Shooting at the DC Holocaust Museum

[Fraulein Hilda]

Who challenged whom? I did not even start the second thread when the first one got closed.

 

[Agnapostate]

Well I didn't think that's what she was doing, but I can't interpret the fraulein's threads....I think I generally think she's saying the exact opposite of what I initially think she's saying.

The Nazi Party is a socialist party, for the person who wanted to know how they were "liberal".

"The National Socialist program also contained a number of points that supported democracy and even called for wider democratic rights. These, like much of the program, lost their importance as the Party evolved, and were ignored by the Nazis after they rose to power."

National Socialist Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Like all things liberal, the so-called desire for increased rights was simply a way to pull the wool over the eyes of the public until they could effectively seize power.

Unsurprisingly, you're once again absolutely wrong. I'm serious; it's just utterly incorrect to describe Nazism or similar fascism as "socialist" in nature. Fascism and socialism are rather distinct from each other, and in many cases, are outright conflicting ideologies. To consider the elements of fascist political and cultural ideology and economy, we might look at Umberto Eco's conception of "Eternal Fascism," or Zanden's Pareto and Fascism Reconsidered, for instance.

Firstly, as Zanden puts it, "[O]bedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along creative lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism." This is not consistent with the socialist principle of elimination of alienation as defined by Marx's The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Such elimination necessitates revolutionary class consciousness, which obviously conflicts with "obedience, discipline, faith, etc." Revolutionary class consciousness is also rather inconsistent with the "cult of tradition" identified by Eco as an integral tenet of Eternal Fascism. "[T]here can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message."

From an insistence on revolutionary class consciousness comes opposition to class itself on the part of the socialist. This is egregiously contradictory to the elitism that constitutes a core tenet of fascism. As Eco writes, "[e]litism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism."

Fascism also has a necessarily anti-democratic nature. As Zanden notes, "the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions." Similarly, Eco writes that "the Leader, knowing his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler." This strongly conflicts with the participatory elements of socialism, as it necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. For instance, Noam Chomsky notes that libertarian socialism is "based on free voluntary participation of people who produce and create, live their lives freely within institutions they control and with limited hierarchical structures, possibly none at all." Other forms of socialism are democratic at the very least.

And that's without even bothering to describe the contradictory natures of liberalism and socialism.

 

[KittenKoder]

Who challenged whom? I did not even start the second thread when the first one got closed.

It is not the challenge, it is, as this example has shown, to keep the bickering to a minimum. Drop it now on the thread and take it to PM. Only warning.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes I've had the "fascism is just the right-wing gone wild" convo on here.

The truth of the matter is, the Nazi party was LIBERAL by the standards of the gov't in place at the time.

Isn't that how liberals explain how both today's liberal and T. Jefferson are liberal?

 

[AllieBaba]

Well I didn't think that's what she was doing, but I can't interpret the fraulein's threads....I think I generally think she's saying the exact opposite of what I initially think she's saying.

The Nazi Party is a socialist party, for the person who wanted to know how they were "liberal".

"The National Socialist program also contained a number of points that supported democracy and even called for wider democratic rights. These, like much of the program, lost their importance as the Party evolved, and were ignored by the Nazis after they rose to power."

National Socialist Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Like all things liberal, the so-called desire for increased rights was simply a way to pull the wool over the eyes of the public until they could effectively seize power.

Unsurprisingly, you're once again absolutely wrong. I'm serious; it's just utterly incorrect to describe Nazism or similar fascism as "socialist" in nature. Fascism and socialism are rather distinct from each other, and in many cases, are outright conflicting ideologies. To consider the elements of fascist political and cultural ideology and economy, we might look at Umberto Eco's conception of "Eternal Fascism," or Zanden's Pareto and Fascism Reconsidered, for instance.

Firstly, as Zanden puts it, "[O]bedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along creative lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism." This is not consistent with the socialist principle of elimination of alienation as defined by Marx's The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Such elimination necessitates revolutionary class consciousness, which obviously conflicts with "obedience, discipline, faith, etc." Revolutionary class consciousness is also rather inconsistent with the "cult of tradition" identified by Eco as an integral tenet of Eternal Fascism. "[T]here can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message."

From an insistence on revolutionary class consciousness comes opposition to class itself on the part of the socialist. This is egregiously contradictory to the elitism that constitutes a core tenet of fascism. As Eco writes, "[e]litism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism."

Fascism also has a necessarily anti-democratic nature. As Zanden notes, "the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions." Similarly, Eco writes that "the Leader, knowing his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler." This strongly conflicts with the participatory elements of socialism, as it necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. For instance, Noam Chomsky notes that libertarian socialism is "based on free voluntary participation of people who produce and create, live their lives freely within institutions they control and with limited hierarchical structures, possibly none at all." Other forms of socialism are democratic at the very least.

And that's without even bothering to describe the contradictory natures of liberalism and socialism.

And you really should provide a link.

Otherwise I just skim your blather and assume you're plagiarizing.

 

[Nik]

Well I didn't think that's what she was doing, but I can't interpret the fraulein's threads....I think I generally think she's saying the exact opposite of what I initially think she's saying.

The Nazi Party is a socialist party, for the person who wanted to know how they were "liberal".

"The National Socialist program also contained a number of points that supported democracy and even called for wider democratic rights. These, like much of the program, lost their importance as the Party evolved, and were ignored by the Nazis after they rose to power."

National Socialist Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Like all things liberal, the so-called desire for increased rights was simply a way to pull the wool over the eyes of the public until they could effectively seize power.

Way to miss the idea that "those things were ignored after the Nazi's rose to power". They voted for people who would expand rights, but instead they got the Nazis. They were not, and are not, the same thing.

Yeah...a desire for more rights was simply a way to pull the wool over the eyes of the public until they could effectively seize power...what the hell do you think the founders were fighting for? Decreased rights? What a tool you are.

 

[Agnapostate]

And you really should provide a link.

Otherwise I just skim your blather and assume you're plagiarizing.

How am I "plagiarizing"? I attributed all quotes I used to their respective authors.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

The truth of the matter is, the Nazi party was LIBERAL by the standards of the gov't in place at the time.

Isn't that how liberals explain how both today's liberal and T. Jefferson are liberal?

Not LIBERAL, left wing would be accurate (as Nazism is a form of socialism), they were ANTI-LIBERAL, just like most of the folks calling themselves Liberals in the United States today are, freaking crazy world we live in.

 

[AllieBaba]

Well I didn't think that's what she was doing, but I can't interpret the fraulein's threads....I think I generally think she's saying the exact opposite of what I initially think she's saying.

The Nazi Party is a socialist party, for the person who wanted to know how they were "liberal".

"The National Socialist program also contained a number of points that supported democracy and even called for wider democratic rights. These, like much of the program, lost their importance as the Party evolved, and were ignored by the Nazis after they rose to power."

National Socialist Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Like all things liberal, the so-called desire for increased rights was simply a way to pull the wool over the eyes of the public until they could effectively seize power.

Way to miss the idea that "those things were ignored after the Nazi's rose to power". They voted for people who would expand rights, but instead they got the Nazis. They were not, and are not, the same thing.

Yeah...a desire for more rights was simply a way to pull the wool over the eyes of the public until they could effectively seize power...what the hell do you think the founders were fighting for? Decreased rights? What a tool you are.

The point is, a corrupt regime who violated human rights was able to seize power using a liberal facade and appealing to people by telling them that by giving up their rights and allowing certain people to be targeted, they were really INCREASING freedom.

Typical liberal hogwash, and as usual a complete lie.

 

[AllieBaba]

Liberal reasoning: Removing the rights of some unworthy individuals increases rights for others.

Think abortion, euthanasia, socialized medicine.....

 

[Agnapostate]

Not LIBERAL, left wing would be accurate (as Nazism is a form of socialism), they were ANTI-LIBERAL, just like most of the folks calling themselves Liberals in the United States today are, freaking crazy world we live in.

The inaccurate nature of this false claim was just elaborated on. To clarify, the structure of a debate usually follows these lines. You state Premise A. I rebut Premise A. At that point, you should address my rebuttal of Premise A, not simply repeat the premise without touching the rebuttal. Does that make sense?

 

[KittenKoder]

Yes I've had the "fascism is just the right-wing gone wild" convo on here.

The truth of the matter is, the Nazi party was LIBERAL by the standards of the gov't in place at the time.

Isn't that how liberals explain how both today's liberal and T. Jefferson are liberal?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe it wasn't liberal or conservative? Maybe it was ... Nazi? Binary thinking is dangerous and never correct.

 

[Sweet Willy]

In the context of American politics, white supremicist align themselves to the far right. The organizations endorse republican and libertarian candidates. Ron Paul had strong support from the white supremicist.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Binary thinking is necessary. Situational ethicists are dangerous.

 

[Agnapostate]

Binary thinking is necessary. Situational ethicists are dangerous.

You don't know anything about ethics, Shrill-da. You're of the school that classifies ethical viewpoints that they dislike as "relativism."

 

[Sweet Willy]

Binary thinking is necessary. Situational ethicists are dangerous.

I dream of 2's. Doesn't scare me.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Binary thinking is necessary. Situational ethicists are dangerous.

You don't know anything about ethics, Shrill-da. You're of the school that classifies ethical viewpoints that they dislike as "relativism."

But they are the same dislikes no matter whose ethics they are.

 

[AllieBaba]

White supremecists are extremists. They aren't "far right". They're nothing. The left's asinine insistence that they are somehow representative of the Christian majority is representative of their propaganda schtick, which could also be paralleled to the Nazi propaganda against Jews...associating Jews with all that is corrupt, disgusting and evil in order to marginalize and eventually annihilate them.

"Lyenko Urbanchich, Nazi propagandist and political powerbroker, 1922-2006....
He was also the last, and most powerful, of the central and eastern European Nazi collaborators and war criminals who infiltrated the Liberal Party from the 1950s and coalesced with Australian rightists to form the "Uglies" faction."

Ardent Nazi took Liberal to extremes - Obituaries - smh.com.au

 

[Agnapostate]

But they are the same dislikes no matter whose ethics they are.

"The same dislikes"? Could you translate this into something coherent?

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes I've had the "fascism is just the right-wing gone wild" convo on here.

The truth of the matter is, the Nazi party was LIBERAL by the standards of the gov't in place at the time.

Isn't that how liberals explain how both today's liberal and T. Jefferson are liberal?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe it wasn't liberal or conservative? Maybe it was ... Nazi? Binary thinking is dangerous and never correct.

The LIBERALS are the ones who gobble it up, and who continue to wrongly think that by removing the rights of "some" you can increase the rights of many.

Doesn't work that way. Too bad libs don't see it.