What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

Okie-Do not listen to CI. He hates the USA. He has hated the USA ever since the US put him in a concentration camp. He is trying to intimidate you. Tell him to fu.k off. You have a right to post your opinions.

As I have explained previously, Okie. CI and some of his cohorts want to use these threads, not for discussion, but like so many chimpanzees, to groom each other while gossiping on how bad this conservative is and how evil the other conservative is.
I do hope that you recognize that CI is trying to intimidate you.

Again, tell him to fu.k off.

Come on guys. Focus. There is a long-running Iraq thread if you wish to discuss WMD. This thread is about the components that go into the making of a dictator, or more specifically, a ruthless dictator. PLEASE don't make this a rehash of the pros and cons of WMD.

Now, after viewing the posts above, I will start with the distinguished German, Herr Hinteler. Now,Herr Hinteler clearly believes, even though he is not an American, that he can make all kind of pronouncements about the USA but no one here can comment on the fatherland. He is, of course, wrong. Hitler was not from the right, but from the left.

I do hope that Herr Hinteler is familiar with the original Kulturkampf. He must be amazed that we too have access to the writings of Germans and Adolf Hitler.

The original Kulturkampf was NOT an attack on liberal dissenters but an onslaught from the left against the forces of traditionalism and conservatism.
It was a war against German Catholics.

During his rise to power, Adlof Hitler, in many respects the heir of the Bismarcking progressives said "It is not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science."

THAT, HERR HINTELER, IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN ATTACK FROM THE RIGHT?

It sounds to me like an attack by the far left in the USA.

genoves, let me take this opportunity to say that is not my style, I don't tell people that no matter how irritating they may be. Even ci has on rare occasions noted his agreement with certain posts of mine. I find ci to be an old curmudgeon, trapped in a liberal brain, and while he spouts insults on almost a constant basis, he is probably fairly harmless. He thinks he is the authority on virtually every issue, so anyone disagreeing, he dismisses as ignorant or a crackpot, or whatever other term he can find that particular day.

I have pretty much gotten over his insults, and thumbs down most of his posts anymore. Any reasonable ones, I will still answer if I feel like it.

genoves, you have a wealth of information and you seem like a very educated and informed person on a wide range of issues. And I agree with you most of the time. I don't know if you have alot of this information in your head, or if you cut and paste alot, but either way you must be a smart person. However, I know its easy to use sarcasm, but I would recommend cutting out the worst of what you have to offer, bring the conversation up to a level, and I think in the long run, you will fare better in the eyes of those that you are debating. After all, if some of the things said here were without being anonomous, it would be uglier than a bar room brawl after every post.

Agreed there. And in regard to the beginning premise of the thread, I find it pretty surprising that very many people would not suspect a dysfunctional childhood and similar aspects for people that turned out to be rotten dictators. After all, as I said once, people that turn out to be criminals, I think any person that studies that field could tell you that their backgrounds and childhoods had certain common denominators, that is for a large percentage of them. Ruthless dictators are criminal, although they have learned how to practice evil without being stopped by the law. Although some end up being killed, or run out of office by circumstances, by other countries, etc.

Thanks for your work on the subject. Your efforts are to be commended.
This certainly matches up the situation in Germany in the early thirties. One of the realities that enabled Hitler was the terrible inflation that racked the country. The powers that be and, by political osmosis, the general public felt they were being royally abused by those countries that forced Germany to sign the Treaty of Versailles whereas Germany had to pay reparations to the winners. But the German leaders felt that the best way to get out from under this was to pay this "debt" with Deutsch Marks that were greatly devalued by inflation which they then arranged to do. The inflation greatly increased popular resentment, this was then coupled with the generally held believe that an unpatriotic public contributed to Germany's defeat in WW I. This, of course, is where the Jews come in. When times are tough blame the Jews! It was everybody but the Germans' fault. It was an atmosphere that allowed Hitler to gain power legitimately.

However, your point of a public ripe for the plucking is right on. Stalin's case, I think is somewhat different. The Russian people knew nothing but this type of leader, whether Czar or General Secretary of the Communist Party, both resulted in the same thing when it came to political realities for the Russian serfs, uh, citizens. I see Saddam in the same light. Both subscribed to the concept that might is right (Same thing for Iran's leaders but that is another subject). Castro, Pol Pot, and Mao may have started out thinking that their ideas were exceptionally insightful and right but they then found that in order to carry out these insights to fruition they must stay in power but in order to stay in power...well you know that story.

Generally, one could say that a complacent public is necessary for a dictatorship to survive but, arguably, the most interesting exception to most modern dictator ships is not Hitler but that of the Neo-Dictator Hugo Chavez. We see a South American democracy deteriorating into dictatorship why? Fareed Zakaria in his book "The Future of Freedom" makes an excellent case for a wealthy and propertied middle class as opposed to a rent seeking populace. The reason is simple and extremely relevant to, I think, what may be your implied concern regarding what is happening to America presently. You make an argument for stable and traditional families and I agree this is certainly a big part of it. But, without detracting from that importance, Zakaria points to the juxtaposition of the overall economic situation in the Oil rich Middle Eastern states and that of Western Democracies. Simply put, such Middle Eastern citizens find their sustenance from the state (oil revenues). In the Western Democracies the state gets its sustenance from the people in the middle class via taxes. Indeed, from those people in the middle class that are making and selling stuff. Their 'Industry' (to use the Founder's term) supports the state. This is why our American founders emphasized free commerce for the people and on that basis that the government stems from and is subserviant to the people. [In Hamilton's words: "... If he federal government ...[oversteps its authority] ...the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution... "(FED Papers No.33)] Overall, when these economics are viewed globally those in the Middle Eastern Oil states, overall, get their sustenance from the middle class of the Western Democracies plus, now, that of China and India that purchase such resources from the those Middle Eastern states.

This is the inherent danger to America today. When us conservatives use the term "The American Way" it is a code word for personal hard work, intellectual excellence, saving, accumulation of wealth, and the freedom to do so within the law. The current President has raised concerns of those who cherish such American values. He is one who wants the state to have more power over individuals, that much is clear from his statements and actions. It remains to be seen whether he has the complacent public that allows such goals to come to fruition. I feel the mid terms in 2010 will reveal this. But if the American government gains more power to provide for its charges, those citizens lose an equal amount of freedom in the bargain.

As for your

Implicit in this is a method for the people to get such information. Many assert that there was little of this in our last presidential election RE Obama. Was there a concerted effort on the part of the press to not jeopardize Obama's chances? Perhaps, but there were many situations in Chicago real estate, church pastors, U.S. Senate votes and speeches and encounters with "Joe the Plumber" plus his campaign rhetoric that gave information to the populace.

But remember, 50% of those that work in the U.S. don’t pay any Federal Income Taxes and many of those qualify for the EIC (Earned Income Credit) which actually gives them money (from other taxpayers). This doesn't even account for those generations of American citizens that don't work at all and receive welfare payments and medical benefits which many, who do work, don’t. This demonstrates that a significant proportion of the populace is rent seeking and depend on the state for their very existence. More citizens receive payouts from the state then pay into such funds. Sound familiar?

Thanks for your invitation.

JM

While I do think it can be a factor, I have a difficult time putting a dysfunctional childhood at the top of the list though, Okie. Ghandi certainly came from a dysfunctional family, experienced a mostly unhappy childhood, and struggled for much of his youth but he became Mahatma Ghandi. George Washington Carver certainly did not become who he became without unconscionable struggle, but wouldn't the world have been poorer without him? Conversely, Siddhārtha Gautama born to royalty, riches, and privilege chucked it all for the much more austere and meditative life that earned him eternal recognition and adoration as Gautama Buddha. Lenin and Dezong were both born to relative affluence and privilege and there is no indication that either had to 'struggle' to get to the top. Osuma bin Laden came from circumstances of affluence, status, and privilege. I grew up in a family so dysfunctional that by some theories my sister and I should be psychopaths. But we are not.

So, while Sowell correctly, in my opinion, asserts that struggle does not necessarily make a person a better, wiser, or more empathetic person but rather can make one angry, resentful, and bitter, I'm pretty sure that he would agree conversely that struggle also does not necessarily produce angry, resentful, and bitter people and sometimes those born of privilege can become quite warped and evil. We get good and bad from every group and class of people.

So I think there have to be other factors of a lack of moral conviction (sociopathic tendencies) perhaps coupled with radicalization involved as well.

Thank You, foxfyre--and in return, may I say that you are the BEST conservative poster on these threads. I say that even though I have an strong ego.

But, let me give you another view. If you do not see that CI as well as some others try to SHUT OUT ideas to which they cannot respond, I am astonished.

They think that able2know should be their "playground" free from any dissenting opinion. Many times I have read an insult directed to you by Parados, Cyclops, CI and even Nimh.

Is that not an attempt to intimidate?

Why should they do that/ Why should they IGNORE? Are they afraid of your ideas? If they have such a strong case why should they not try to show that your ideas are erroneous?

No, Foxfyre--the truth is that they cannot compete in the market place of ideas and they must try to intimidate as CI did to Okie.

I do understand why you might be put off by some of my comments,but I will not relent. I attempted long ago to post only ideas with noother comments.
Morons like Joe from Chicago, frustrated by his inability to rebut my posts, began to post insulting pictures twisting a name I had chosen.

That, as Don Corleone said< I will not forgive!!

Only when Joe from Chicago and others like Setanta, whose nose I bloodied in a debate in which he proved he did not understand the writings of Fascism in Italian, meet me in a debate, fair and square, with no name calling, no pictures posted and no ridculous comments about my posted name will I relent from my campaign.

The ball is in their court! When I see a rational sincere and polite attempt at conversation, I will gladly participate.

Until then----I will continue my style!

Hogwash! The criminal elements come from all income levels, education, and environments. On the flip-side of the coin, good people come from the same groups of people.

I like your style... rock on with your bad self

Okie- I wish to continue commenting on your basic ideas. I challenge the left to rebut the following:( They will not because they cannot)

When the Nazi Party wrote its platform( written b y Hitler and Anton Drexler) the appeal was to SOCIALIST and populist economics--

a. Abolition of income from interest

b. The total confiscation of war profits

c. the NATIONALIZATION of Trusts. and

d. Shared Profits with Labor( can you say GM?)

Of course, these are NOT "right wing" objectives, they are obviously LEFT WING.

*********************************************************
In fact, they strongly resemble the goals of Barack Hussein Obama--who is most definitely NOT a right winger.

Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany was much closer, in its operation, to the goals set down by Obama.

The criminal elements come from all income levels, education and environments>

What a stupidly simplistic statement.

Of course the criminal elements come from all income levels, education and environments.

Any study of crime statistics will clearly show that MORE criminal acts,percentage wise, come from the ghetto--black and hispanic.

Some groups, such as Asians, although there is some crime, have a much lower crime rate( again, percentage wise) than other groups.

Wishing will not make it so, Cicerone Imposter.

I understand your argument, and will concede to part of it. Yes, I agree, nobody's childhood is perfect, and also, the perceptions of people that grew up in the same family may be different. However, I think the dictators that I studied had fairly dysfunctional ones, on a comparative basis. Also, as I have pointed out, there are plenty of people around with that experience, but it requires a political situation for those kinds of people to rise to power. Just as not all dysfunctional children turn out to be criminals, not all of the same turn out to be dictators, the opportunities are small, so the percentage is small. But on the flip side, most criminals had dysfunctional childhoods, and so it is with evil dictators, in my opinion.

One point that you make about struggle however, struggle by itself does not indicate dysfunctionality, you need to identify what kind of struggle. Struggle may be good, and struggle is totally different than things like abuse. Also another point, I am not at all suggesting that growing up poor or rich matters, that is not a primary parameter at all. What I am talking about is a child growing up in a family where abuse occurs, where parents were either inattentive or not even there, perhaps abandoning the family, or whatever. For example, abandonment is one of the worst feelings that a child could experience.

jm, thanks for the contribution of your opinions. Agreed on many of your points.

If I may, Okie, I will continue to press on what I think is your basic argument.

This is something that the left will not admit.( Especially Setanta)

I know he insulted you-Okie

The Nazis campaigned as SOCIALIST. NAZIISM was right wing Socialism.

If we look at Stalin and his regime, we find that Stalin executed thousands of Bolshevik Revolutionaries. They were accused NOT of being conservatives or monarchists but RIGHTISTS---that is, right wing Socialists. Any deviation from the Socialist line was proof of rightism.

Again---Gregor Strasser, the Nazi idelogist put it this way. "We are SOCIALISTS. We are enemies, deadly enemies of today's capitalistic economic system."

Why, that sounds to me just like the Socialist- Cyclops!!

You are correct, Okie--James Morrison's contributions get little play and almost NO response from the left wing. I wonder why? Have they put him on ignore?

Mr. Morrison ended his contribution with two great paragraphs which should be replicated:

Note:

Implicit in this is a method for the people to get such information. Many assert that there was little of this in our last presidential election RE Obama. Was there a concerted effort on the part of the press to not jeopardize Obama's chances? Perhaps, but there were many situations in Chicago real estate, church pastors, U.S. Senate votes and speeches and encounters with "Joe the Plumber" plus his campaign rhetoric that gave information to the populace.

But remember, 50% of those that work in the U.S. don’t pay any Federal Income Taxes and many of those qualify for the EIC (Earned Income Credit) which actually gives them money (from other taxpayers). This doesn't even account for those generations of American citizens that don't work at all and receive welfare payments and medical benefits which many, who do work, don’t. This demonstrates that a significant proportion of the populace is rent seeking and depend on the state for their very existence. More citizens receive payouts from the state then pay into such funds. Sound familiar?

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

It sounds like the beginning of a LEFT LEANING SOCIALISTIC STATE TO ME!!!

genoves, when 50% or more are dropouts in inner cities, and older siblings and relatives have already turned to drugs to make a living, it is no surprise to see the crime rates as high as they are. You are absolutely correct, ci is totally wrong. It is true some criminals come from higher incomes and cultures, but there are certain cultures and areas that have much higher crime rates. It is very difficult to find statistics on the web, or with the census bureau, because I even suspect the libs ignore it, but the link between single parent families or unmarried women with children to unemployment, poverty, and crime, is in fact very stark and clear.

I believe our cultural problems are in fact affecting the economy in a very significant way. We need to get back to teaching citizenship in the schools again, such as, get your behind out there and work for a living or else. After all, it is your responsibility. Also marry the woman or man that parents your children. That would help alot if everyone did that.

Absolutely --Okie.

I have read, but cannot remember where( Probably something from the pen of the man who was highly involved in turning the welfare mess around in the 90's Charles Murray- In "Losing Ground")

Three rules for making it in our economy.

l. Graduate from High School

2. Do not have babies out of wedlock

3. Get Married.

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

When Obuma was a community organizer in Chicago, he had many clients who did not adhere to those guidelines.

No wonder Obuma wants to tax the hard working successfuls to give to the indolent non-working scum.

In regard to Hitler and fascism, left vs right, Excerpt from: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/11/goldberg/

"To sort of start the story, the reason why we see fascism as a thing of the right is because fascism was originally a form of right-wing socialism. Mussolini was born a socialist, he died a socialist, he never abandoned his love of socialism, he was one of the most important socialist intellectuals in Europe and was one of the most important socialist activists in Italy, and the only reason he got dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I.

Originally being a fascist meant you were a right-wing socialist, and the problem is that we've incorporated these European understandings of things and then just dropped the socialist. In the American context fascists get called right-wingers even though there is almost no prominent fascist leader -- starting with Mussolini and Hitler -- who if you actually went about and looked at their economic programs, or to a certain extent their social program, where you wouldn't locate most if not all of those ideas on the ideological left in the American context. "

And therein is the problem in the 'left'/'right' discussion I came in during. Those designations means something different in Europe than they do here in America just as modern American social liberalism is not the same animal as classical liberalism or just plain 'liberalism' in most of Europe.