20
   

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 12:56 pm
Hey, I'm not making that case, but given GM, Chrysler, Lehmann, AIG, the banking industry, and Enron, and the experience of the last eighteen months, a crew of circus dogs trained to poke keyboards could probably do as well as private enterprise.

Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 01:08 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

So one leftist suppressing another brand of leftists, that proves that leftist is a rightee? Again, you keep using the same old argument, and I don't buy it. I think historians, some of them, have, but we don't need to keep swallowing that line. You keep using the argument that Hitler suppressed the communists, and fought the communists, thats all great, we know that, but it proves nothing about his own political beliefs and policies. He also hated and fought the British as well. And he hated and fought the United States as well.




So you agree that "Nationalsocialism is the only true socialism since it doesn't focus on the 'sozius' (comrade) or the proletariat like Mraxist and Social-Democrats do but on ''societas' (or comradship). The Nationalsocialism is more organic, by that true Socialism, while Marxism and Social-Democratism just show pseudo-Socialism." (NS-Briefe, 15.06.1927 (part two, first part published 01.06.1927)


Since you read Mein Kampf, you must have missed those chapters where Hitler admired England and modelled himself on it.

While Hitler only mentioned the USA tangentially, he saw America in his second (unpublished) book as a "dynamic, racially successful nation", where the pure white race was successful because the substandard other races were effectively kept down with eugenics and race segregation.
Thus, they might become (as of the time he was writing this - between 1924 and 1928) an enemy.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 01:08 pm
@okie,
Alright. So what happens when you take these ideas to the extreme? Wouldn't that be the definition of "right-wing extremism" - taking conservative ideas that are well within the mainstream and taking them to an extreme, beyond what most people, under normal conditions, would find acceptable?

If you take the idea that differences in economic wealth and social class should simply be accepted and that class struggle is a reprehensible idea, doesn't that mean that monarchism - the idea that the social structure of traditional noble and royal classes should be preserved - can be an extreme right-wing idea? Doesn't that mean that corporatism - the idea that private enterprise is the most effective instrument in the interest of the nation, and that the state merely sets the direction (e.g. defense, banking and commerce, health care, etc.) - can be an extreme right-wing idea?

If you take the idea that law and order are necessary, and that a strong state is needed to enforce these laws to an extreme, doesn't that mean that instituting a police-state can be an extreme right-wing idea? Doesn't that mean that instituting policies that lead to intercepting private communications of law-abiding citizens, that restrict rights of free speech, that restrict habeas corpus rights, that broadly allow house searches, that restrict freedom of association rights etc. can be a right-wing idea?

If you take the idea of preservation of heritage and culture and of official languages to the extreme, doesn't that mean that outlawing other cultures or languages can be an extreme right-wing idea? Don't you think that the idea to prohibit people e.g. from speaking Spanish in public, even in private conversations, is an idea that can be found on the extreme right of the political spectrum? Don't you think that the idea that e.g. a Muslim should not be allowed to hold a public office in the United States cannot be found on the extreme right?

What about the idea of cutting taxes for corporations and businesses, of privatizing public institutions and deregulating markets? What if you take that to the extreme, to the point where only workers and private citizens are being taxed, and where corporations enjoy enormous freedoms? Wouldn't that constitute a situation of state-corporatism, and couldn't that possibly be a right-wing idea?


Look, I'm not saying that those ideas are necessarily conservative ideas, or that you or other conservatives subscribe to them. But aren't there more ideas on the right side of the spectrum than what you would see as acceptable? Or do you think there's not a single conservative idea which, when taken to the extreme, could become detrimental to society and individuals?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 01:10 pm
@okie,
There's a story okie that he hated Germans and he fought them to a standstill. They needed a mild winter in 45/6 like you need a juicy hamburger with all the trimmings on a cold night after a wearisome ballgame. Yearning need.

He hated them for how they had mistreated him as a youth. He had a big chip to shoulder. He took it personally. He hated everybody. He liked piles of bodies. I've read about all that. He was gonna show the fuckers.

And he had had a pretty bad time of it. I don't think we, sitting here now, can quite appreciate how bad it was to a lad like Adolph. He might have felt every stab of humiliation like we feel stabs from a pin.

He wasn't always strutting up and down saluting his troops.

Erich Fromm-The Anatomy of Destructiveness and a bit of Bullock.



0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 01:18 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
I do support the presidents power to protect the nation, its citizens, thats us, by instituting some ability to identify threats to the country. This is very limited however and cannot cross a certain line.


Don't you think that that's exactly what conservatives thought when the Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat was enacted - that there was a serious threat out there (after all, somebody had just burned down the Reichstag), and that the new laws merely served the purpose to better protect the nation against those acts of terrorism?

Don't you think you're arguing from a position of hindsight? Are you sure you, personally, wouldn't have been in favour of legislation that aimed at instituting some ability to identify threats to the country?


okie wrote:
Similarly, alot of Hitler's initiatives were not for national defense, but were rather to insure his lock on power and to further his political policies.


You have the advantage of knowing the outcome of the legislation that was put into place back in 1933. There are many provision in there that are virtually identical to provisions contained in the PATRIOT Act, and both supposedly served the same purpose. Yet you condemn one as "socialist", while you praise the other one as "conservative".

How do you know how you would have reacted to the Reichstagsbrandverordnung without the ability to predict the future? How do you know you wouldn't have supported the same provisions in 1933 that you supported in 2001?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 01:21 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

So one leftist suppressing another brand of leftists, that proves that leftist is a rightee?


Coming back to this.

When -and why- do you think, okie, decided all the anti-Semites, 'völkisch' and chauvinistic-nationals, the former soldiers, the ex-Free Corps members, political sectarians, uprooted petty bourgeois and depositioned persons of all classes to become "Lefts"?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 01:22 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

How do you know how you would have reacted to the Reichstagsbrandverordnung without the ability to predict the future? How do you know you wouldn't have supported the same provisions in 1933 that you supported in 2001?


Add me asking this, too.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 01:39 pm
@old europe,
Quote:
If you take the idea that law and order are necessary


Yes--but this argument is about concepts and there you bring in circumstances, which, it hardly needs saying, is not allowed. You are assuming that the present necessity for law and order, as you see it, and you will assume your readers also see it, applies in all circumstances. Which it doesn't.

And in discussions on concepts it needs to do.

And you haven't defined "law and order" and you have assumed that the law and order you get is all there is to law and order. Which you can't do in relation to concepts.

Right-wing extremism is the end of the spectrum and I gave a version of it in my last post. Anything to the left of that is leftie to those at that point, which is where Denis Hopper was claiming to be, and anything to the right of left-wing extremism is rightie to those at that point.

Was Huxley's Mustapha Mond a leftie or a rightie.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 02:58 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

Hey, I'm not making that case, but given GM, Chrysler, Lehmann, AIG, the banking industry, and Enron, and the experience of the last eighteen months, a crew of circus dogs trained to poke keyboards could probably do as well as private enterprise.

Hey, thats the beauty of free markets, when they do a lousy job, they go out of business, or they are supposed to. Not so with government, usually.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 03:14 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

So you agree that "Nationalsocialism is the only true socialism since it doesn't focus on the 'sozius' (comrade) or the proletariat like Mraxist and Social-Democrats do but on ''societas' (or comradship). The Nationalsocialism is more organic, by that true Socialism, while Marxism and Social-Democratism just show pseudo-Socialism." (NS-Briefe, 15.06.1927 (part two, first part published 01.06.1927)
No no no, you miss the point altogether again. National socialism is a form of socialism, as are the others.

Quote:
Since you read Mein Kampf, you must have missed those chapters where Hitler admired England and modelled himself on it.

While Hitler only mentioned the USA tangentially, he saw America in his second (unpublished) book as a "dynamic, racially successful nation", where the pure white race was successful because the substandard other races were effectively kept down with eugenics and race segregation.
Thus, they might become (as of the time he was writing this - between 1924 and 1928) an enemy.

Perhaps, but he also admired aspects of communism, which proves nothing that you are trying to prove. Again, I don't know how many times this needs saying, look at his policies, judge him on that. He hated virtually everyone, especially the Jews and the capitalism they represented, but he did try to borrow what he thought was useful from capitalism and communism to form Nazism. His view was a hybrid of the two, but I think more left than right.

I can understand why you don't wish to claim his idealogy as your own, but relax, you don't have to.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 03:18 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Ordnung!!!!!! Y'all can't be left alone for any length of time. Walter, leave Okie alone; please take your sidekick with you until tomorrow, thank you. Monterey, please see the court dates for Messrs Fuld (Lehman Brothers) et al, and the federal prison sentences for the Enron crew. Okie, kindly give those fellow posters a break - how about taking Mrs Okie for a stroll? Dog for a gallop? Okie junior(s) to movies? Whatever you do, please walk away from keyboard until I can get some reinforcements in here. Have a good evening, all Smile
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 03:20 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

How do you know how you would have reacted to the Reichstagsbrandverordnung without the ability to predict the future? How do you know you wouldn't have supported the same provisions in 1933 that you supported in 2001?

Oh good grief, thats a dumb question. As a conservative, I do not support measures to limit speech, limit property rights, and all the rest of the stuff. In fact, who right now is trying to limit speech in the House of Representatives? Your very own Democrats. And who has talked about limiting talk radio? Easy answer, the democrats, in the name of fairness and civility of course, which is nonsense. Sorry, oe, but your arguments or points you bring up are only going to rebut your own arguments.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 03:22 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

Ordnung!!!!!! Y'all can't be left alone for any length of time. Walter, leave Okie alone; please take your sidekick with you until tomorrow, thank you. Monterey, please see the court dates for Messrs Fuld (Lehman Brothers) et al, and the federal prison sentences for the Enron crew. Okie, kindly give those fellow posters a break - how about taking Mrs Okie for a stroll? Dog for a gallop? Okie junior(s) to movies? Whatever you do, please walk away from keyboard until I can get some reinforcements in here. Have a good evening, all Smile

Reinforcements? Great. I was feeling like General Custer.
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 03:24 pm
@okie,
No kidding?! But this is a discussion forum, not the Alamo. Go get some fresh air, I will be back within 48 hours.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 03:32 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
National socialism is a form of socialism, as are the others.


That might be so. But they knew why they wrote "Nationalsozialismus" in one word ...

okie wrote:

Perhaps, but he also admired aspects of communism, which proves nothing that you are trying to prove.


Perhaps? I'd thought you read Mein Kampf. Which you obviously didn't: note just one line where he admired communism.


okie wrote:

I can understand why you don't wish to claim his idealogy as your own, but relax, you don't have to.


I'm sorry to say this and here, but you are an a**hole, okie.
Since I can think, I've fought extreme right wings and especially the Nazis. Actively. Just show me a teeny-weeny source where I ever was connected to something like NS-ideology.
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 03:40 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
<link to "Eine kleine Nachtmusik", Sir Georg Solti conducting, for Walter> Well, not a true link, but if Mrs Walter is as tired of this typing mania of Walter as I am, she might - just might, mind you, I don't know the lady - start thinking of following Mrs Mozart, usually out having affairs while Mr Mozart was at his piano composing masterpieces. I know I would do exactly that - and NO Spendius I do NOT wish to have your phone number.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 03:47 pm
@okie,
Quote:
I was feeling like General Custer.
Yeah I can see that, like you Custer started his war with the preface TAKE NO PRISONERS while you started your a2k war with I'M RIGHT SO DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS.
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 03:50 pm
@dyslexia,
Aw shut up - so Custer also graduated last in his class at West Point, so WHAT?? You know I love you, Dys, but you are to please observe some peace around here until I can go back and read the latest posts And before I forget Custer also attacked the undefended Indian village, so keep ALL those facts in mind, please. Best to you and Mrs Dys. Have a very good evening.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 03:52 pm
@dyslexia,
i'm liking the custer corollary, but will wait and see where this goes.

(in my tepee, of course)
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 03:58 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

i'm liking the custer corollary, but will wait and see where this goes. (in my tepee, of course)

Rockhead - tks for kind words (in hopes you meant allegory, not corollary, though in an emergency any tepee will do). Please make sure your lookouts (squaws) are posted way beyond the pale, our friend Okie may need to seek cover at your camp very soon Smile
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 07:36:21