points of the party. What more can be done? Why don't you take the 25 points and categorize each as left or right, as I have requested several times. After all, that is where the rubber meets the road. If you don't like to use that, go back to the horse's mouth, Mein Kampf.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 01:46 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

I think we've covered all of that. I've discussed the 25 points of the party. What more can be done? Why don't you take the 25 points and categorize each as left or right, as I have requested several times. After all, that is where the rubber meets the road. If you don't like to use that, go back to the horse's mouth, Mein Kampf.


I'm now only following line.

During the period, the NSDAP wasn't allowed, out of the several splitter organisations only the Großdeutsche Volksgemeinschaft and Nationalsozialistische Freiheitsbewegung Großdeutschlands got some minor notice.
Socialistic, too, in your opinion?


When the NSDAP was refounded in 1925, what about that?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 01:48 am
@okie,
okie wrote:
If you don't like to use that, go back to the horse's mouth, Mein Kampf.


You certainly are aware when that was written. And why. (Do/did you read it in German? If not, what translation are you using?)
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 01:50 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I think you are trying to cloud the issue. Are you trying to say Hitler and the 25 points are not associated, or not even similar?

And are you also trying to say Hitler did not mean what he said in Mein Kampf?

Good grief, Walter!
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 01:55 am
@okie,
Hitler co-authered the 25-points as they were published in 1920.
(I've given quite a lot of information about the history of the 25-points which you obviously didn't notice.)

I'm not and wasn't trying to say anything about what Hitler meant in Mein Kampf. Must be my bad English that it sounded like such for you.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 01:55 am
I am still trying to digest the fact that if you think Obama is a rightee, then this debate is hopeless anyway.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 01:57 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Hitler co-authered the 25-points as they were published in 1920.
(I've given quite a lot of information about the history of the 25-points which you obviously didn't notice.)

Okay, great, now categorize each of them as left or right. I would like to see your assessment. We have been talking for over 40 pages, and I did that on Page 2, and I am still waiting for yours.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 02:03 am
@Walter Hinteler,
And I still would like to hear your opinion of FDR, to the left or right of Hitler, and what was FDR, left or right here in the U.S.? Was he conservative, to the right, or was he to the left and more liberal?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 02:04 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

I am still trying to digest the fact that if you think Obama is a rightee, then this debate is hopeless anyway.


You compare history with your own today's views and opinions.

If I compare Obama's politics with current party programs here - it is quite similar to that of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU, our conservatives), which is - at least according to US-sources - a "centre-right" party.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 02:05 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

And I still would like to hear your opinion of FDR, to the left or right of Hitler, and what was FDR, left or right here in the U.S.? Was he conservative, to the right, or was he to the left and more liberal?


I've not a deep enough knowledge about the US politics of those times to come to a fair opinion here.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 02:07 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Okay, great, now categorize each of them as left or right. I would like to see your assessment. We have been talking for over 40 pages, and I did that on Page 2, and I am still waiting for yours.


I think such to be a childish way to look at history. I've tried - like others - to explain the basics of the situation in Germany. (And I even left out the Thule society and it's influence on those points at all!)
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 02:11 am
@Walter Hinteler,
As I said, that is a problem for you. I have made it clear almost from page 1 that I have been discussing this in context with the American scale of left vs right. I am surprised that you still have not understood that. I think it is abundantly clear that given the context that I framed this discussion, Obama is a leftist. Sheesh, the man has radical leftist friends, he uses Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals, and his mentor for his Christian beliefs, better described as political beliefs, was the Reverend Wright's Black Liberation Theology, with Marxist leanings or foundations. And you are calling him a rightee??????? He may be to the right of Karl Marx himself, or maybe even Fidel Castro? And another thing, you cannot consider the current government here as Obama's political stripe, you have to look at what he wants to convert the politics into here. He has done some leftist reform already, but he wants to do a whole lot more.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 02:15 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:

Okay, great, now categorize each of them as left or right. I would like to see your assessment. We have been talking for over 40 pages, and I did that on Page 2, and I am still waiting for yours.


I think such to be a childish way to look at history. I've tried - like others - to explain the basics of the situation in Germany. (And I even left out the Thule society and it's influence on those points at all!)

What is childish about actually getting to the basics of the party's policies? That seems a whole lot better than your obfuscating everything with your intellectual dodging and maneuvering.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/08/2023 at 02:38:45