20
   

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 01:01 pm
And my experience is that liberals generally have little sense of humour. You show them a seaside postcard and they start on about the denigration of womanhood and male chauvinist piggery. And they are the ones who thought up those concepts.

And they get in an almighty tangle when they start on about evolution science and their pride cuts off every avenue of escape assuming they are not soft enough to reach for the Ignore function which obscures from view the entanglement.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 01:09 pm
What Christian can imagine a notion such as the "denigration of womanhood"?

Some philosophers have criticised Christianity for its veneration of womanhood and motherhood.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 02:03 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

Debra's inflationary verbiage misses the point entirely - the previous discussion concerns the most successful privatizations of modern times....


Just like foxy loxy, plain English and logic are over your head. It is clear that you're the one who "misses the point entirely."
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 02:50 pm
@Debra Law,
ROFL. You, Ms "affirmative action baby" debralaw are now an expert on public-private-partnerships run by Hjalmar Schacht in the 1930's?

Do, pray, explain to us in as much detail as possible your qualifications, - quantitative, historical, economic, financial, political, of course all in German - in that particular realm, in addition of course to your previous inane interminable posts on Texas textbooks and segregationists, all wholly irrelevant btw, which you have recently posted on this thread, presumably in your delusional status as self-proclaimed legal eagle Smile
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 03:24 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

ROFL. You, Ms "affirmative action baby" debralaw are now an expert on public-private-partnerships run by Hjalmar Schacht in the 1930's?

Do, pray, explain to us in as much detail as possible your qualifications, - quantitative, historical, economic, financial, political, of course all in German - in that particular realm, in addition of course to your previous inane interminable posts on Texas textbooks and segregationists, all wholly irrelevant btw, which you have recently posted on this thread, presumably in your delusional status as self-proclaimed legal eagle Smile


Why don't you read my post and determine what was ACTUALLY being discussed. I wasn't discussing privatization, moron.
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 03:30 pm
@Debra Law,
Another great classic from a meltdown by a leftist! Is anyone here keeping track?!
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 03:41 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

Yes, and long since shown to be so heavily dependent on specific samples (non-random) as to be of doubtful practical utility - replicating results is fundamental to science, and that didn't happen here. Read e.g. the Supreme Court statistical analysis:
http://books.google.com/books?id=2GAgaV_htWQC&pg=PA152&lpg=PT151&ots=ezC_Dgs5oP&dq=integrative+complexity+cognitions&lr=#v=onepage&q=integrative%20complexity%20cognitions&f=false
sorry for the delay I've been napping on the sofa with sally dog, anyway I find it interesting that you find fault with the credibility of the project authorized, paid for and approved under the Eisenhower administration that I mentioned and commented upon and yet you slide by and even applaud posts by okie/ican and foxfyre that are so bereft of any rationality as to render them absurd. I'm thinking only Ionesco could stage your presentation.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 03:42 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

Another great classic from a meltdown by a leftist! Is anyone here keeping track?!


Well, you certainly are showing yourself to be the pompous bitch OE alleged you were on the last page. I'm keeping track of that part.

Cycl0ptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2009 12:42 am
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
As ican points out, the actual practices of collectivism within the fascist idealogy I think clearly indicates it to be a leftist or socialistic brand of politics. Government nationalizing or controlling companies is a leftist philosophy


If you're interested in "actual practices of collectivism" and if you want to use the nationalisation and control of companies by the government as a yardstick to judge whether a particular government is right-wing or left-wing, you might be interested in reading this paper:

Quote:
AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM: NAZI PRIVATIZATION IN 1930S GERMANY

Abstract:
The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was no exception; the last governments of the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors. Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party.



Back again after a few days without time to participate. I will try to address a few posts, including this one to start out with.

This actually agrees with Jonah Goldberg's assessent I believe. FDR's New Deal, which Obama is again trying to expand or copy, has been considered to be fascist in nature. Again, clearly a leftist set of policies.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2009 12:43 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Oh sure, OE . . . try to ruin Okie's day with vile and unnecessary facts . . . sheesh . . .

As I pointed out, not ruining, he is actually supporting at least in part what I think.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2009 01:00 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I think you're fighting a losing battle here Okie. I know what you're suggesting, but our more liberal friends will never accept or even allow a discussion of it. I think some probably even mean well, but they seem to be unable to focus on or grasp a principle and discuss that at face value. They seem incapable of or at least unwilling to consider any form of abstract thought.

They will continue to insist on discussing vague historical principles apart from the concept or bring in unrelated interpretations or obfusicate with illustrations intended to negate any concept that they can't understand or that doesn't fit with their preconceived notions.

If the information is correct, it is not a losing battle, Foxfyre. I don't have to convince liberals, as we conservatives go into that endeavor knowing that it is virtually impossible. If I believe sound logic is on my side, that is all I care about. And as far as my primary premise here, what produces ruthless dictators, it is obviously generally correct, just as correct as the fact that criminals have dysfunctional childhoods and other factors more often than do non-criminals. And obviously ruthless dictators become a sort of international or political criminals.

Quote:
I find the subject you've introduced here interesting and instructive. But I also think it is sufficiently complicated in scope and concept that you are unlikely to find enough people here who understand it or want to understand it enough to discuss it at face value. The sheer complexity of it provides too many directions for the discussion to take.

I think some people want to make it more complicated than it needs to be, Foxfyre. It is really just common sense. And in regard to political systems, ican looks at it much like I do, simple common sense. All y0u have to do is take the word, "social," and the definition tells us all we need to know about what "socialism" is. Essentially, various brands of socialism are various brands of collectivism. Fascism combines some aspects of individualism, as free markets, it combines with socialism by having government take over companies and businesses, or they are in league with them, so it is still leftist in nature. Marxism, or communism, is an extreme form of socialism at the left end of the scale. This does not need to be complicated.

And my contention that leftist idealogies provide more fertile ground for ruthless dictators, yes, I believe that is obviously true, and is supported by the people that we have on record of in history, particularly in the last 100 years.

A conservative or right wing form of government preserves as much individualism, as in individual freedom and responsibility, as is possible to maintain a civil society. The government is to protect us from each other, but we should not have to protect ourselves from the government. Such a political climate requires a moral and responsible citizenry in order to maintain. I believe the United States is the prime example of this form of government, and coincidentally it has become the most successful and strongest nation in the history of the world. No coincidence in my opinion.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2009 01:04 am
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
As ican points out, the actual practices of collectivism within the fascist idealogy............


If you're interested in "actual practices of collectivism" and if you want to use the nationalisation and control of companies by the government as a yardstick to judge whether a particular government is right-wing or left-wing, you might be interested in reading this paper:..............


OE - it is absolutely remarkable that you would expect all your readers to be too stupid to understand that the paper you cite, as well as all standard works on the subject of privatizations, reach the exact opposite conclusion than the one you claim. Here is an excerpt from the paper (p.17) that proves this very point:
Quote:
It seems clear that neither the Nazi Party nor Hitler had any ideological devotion to private
ownership.
34 In their theoretical work on the relationship between politicians and firms, Shleifer
and Vishny (1994, p. 1,015) stress that anti-market governments are compatible with
privatization, as long as they can retain control over the firms through strong regulation.


What gives, OE? You never read the paper, you read it and don't know enough about public finances to understand it, or none of the above, just an attempt to confuse and obfuscate in order to promote some leftist agenda?

The courtesy of a reply is requested.

High Seas, it has been obvious that Hitler believed in the "COMMON GOOD," not individual rights. It was all for the "folks," and Hitler's government was the ultimate arbitor of social justice. This is common knowledge I believe, and is typical of leftist idealogies.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2009 01:05 am
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

P.S. another excerpt from the same paper, this time a direct quote by Hjalmar Schacht - and take my word for it, if he didn't know German finance in the 1930s, nobody else can be said to have known:
[quote]Schacht (1949, p. 78) recalled that “Inside the party there was a strong movement to bring more and more industries into the hands of the state…
[/b]

And thank you, George, for
Quote:
S really does = K x Ln W


[/quote]
And what is Obama doing now? Its fascism.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2009 01:13 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

The overriding fact here - at least in my view - is that , apart form thew maintenance and expansion of its power and primacy, the Nazi state had very few consistent policies or doctrines. Up close the relations of Hitler to his key deputies were somewhat chaotic and uncoordinated - he presided over a collection of rival gangs as much as he did a well-ordered state with a coherent doctrine or set of guiding beliefs.

This, of course, is a fact that has no place in okie's simple-minded template for understanding.

Call it simple minded, I call it simplifying the complexities into common denominators. Sure, Hitler was chaotic, but his underlying philosophy was statism, his government was going to run it all, for the "folks." For the "COMMON GOOD." I think the 25 points were not merely written to look at, George, and although Hitler was off his rocker, he did have leftist views.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2009 01:27 am
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

"Template" is indeed Okie's weakest point right there with unfortunate phrasing. But it doesn't follow that his general drift is necessarily wrong - just his orders of magnitude:
Quote:
The Munich agreement with Hitler to eviscerate Czechoslovakia is one; the deportation of Cossacks and other anti-Soviet forces to certain death after the war in Operation Keelhaul is another. A third was decades of denial that the Katyn massacre was the work of the Soviets, not the Nazis ... Any such comparisons are fraught with difficulty, not least over how you measure wickedness. It does not come in convenient units (evils, giga-evils, tera-evils) that can be neatly added up to produce a balance sheet of murder and mayhem.

http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/europeview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14246070#footnote1


Not sure what you mean by "orders of magnitude?" To clarify, I have made minimal attempt to grade or compare in absolute terms how ruthless one dictator may be in comparison to another. That would be like trying to determine how criminals compare, how evil are they, or how terrible were their crimes compared to each other. Not an easy task. All I have done here is to bring up what I would consider to be obvious, that some of the world's most notorious dictators that presided over the deaths of multitudes of people, that it would be no surprise to find dysfunctional and typical experiences in their childhoods and lives, and they generally exhibit similar attitudes and expressions of political beliefs.

Call it a template if you want, but I did not establish the template first and then go looking for characters to fit it, I first studied the biographies of some of the worst dictators, and then identified the common denominators. The template was discovered, not created. And I think that it should be useful to apply to others to see if it applies as well. I am not going to claim it will work every single time, but I do think it will work in a much higher percentage of cases than it would work if it was totally random throughout an entire population of people instead of the much small sampling of the pool of ruthless dictators.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2009 01:38 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
The template was simple at the beginning. Is there a common denominator that can be identified when it comes to those people who become ruthless dictators. But because this is a more abstract concept that requires some actual thought to consider, the subject quickly became Okie and flaws that were being assigned to him. And, as these things go, rather than focus on the original (and difficult) thesis, the subject veered off into subtitles which were themselves abstract concepts and required more difficult thought than most are willing to participate in. That directed more derision and criticism toward Okie. These diversions included concepts of left and right ideology, how these are defined, how any particular member would define them, and how they are defined differently in different eras and in different parts of the world. This was WAY over the head of some including apparently our good, and usually sensible, friend George. Smile

So yes, the template breaks down when 1) the subject begins branching out into sub-topics, and 2) when the focus is mostly to take shots at the messenger instead of the concept being discussed.

Personally, I think Okie has shown great grace and composure under the circumstances, and he does not take offense at those who simply disagree with his point of view. I haven't agreed with him on every point either, but then I haven't ever agreed with ANYBODY on every point about much of anything. But I note that numerous times he has asked various members to put their evidence where their mouth is or to answer specific related questions, and has been ignored. When members who oppose him can't articulate a rationale for their own point of view, I have to figure Okie has the better case.

Meanwhile the thread has run for some time now and has generated well over a thousand posts suggesting that the subject is not without interest.



Thanks for your thoughts. I too am a little surprised at George. I usually see his opinions as reasonable, but on this subject I am surprised he cannot see the correlations.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2009 01:43 am
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

However, if you want to defend okie's thesis that the NSDAP was a socialist party and the Third Reich was a communist regime, you're quite welcome to re-interpret the extensive framework of regulations and state control which was put into place while, at the same time, Germany saw a higher proportion of privatization proceeds compared to fiscal revenues than at any other point in its history as somehow following Marxist ideology of collective ownership of the means of production.

Pompous bitch.

Now, that shows that you are just basically dishonest. You know good and well that nobody here in support of my arguments, for sure me, have ever claimed that the Third Reich was a communist regime.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2009 01:45 am
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
In his opening post, Okie set forth several premises (alleging common attributes of ruthless dictators) and concluded that an extreme leftist mindset presented the most dangerous fertile ground to produce another ruthless dictator. Okie is attempting to rewrite history in order to serve his rightwing agenda. Okie is engaged in fear-mongering: The EVIL LEFT will produce a ruthless dictator! Be afraid!

Yes, you are correct, I am warning people about the Leftists. Not to be trusted. And that includes Obama. You are catching on, Debra.
okie
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2009 01:50 am
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:

The following 1963 speech sounds eerily familiar to okie's, foxy's, and ican's present day rants. I think okie was channeling Governor Wallace when he wrote his opening post:

I did not bother to read the whole thing, Debra, one little detail you did not seem to mention, I think Wallace was a Democrat. I remember those times, and I was no Wallace supporter. You are so full of baloney. In fact, Bill Clinton's hero was another racist Democrat, William Fullbright of Arkansas.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2009 02:01 am
@spendius,
I am beginning to believe the people that say you hit the sauce too hard.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/30/2023 at 09:49:04