Stone to rehablitate Hilter Stalin and Mao.

[elvis]

I liked Wall Street. JFK and Nixon were very well-made films. They just were not historically accurate. I am sure the same will be true of this series.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

You should explain yourself because your are engaging in a bad behavior that both Nazis and Communists do that normal folks find exasperating... Redefining terms in a way that no one else uses.

What is your definition of right wing? How does Hitler meet the criteria in a way that Stalin does not?

Large numbers of people on this board do not use the terms in the way that you use them. Since your definitions aren't universal, we need to know what they are in order to argue with them or understand them.

That said, I think you are right that we will treat them with disdain. You have been earning a bad reputation.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

You should explain yourself because your are engaging in a bad behavior that both Nazis and Communists do that normal folks find exasperating... Redefining terms in a way that no one else uses.

What is your definition of right wing? How does Hitler meet the criteria in a way that Stalin does not?

Large numbers of people on this board do not use the terms in the way that you use them. Since your definitions aren't universal, we need to know what they are in order to argue with them or understand them.

That said, I think you are right that we will treat them with disdain. You have been earning a bad reputation.

 

[elvis]

the nazi party persecuted and killed the members of the left-wing parties, within and outside of the nazi party. and cooperated and fused with the right-wing parties.

goebbels started as poetry writerand journalist with socialist tendencies, he was a follower of g. strasser and criticized hitler in the beginning for hitlers anti-socialist rhetoric. hitler, however won the fight, not goebbels or strasser. strasser did not get the hint. goebbels did. that is why goebbels lost his socialist tendencies, and strasser his life.

Nicely sourced opinion.

which part do you want to have sourced? btw, i posted this several times and with sources on this board. i will do it again, if you tell me which part.

wasn't it in Shirer's rise and fall of the third reich? I know i've read what you are saying somewhere.

 

[Sodafin]

LK et al. Sorry no luck gentlemen. I was studing Asian and African history when you cowns were in knee pants.
.

Interesting.

So would you say Daniel arap Moi, Koby of the LRA, or Mobutu Sese represent right wing totalitarianism or not?

If not, can you explain precisely why not in terms of political theory.

We can then move on to Asia - how about Suharto?

 

[Sodafin]

Redefining terms in a way that no one else uses.

.

No, the definitions I am using are the only ones that are used.

While mos posters here seem happy to make up their own definitions of terms such as 'right wing', Gary in particular, I am using the standard political sciences definitions.

This is a theoretical subject based largely on models - I have linked those models and provded real life examples of those models in practice.

Any poster here can check those models, and find I'm correct. However, few posters will, because they would rather indulge in chest-beating and flag waving that actually establish the facts.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

[

Fitnah -

You keep using models , not examples of how the policies are "right wing"

True. This is because if people are not listening, there is little point talking.

It would take me 20 mins to write a solid and verifiable definition of why Nazism is right wing - do you really think Gary or yourself are going to bother to read it?

Why should I waste my time?

What you need to do Prima dona which has been done by the other camp, is post the Nazi policies that reflect todays conservative policies.
It has been shown that the Old liberal early 20 th century progressive, todays progressives and the Nazis had the same kind of mindset and policies .

I dont care about your models, they mean nothing .
It the policies that shed the light, not contrived bunk.

 

[L.K.Eder]

LK et al. Sorry no luck gentlemen. I was studing Asian and African history when you cowns were in knee pants.

What I am detailing here is a systematic historical method of looking at the political line up as it ascends through ever more centralized control. I will not accept a political line in which various leftist nits pull things out of sequence and stuff them in where they want almost seemingly at random for no good reason beyond personal preference. and the desire to make some one else look bad.

your a true scoler! but, can you knit?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Nicely sourced opinion.

which part do you want to have sourced? btw, i posted this several times and with sources on this board. i will do it again, if you tell me which part.

wasn't it in Shirer's rise and fall of the third reich? I know i've read what you are saying somewhere.

i have not read that book. i guess it would not be the best source, as shirer came to berlin in 1934. but if it includes the party's history, it should contain what i summarized.

i guess in most publications describing the history of the NSDAP from its beginning the stuff i briefly summarized will be present. as i said, it is not actually a secret and well documented.

 

[Sunni Man]

Sodafin likes to pontificate his ideas from his Ivory Tower down to us common people.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Sodafin likes to pontificate his ideas from his Ivory Tower down to us common people.

He's a journalist ,

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/98472-why-dont-the-chinese-get-climate-chage.html

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is quite clear that many on the left choose for reasons of their own to except a modeled that is unacceptably flawed and in fact quite illogical. But if it's the only way you can live with your political choices well whatever floats your boat I guess. Get ouside that political straight jacket in which you've chosen to incarcerate your self read and think logically about something other than self justification which is the only reason to assume that Hiler was in any significant way different than Joe Stalin on any issue.

As i said I am quite familiar with the model you profess. And I find it illogical, and utterly unecessay and outside any pretense at historical fact. It is in fact little more than picking at nits.

garyd...the extremely flawed and illogical political straight jacket you live in is American parochialism. You are framing the world strictly from an American perspective based on American ideals and American beliefs.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. were NOT born and raised in Kansas by Auntie Em

What's truly ironic about this whole war is that the conservatives in our country do not seem to realize that the Taliban is simply an extreme version of the same primal impulse that drives them.

In every population there is a distribution of conservative to progressive, aggressive to peaceful, etc. The famous classical game theoretic model, the Hawk-Dove contest, shows that the evolutionarily stable population in that model is not all hawks or all doves, but rather a certain degree of each; in that model, 58% "doves" and 42% "hawks". It stands to reason that it is expected that you will have both types of personality in your population. Similarly, I believe a stable distribution of political sensibility is probably one with both progressive and conservative elements.

Of course, it's funny how the same personality type seems to latch on to radically different ideas depending on the society. "Conservatives" here profess a belief in capitalism and extol the virtues of the good old days of the 1950's, a half century ago; "conservatives" in Russia pine for the bygone days of the stability of the old Soviet empire. I believe that the propensity in conservatives is not towards ideologies per se, but rather towards status quo versus change. I'd bet you'd find much more psychologically (and perhaps genetically?) similar between conservatives here and in Russia, despite the fact that they profess supposedly opposite nostalgias.

But of course a typical conservative doesn't look at the conservatism of their enemy and learn to moderate themselves; they see the enemy as an "other", as confirmation of their own rigid views, despite the evident similarity between the two stances.
M Hadeishi

Replace the word "conservative" with "liberal" in that mass of bullshit, and you've just described yourself, moron. The exception would be that dimwits like you always seem to think "change" automatically equals "good", possibly an indication that you all have the attention spans of five-year-olds.

 

[Dr Grump]

What you need to do Prima dona which has been done by the other camp, is post the Nazi policies that reflect todays conservative policies.
It has been shown that the Old liberal early 20 th century progressive, todays progressives and the Nazis had the same kind of mindset and policies .

I dont care about your models, they mean nothing .
It the policies that shed the light, not contrived bunk.

Yet you aren't being a prima donna? At least he/she is backing up her statements, unlike you with your empty rhetoric. You cannot put revisionist history and terms and apply them to the 21st century. Only a small number of US uber conservatives don't think Hitler was right-wing, because they themselves are and they somehow feel vicariously tainted by the same brush.

99 percent of the rest of the world, and normal Americans consider him from the right due to the reasons Sodafin has mentioned.

You can't go around redefining a universal meaning just to suit your narrow view point. Shall I start redefining The Chimp as a Nazi to justify how I feel about him, and does that make me right?

 

[Charles Stucker]

The thread title made me think some eastern sect had made a stone for prayer to "rehabilitate" the tainted souls of three monsters. Imagine my chagrin when I learn it is just a movie director trying to rewrite history.

 

[garyd]

Okay nits (old term for louse a nit wit is a term for one with the brain of a louse. Picking nits is removing them form your body with your bare hands. It is also slang for engaging in essentailly useless intellectual dithering got it now LK I'll try to remember in the future that if a word hasn't been used in the last 10 seconds or so you probably aren't familiar with it) Let us for nonce discard the whole left right conumdrum with which we werre blessed by the French Revolution which, simply put, has as much relevance to the here and now as smooth bore musket has to modern military equipment.

We will place at one end - which end matters not for the purposes of this exercise Anarchism. At the other we will place totalitarianism. ( If you can't figure out that totalitarianism are polar opposites you have no place in this debate in the first place.) Government exists for one purpose only and that one purpose is to control human behavior.

Under Anarchy no human behavior of any kind is controlled nor are there an duly constituted authorities to control behavior however egregious that behavior might be. The minute you establish the first rule law or regualtion and appoint someone to enforce it you cease to have a pure anarchy.

Every law rule or regualtion you pass gets you one small step clser to totalitarianism. The more behaviors you try to control the more totalitarian you become.

In this scale Obama is closer to a totalitarian than Bush simply because he is endeavoring to control far more behavior.

 

[Big Fitz]

No, the definitions I am using are the only ones that are used.

In your mind. Typical ivory tower 'intellectual' elitist progressive.

This is one thought terminating cliche that isn't getting a pass. Not so easy indoctrinating those who do not fear an "F" in your class, is it? Tenured I assume. I doubt a competent member of a university poli-sci faculty with this attitude would survive long without it.

Any poster here can check those models, and find I'm correct.

Quite dubious and highly assumptive. We can check them, and make up our own minds. Your point of view is not unequivocally part and parcel.

your a true scoler! but, can you knit?

And he's a jurnalist two!

 

[Big Fitz]

You cannot put revisionist history and terms and apply them to the 21st century.

The only revisionist history I see is being done by leftists trying to hide their tracks while trying to frame a political enemy.

Only a small number of US uber conservatives don't think Hitler was right-wing

I'm sure since 40% of the American Populace claims to be conservative would agree with your assessment either.

because they themselves are and they somehow feel vicariously tainted by the same brush.

Or it could be we recognize slander/libel when we see/hear it.

99 percent of the rest of the world, and normal Americans consider him from the right due to the reasons Sodafin has mentioned.

Nope. More like a small minority of leftist radical professors and fruitcakes believe in that. Anyone who looks at history and then the behavior/record of the modern DNC can see it clear as day.

You can't go around redefining a universal meaning just to suit your narrow view point.

I wish Sodafin would heed your advice.

Shall I start redefining The Chimp as a Nazi to justify how I feel about him, and does that make me right?

Isn't racist to refer to President Obama as such? Although he is a fascist, no need to call him that.

 

[Sodafin]

We will place at one end - which end matters not for the purposes of this exercise Anarchism. At the other we will place totalitarianism. ( If you can't figure out that totalitarianism are polar opposites you have no place in this debate in the first place.)

r.

I don't think it is fair to say that you should not be in this debate in the first place, Gary, but it is astonishing that you can't wrap your head around the idea that totalitarianism can - and does - appear at both ends of the two dimensional spectrum, but in different manifestations.

Anarchism and left wing totalitarianism share a lot of ideological elements - such as both being traditionally claiming to be voices of the 'people'

Democracy also appears in more than place, i.e. the variation between SDP/Labour and Conservatism, does it not?

 

[Sodafin]

Fitnah -

is post the Nazi policies that reflect todays conservative policies.

It is not a question of policy as much as the ideology upon which policies are based.

Nazism (did you mean Nazis or Fascist?) is defined as right wing as the basis of the ideology is right wing - and this is most apparent when we consider the issues of class and the flow of capital. Both are ubiqutous elements of any political system.

Compare the role of class in Nazism with that in socialism, and you have your answer.

Gary -

Given you have claimed expertise on Africa, I suggest we stick to that area - that will provide specific examples.

I have mentioned Daniel arap Moi, Sese Mobuto and Koby's LRA as examples of right wing totalitarianism - what is your reading of that?

One might also consider Mubarak as an example, although Egypt is ostensibly democratic.

 

[Dr Grump]

We will place at one end - which end matters not for the purposes of this exercise Anarchism. At the other we will place totalitarianism. ( If you can't figure out that totalitarianism are polar opposites you have no place in this debate in the first place.)

r.

I don't think it is fair to say that you should not be in this debate in the first place, Gary, but it is astonishing that you can't wrap your head around the idea that totalitarianism can - and does - appear at both ends of the two dimensional spectrum, but in different manifestations.

Anarchism and left wing totalitarianism share a lot of ideological elements - such as both being traditionally claiming to be voices of the 'people'

Democracy also appears in more than place, i.e. the variation between SDP/Labour and Conservatism, does it not?

I have found, generally, that the US Conservative - especially one to the extreme right - does not have the nouse or temerity to think deeper into different political systems. They have grown up with a choice of only two, and it is reflected in their posting. Gary is such a poster. He cannot see outside the limited political spectrum that the US provides.