Good comment USMAC.
It is too late for me to read the others in detail tonight. I am glad that they are now engaging in a serious discussion.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
xtvpry |
At Last sanity has decended on warships1! | ||
|
Posts: 1972 ( 6-Dec-2007 00:57:26) |
I was almost on the point of giving up.
Good comment USMAC. It is too late for me to read the others in detail tonight. I am glad that they are now engaging in a serious discussion. |
||
OSCSSW |
BZ USMAC You hit the nail RIGHT on the commie lovers heads | ||
|
Posts: 2309 ( 6-Dec-2007 02:21:57) |
NATIONAL SOCIALISM = NAZI
union of soviet SOCIALIST Republics. Get it ? I particularly like it when comrade fred gets upset--))) |
||
seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 4209 ( 6-Dec-2007 03:01:29) |
Because I don't think that the scum Nazis are liberals I am a Communist sympathizer?
1. Robert Byrd
|
||
Fred the Great |
|||
|
Posts: 830 ( 6-Dec-2007 03:56:19) |
OSCSSW shows again the extent of his intelligence - Nazis must have been commies cause they had the word socialist in their name. A trifle simplistic perhaps? Not much to impress here, the author has made a clear partisan attack attempting to link the world's most evil regimes to the left (like it's some
identifiable grouping!) and has received support on here from those who identify as being on the right and feel that this attack restores some `balance' as
they are sick of the right getting the `blame' for the Nazis.
|
||
seasick |
Equivalence | ||
|
Posts: 4210 ( 6-Dec-2007 04:27:25) |
NATIONAL SOCIALISM = NAZI
Now I would like the adherents to consider that the Labor party in Israel which is an Affiliate of the Socialist International
organization, and an observer at the Party of European Socialist. Would any of you brave souls like to call it the
Israeli Nazi party?
|
||
miketr |
|||
|
Posts: 2752 ( 6-Dec-2007 04:46:50) |
Fred the Great wrote: As evil as Hitler and his state were it was not the most evil state the world has known, IMHO. The USSR wins that prize with Red China a close second. The raw amount of blood shed and suffering handed out by Stalin and Mao is actually worse than Hitlers which is scary when you think about it. Both Stalin and Mao killed 10's of millions of there own citizens and slaughtered even more besides; continued by their successors. Hitlers death toll is close but not the top, lack of time no doubt if given enough time his plans for the remaking of Europe would have pushed him and his state to the top of the hill. Michael |
||
Fred the Great |
|||
|
Posts: 831 ( 6-Dec-2007 14:41:43) |
Interesting question Mike, which was the world's most evil regime . . . Hmm, purely on blood shed, yeah, Stalin would be first, probably followed by Mao, and then Hitler. But . . . if you add the `on a per capita basis' into the equation, then surely the Khmer Rouge would be right up there? |
||
Nightwatch2 |
|||
|
Posts: 3328 ( 6-Dec-2007 21:53:24) |
Fred the Great wrote: yup. Kind of proves the point that socialist regimes that run amok to the extreme are pretty dangerous. |
||
Nightwatch2 |
|||
|
Posts: 3329 ( 6-Dec-2007 21:58:35) |
seasick wrote: no, seasick, you have missed all the key intellectual arguments. The argument is not based on just the name, it is based on the programs that they pushed
and how they achieved power. It has not been lost on those of us who actually read what they did and said that the current legislative agenda of the
socialists in the Democrat Party are almost word for word from the Soviet, Nazi and Fascist party programs. they are all cut from the same cloth.
|
||
xtvpry |
I see the boys have lost the plot again. | ||
|
Posts: 1973 ( 6-Dec-2007 22:41:03) |
It's not about who is 'evil'. Being evil is not about killing human beings anyway - that is pure Hollywood. We are not talking
about Nightmare on Elm Street. Hitler was not Freddie Krugger.
Duh! The author did not say that the Nazis or socialism or Marxism was evil. But he did say that the Nazis were socialists. Whenever the boys read that the red mist descends, they start ranting and raving. Why is that? Because in their minds Nazi and evil are synonymous (hey, Joe there's another word for you). If the Nazis were socialists then that means that socialism is also evil gettit? And so they lose the plot over and over again. Look boys I will spell it out for you one more time. *The founders of Nazism were socialists. The National Socialist movement began in Austria with Walter Riehl, Rudolf Jung and Hans Knirsch, who were, as M.W. Fodor relates in his book South of Hitler, the three men who founded the National Socialist Party in Austria, and hence indirectly in Germany. What did they want? It was against social and political reaction, for the working class, against the church and against the capitalist classes. Hitler, before the First World War, was highly sympathetic to socialism. Emile Lorimer, in his 1939 book, What Hitler Wants, writes about Hitler during these Vienna years that Hitler already had felt great sympathy for the trade unions and antipathy toward employers. The only platform of the National Socialist German Workers Party called for very Leftist economic policies. Among other things, this platform called for the death penalty for war profiteering, the confiscation of all income unearned by work, the acquisition of a controlling interest by the people in all big business organizations and so on. This was Hitler himself writing in May 1st 1927... Goebbles a year later in 1928...
Goebbels, who was the only major Nazi leader who stayed with Hitler to the very end, wrote in Der Angriff in
1928:
This is what the Nazis wanted to do in the 1930's
(1) to ban trading in stocks and bonds; (2) to nationalize all large banks; (3) to require registration of stock
ownership with a state agency; (4) to limit interest by law to five percent; (5) to confiscate all profits acquired by inflation. These measures were not
hidden; they were trumpeted on the front pages of Nazi periodicals to ensure that party members knew what the Nazi Party in the Reichstag was doing. Some
Nazi proposals sound eerily modern. The Nazis, for example, proposed that old age and disability benefits (Social Security) be paid out of general revenue,
rather than from the contributions of the individual recipient, and that the benefits be indexed to the cost of living.
This was Goebbles again, this time in 1932. "War against profiteers, peace with workers! Destruction of all capitalistic influences on the political system of the country." The same author notes the economic principles of Nazism included support for the general welfare, and that this included old age pensions, the confiscation of war profits, and opposition to capitalism." The Nazis and big business were not friends. The Nazis simply did not ride to power on the backs of wealthy industrialists. In fact, after the Nazis had acquired power and when it would have been very advantageous to have "backed the right horse," Ernst von Borsig, the prominent Berlin industrialist, said that he and his colleagues provided very little support to the Nazis. As early as 1921, Paul Reush, the leading industrialist in the Ruhr, actively insisted that his company officers not support the Nazis. The Krupp family, famous for producing arms for Germany, opposed Hitler in the 1932 presidential election. Nazis received very little support even from industrialists who would benefit from rearmament until 1930. Graf von der Golz, the Deputy Commissar in the Ministry of Economics in a speech to businessmen reported in the Nazi periodical Völkischer Beobachter on July 15, 1934: "Any organization that represents the interests of the employer will be regarded as illegal and disbanded and the guilty parties will be prosecuted." Fritz Thyssen, one of the industrialists who did help bring the Nazis to power, said in 1940: "Soon Germany will not be any different from Bolshevik Russia; the heads of enterprises who do not fulfill the conditions which the 'Plan' prescribes will be accused of treason against the German people, and shot." Graf von der Golz sounds like a Marxist to me. He sounds like a revolutionary Marxist. The Nazis on October 16, 1934 raised the highest income tax rate from 40% to 50%, and on February 17, 1939 raised that highest rate again to 55%. Was that not the actions you might expect from a socialist politician? Was that not the kind of thing you would expect from the political left? Of course it was. Nor did the socialist side of the Nazis fade out after the Night of Long Knives. Listen to Vera Micheles Dean, writing in 1939... Vera Micheles Dean in her 1939 book, Europe in Retreat, written before the Second World War began, said that the Nazis had introduced into Germany a form of graduated Bolshevism, focusing first upon Jewish bankers, industrialists and businessmen, but then upon other businesses, noting that the Nazi goal, from which it had not deviated, was to establish an egalitarian society in which everyone is equal and subordinate to the state. This was Time Magazine writing in the same year 1939... Time Magazine wrote that the "most cruel joke of all" has been how Hitler treated those capitalists and small businessmen who thought National Socialism would save them from radicalism. Some businesses had been expropriated; some were subjected to a capital tax; all had profits strictly controlled; and all were subjected to intense government regulation. That is just some of the convincing evidence that proves beyond a shaddow of a doubt that the Nazis were from beginning to end fundamentally socialists. Note, I did not say evil. Just that they were and remained socialists. That is the point at issue. If you do not like this article, then that is the point which you must refute. Of course the Nazis were defeated by socialist Russia and socialist Britain and Democratic America. The Nazis by their own actions had become demonised (and rightly so). No one wanted to describe the Nazis as socialists. And so a convenient fiction survives to this day - namely that there is a political spectrum with fascism at the far right end and communism at the far left end. In reality there is only the open society based on individual rights and its enemies who espouse a collectivist alternative. That is another discussion. At the present it is enough for you to focus on the fact that the Nazis were socialists. |
||
miketr |
|||
|
Posts: 2753 ( 7-Dec-2007 01:15:05) |
See my response up thread. Also saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any more true the Nth time than the first time; Proof by
verbosity. The paper has large number of structural problems and while the data is odds are correct the conclusion is in question because of those structural
problems. Using the logic of this paper, taking data points, ignoring the counter ones, providing no context, etc I can prove' all sorts of things as
being true that odds are wouldn't hold up. In short it was a partisan attack piece that's a very poor example of research and would help if its slant
wasn't so glaring.
Michael |
||
Nightwatch2 |
|||
|
Posts: 3332 ( 7-Dec-2007 01:20:37) |
miketr wrote: your response is unconvincing because your statement that there are "a large number of structural problems" is completely unsupported and
therefore without merit. As you yourself say - "saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any more true the Nth time than the first
time; Proof by verbosity."
|
||
Electric Joe |
|||
|
Posts: 3724 ( 7-Dec-2007 07:55:35) Straw Boss |
Fred the Great wrote: Actually, the article posted provided plenty of objective information including quotes of the parties involved. You can't get much better than that. You're using the excuse of the author's bias to dismiss everything in the article which is a transparent attempt at evading the point. The Nazis were Socialists. They knew it; they said it. No one is making any of that up. You're also projecting your own bias onto what the author is saying. The author is doing two things: defending the right and correcting the perception of the Nazis. Neither is actually an "attack" on the left. However, you don't want to accept that the Nazis were, indeed, Socialists and find the association so repugnant (can't really blame you there) that you consider being put in the same category an attack. I feel for you, but as I said before, your reaction says more about you than about the author. And, OBTW, if you're not too fond of being associated with the Nazis, think about how conservatives feel about being associated with them, then apply The Golden Rule.The fact is, the left hasn't been applying The Golden Rule when it comes to branding the right as Fascists, hence my point that I'll worry about the left's whining when the left starts playing it straight. Until then, they're the pot calling the kettle black. And yes, I have just as little sympathy for the right and their misrepresentations. Unfortunately for you, pointing out that the Nazis were Socialists, isn't a misrepresentation. It's the truth. Sociopathic, racist, hypocritical, irrational Socialists, maybe, but Socialists nonetheless. You claim to support neither side, yet you consistently dismiss one side as "not objective." So forgive me if I find your claim to be unsubstantiated by the evidence of your statements thus far. For myself, I'm truly a Centrist. I could really care less what two consenting adults do behind closed doors--mess with a kid and I'll put you under the jail; I consider Intelligent Design the height of stupid fabrications; I consider mixing religion and politics anathema; I have no problem with corporations making profits, but I would demand more corporate social and national responsibility; I consider demanding that the Ten Commandments be removed from a courthouse wall stupid; I also consider calling a Christmas Tree a "Holiday Tree" to be an idiocy; I think minorities should have enough self-esteem not to break down into victimhood at the least excuse; I would outlaw "political correctness" and all other forms of DoubleSpeak if I could; I support work-fare over welfare but recognize there are times, places and cases where the latter has a point; I'm happy to provide foreign aide, but the moment you bite the hand that feeds you, you better be prepared to starve; I feel I've got no place commenting on every development in another country's internal politics, but when I do comment, I don't candy-coat it; I'm reluctant to start a war, but once the decision is made I subscribe to Shakespeare's instruction to cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war; I think Genghis Khan's treatment of terrorists and his handling of insults of national sovereignty was too lenient; I'd ban abortion as a form of retroactive birth control, but I'd never ban it in cases of rape, incest, gross birth defects (as in the child would have zero quality of life, live only briefly and in agony) or endangerment of the life of the mother. As a Centrist, I feel I've given both the left and the right a fair shake in this discussion. At no point have I called all leftists Nazis, simply by association, nor have I implied any such thing. I have, in fact, encouraged y'all to stop using this stupid and inadequate single axis left-right model, and at least use a Pournelle Chart to better understand the similarities and differences. I can't say the same of you. You are instead equating bias and credibility. They are not mutually exclusive. Let's look at Hitler. I despise the piece of filth, so obviously, I'm biased. However, I'll also say the guy was one heck of an orator and rabble-rouser, which is an objective and truthful statement. Others of many different political stripes have made that observation from his time forward to this very day. But by your standard, because I hate Hitler, my statement that he was a good orator would be lacking in credibility. This is a fallacy. It is perfectly possible to have a bias, yet treat a matter objectively and/or offer up objective evidence. The author of the article in question did just that and nicely proved his point (often with the Nazis' own words) that the Nazis were, indeed, Socialists, and that it's a bit of an absurdity that leftists insist on associating Republicans with them. He's correct. Biased, but, in fact, correct. He provided a nice compact survey of some of the Nazi ideology's origins (admittedly, not an exhaustive study, but that wasn't the point of his essay) but you've blanket rejected it because you've decided that he's biased and ergo, by your standards, he can't be credible. Pray we don't apply a similar standard to you. You're absolutely wrong about my feelings regarding journalists. I have no problem whatsoever with opinion writers. There biases are clearly and openly revealed, which permits objective evaluation of their subjective opinions. In fact, they provide some of the most cogent writing in journalism. My primary complaint is with the run-of-the-mill journalists. Most of these individuals put very little thought into their work, unlike opinion writers. However, they display a persistent and obvious bias. I'll give you an example. Let's say President Bush's approval rating is 25%, and a new opinion poll shows that it has risen by four points to 29%. How would you write the headline (keeping in mind minimal column width? "Bush's approval rising." "Bush up 4%." "President's approval 29%." "Bush's approval remains low." "29% approve of Bush." The first statement is distorted in a pro-Bush way. The second is accurate, but provides no context. The third is accurate and does a better job of conveying context, but fails to mention the rise. The fourth is blatantly anti-Bush and lacks context. The fifth is similar to the third, but less respectful (using "Bush" vice "President") and provides accurate if limited context. Most everyday journalists will go with something like the fourth statement courtesy of their biases. Another example: Reports of the death-toll in Iraq. How many hand-wringing headlines have you seen over there being x total number of American soldiers dead? And have you ever seen a headline pointing out just how light those casualties have been in an historical context? I'll wager not. This is the pernicious effect of leftist political ideology in reporting. Objective reporting would note the casualties with regret and the achievement of such shockingly low losses with respect. Are reporters this way because they're university educated and everyone who is university educated is more liberal? No. They're this way because their training is almost exclusively conducted at the hands of university academics. Other disciplines are going to leave the university and be injected into environments that have a strong "antidote" effect. ROTC students will be influenced by the military. Business students will be influenced by their internships, etc. Engineering students will discover that no amount of dogma will prevent a bar from snapping at its tensile strength. Journalists will never be thrust into a working environment that clashes with the academic environment. With its glorification of and quest for the ideal of journalism, there is no reality check and these reporters' blind idealism becomes instead a dogma. Then add the fact that most journalism students aren't particularly luminary. You do not want to know how many students get into journalism because they heard the "hot girls" are in the major, or they dream of camera face time. It is telling that the production crews refer to the on-air personalities as "the talent" in caustic terms. |
||
Fred the Great |
|||
|
Posts: 833 ( 7-Dec-2007 14:37:40) |
In no particular order, Electric, herewith is my reply . . .
Second, and talking about irrelevancies, your political beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. You really did write a long and unnecessary post didn't you? Third, on the credibility of the author. You conceded he was not objective. If an article is not objective, it lacks credibility. That is a fact. That lack of objectivity means the author cannot be trusted to deal with the issue. How can I - as the reader - have faith that he has not twisted the meaning of quotes or used evidence in a way designed to mislead? If you want to make an argument, then doing it objectively and dispassionately ensures that the reader will take your arguments at face-value. When I read an article that is so obviously tainted in the author's personal bias, then why would I take it seriously? So, yes, I have blanket rejected the author's article and suggested that instead we look at the issue of what the Nazis were ourselves . . . objectively! Fourth, this little habit of blanket accusations. `The left does this', `the right does this'. In your case, you suggest the left constantly uses
the Nazi regime as an attack on the right. Nonsense. Some individuals may from time to time attack other individuals with this generally ridiculous insult, but
to say there is a conglomerate of people called the left who are constantly attacking this conglomerate of people called the right with such a crude barb is
nonsense. Pure and simple. Labelling someone of the right a Nazi is as stupid as labelling someone of the left a communist - unless, of course, they actually
are. Calling people of the right Nazis when in the vast majority of cases they aren't is probably one of the least intelligent insults ever devised. There
would have to be very few true Nazis in America today, surely. It is also such a juvenile insult that responding to its use by saying `oh we're not Nazis,
Nazis were communists - which means you leftie' (the tone of the original article and some of the rantings here) is almost as juvenile. Almost, not quite.
|
||
miketr |
|||
|
Posts: 2754 ( 7-Dec-2007 18:04:10) |
| ||