FAFO

  • Thread starter Thread starter UNCMSinLS
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 92K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
Well, at least you did a bit of reading so I'll grant you that. But you're still pretty far off. I mean, there's a reason why there is tremendous agreement among scholars and historians on this topic.

1. For one thing, the "Volk" was not similar to socialism at all. It was the opposite. Marxism/communism was always considered to be a worldwide movement, across all cultures. That's why the communist anthem was called The Internationale. Socialism also had that same outlook (and same anthem) but to a slightly lesser degree.

Anyway, this difference accounts for the difference in militancy. The Soviets weren't actually interested in conquering for lebensraum. They were more likely to fund and assist in insurrectionary efforts, like Fidel's revolution and the establishment of a unified communist Vietnam. The Germans just invaded. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan for reasons that I don't understand, but obviously there was no domestic communist groups there to support.

2. The Soviets were not ethno-nationalists. In fact, they were quite the opposite: they rolled out the welcome mat for black people from America as well as colonized territories. Now, on the ground, there was racism because Europe had been fully racist for hundreds of years. But there was no idea anywhere in the Soviet ideology that some races or peoples were superior to others. Nor was there any idea that some people had to be expelled or kept out.

3. The Soviets did not have a murderous ideology. The gulag was for political dissidents and other enemies. It wasn't a concentration camp for all Jews.

4. Much of the Nazi party program was a rehash of various antisemitic ideas/grievances that had been floating around for a while. For instance, why do you think they opposed banking income? Because of the prominence of Jews in that business.

5. The Nazi ideology was wrapped up in the idea of a single leader who represented the will of the people. It was basically monarchy with a different grounding -- not divine right, but expression of the national will. Power was thought to bubble up, so to speak (not a historically accurate metaphor), from the German people but wielded in the singular figure of the Fuhrer.

There is no equivalent to that in any left wing thought I'm familiar with. For instance, Xi is not the ruler of China. He's the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party (you've probably heard of "Chairman Mao"). At various times and in various countries, that type of control has been more or less dictatorial, more or less subject to debate or disagreement. For instance, you probably don't know that Khrushchev repudiated Stalin, which would have been unthinkable in Nazi Germany. The transfer of power communist countries was never really familial until the fall of the USSR, except perhaps in minor outposts like North Korea.

And at the outset of communism in most countries, the early governments were meaningfully constrained "democratically." I put that in quotes because it wasn't a matter of voting, but it wasn't also not just one-man rule. For instance, the reason that Mao launched first the Hundred Flowers Movement and then Cultural Revolution was to purge the government of people loyal to communism rather than loyal to him. There was no such distinction in Nazi Germany.

It is not a close question whether fascism was left wing, right wing, or mixed. Every property that is a hallmark of right-wing thought was there in Nazism. The left has Stalin to answer for; y'all have Hitler. Difference is that we have rejected Stalin and you've embraced America's Hitler.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the thoughtful and civil response.
 
duluoz said:
I get your point and I agree… but if you’re a lawyer then it should be apparent that being a lawyer does not mean, ipso facto, that that person’s intellect or critical thinking should be respected.

There are some dumb f’ing people out there who are lawyers.
Click to expand...
Someone graduated last in their class in every field.
 
UNCatTech said:
Someone graduated last in their class in every field.
Click to expand...
It's the passing the bar thing. Graduating law school is just part of the process.

I have a friend that was on the Board of Law Examiners in NC for years. After some of the stories I heard, I'm not totally surprised. Some pretty shaky people get past that as well.
 
finesse said:
It's the passing the bar thing. Graduating law school is just part of the process.

I have a friend that was on the Board of Law Examiners in NC for years. After some of the stories I heard, I'm not totally surprised. Some pretty shaky people get past that as well.
Click to expand...
I had had a friend that was incredibly good at self study and taking test. He owned a farm and worked ar a warehouse. He had some many certifications simply because he would take the test. Didn't use 90% of them.

Some people are just like that.
 
"I have not found one conservative political comedian to be the least bit funny. It's usually humor at the expense of those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder in our country. I'll check out Gutfeld and see if his comedic target is any different"

Not sure if you're just talking about stand-up or commentators,but I always found P.J O'Rourke funny and spot on.
Dave Barry as well, though I never perceived him as political. Here's a list Google came up with.
  • P.J. O'Rourke: Known for his satirical political commentary and witty observations on culture and society.
  • Christopher Buckley: Author of many satirical novels, often with political themes.
  • David Burge (Iowahawk): A writer whose humor often touches on political and cultural topics from a conservative viewpoint.
  • Andrew Klavan: Known for his fiction, often with conservative themes, and also for his commentary.
In the realm of broader entertainment, some individuals are perceived as conservative and humorous:
  • Dennis Miller: A stand-up comedian known for his political commentary.
  • Tim Allen: Actor and comedian known for his family-friendly humor and conservative views.
  • Jay Leno: A late-night talk show host known for his observational humor and generally moderate stance.
 
BubbaOtis said:
"I have not found one conservative political comedian to be the least bit funny. It's usually humor at the expense of those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder in our country. I'll check out Gutfeld and see if his comedic target is any different"

Not sure if you're just talking about stand-up or commentators,but I always found P.J O'Rourke funny and spot on.
Dave Barry as well, though I never perceived him as political. Here's a list Google came up with.
  • P.J. O'Rourke: Known for his satirical political commentary and witty observations on culture and society.
  • Christopher Buckley: Author of many satirical novels, often with political themes.
  • David Burge (Iowahawk): A writer whose humor often touches on political and cultural topics from a conservative viewpoint.
  • Andrew Klavan: Known for his fiction, often with conservative themes, and also for his commentary.
In the realm of broader entertainment, some individuals are perceived as conservative and humorous:
  • Dennis Miller: A stand-up comedian known for his political commentary.
  • Tim Allen: Actor and comedian known for his family-friendly humor and conservative views.
  • Jay Leno: A late-night talk show host known for his observational humor and generally moderate stance.
Click to expand...
I would rather watch late night political comedy rather than tune to a so called news channel and hear falsehood and lies and bogus claims. Both make me laugh. One is intentional. The other is downright sad.

Political commentary, which is what the news channels have become, is an important right that we as Americans possess whether done comedically or not. Cheering the silencing of a voice should trouble everyone. Since 45 both liberal and conservative hosts have lost their jobs. Some with large followings. This is a concern either because of their actions or the actions of others. The result is a narrowing of voices. Just becareful that this narrowing is not skewed to an extreme.
 
we have no one to blame but ourselves. until we demand accountability and truth or else severe punishment is the price then absolutely nothing will change
 
OGtruthhurts said:
we have no one to blame but ourselves. until we demand accountability and truth or else severe punishment is the price then absolutely nothing will change
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the strident assholes who protest by not voting takes away power from the people to demand accountability. As long as a third or more of the public think they are better than engaging in tawdry politics, democracy is in trouble. Those people don't get treated with the lack of respect that they deserve. Every woman, every black, every soldier who put their lives and futures on the line for the right to vote knows that those people are moral cowards.
 
OGtruthhurts said:
we have no one to blame but ourselves. until we demand accountability and truth or else severe punishment is the price then absolutely nothing will change
Click to expand...
Something like the fairness doctrine? Rupert Murdock paid to get that reversed in the 80s. He's done very well as a result, the internal rotting of our country was a small price to pay.
 
finesse said:
Yeah, but the strident assholes who protest by not voting takes away power from the people to demand accountability. As long as a third or more of the public think they are better than engaging in tawdry politics, democracy is in trouble. Those people don't get treated with the lack of respect that they deserve. Every woman, every black, every soldier who put their lives and futures on the line for the right to vote knows that those people are moral cowards.
Click to expand...
Bull. I live in a red district. As long as we have the electoral college we could just sit and watch 5 states election results to determine the next president.

You have the right to free speech doesn't mean u have to exercise it. You have a right to bear arms doesn't mean u have to own a gun. You have the right to vote doesn't mean you have to.

What's important is the right is protected. The problem is that the people we have to vote for .... sucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top