What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

@okie,

But you love to quote from this book that is mostly myths. Do you understand what that means?

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

I took German in college, Walter, but I did not learn much because the professor mostly sang songs to us in German and gave us easy tests. I forgot pretty much everything except "verstehen sie nicht." But to suggest that I have to read Mein Kampf in german to get anyhting out of it, is I think a silly assertion, Walter, and a ploy to try to convince everyone that someone else can't understand anything about it unless you speak and read German. That is nonsensical. If you really think that, no wonder your other opinions seem like nonsense to me.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

If a decent translation, and I have no reason to believe english translations are not pretty close, I think its pretty close to primary, cyclops.

Primary source is the original source.
A translation can be a primary source, of course, if you don't have the original.
But in such cases, you use additionally methods (from "auxiliary sciences of history") to verify your statement about it.

Since the original of Mein Kampf can be seen and read - no need to use translations.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I prefer to read the translations than read your translations into your opinion. Reading the translations is a much more primary source than reading your interpretations. Sorry to disappoint you, Walter.

Your splitting hairs, why not split more hairs, which would include it depends upon which German person reads the German, where that person came from, what he thinks, after all it probably affects how he understands the context. Now, we could get to the idea that only you, or only some intellectual professor is qualified to read it as a primary source, no country bumpkins allowed. Isn't that why lawyers use legaleze, they want to enhance their income by being paid to read the crap they write? Is that also your game here, Walter?

So what does this boil down to, is Hitler the exclusive right of Germans only to interpret? Nobody else is allowed to have an opinion on this tyrant, dictator, and murderer?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, Whether you wish to read Walter's translations, or the English translation of the book, they are "myths." Do you understand the meaning of this word?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, Whether you wish to read Walter's translations, or the English translation of the book, they are "myths." Do you understand the meaning of this word?

Mein Kampf is a myth? Say again, ci. Are you awake yet today?

I give up on this thread today for a while.

1 Reply

@okie,

Yes, it's considered one of the greatest "myth of the 20th century."

It's based on the idea that the Aryan is the super race. That's a myth.

0 Replies

Disclaimer:

I really didn't know about the history of the NSDAP besides that what I've learnt at school and what I couldn't avoid to hear at university in the basic courses ... since my main interests are different periods and regions.

Because I do some research (actually started some years ago) about the highest officer hanged in one of the Russian war tribunals, I had to re-read my old books and scripts.

When doing that, I found, of course, this and that, which interested me too, though not directly useful for my actual research.

I referred here, on this thread, mainly to those 'by-products', had get some again (online, mainly, using library tans or paying).
I'd answered in all seriousness, giving quotable sources.
[I wanted to add, by the way [somehow I deleted that post] that the later general Dietl was together with Hitler a DAP-member [later NSADAP] from 1919 until 1921 and the later general Ritter von Schobert was at least attending some metings. Both generals are among the worst Nazi generals.]

Well, it seems that my posts are ridiculed, my facts are called opinions.
Since I've taken this seriously, spend some money and time to get (again) the relevant informations ... I won't post that anymore here.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I do not think I have ever claimed that all ruthless dictators are leftists, or that no right winger can become a ruthless dicatator.

It would be completely reasonable to believe that is what you meant. I provided Augusto Pinochet as an example of a right-wing dictator. Pinochet is one of the most glaring, contemporary examples of a right-wing dictator. Your response to that was to claim that if you looked into it, you'd find that Pinochet was "leftward." Given that you have either not addressed the many, many examples of right-wing dictators i have provided, or have attempted to claim that they were in fact leftists, what else am i to think?

Quote:

What I have consistently argued is that leftist idealogies provide more fertile ground to produce dictators and ruthless dictators, after all, they believe in big government as their virtual god, and they believe government is the ultimate arbitor of fairness and social justice. COMMON GOOD is the battle cry for all of the leftists, whether it be Marxists /communists, socialists, or Nazis / fascists.

This is what is known as ipse dixit, which is Latin for "he has said it" and means that you expect it to believed, not because you have provided any evidence that this is true, but simply because you allege it is true. It's a can't lose proposition for you, because if anyone gives you an example of a right-wing dictator (such as Mussolini or Hitler) whose public propaganda pandered with comments about the common good, but who was in fact right-wing and erected a large government which sought to control all aspects of society, you would just trot out your ipse dixit definition and brand them left-wing--which is precisely what you have done.

Quote:

What I have noticed about debating liberals here is that you guys always attack conservatives by attacking our intelligence. You always claim to be intellectually superior in brain power and education. I admit to a measure of sarcasm for you guys as well, but I have tried to approach this subject from a perspective of common sense and reason. You respond not with reason, but instead ridicule, plus you mis-represent what we say, per the example I have given in the above.

This is utterly false. In fact, i recently stated that there is no reason to assume that you or Ican are stupid, or that you are idiots. I pointed out that your partisan obsession lead you to propose a stupid thesis, and that you attempt to support it with idiotic claims. I have pointed out that you are ignorant of the history of Hitler and the NSDAP, and that you are ignorant of political science. The mere fact that you continue to try to claim that the NSDAP was left-wing is evidence of your ignorance of history and political science. Saying that you are ignorant (and you are) is not the same as saying you are stupid. The problem arises from your stubborn adherence to your partisan point of view, and the consequent unwillingness to remedy your ignorance and learn about the NSDAP. If you did, you'd see why the other posters here who disagree with you have been consistently pointing out that the NSDAP was right-wing. The sought and received the financial backing of prominent industrialist, bankers and financiers, and rewarded them after they were in power with choice government contracts. The NSDAP was able to govern, and Hitler became Chancellor because they outlawed left-wing parties, and allied themselves with the DNVP (the German National People's Party), the other far right-wing party in the Reichstag. When Hitler wanted to dispense with the Reichstag, he needed to pass the Enabling Act, and for that he needed a two-thirds majority. The alliance of the NSDAP and the DNVP gave him a majority, but not two thirds, so he used von Papen, the man he had replaced and with whom he had forged his alliance with the DNVP, to convince the Centre Party--a center-right Catholic party, which is where von Papen began his political career--to join the NSDAP and the DNVP in passing the Enabling Act. When that was passed, Hitler could legislate without reference to the Reichstag, and he quickly outlawed all other political parties, absorbing the DNVP into the NSDAP, and quickly began re-arming Germany, passing out the lucrative contracts to the right-wing industrialists and bankers who had supported the NSDAP in its rise to power.

All you have offered is your personal interpretation of a single document put out by the NSDAP more than a decade before Hitler came to power, and when they were trying to attract public support. Anyone with a mature and informed attitude toward politics and politicians knows they will say or do anything to get into office. It's a given in politics that politicians lie, and "campaign promise" has become a cognate for lie. Yet you expect us to believe that Hitler and the NSDAP were being completely truthful in the 25 points and Mein Kampf, to believe that they would never lie to get what they wanted. They may have been mass murderers and irresponsible militarists willing to plunge Europe into the worst, most destructive war in its history, but they would never lie, right?

Nobody, absolutely nobody who has studied the NSDAP and Hitler in detail from the primary sources considers that party or that man to have been left-wing. That you continue to make that claim is just evidence that you are ignorant. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant; there is something terribly wrong with being ignorant and being unwilling to rectify that ignorance.

Your comments about Mr. Obama suffer from two flaws. One is that your characterization of him is also ipse dixit. The other is that you are inferentially claiming that right-wing governments don't believe in big government. Ronald Reagan increased our national debt more than any other administration in history, including FDR during World War Two, until George W. Bush came along, and broke all the old records. In both cases, the culprit was defense spending or government agencies. Ronald Reagan expanded the military more than it had been expanded since Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam war. Are you trying to claim that the army and navy aren't a part of government? Is it not true that expanding the military is an example of expanding government. Under Reagan, new sentencing guidelines were passed and implemented for Federal courts. The result is that the largest expenditure of the Federal government after the military was the Federal prison system--costing far more than social welfare programs, or the Social Security-Medicare system. If that ain't big government, i sure as Hell don't know what would be.

I haven't denigrated your intelligence, that's a lie, and you 0ught to be ashamed to peddle it. I have said that your thesis is stupid, and your claims of "evidence" are idiotic. That is not the same as saying you are stupid or an idiot. Relying on "common sense" won't tell you a goddamned thing about history or political science. Your claim about this falling within party lines is bullshit, too. Asherman and Georgeob1, the two grand old men of the conservatives at this site have both told you you are wrong, but you won't face up to that.

You haven't "punctured" any myths. You haven't been able to prove that it is a myth that the NSDAP and Hitler were right-wing, and you haven't presented any evidence that it is so. I don't have any "liberal university cronies." It's been more than 20 years since i worked in a university, and that was at an environmental center. Since that time, i have been very successful in business management.

What you post is not a case of whose ox has been gored, and your claim about most university people being liberal is just another example of ipse dixit. You have utterly failed to provide reliable evidence that the NSDAP and Hitler were left-wing, and you have ignored or denied the reams of evidence which have been provided that they were right-wing. You have been burying your head in the sand.

Once again, you came up with what is a basically stupid thesis, that ruthless dictators are left-wing, and having decided this was true, you set out to prove it--but you have failed. If, as you claim, you have a background in science, you know damned well that you don't start with a conclusion and set out to prove it, but that you examine the evidence objectively, and then formulate an hypothesis to explain the evidence. If your hypothesis passes the tests of falsifiability and predictive ability, your hypothesis might earn the right to be raised to the distinction of a theory, to be considered true until it is disproven, or sufficiently discredited to need to be replaced.

You haven't done that, so if you really do have a background in science, then i say shame on you.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

ican's comments are in blue.

Setanta wrote:

In the first place, Merriam-Webster is not the sole, nor the most authoritative source for definition.

If you can offer more authoritative sources and their definitions of the terms I provided, then offer them.

But leaving that aside, someone who studies history or political science at a university doesn't spend from four to eight years reading dictionary definitions.

You are correct. I too didn't "spend from four to eight years reading dictionary definitions" when I studied history among other subjects. However, I studied definitions of the terms used to describe the history I studied to make sure I correctly understood the history I studied.

Quite apart from that, you have a quaint and whimsical penchant for warping the definitions you do come up with to support the case you decided in advance to prove. For example, including fascism and nazism under the rubric "Leftism" above, without having established that these are leftist systems. Including statism uner your "leftism" rubric without having established that statism is exclusively a leftist phenomenon.

The definitions I posted are exact quotes of the Merriam-Webster definitions. I did not warp those definitions. However, I did divide those definitions into two categories I defined and labeled LEFTIST and RIGHTIST.

I defined LEFTISTS to be governments that seek to deprive the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the people they govern. I see no useful purpose to be achieved by distinguishing them left or right based on their different justifications for those deprivations. Yes, there are those like socialists or communists who justify their deprivations on the basis of equalizing wealth. And, there are those like fascists and Nazist who justify those deprivations on the basis of wealth, race or religous beliefs. But they both seek the same objective: depriving some or all of their people their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

I defined RIGHTISTS to be governments that seek to secure the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the people they govern. I see no useful purpose to be achieved by distinguishing them left or right based on their different methods for achieving that security. Yes, there are those like liberals who justify their methods on the basis of their caring for others. And, there are those like constitutionalists who justify their methods on the basis of the rule of law. But they both seek the same objective: securing for all of their people their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Including constitutionalism under your rubric "rightism" without having established that right-wing governments, and only right-wing governments, are ever constitutionalists.

But I did several times allege that what I define as RIGHTIST governments, include constitutionalists, and those I define as LEFTIST do not include constitutionalists.

With neither you nor Okie is it a case of having carefully and exhaustively studied history and political science, from which you derive a conclusion which you are then prepared to defend. It is a case of coming up with some goofy idea thanks to the distorted world view your partisan obsessions give you, and then setting out to bend the evidence (what little evidence you actually produce) to suit the conclusion you have decided in advance to arrive at.

The categorizations made by writers of history are not automatically authoritative, no matter how brilliant these writers. Their and my categorizations are authoritative only if they make valid and logical distinctions.

You continually preach your allegiance to objective interpretation of history. However, you fail to adequately explain what it is in history beyond interpretations made by history writers that determines whether or not okie or my categorizations are valid or invalid.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I am glad for that. We can instead read for ourselves things like Mein Kampf or the Nazi 25 points, without asking Walter or Setanta about what they actually say. We can read them for ourselves and find that out.

Walter and Setanta have been pointing out more than the meaning of the 25 points and Mein Kampf. You continue to ignore the evidence that we both have presented about what the NSDAP and Hitler actually did, regardless of what they said. You continue to ignore that Hitler outlawed left-wing parties, and governed in the beginning through a coalition of right-wing parties. It's about much more than a couple of political documents. As i pointed out before, we all know about how reliable the things politicians say are--it's what they do that counts.

If you want to know what happened at the Battle of Bull Run, you don't just read Beauregard's report and say you know all about it. You don't just read Joe Johnston's report and say you know all about it. You don't just read Irwin McDowell's report and say you know all about it. When you have read Pierre Beauregard's report, and Joe Johnston's report, and Irwin McDowell's report, and Thomas Jackson's report, and D. R. Jones' report, and Jubal Early's report, and N. G. Evans' report, and Kirby Smith's reports (Colonel Barnard Bee, whosaid "There stands Jackson, like a stonewall," was killed, so he didn't file a report), and R. Schenck's report, and W. T. Sherman's report (General Tyler, who commanded that division was killed, so he didn't file a report), and Andrew Porter's report, and S. P. Heintzelman's report, and Dixon Miles' report, and Louis Blenker's report (Blenker, a German socialist, commanded the only Yankee brigade which didn't run away)--and you have carefully studied all of the other reports and documents in The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, the United States Department of War, the Government Printing Office, 1880-1901--then you might be in a position to make authoritative remarks about the Battle of Bull Run.

What you have done is the equivalent of having read a few accounts in the Richmond newspapers from the day after the battle and claiming that you know all about it. Cylco is right, it takes a lifetime of study to make authoritative remarks about subjects like this. You haven't even given this subject a year of study, never mind a lifetime.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

If you can offer more authoritative sources and their definitions of the terms I provided, then offer them.

I have pointed out that dictionaries are not reliable sources for history or political science. I really doubt that you would accept it if another source contradicted your source. Parados provided a definition of the political spectrum from an online source, the freedictionary.com. It defines fascism as being at the extreme right of the political spectrum. What comment do you have to make on that?

Quote:

You are correct. I too didn't "spend from four to eight years reading dictionary definitions" when I studied history among other subjects. However, I studied definitions of the terms used to describe the history I studied to make sure I correctly understood the history I studied.

Given your claims about political science and about the NSDAP and Hitler being left-wing, i don't see any evidence at all that you studied history--at least not the history of the Third Reich and Hitler's rise to power.

Quote:

The definitions I posted are exact quotes of the Merriam-Webster definitions. I did not warp those definitions. However, I did divide those definitions into two categories I defined and labeled LEFTIST and RIGHTIST. (emphasis added)

The sentence i have highlighted is precisely why i say you have warped those definitions. Apart from the fact that other sources may contradict Merriam-Webster (and the source Parados provided does just that), it is the application of the definitions which constitutes your warping.

Quote:

I defined LEFTISTS to be governments that seek to deprive the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the people they govern.

Ipse dixit--assumed and alleged, but not proven.

Quote:

But I did several times allege that what I define as RIGHTIST governments, include constitutionalists, and those I define as LEFTIST do not include constitutionalists.

So what? That's ipse dixit, and an example of what i have accused you of already, defining your terms in order to prove your case, rather than providing evidence to support your case.

Quote:

The categorizations made by writers of history are not automatically authoritative, no matter how brilliant these writers. Their and my categorizations are authoritative only if they make valid and logical distinctions.

They are authoritative if they provide evidence in the form of primary sources, or citations from reliable secondary sources which have cited primary sources. Historians are not people who just make claims and offer opinions. Just because that is what you and Okie do doesn't mean that's what professional and academic historians do. It isn't distinctions made about one's partisan political obsessions which determine the quality of an historian's work. It is the number and reliability of primary sources and other forms of evidence which the historian employs. This statement on your part constitutes pretty damned good evidence that you don't even understand the basics of historiography--that you don't understand how history gets written, and how people get qualified to be considered historians.

Quote:

You continually preach your allegiance to objective interpretation of history.

This is a lie, and that makes you a liar. I have never said a word about "objective interpretation," and i have done absolutely no "preaching" about "objective interpretation." If you want to debate this topic, try to avoid lying about what i have said.

Quote:

However, you fail to adequately explain what it is in history beyond interpretations made by history writers that determines whether or not okie or my categorizations are valid or invalid.

This is also a lie. Both Walter and i have repeatedly pointed out that the quality of historical writing is determined by the source documents and other forms of evidence. The fact that Hitler outlawed left-wing parties after the Reichstag fire is not "interpretation," it is a matter of public record, from primary source documents. The fact that Hindenburg called on von Papen to form a government, which he failed to do, advising Hindenburg that he would be obliged to call for Hitler to take the office of Chancellor is not "interpretation," it is a matter of public record, from primary source documents. The fact that the NSDAP polled only 35% of the vote before the Reichstag fire, and therefore, although having the biggest delegation in the Reichstag, didn't have a majority is not an "interpretation," it is a matter of public record, from primary source documents. The fact that Hitler formed his parliamentary majority by an alliance with the DNVP (Deutschnationale Volkspartei, the German National People's Party) is not an "interpretation," it is a matter of public record, from primary source documents. The fact that even when left-wing parties were outlawed after the Reichstag fire, the NSDAP was still able to poll only 45% of the vote is not an "interpretation," it is a matter of public record, from primary source documents. The fact that Hitler passed the Enabling Act by employing a coalition of the NSDAP, the DNVP and the Centre Party is not an "interpretation," it is a matter of public record, from primary source documents. All of these facts constitute hard evidence from the public record of primary source documents that the NSDAP was a right-wing party.

You remind me of the creationists who run around saying that evolution is "just a theory," as though it means it is just some sort of guess. History is not just a matter of opinion, and it's not about whose interpretation you employ. People who claim that FDR knew about the Japanese attack on Hawaii in advance and did nothing are obliged to ignore the primary source from public records known as the "war warning message" which was received by CinCPAC (Commander in Chief, Pacific) on November 27, 1941--ten days before the Japanese attack. That's not an opinion, that's not an interpretation, that's a fact. That the NSDAP was only able to govern by forming a coalition with the right-wing DNVP is not an interpretation, it is a fact. That Hitler was able to pass the Enabling Act by a coalition with the DNVP and the Centre Party is not an interpretation, it is a fact. We know that these things are facts for the same reason that we know that CinCPAC received a war warning message from the President ten days before the Japanese attack--because they are all matters of public record from primary source documents. History is not just a story cobbled together from somebody's opinions and interpretations. That you believe it is speaks volumes about your ignorance of history and historiography.

Once again, a disclaimer for the right-wing whiners. Telling someone they are ignorant is not the same as telling them they are stupid. If we start discussing particle physics, string theory or the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, feel free to brand me ignorant.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

it takes a lifetime of study to make authoritative remarks about subjects like this. You haven't even given this subject a year of study, never mind a lifetime.

All it takes is valid logic and common sense. Hitler's and Stalin's socialism evolved into dictatorships that denied their people their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I sense that Obama is headed in the direction of one or the other of these two governments. As a consequence of my study of both Hitler's and Stalin's propaganda evolution, I learned that they both employed the strategy of accusing their opposition of doing and saying exactly what they themselves were doing and saying, or planning to do and say. They did this to direct their citizens' attention away from the outrages they were perpetrating to their false accusations about their opposition. Obama and his fellow obamacrats are currently doing the samething. They are falsely accusing their opponents of being nazis, et cetera. That's equivalent to their intention to behave like nazis.

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

This entire post is ipse dixit. You haven't established that Hitler was a socialist, so any claims you make about his "socialism" is so much hogwash. And Mr. Obama is not the subject of this thread, nor is he a "ruthless dictator."

Your remark about Mr. Obama and the Democrats is hilarious, though. Conservatives at this site, and all over the web have been calling Obama and the Democrats fascists and nazis for months now. The purpose of the claim about Hitler and the NSDAP being left-wing or socialist is pretty obvious, too. It is to establish a basis upon which to whip up more Chicken Little hysteria about this administration and this Congress. You don't even rate a "nice try" for that horseshit.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

All it takes is valid logic and common sense.

By the way, if you ever actually employ either of those commodities, especially logic, let us know, 'K?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

okie wrote:
I do not think I have ever claimed that all ruthless dictators are leftists, or that no right winger can become a ruthless dicatator.

It would be completely reasonable to believe that is what you meant.

Completely reasonable to who? You? Perhaps completely reasonable if you don't use reason, that is my response to that stupid statement. It is not reasonable to assume more than what I said, or to distort what I said, that is not reasonable.

Quote:

I provided Augusto Pinochet as an example of a right-wing dictator. Pinochet is one of the most glaring, contemporary examples of a right-wing dictator. Your response to that was to claim that if you looked into it, you'd find that Pinochet was "leftward." Given that you have either not addressed the many, many examples of right-wing dictators i have provided, or have attempted to claim that they were in fact leftists, what else am i to think?

I did address some of them that were brought up, including Pinochet. If you have a quote that I predicted Pinochet would be leftward, provide it. What I remember is that in the last few pages, I did address Pinochet and said that your argument in regard to Pinochet being right has some merit, may be right, but I also pointed out by comparison that he pales in comparison to other dictators in terms of how bad he was. Go back and read the posts the past few pages. I did not look in great detail at Pinochet's policies, so I cannot say much more than that he does appear to have instituted more free market solutions to the economy down there, and so he was to the right of the socialists or communists there.

I don't have time or desire to address every single argument you post, so I select the above as an example to rebut. We cannot even find one point that can be resolved, without bringing up dozens of them. I think too many simply obfuscate the issue here. Perhaps that is your debate style, but I am trying not to make it mine. I think we need to consentrate on the primary points. Perhaps it would be instructive to go back and try to pin down exactly what a leftist or rightest is, determine the standard or definition. I think ican is attempting to do that, and that is very good, that is definitely needed here. For example if two people cannot agree on what constitutes green or red, then it makes no sense to argue what color something is.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Your remark about Mr. Obama and the Democrats is hilarious, though. Conservatives at this site, and all over the web have been calling Obama and the Democrats fascists and nazis for months now. The purpose of the claim about Hitler and the NSDAP being left-wing or socialist is pretty obvious, too. It is to establish a basis upon which to whip up more Chicken Little hysteria about this administration and this Congress. You don't even rate a "nice try" for that horseshit.

Dead on here. These guys are worse than the creationists, when it comes to 'starting with the conclusion' and working backwards.

I wonder if Ican realizes that you can construct very logical explanations - for things which are completely wrong.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Setanta wrote:
it takes a lifetime of study to make authoritative remarks about subjects like this. You haven't even given this subject a year of study, never mind a lifetime.

All it takes is valid logic and common sense. Hitler's and Stalin's socialism evolved into dictatorships that denied their people their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I sense that Obama is headed in the direction of one or the other of these two governments. As a consequence of my study of both Hitler's and Stalin's propaganda evolution, I learned that they both employed the strategy of accusing their opposition of doing and saying exactly what they themselves were doing and saying, or planning to do and say. They did this to direct their citizens' attention away from the outrages they were perpetrating to their false accusations about their opposition. Obama and his fellow obamacrats are currently doing the samething. They are falsely accusing their opponents of being nazis, et cetera. That's equivalent to their intention to behave like nazis.

Right on, ican, excellent post. You get it. It is a good point about the tactics that lefties use, that is correct, they accuse the opposition of what they themselves are guilty of. Obama learned all of this from Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals. This is what "community organizers" do. If lefties or liberals are completely honest about their end game, they know they would be defeated at the polls, so they use deceit and incrementalism.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Completely reasonable to who? You? Perhaps completely reasonable if you don't use reason, that is my response to that stupid statement. It is not reasonable to assume more than what I said, or to distort what I said, that is not reasonable.

Completely reasonable to anyone with a working knowledge of the English language. When i have challenged you about right-wing dictators, you have either remained silent, or attempted to claim, as you did with Pinochet, that they were actually left-wing. If you had ever admitted that any dictator had actually been a right-wing dictator, you'd have basis for your whine. As it stands, you don't.

Quote:

If you have a quote that I predicted Pinochet would be leftward, provide it.

In your post #3730783:

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.

A couple of points about this for now, however, one important one is whether fascism is classified left or right, because alot of the bad guys are somewhat fascist like, and if you actually look at their beliefs and policies, they are definitely of the leftward type.

By the way, there is no "prediction" involved. As distressing as it may be to you to realize this, facts exist even before you become aware of them. If you have addressed any significant number of the examples of right-wing dictators which i have provided, please provide links to those posts.

Quote:

What I remember is that in the last few pages, I did address Pinochet and said that your argument in regard to Pinochet being right has some merit, may be right, but I also pointed out by comparison that he pales in comparison to other dictators in terms of how bad he was.

Not "may be right," is right. According to the CIA World Factbook, the population of Chile as of July, 2009 is just over 16 and one half million. It was unduobtedly less than that nearly forty years ago, so in comparison to the hundreds of millions of people in Europe who suffered through the Second World War, let's give Pinochet some credit for making one Hell of an effort in "disappearing" more than 3000 people, arresting more than 31,000 on political charges (and torturing the majority of them) and exiling nearly 1500, then chasing them all over the world with his security agents helped by the CIA. The main thing which distinguishes Pinochet from someone like Mussolini or Hitler is the scope he had for his activities.

Quote:

I don't have time or desire to address every single argument you post, so I select the above as an example to rebut. We cannot even find one point that can be resolved, without bringing up dozens of them. I think too many simply obfuscate the issue here.

Yeah, i'm sure you don't want to discuss the dozens of examples of right-wing dicators i can provide, because it shoots your theory all to Hell.

Quote:

I think we need to consentrate on the primary points.

That's exactly what i am doing when i provide so many examples of right-wing dictators--i am pointing to evidence which refutes your claim that ruthless dictators are always, or almost always, left-wing. I'm sure you don't want to discuss that, because it blows your primary point right out of the water.

*************************************

By the way, what the Hell is "incementalism?" Is that giving your opponents some concrete sneakers, and dropping them off the pier for a little swim? Sounds very right-wing to me.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

okie's been blown out of the water so often, I wonder why his ship stays afloat? LOL

0 Replies

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know