Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Fascists and Democrats (But I Repeat Myself)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over at ENV David Klinghoffer highlights the fascism problem in the Democratic party:

 The question posed [in the Rasmussen survey] was:

“Should the government investigate and prosecute scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming?”

. . .

“In response, 27% of Democrats called for prosecuting global warming realists. (Remarkably, 11% of Republicans did, too.)”

The modern progressive movement (which is housed largely in the Democratic party in the US) was planted in the soil of fascism, as Jonah Goldberg has ably demonstrated in his Liberal Fascism.

It seems that the fascist impulse is never far from the center of Democratic politics.

Yes, one in ten Republicans said the same thing, which just shows that some people are in the wrong party, as anyone who has ever listened to John Kasich already knows.

Do 27% of Democrats support public book burnings if the books being burned dispute climate alarmism?

Speaking of book burnings, after 2.5 years I am still waiting for an answer to the question I posed here:  Nick Matzke — Book Burner?

Comments
groovamos: An individual’s answer to a question is what that individual thinks? That is not a tautology? No. An individual may answer based on what the person thinks other people classify him as, or how he is listed on other documents which may reflect someone else's opinion.Zachriel
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
An individual's answer to a question is what that individual thinks? That is not a tautology? Now go to that page you linked - look at the following: Black or African 27.3% Hispanic or Latino 43.8% Quit playing stupid games. The Houston Press has a category for Hispanics - the ones that can't read. I have lived here for decades reading the local media celebrating the fact that whites are a minority and shrinking as a percentage. The city almost always elects Democrat mayors in a Repub state. Quit playing stupid games with the kids in school who can't read who happen to be brown/Latina as my 3rd generation girlfriend thinks of herself.groovamos
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
groovamos: A tautology: An individual’s response to the race question is based upon self-identifcation. It's hardly a tautology. Race can be determined by other means. The census uses self-reporting, which is the question you asked. groovamos: Now If You Would, quote the statistics on the makeup of the Houston population. The U.S. Census Bureau provides those statistics. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4835000.html Whites are 50.4% White non-Hispanic are 25.6% Instead of "our population is by far non-white majority", what you meant to say was that "Houston's white non-Hispanic population is a minority". This is a common confusion. Someone can be white Hispanic or black Hispanic or American Indian Hispanic. Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race.Zachriel
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
A tautology: An individual's response to the race question is based upon self-identifcation. Brilliant. If you are into tautological comedy. Now If You Would, quote the statistics on the makeup of the Houston population. A link would be helpful.groovamos
November 16, 2015
November
11
Nov
16
16
2015
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
groovamos: Census data is based on self-identification…. Why don’t you quote your source? U.S. Census Bureau: "An individual’s response to the race question is based upon self-identification." https://www.census.gov/population/race/about/faq.htmlZachriel
November 16, 2015
November
11
Nov
16
16
2015
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
Census data is based on self-identification.... Why don't you quote your source? I'm connected with local media every day and it has been decades since the city was white majority. The leftists in the local media are very happy about it, since the idea is that white people need to be put into their place - or did you not think of that angle? More importantly I think what we have here is a commitment by Zach to a meme (not to mention an alien ideology) and that is that white people are bigots, and generally guilty as a group, thus Zach trying to peddle a false statistical argument that local statisticians don't. Zach and the media bigots probably do not know that there were several black pastors commenting negatively on the ordinance over the prior months and that our P.C. would-be gestapo mayor tried to subpoena their sermons. And hence the local black population was significantly against her. And most importantly I think we have an insight into why Zach comes to this board compulsively. (S)he knows that said alien ideology depends for its widespread acceptance on a core belief among the media/academic elite in scientific materialism/atheism. So I feel gratified that Zach is here so much, showing that the logic behind what we say here backs plenty of his/her cohorts into the corner and indicating a need to stanch the wounds. Back to the original topic: I want to link to a situation at my alma mater that has convinced me to stop my gifts, the last of which was $500 in December. The chancellor should have come out and said free speech is absolute up to the point of libel or and then stayed out of this controversy. It is all about censoring the wrong thoughts of a Christian professor: http://www.vanderbilthustler.com/news/article_a34f85e6-8a5c-11e5-81a3-6f22ccc66f13.html But the Chancellor has to give credence to correctness: http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2015/11/11/vanderbilt-chancellor-responds-call-suspend-swain/75607986/groovamos
November 16, 2015
November
11
Nov
16
16
2015
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
groovamos: I don’t know what is the deal in including the huge Hispanic population here as white. Census data is based on self-identification, with 50.5% of Houstonians identifying as white on the 2010 census, as opposed to Texas as a whole with 70.4% identifying as white.Zachriel
November 16, 2015
November
11
Nov
16
16
2015
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Zach: Houston is about 50% white. Whites tend to have much higher voting percentages, so the turnout was probably majority white. Nice try if you are going by Wikipedia except you forgot to actually quote what they say: "According to the U.S. Census 2000, the racial makeup of the city was 49.3% White (including Hispanic or Latino)" I don't know what is the deal in including the huge Hispanic population here as white. And I have a very good reason for being suspicious. My girlfriend is Latina and she considers me white and herself brown. I even have had to deal with racial animosity coming from her, not directed at yours truly per say but to call her white to her face would make her laugh. I wanted to watch "Legally Blonde" with her, and before we could get to the really hilarious performance sequences by Reese, she angrily made me turn it off; she could not stand all those white girls acting like privileged white girls. I'm sure privileged Latinas or Asians would have been OK. (there goes that theory of only whites can be racist) Our weekly tabloid, the Houston Press, liberal as it is, stated in a feature article on HISD that black and Hispanic students graduating from the system have deficient reading comprehension, whereas according to the article, whites and Asians do not. So the people compiling statistics do not include Hispanics and whites as a group. http://www.houstonpress.com/news/why-is-it-so-many-hisd-kids-cant-read-on-grade-level-and-its-more-than-you-think-6731690 Nice try, but really, not great. Like I said, Houston is BY FAR majority non-white.groovamos
November 16, 2015
November
11
Nov
16
16
2015
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
I tell you one thing Zach, I wouldn't vote for either if I were you. The conservatives party and the republican party are far removed from what I consider conservatives, they sold out long ago. The establishment parties are bought and paid for by special interests anyway. If I was Voting in Britain then I wouldn't vote for any of the establishment parties, If I was Voting in America then I wouldn't vote for the establishment parties either.Jack Jones
November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Jack Jones: Bush was a cuckservative. You seem to have an absolutist view of the left-right continuum. There is the pure right, then everyone else is the left. Then you make generalizations about the left, which includes just about every political position except your own.Zachriel
November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
Bush was a cuckservative. "His hubristic attempt to remake the political culture of foreign nations via military occupation was not conservative. His profligate spending habits were not conservative. His empowerment of the federal education bureaucracy at the expense of state and local control was not conservative. His approach to immigration reform -- a guest-worker program -- wasn't conservative either. Perhaps it would be easier to respect his departures from conservative orthodoxy if he'd been a good president. As it stands, he was unprincipled and a pragmatist's nightmare." I don't have time for leftists or cuckservatives who may as well be democrats.Jack Jones
November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
Jack Jones: It’s the left that panders to Islam, Labour Councils in the uk who became aware of young british girls being sexually abused by muslim peado gangs turned a blind eye to it, The labour party panders heavily to the muslim vote. Pretty broad strokes. While some on the political left certainly have overlooked repression, many on the right have also made alliances with repression. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-tangled-web-of-us-saudi-ties/Zachriel
November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
"such overgeneralizations of Muslim belief is common in Islamophobes" And Implementing Muslim Jihad Doctrine is common in... Can you finish the thought, Zachy? Andrewasauber
November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
"There are very few people on the left or the right who don’t decry violent jihadists, nor is it Islamophobic to do so." It's the left that panders to Islam, Labour Councils in the uk who became aware of young british girls being sexually abused by muslim peado gangs turned a blind eye to it. The labour party panders heavily to the muslim vote. The former leader of the labour party wanted to bring in a law against Islamaphobia which would have had been used against people who are critical of Islam and the islamifification of Britain, The current labour leader who seems very cosy with muslims. He referred to Hezbollah and hamas as friends.Jack Jones
November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Jack Jones: The people that are enabling the islamification of the west are the leftists, if anyone speaks out then they are labelled islamaphobic or racist by the leftists. There are very few people on the left or the right who don't decry violent jihadists, nor is it Islamophobic to do so. Jack Jones: Both the leftists and muslims believe in big government and control ... Not all leftists, nor all Muslims, believe in big government. However, such overgeneralizations of Muslim belief is common in Islamophobes. groovamos: Well guess what- our population is by far non-white majority Houston is about 50% white. Whites tend to have much higher voting percentages, so the turnout was probably majority white.Zachriel
November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
JoeCoder: I had another thought about how to test selection in Mendel’s Accountant. Looks like an interesting and valid test. Will take a look at it later, and let you know if it changes our position.Zachriel
November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
Barry @38 - if they were not trying to mislead, then one shouldn't try to prosecute. And WJM gave us no evidence that the MPI scientists were trying to mislead, or even what they said was wrong.Bob O'H
November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
@Zachriel: Sorry to hijack this thread but I'm not sure how else to contact you. I had another thought about how to test selection in Mendel's Accountant. I am now even more sure that Mendel's Accountant is being too generous in regard to the strenght of selection. Please see our thread.JoeCoder
November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
Do you think that’s the case, or are you reaching for some reason to disqualify this example of a shameful opinion being held by members of a party you’d rather not be tainted by racism? Now why would you propose that? A little reaching of your own? To be honest with you I'm sick beyond sick of this obsession with race and you seem to just keep it going. You know as well as I do what white liberals come up with in their name-calling towards black conservatives, based on their target's skin color. I've had plenty of white leftist friends and have on many occasions seen them slip up with a groan or something similar e.g. when told their grown daughters hook up with a partner of another race. Or when a nearby neighborhood becomes non-white close to their homestead. Then we have the disgusting PC rules that apply based on skin color invented by white liberals. Such as if a person has black skin, they are never guilty of racist sentiment. Here's another one I just saw liberals in the media violate in spite of themselves. I live in Houston and the national news was filled with bigoted remarks regarding our population about a referendum rejecting a city non-discrimination ordinance. Well guess what- our population is by far non-white majority, so that makes all those white commentators racist for violating their own PC rule - kinda like the one where if you criticize a non-white president, you are racist. I even saw one rabid white liberal make it worse for himself on Facebook when this was pointed out and he came back with "blacks were fooled by Republicans" on the issue, showing his unconscious opinion of them being easily fooled - quite racist would you not agree. BTW of course I totally agree that any law addressing interracial marriage would be stupid. And no Republican here so you wasted your effort. Oh - might add that yours truly has been labelled a racist for voting Repub in 2008 for the first time ever.groovamos
November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
Bob O'H: Let me unpack it for you. Whether the science predictions turn out to be right or wrong is totally irrelevant to whether the scientific enterprise should be criminalized? Should we prosecute all those who created warming models that vastly overstated future warming and then asked us all to make policy decisions based on those models?Barry Arrington
November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
"Of course there are. Currently, the most dangerous and extreme crop of ideologues are ultra-conservative jihadists." The people that are enabling the islamification of the west are the leftists, if anyone speaks out then they are labelled islamaphobic or racist by the leftists. Both the leftists and muslims believe in big government and control, the leftists will also be on the menu too if they do not become muslims, but they are deluded into thinking nothing will happen to them. And yes, There may be cuckservatives who have sold out or who do not want to say anything as they are scared of being demonized by the sjw's and the leftist media. Islam and Conservatism in its western form are not compatible but the enablers of islamification of the west are the left.Jack Jones
November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
OK so does that means what you say, voters in a primary, not voters necessarily affiliated with anything, i.e. independents? There may have been non-Republicans voting in the GOP primaries. But I think that if that could explain a position taken by fifty percent of those voters, it would be reflected in the overall primary results. Do you think that's the case, or are you reaching for some reason to disqualify this example of a shameful opinion being held by members of a party you'd rather not be tainted by racism? Final thought: can the contributor find for us the results of the same polling question posed to Democrat primary voters? I could not find it. I'm in an airport lounge and not really in a position to search. The best I can give you is the poll I linked to above, in which 12% of Democrats and 23% of Republicans disapproved of interracial marriage. And no, neither poll result shows that racism is close to the heart of either party. Sometimes you have to reason with your brain rather than your party identification.Learned Hand
November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
Err, Barry, would you are to explain your point in 24? William J Murray suggested we should " investigate and prosecute the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, which misled us all about the risks of climate change". But in the quotations he gives, they were making specific claims about the future German climate. I should acknowledge that I was wrong that the further claims went against the MPI for Meteorology's comments, which were clearly about predictions for the future: their comments are clearly in line with the predictions on the DWD's pages, and the evidence of the last couple of years seem to be in line with this (although the last couple of years is not long enough to decide if the trend will continue).Bob O'H
November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
L. Hand: For example, in a Mississippi poll in 2011, half of the surveyed GOP primary voters said that interracial marriage should be illegal. OK so does that means what you say, voters in a primary, not voters necessarily affiliated with anything, i.e. independents? Also polling at a primary can be tainted by all kinds of shenanigans. Mississippi has open primaries: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2014/aug/20/mississippi-primaries-open-or-not/ Rasmussen: Just over one-in-four Democrats (27%), however, favor prosecuting those who don’t agree with global warming. Only 11% of Republicans and 12% of voters not affiliated with either major party agree. I assume this means what it says: a group NOT affiliated compared to two groups affiliated with major parties. Final thought: can the contributor find for us the results of the same polling question posed to Democrat primary voters? I could not find it.groovamos
November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Z, yes, properly, the one given by actual fascists and national socialists. As in, kindly explain to me NSDAP, National Socialist German Worker's Party. KFkairosfocus
November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Jack Jones: What the leftists did was take the term liberalism which in its classical sense meant limited government, freedom of the individual, free speech and they associated it with big government, political correctness, speech codes etc liberalism, A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=liberalism&submit.x=41&submit.y=18 More generally, liberalism is a balancing between liberty and equality. While liberalism is on the political left, not all on the left are liberal. Jack Jones: There is nobody more intolerant than the leftists of today Of course there are. Currently, the most dangerous and extreme crop of ideologues are ultra-conservative jihadists.Zachriel
November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
What the leftists did was take the term liberalism which in its classical sense meant limited government, freedom of the individual, free speech and they associated it with big government, political correctness, speech codes etc There is nobody more intolerant of free speech than the leftists. Now, there is a new phenomena with the age of the internet, with the leftist social justice warriors that go after people to get them fired for not holding politically correct views, we saw that happened to Tim Hunt. These are nasty, vile and spiteful people that take pleasure in hounding people that have opposite views or say something that is not politically correct. Free speech to a leftist is that you agree with them.Jack Jones
November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: https://uncommondescent.com.....ic-threat/ The term fascism already has a political definition.Zachriel
November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
PS: Let me clip: >>it is arguable that the typical political discourse of left vs right wings is outdated once traditional Monarchy lost the contest to classical liberal, constitutional democratic government and liberal, free-market, free enterprise economics has shown itself so superior that the largest nominally communist state in the world, China, has reverted to market economics, including even a stock exchange. Where also, the second most populous Communist — indeed Stalinist — state, North Korea is evidently now a monarchy in its third generation of de facto kings, the first as “eternal president” having been made a god. But as of recent decades past, classical liberals have been re-labelled conservative rightists, and have often found themselves deemed suspect due to perceived fascist tendencies, fascism (including the National Socialist German Workers Party . . . i.e. the Nazis — and yes, that is a big clue) being deemed a political disease of the Right. However, much of this becomes deeply questionable once we ponder not only the above definitions and compare what fascists actually did. Daniel Hannan, late of the UK Telegraph’s blogs, offers some re-balancing perspectives, and I will allow myself to clip just one of the posters decorating his blog post: nazi_arbeiter_poster_socialist The socialist face of Fascism/Nazism: “The National Socialist German worker stands against capitalism” >>Leftists become incandescent when reminded of the socialist roots of Nazism By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: February 25th, 2014 On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver “der echte Sozialismus”: real socialism. Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk. So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism: It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said. Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun,” he boasted, adding that “the whole of National Socialism” was “based on Marx”. Marx’s error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity – to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to “convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists” – by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish,” he told Wagener, “we shall be in a position to achieve.” . . . . >> Sheldon Richman in Concise Enc of Econ and Liberty adds: >>Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions. Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics. Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism. Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely. To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production . . . >> Richman also cites Mussolini and Hitler: MUSSOLINI, 1928 Autobiography: >>The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (Mussolini, Benito. My Autobiography. New York: Scribner’s, 1928., p. 280)>> HITLER, per citation: >>The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai, Avraham. Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy. Trans. Ruth Hadass-Vashitz. Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd., 1990., pp. 26–27)>> The burning Reichstag The burning Reichstag So, it is quite reasonable to argue that there is strong evidence that Fascism and National Socialism were in fact socialistic. At heart, fascism is the notion that in a day of “unprecedented” crisis that targets a large — locally dominant or pivotally influential — perceived victim group or class or religious or racial/national body, a super-man figure emerges to rescue the victims; one who is beyond ordinary human powers and limits (including those of morality and just law). A political messiah who stands as champion for the identity group to save it, defending it from the various scapegoated out-groups who are held to be to blame for the victimisation of the in-group. That super-man political messiah then seizes power and is widely recognised as a man of “destiny.” In an atmosphere of hysteria, slander and propagandistic deception that is usually multiplied by chaos and violence or at least riotous assemblies in the streets baying for blood, the power blocs, political, legal, military, corporate, religious, etc then panic and align with him, hoping to at least influence him while giving him effectively unlimited dictatorial power in the face of a crisis [nothing like a burning Reichstag to get people into a panic!] — which becomes tantamount to ownership by the state concentrated in a politically messianistic autocrat or at most a new oligarchy in alliance with older centres of power too panicked to see the implications of the secret police 4:00 am knock on the door.>>kairosfocus
November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
How do you explain the word “socialist” in the National Socialist Party? The same way I explain the word "National," which reflected and appealed to rightist nationalistic politics. What were the actual policies that make Nazism socialist under the modern definition? Their support for capitalistic enterprise? Their support for traditional social strata? I see far more that falls on the right than the left, which of course is irrelevant to modern rightists, who are not responsible for the atrocities of other people in other times in other countries. For some political warriors, though, all that counts is "they were bad," and thus must be associated with the enemy.Learned Hand
November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply