Is it possible that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The NSDAP wasn't even founded until 70+ years later. It did not yet exist. Not even close.

4000 of them immigrated to the United States, just in time to form organized German Nationalist organizations, infiltrate newspaper circulations, and push for the election of Abraham Lincoln. I'm talking about the immigrants who came here. And I never called them nazis.

 

[Pogo]

The NSDAP wasn't even founded until 70+ years later. It did not yet exist. Not even close.

4000 of them immigrated to the United States, just in time to form organized German Nationalist organizations, infiltrate newspaper circulations, and push for the election of Abraham Lincoln. I'm talking about the immigrants who came here. And I never called them nazis.

Then you're a liar, because here it is in your own words. You keep cutting it out of the quote, but it's already on the record:

Actually Germans did when radical National Socialists that immigrated to the United States in 1848 pushed for the election of Abraham Lincoln because of his statist leanings and brought an end the the American Constitutional republic. You never considered that Leftist started in Germany, did you?

"Leftist started in Germany" huh? Which leftist? Speako Englishee?

The concepts of "left" and "right" come from France, not Germany --- which did not then exist. Specifically the French Revolution, the sister one to our own. Liberals again.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The NSDAP wasn't even founded until 70+ years later. It did not yet exist. Not even close.

4000 of them immigrated to the United States, just in time to form organized German Nationalist organizations, infiltrate newspaper circulations, and push for the election of Abraham Lincoln. I'm talking about the immigrants who came here. And I never called them nazis.

Then you're a liar, because here it is in your own words. You keep cutting it out of the quote, but it's already on the record:

Actually Germans did when radical National Socialists that immigrated to the United States in 1848 pushed for the election of Abraham Lincoln because of his statist leanings and brought an end the the American Constitutional republic. You never considered that Leftist started in Germany, did you?

"Leftist started in Germany" huh? Which leftist? Speako Englishee?

The concepts of "left" and "right" come from France, not Germany --- which did not then exist. Specifically the French Revolution, the sister one to our own. Liberals again.

Liar? When did I call them Nazis? I called them National Socialists which they were. Regardless of the window dressing by which they claimed to push for democracy and human rights, what they actually attempted in Germany was a violent overthrow of the current government in favor of an all powerful state, something that was finally achieved 80 years later. When they came here, they pushed for the same kind of violent, revolutionary overthrow of the U.S. Government and pushed for the election of Abraham Lincoln, the candidate most in line with their ideals. Though many history books touch on the subject, one book was written that focused specifically on this manipulation of U.S. politics complete with references:

Happy reading.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In pre-Nazi Germany (and many many other countries ) there were many political parties but their mere existence did not mean they were parties with intelligent ideas- did it? Of course not, and so the Nazis took over but not, of course, because they had reasonable ideas. The modern US may be in a similar situation. We have liberals but do they have reasonable or intelligent ideas? The easy way to find out is to simply ask them. First, are they willing to swear an allegience to reason. Second, can they say anything intelligent and reasonable in defense of liberalism.

If you ask them to say something intelligent and reasonable in defense of liberalism they cant. That tells us all we need to know about liberalism, doesn't it?

I'm smarter than you are. I'm a liberal.

Case closed.

 

[Pogo]

The NSDAP wasn't even founded until 70+ years later. It did not yet exist. Not even close.

4000 of them immigrated to the United States, just in time to form organized German Nationalist organizations, infiltrate newspaper circulations, and push for the election of Abraham Lincoln. I'm talking about the immigrants who came here. And I never called them nazis.

Then you're a liar, because here it is in your own words. You keep cutting it out of the quote, but it's already on the record:

Actually Germans did when radical National Socialists that immigrated to the United States in 1848 pushed for the election of Abraham Lincoln because of his statist leanings and brought an end the the American Constitutional republic. You never considered that Leftist started in Germany, did you?

"Leftist started in Germany" huh? Which leftist? Speako Englishee?

The concepts of "left" and "right" come from France, not Germany --- which did not then exist. Specifically the French Revolution, the sister one to our own. Liberals again.

Liar? When did I call them Nazis? I called them National Socialists which they were. Regardless of the window dressing by which they claimed to push for democracy and human rights, what they actually attempted in Germany was a violent overthrow of the current government in favor of an all powerful state, something that was finally achieved 80 years later. When they came here, they pushed for the same kind of violent, revolutionary overthrow of the U.S. Government and pushed for the election of Abraham Lincoln, the candidate most in line with their ideals. Though many history books touch on the subject, one book was written that focused specifically on this manipulation of U.S. politics complete with references:

Happy reading.

A Special Ed book?

Actually you should perhaps read your own source. To the extent the Forty-Eighters are even mentioned at all, the author notes in his intro:

Though they failed to break the power of the aristocracy in Germany in the 1840s, they contributed enormously to Lincoln's counterrevolution in the 1860s to break the chains of the Constitution and establish a powerful and dominant federal government.
​

We have a big problem there, and not just the author's reference to "Germany", a country that did not yet exist. He's got these people first resisting the chains of aristocracy (which is essential Liberalism) and then turning around and working to establish the chains of a powerful State (which is the opposite). He doesn't go into detail about how they were supposed to have effected this sudden about-face, which at that point was probably his best course considering he had just painted himself into a rhetorical corner.

But "National Socialists" as a proper noun --- which IS what you typed --- means Nazi, which is short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the official name of the Nazi party in German, "nati" being pronounced "not-see" in that language. So yes you did.

If you had meant socialists who were nationalists and not affiliated with a party that did not yet exist, then you would have typed it in lower case. But that's not what you did -- you used the proper noun. Twice.

The Forty-Eighters were nationalists (small N) in that they wanted to coalesce the variously confederated states into a unified Germany (which would happen later) -- and they also may have been socialists, which was a new and trendy idea at the time. But they were not "National Socialists" (capital N) because that means Nazi, and that party, like the country of Germany, did not yet exist.

Even the author of that book cannot be stupid enough to suggest Nazis visited the Americas a lifetime before they existed. HIs title is using a metaphor. It's not intended to be taken literally.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Actually you should perhaps read your own source. To the extent the Forty-Eighters are even mentioned at all, the author notes in his intro:

Though they failed to break the power of the aristocracy in Germany in the 1840s, they contributed enormously to Lincoln's counterrevolution in the 1860s to break the chains of the Constitution and establish a powerful and dominant federal government.
​

We have a big problem there, and not just the author's reference to "Germany", a country that did not yet exist. He's got these people first resisting the chains of aristocracy (which is essential Liberalism) and then turning around and working to establish the chains of a powerful State (which is the opposite). He doesn't go into detail about how they were supposed to have effected this sudden about-face, which at that point was probably his best course considering he had just painted himself into a rhetorical corner.

But "National Socialists" as a proper noun --- which IS what you typed --- means Nazi, which is short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the official name of the Nazi party in German, "nati" being pronounced "not-see" in that language. So yes you did.

If you had meant socialists who were nationalists and not affiliated with a party that did not yet exist, then you would have typed it in lower case. But that's not what you did -- you used the proper noun. Twice.

The Forty-Eighters were nationalists (small N) in that they wanted to coalesce the variously confederated states into a unified Germany (which would happen later) -- and they also may have been socialists, which was a new and trendy idea at the time. But they were not "National Socialists" (capital N) because that means Nazi, and that party, like the country of Germany, did not yet exist.

Even the author of that book cannot be stupid enough to suggest Nazis visited the Americas a lifetime before they existed. HIs title is using a metaphor. It's not intended to be taken literally.

I'll give you credit for looking closer at this than most. I know what Nazi means but I never used that term. But even going along with what you said, national socialists did exist before the 20th century, now I've said it 3 times. The 1848ers were radical German nationalists, and yes Germany existed, albeit not as a unified country. Since you read no further than the intro, you're still unaware that the author exudes competent familiarity with the geo-political details of that region during that era in his writing of the book. The point is that these radicals attempted a very violent overthrow of the government and were successfully resisted and made to run for their lives, every one that didn't flee fast enough being executed. Those 4000 that immigrated here created a sub-culture network that pushed for violent upheaval and the rise of a dominant government. Though in the newspapers (many of which they controlled) they were portrayed as pro democracy, pro human rights, they believed that only a strong, central government unrestrained in its exercise of power, could guarantee those rights.

Rather than read the intro, why don't you read the book? It's very worthwhile.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Actually you should perhaps read your own source. To the extent the Forty-Eighters are even mentioned at all, the author notes in his intro:

Though they failed to break the power of the aristocracy in Germany in the 1840s, they contributed enormously to Lincoln's counterrevolution in the 1860s to break the chains of the Constitution and establish a powerful and dominant federal government.
​

We have a big problem there, and not just the author's reference to "Germany", a country that did not yet exist. He's got these people first resisting the chains of aristocracy (which is essential Liberalism) and then turning around and working to establish the chains of a powerful State (which is the opposite). He doesn't go into detail about how they were supposed to have effected this sudden about-face, which at that point was probably his best course considering he had just painted himself into a rhetorical corner.

But "National Socialists" as a proper noun --- which IS what you typed --- means Nazi, which is short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the official name of the Nazi party in German, "nati" being pronounced "not-see" in that language. So yes you did.

If you had meant socialists who were nationalists and not affiliated with a party that did not yet exist, then you would have typed it in lower case. But that's not what you did -- you used the proper noun. Twice.

The Forty-Eighters were nationalists (small N) in that they wanted to coalesce the variously confederated states into a unified Germany (which would happen later) -- and they also may have been socialists, which was a new and trendy idea at the time. But they were not "National Socialists" (capital N) because that means Nazi, and that party, like the country of Germany, did not yet exist.

Even the author of that book cannot be stupid enough to suggest Nazis visited the Americas a lifetime before they existed. HIs title is using a metaphor. It's not intended to be taken literally.

I'll give you credit for looking closer at this than most. I know what Nazi means but I never used that term. But even going along with what you said, national socialists did exist before the 20th century, now I've said it 3 times. The 1848ers were radical German nationalists, and yes Germany existed, albeit not as a unified country. Since you read no further than the intro, you're still unaware that the author exudes competent familiarity with the geo-political details of that region during that era in his writing of the book. The point is that these radicals attempted a very violent overthrow of the government and were successfully resisted and made to run for their lives, every one that didn't flee fast enough being executed. Those 4000 that immigrated here created a sub-culture network that pushed for violent upheaval and the rise of a dominant government. Though in the newspapers (many of which they controlled) they were portrayed as pro democracy, pro human rights, they believed that only a strong, central government unrestrained in its exercise of power, could guarantee those rights.

Rather than read the intro, why don't you read the book? It's very worthwhile.

a liberal is not allowed to see the world in terms of govt or freedom from govt as our Founders did because it is obvious that our Founders were correct, even without seeing Hitler Stalin and Mao, that govt has been the source of evil in human history.

 

[Contumacious]

In pre-Nazi Germany (and many many other countries ) there were many political parties but their mere existence did not mean they were parties with intelligent ideas- did it? Of course not, and so the Nazis took over but not, of course, because they had reasonable ideas. The modern US may be in a similar situation. We have liberals but do they have reasonable or intelligent ideas? The easy way to find out is to simply ask them. First, are they willing to swear an allegience to reason. Second, can they say anything intelligent and reasonable in defense of liberalism.

If you ask them to say something intelligent and reasonable in defense of liberalism they cant. That tells us all we need to know about liberalism, doesn't it?

You must first determine that what you are objecting to is LIBERALISM - our founding fathers were Liberals. "Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

- our founding fathers were Liberals. .

agreed as long as liberal means, for very very tiny govt, exactly what modern conservatives believe in.

Do you understand now?