As Sir Francis says in my last post's comments, ... this is as if we'd elected george w. bush here in Canada.
An important difference: 60% of the people who bothered to vote here voted against the tyrannical fraudster harper, whereas it was something like 55% of US-Americans who bothered to vote voting against the tyrannical fraudster bush II.
Another important difference: bush II had to blatantly steal his elections, whereas harper only had to come up the middle in our archaic electoral system. (The USA also has a first-past-the-post electoral system, which functions ... to the extent that US-American elections can be said to function at all ... because their elites have institutionalized the two-party stranglehold on politics there.)
But some important similarities: bush II blatantly stole Florida. bush II's regime lied its way into a war. It was corrupt. It was racist. It was ... well, it basically ripped the veil off of the workings of the US political system, it paraded around its contempt for democracy, for the truth, for the people (“This is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have mores. Some people call you the elite -- I call you my base.”) and a thousand other sins too numerous to mention, ... and instead of being hanged he was treated as a genuine political option and allowed to steal a second election.
With harper, we have a racist, hypocritical "Christian" nut-bar, another war monger, ... whose own crimes against Canadian democracy are well known, and it's pointless to list them.
It's pointless because despite the enormity of his crimes, he too was treated as a legitimate political choice by us as a country. 40% of those who bothered to vote, voted for him. The 39% who didn't bother to vote at all didn't see anything wrong with the idea of him governing. And the owners and managers of our mainstream media actually endorsed him! Why list again all of harper's sins? Why type words that only the converted will understand?
I am going to grow old under an authoritarian, war-loving, bigoted, anti-environmental, corrupt, incompetent, tyrannical government.
Going forward, ... so that PERHAPS, MAYBE, others will not suffer the same fate, what do we do?
The first thing, ... the opposition must be united. I've reconciled myself to the idea that the Liberal Party is not going to die. Fine. Whatever. It is obvious that our electoral system is flawed. It's also obvious that the Liberals cannot realistically claim to have broad national support anymore. They have not been the party of choice in Quebec for several electoral cycles. They represent a particular view of the world and if they want to enjoy having that view represented they are going to have to do it as part of a coalition.
[Will Quebec separate? There's talk of it. harper is, for all his empty prattle about how much he cares about this country, for all his droning about how "evil" separatists are, would not hesitate to sow regional discord and allow Quebec to leave the federation since it will never vote for him. Social-democratic Quebeckers do not want to be saddled with a Christo-fascist ruled English Canada. But I don't want us to get ahead of ourselves here.]
"Progressives" of whatever stripe; we have to get our act together. Let's stop it with these screeching, self-righteous tirades against each other. BOTH parties acted like donkeys, okay? Yes, Layton attacked Ignatieff instead of going after harper. Yes, the Liberals decided to divert resources from attacking the common enemy and deliberately targeted NDP incumbents like Olivia Chow.
Let's put aside our mutual hatreds though. (And it really is hatred.)
We have five years.
We have five years to form a temporary alliance based on a mutually agreed-upon platform which MUST include the reform of our electoral system for the following election. The NDP and the Liberals must agree on candidates and a temporary platform that can handle two or three years of cooperation. We must put aside our mutual loathing and work together.
With proportional representation, the harpercon style of politics will never govern this country again.
In the meantime, during those five years, we must transform the political culture of this country. The US and Canada are going to descend back into official recessions in the next few months. We must be there, explaining to Canadians, hammering away at the mass media, that the economic catastrophe is the direct result of the economic policies that the rulers propose and which harper and Flaherty implement. We must be at work forming our own media, forming neighbourhood democratic consciousness raising groups, so that people will appreciate what they've just lost on May 2nd so that they will fight to get it back.
In that spirit, I think this blog will slow down for the foreseeable future. I'll post when I feel like it. Probably little things. I'll reply to comments. There have been a few times over the past four years when I've typed something that somebody else told me they really needed to hear. I know that I appreciate knowing there's a whole online resource of sanity to help me remember that I'm not alone. But blogging alone isn't going to change anything. I'm going to spend more time thinking about how to really change things and less time indulging in rants.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
"With proportional representation, the harpercon style of politics will never govern this country again."
>cough<
Italy
>cough-cough<
>ahem<
Do tell us how Governor Bush stole the election from the Vice Presidnet of the United States, a man fully supported by the President.
On second thought ... don't. I already know your state of mind.
It never ceases to amaze me how the left convinces itself of the existence of certain things that are totally unmoored by facts. It's like believing in unicorns. Bush stole the election ... because ... because ...
Facts: There was a close election. It showed Bush ahead. Gore concedes. Looks very close, so Gore un-concedes. There's a recount. There's another recount. Gore wants yet another one. Bush tells the the Florida Supreme Court that any further recount would be illegal. The Florida court (in a state which Bush's brother is Governor; so if Bush had any undue sway over any court, this would be the one) says, "Another recount, boys!" despite the letter of the law. So ... Bush takes it to the US Supreme Court, who, by a comfortable margin (conservatives and liberals), says that the Florida court was wrong and the last count stands. So, Bush wins. Later disinterested counts (which included the media) showed under all reasonable counting standards that Bush won. The end.
Facts, Thwappy. They sure are inconvenient.
Todd,
Canada hasn't yet succumbed to the same level of fascist stupidity that Italy once sank to.
There's a huge criminal elite in Italy which no doubt contributes to and perpetuates buffoonery such as Berlusconi's.
I can't say with 100% certainty, but in this respect I believe that there are enough differences between Canada and Italy to support my contention about proportional representation.
Numenovennmugm,
I can't remember if I've banned you or not. Regardless, I'll reply to you since you're attempting to say something.
Fact: There was suppression of black voters in Florida.
Fact: The "butterfly ballots" were designed by bush II's brother and were so intentionally confusing as to lead to Jewish voters to pick Hitler-fan Pat Buchanan for president.
Fact: Bush should not even have had standing to argue on behalf of Florida voters to the Supreme Court.
Fact: The SCOTUS ruling was such a travesty that the majority judges were ashamed to even sign it. Unprecedented. They argued that the Equal Protection clause empowered them to stop all recounts of Florida ballots even though there was (and is) no attempt to discriminate against targeted citizens by the different counties' recount rules.
Fact: Media financed recounts of the ballots said the election would have gone to Gore.
I don't know how our political cultures have gotten so debased here in Canada and the USA, but there you have it, they are.
Each one of your "facts," Thwap, are actually allegations ... allegations with little evidence, except to someone living in the fever swamps of the paranoid left. (Look at my list of facts one more time and see if you can tell the difference between fact and allegation.) Moreover, some of your "allegations" aren't even that. They are more like wishful thinking, such as "Bush should not have standing ..." or irrelevancies, such as "The majority judges were ashamed to even sign [the USSC ruling]" (even if true, so what? They agreed with the conclusion. Yeesh.)
Your final "fact" is not even ... factual.
Once you've shown you can tell the difference between fact and allegation, then you can tell us about all of your evidence supporting your allegations. That should be good
Boy, and this "fact" doesn't even make sense:
"The 'butterfly ballots' were designed by bush II's brother and were so intentionally confusing as to lead to Jewish voters to pick Hitler-fan Pat Buchanan for president."
Putting aside the nonsense that Jeb Bush designed any ballot, why on earth would he disign one that might take votes from GW Bush???
Because he wanted to make fools out of elderly Jews? Really, Thwap, this allegation is nonsense squared ... on stilts ... dipped in chocolate and covered in bacon.
Harper will never introduce Italian style fascism to Canada ...
... for the simple reason that fascism is a form of socialism. Harper is thus more likely to lead Canada AWAY from fascism.
So, if it's fascism you're worried about, thank a conservative for running for office.
novmadfn,
I see. Now we're playing your version of "calvin ball" where your allegations are facts and my allegations are just allegations.
In "nomenovum ball" the tired cliche about fascism being socialism stands as a supposed example of a firm grasp of history and politics.
Every single thing that you typed stands as an example of your utter uselessness.
I'll deal with one only, because I don't have time to argue basic facts on ancient history with a jumped-up cretin:
"Putting aside the nonsense that Jeb Bush designed any ballot, why on earth would he disign one that might take votes from GW Bush???
Because he wanted to make fools out of elderly Jews?"
If you understood even the crude basics of US politics, you'd know that Jews overwhelmingly voted Democrat.
There wasn't much danger of robbing george w. bush of as many votes in that county as there was for Gore.
Now, I know you think you're smart because you're not a lefty, ... but at some point you have to realize that everything you do turns to shit and everything you believe is garbage.
There were no WMDs. Deregulating the financial sector was a disaster. The super-rich plunder the rest of us. Anthropocentric global warming is a fact and denying it will devastate civilization. There is no God. Sexual orientation is not just a whimsical "lifestyle choice." bush stole his presidencies, etc., etc., et-fucking-cetera.
Thwap, as usual, you prove yourself a waste of time by quickly descending into name-calling and incoherence. This is why I am convinced you are not sane.
But at least you taught me something: The Bush family is a tribe of super-geniuses who can force the elderly Jews into voting for Pat Buchanan rather than Gore, while avoiding having elderly WASPs do similarly. And we all know how the elderly Jewish voters intended to vote ... because they're JEWS and stuff. And this allegation must be true!!! Because no one could possibly ever find out, thus jeopardizing Jeb Bush's governorship and his family name. AND AND AND no one in this cabal HAS ever spilled the beans in lo these past 11 years!!!!!!! QED!!!!!!!
Too bad about your not being able to distinguish facts from ... well, things that aren't facts, though.
"Tired cliche"? You mean it's a cliche becasue it's patently true, right? Surely, you've read the political plateforms of the Fascists and the Natioanl Socialists. Right?
Right???
Anthropocentric global warming = Giant magical heat lamps orbiting the earth, which keep JUST us humans warm. To hell with the other animals on the planet. We're getting old and our internal heat regulators aren't what they used to be.
I'll hate myself in the morning ... but, how did Bush "steal" his second election Thwapster?
Made the Muzzies check the box for Richard the Lionhearted rather than John "I fought in Vietnam" Kerry?
"There is no God."
Missed the article outlining the proof of this. Mind linking it?
"If you understood even the crude basics of US politics ..."
Best. Line. Ever.
You have zero understanding of our politics. All you have are fantasies and delusions.
As a matter of fact, you have zero understanding of global political history, given you total ignorance of the history of fascism.
Did you know you are parroting Stalin by calling fascism right-wing?
No. Of course you didn't.
Shit-head:
Jews didn't vote for Buchanan because they're stupid Jews. They voted for Buchanan because on the butterfly ballot, the chad to punch was the second one down (below the first chad which belonged to the first candidate, bush II, Jeb's brother). The second candidate on the list was Gore, but the chad to punch for him was the 3rd one.
This has all been documented and your attempts to lie away the truth are tiresome and squalid.
"There is no God."
Missed the article outlining the proof of this. Mind linking it?
Oh how precious! The fool believes in God!
What now? Do you have a wittle so' that's going to wise up to heaven and wive fo-evvo, after you die?
Ah-ha-ha!
If you had half a brain you'd know that your own fucking Bible clearly explains that your precious soul would likely suffer eternal damnation for your worship of mammon and science.
Did you know you are parroting Stalin by calling fascism right-wing?
No. Of course you didn't.
Wow. So, if Stalin said that the earth went around the sun, are we both his moral equivalents if we agree with him?
You know, when your parents tell you that you're special? It's just to make you feel better. Don't let it go to your head.
(Then again; how could you not? It's tragic really. They're trying their best with the monstrosity they made, but when you tell an imbecile how special he is, being an imbecile it's inevitable that he's going to blow everything completely out of proportion.)
Well, thwapster, I can't tell you what to do with your time and energy. All I can say is, I understand, and I had similar thoughts myself.
But when I consider the role that the corporate media are going to be playing over the next four years, and then combine that with some of the spittle-flecked craziness infesting the blogosphere, I think it falls to folks like us to function as the extra-parliamentary opposition.
Your arguments about the Liberal Party are well-considered and pretty much free of vitriol, as is your strategic recommendation about drawing connections between Harper/Flaherty economics and the pain ordinary Canadians are going to suffer. I'd hate to see you muting your voice.
Thanks OB. [Although at first I thought you were referring to my indulging the cretin novemnewman!] You know, there's something to the notion that Layton and the NDP chose to focus on the wrong target out of self-interest. It's just that the worst bleating about that comes from partisans whose own party was similarly targeting the NDP as much as harper.
I should tell you that the reason I don't go to your blog that much is because mine is, i guess, an old lap-top that is full of stuff, which while necessary, slows it down considerably. You have all sorts of twitter feeds, and other bells and whistles i know not what, that my computer freezes for a minute when i show up, and a minute for all the stages of submitting a comment.
I'll have to admire you from afar, that is from the progressive bloggers page. Alas.
My voice won't be muted. It will be attached to me and my real name. (Minus most of the profanity and gratuitous insults.)
We're going to need an extra-parliamentary opposition. Hopefully the NDP can serve as a more precise and penetrating critique of harper's inhumanity than the Liberals would have or ever did.
And I'll say this: There are principled reasons why some Canadians chose to place their progressive vote with the Liberals. The guy at "Eugene Forsey Liberal" has some good things to say. But whatever his critiques of the NDP, the economic package of the Liberals is terrible, and its foreign policy completely unacceptable.
I'm pretty sure those Liberals don't want to be accused of having the blood of Haitians or Afghan peasants on their hands, but somehow we're the unprincipled enablers of anti-First Nations bigotry and the worst bigotry that Quebec-nationalism is capable of.
thwap wrote: "Hopefully the NDP can serve as a more precise and penetrating critique of harper's inhumanity than the Liberals would have or ever did."
I think they will. Layton has experience working with politicians of all political stripes to produce results as a Toronto councilor. Canadians like this approach, and they trust him. He is actually in a position to demonstrate how intransigent Harper is, unlike the Liberals who screamed about how crazy right-wing he was while the political debate shifted rightward under his watch. Remember how, despite appeals to vote strategically in Toronto, Smitherman couldn't gain any traction and lost by a comfortable margin?
It will be attached to me and my real name. (Minus most of the profanity and gratuitous insults.)
Good luck with that, Thwap. I've tried it, and you'll be surprised how difficult it is to write (or even think) about Harper or the CPC without recourse to a rectal, fecal, or penile vocabulary. Moreover, I'm not sure an anti-CPC insult can ever be "gratuitous". It's more likely to be over-generous, no matter how vituperative.
Sir Francis,
Picture a small, 44 year old man straining under the effort: "Must REEZ-IST!"
D SQuared:
What are you doing here? Anyway, ... I think you're right. The saving grace of the RCMP was that they could at least say "may something ain't right here" when the Liberals were asking for more kool-aid.
Just for you, thwap: a link to the mobile version without all the hoo-dickies. :)
Nice, thwap. What do you kiss with that mouth of yours?
(Just kidding. Don't tell us.)
OB,
Bookmarked it! Thanks!
Thwap said:
"Canada hasn't yet succumbed to the same level of fascist stupidity that Italy once sank to."
Don't get me wrong: that wasn't my point (and I also want prop rep).
Just that the form democracy takes is no guarantee that the Conservatives would never get such a majority again.
The New Name (for Asshole) said:
"... for the simple reason that fascism is a form of socialism."
And the fact that the Cons used to have "Progressive" in their party's name means, what, Mr. Beck?
The fact that the Republicans used to the party against slavery means, what, Mr. Beck?
Todd:
"And the fact that the Cons used to have "Progressive" in their party's name means, what, Mr. Beck?"
Nothing pertinent here. Progressive Conservatives (what little I know of this particular party in your uninteresting country) use this oxymoronic name to hide their inherent leftism. Note that "progressive" is the operative adjective. Fascism and Nazism were quite up-front with their socialism. You leftists just choose to ignore it. Love the way you pretend they were lying about their socialist backgrounds, though. Nice try, but it no longer works. Try Googling their party platforms. If you can't or won't, then shut the hell up.
"The fact that the Republicans used to [be] the party against slavery means, what, Mr. Beck?"
Nothing pertinent here, but the question doesn't even make sense. I question your use of the phrase "used to" with respect to the Republican's view of slavery. Are you so seriously brain-damaged or delusional as to think they are for slavery today? Are you so totally, completely, and utterly unaware of the many black Republicans? Are you so dishonest as to ignore the party platform, which nowhere calls for or condones slavery -- or anything like it? Are you so plug ignorant of the leadership various Republicans have demonstrated in trying to end the oppression of the Christian blacks in southern Sudan by their Muslim non-black compatriots or the scurge of AIDS in Africa? Etc., etc., you insulting, smug moron.
None of your irrelevant questions (or your apparent delusions concerning my name being Beck) alters the fact Fascism, along with its sister Nazisim, were forms of socialism, a political and social system that has an unbroken streak of failure, punctuated only with outbreaks of extreme mass-murder, violence, and wont.
Contgratulations. Your friend Thwap, I fear, is of the potentially murderous mold. Are you too?
Now stop with the red herrings, "Todd." They are stupid and waste of time. They have no bearing on the facts.
"Want."
"Nothing pertinent here."
Ooh! Wrong on both counts, Newbie.
You, like most conservative-types, can't seem to grasp that names and words can actually mean something, instead of what happens in your little mental Humty-Dumpty Land.
When the National Socialists gave themselves the name "socialist", it was because other socialist groups were _really_ popular at the time, and they wanted to peel some of that popularity off for themselves. Same deal for the old Progressive Conservatives.
The Republicans used to be known as the party of liberty under Lincoln; now, they just trade off that history.
"Are you so totally, completely, and utterly unaware of the many black Republicans?"
Are you so totally, completely, and utterly unware that the vast majority of black men and women _don't_ vote Republican anymore? They can smell it's past its "best before date".
"Fascism and Nazism were quite up-front with their socialism."
Really? Like the stuff about attacking migrant workers, strikers, and _anyone_ to the left of the fascists?
Read this, Useless:
http://www.hnn.us/articles/122469.html
You want more, Shithead? Come back for it: I eat vermin like you for breakfast.
nomeusadfn,
Google the national-socialist platform 'eh?
This is a stupid argument that you right-wing fools have invented to cover up how your own inclinations tend towards fascism.
Fascism utilized elements of modernity (technology, bureaucracy) to strengthen what was seen as important elements of the feudalist-corporatist past.
In feudalism, the merchant class is subordinate to the military-political class. But the owners of industry were to have their property rights and their power over their workers to be protected by the state. That's why independent unions were crushed.
Bah! I have no interest in continued discussion of this lame-ass invented controversy. Your simple worldview is of no relevance to me.
You two clearly have nothing to offer but invective and tired leftist fantasy. Wishful thinking about the origens of Nazism and Fascism is just that ... wishing away the facts. (I take it from your sputtering response, thwap, that you didn't bother googling the Nazi platform. Yes, I know. Sometimes the truth hurts.)
Thwap, hypenating "corporatism" (a fascist -- that is, socialist -- invention) with "feuldalist" doesn't change a thing. You cannot will facts out of existence by changing the names of things. It's just like Stalin's innovation: calling fascism and nazism right-wing. Brilliant. It's duped whole generations of dupes.
By the way, Thwap, do you have anything -- ANYTHING -- else to offer but invective and left-wing cant?
Todd, your ersatz tough-guy attitude ("I eat vermin like you") is a typical internet-based loser ploy. I know all about you, dweeb. You too have nothing ... either between the ears or in the pants. You prove yourself to be the quintessential nerd with every comment you make. Bravo.
How could I forget these precious tidbits from the iddy-bits?
"Are you so totally, completely, and utterly unware that the vast majority of black men and women _don't_ vote Republican anymore? They can smell it's past its "best before date".
So what? There are plenty of (a) black Republican politicians and office holders (as I asked, Aren't you aware of this?) who (b) were voted into office and supported by REPUBLICANS.
The ONLY possible conclusion from these facts is that Republicans do not support slavery and are not anti-black. If the Republican were a racist party there would be PRECISELY ZERO blacks in the party.
I await your sophistry.
In repy to my quote: "Fascism and Nazism were quite up-front with their socialism," you said:
"Really? Like the stuff about attacking migrant workers, strikers, and _anyone_ to the left of the fascists?"
You. Have. Got. To. Be. Joking.
Socialism has killed millions -- What, about 100 million or so? You are 100% ignorant of socialism's history. Stalin killed some 60 million. Did he allow unions? Do you KNOW what the Soviets thought of the Jews? Are you even aware of Solidarity, the Polish Trade Union, which the communist govwernment of Poland tried destroy?
Holy freaking crap, the Left is willfully ignorant.
No. You're wilfully distorting.
Why is it so important for you to try to establish this idiotic claim?
Is it because you imagine that whatever your attempt of a political philosophy is, is humanity's last, best hope?
It isn't you know. Just because the USA's political system isn't a clone of Hitler's or Stalin's doesn't make it perfect.
Is it at all relevant to you that the North American left, from the late-1950s onwards, has repeatedly denounced Stalinism, fascism, capitalism, and all forms of authoritarianism?
Is it at all possible for you to grasp that having the government as the insurance company for a country's health care system doesn't inevitably mean that gulags are right around the corner?
Are you capable of any shades of nuance or honesty, or are you just an arrogant frat-boy pumped up on the accomplishments of other people who you wish to identify with?
Stalin starved people to death in famines. The British starved people to death in famines.
Germany built concentration camps. The British were the first to build concentration camps.
Hitler modelled his colonization of conquered Eastern Europe and Russia on that of the United States colonization of the West.
Hitler left the capitalists in charge of their firms. Stalin didn't.
Hitler was a vegetarian who abstained from alcohol, but Stalin drank and ate meat. Does that make all of us, vegetarians and omnivores complicit in their crimes?
Hitler called himself a Christian. Stalin didn't. George W. Bush does.
Look. I understand you, okay? You're very proud that you were able to slog through Jeff Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" and it took a lot out of you and you want some credit for it.
But in reality, your thesis is stupid and irrelevant.
The trend you have identified is "authoritarianism" and it is common to the right and the left. Another aspect shared by Nazism and Communism is "totalitarianism." And you know, to the degree that capitalism has been saying TINA for a number of decades and becoming increasingly intolerant of anyone's questioning its hegemony, it too is becoming a totalitarian philosophy.
Now, I know that actual, genuine thinking makes your brain hurt, but read this:
Inverted Totalitarianism
... and get back to us. It's a far better use of your time than farting out insults and endlessly bragging about the extent of your genius.
I'M farting insults, Thwap?
Your latest screed is another wonderful example of the leftist rewrite of history.
"Stalinism"??? So now Stalin wasn't a socialist either? First Mussolini, then Hitler, now Stalin. How about Pol Pot? Lenin? Castro? Kim Jong Il?
And to hell with your moral equivalence concerning Hitler, Stalin and the British.
But I get it now, Thwap. Bad socialists* are authoritarians or totalitarians and therefore not real socialists. Got. It.
_______________
I know, I know ... a tautology.
No. I didn't say that Stalin wasn't a socialist. I said he was a totalitarian authoritarian.
It's transparently clear from your last outburst that you've been confronted with questions that you can't easily slither away from.
You can continue to masturbate yourself to your delusions of brilliance. It's of no consequence to me.
No, thwap, I didn't address your "questions" because each and every one of them is a strawman, filled with false premises. Why bother? So, get your own hand out of your pants, perv. You won squat.
Ah-ha-ha-ha!
Strawmen?
The pot is talking to the kettle!
You stupid shit. I was going to make some hay about your whining about me supposedly making a moral equivalence between the British and Stalin and Hitler.
All I did was point out correlations (famines, concentration camps), without making a crude assertion that the British were totalitarian, genocidal totalitarian dictators. I refrained from YOUR stupid habit of looking at similarities (real and imagined) between socialism and dictatorship and insisting on an equivalence.
Again, it's clear. You've found yourself outmatched, and now you've decided to slink away in a cloud of insults and petulance.
"You've found yourself outmatched, and now you've decided to slink away in a cloud of insults and petulance."
Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself ... and your mini-me, Todddd.
Besides, what make you think I'm "slinking away"? More wishful thinking?
Whatever superman. Here's the money shot:
"And to hell with your moral equivalence concerning Hitler, Stalin and the British."
To paraphrase you, shit-head, "To hell with your moral equivalence concerning Hitler, Stalin, and the left."
Your "argument" (such as it is) is that because the Nazis advocated social programs at one time, they are socialists and that all socialists suffer their taint.
However, when I point out that it was the British who invented concentration camps, you recoiled at attributing any of the taint of Nazism to them.
You accuse all socialists of being Hitlerites or Stalinists, but when I mentioned the famines that the British looked upon with indifference, you recoiled at the idea of equating the British with Stalin.
But you appear to have no problem equating today's socialists with Hitler and Stalin, based on (most irrelevant) correlations.
You appear to want to have your cake and eat it too. Typical of your ilk. The idea of their being consequences for anything you say or do just can't register.
Grow up boy.
"Your "argument" (such as it is) is that because the Nazis advocated social programs at one time, they are socialists and that all socialists suffer their taint."
What the hell are you talking about? One, I never made that any argument concerning "social programs" (whatever the hell you mean by that). I said that the Nazis were socialists ... well, because they (a) called themselves socialists (viz., the National Socialist Workers' Party) and (b) had a socialist platform. What the fuck is a "social program"? Answer: just about everything. Every political hack has a "social program." Instead, look at the Nazi platform: it's socialist in every meanful way. Just read it.
And what's this "advocated at one time" linguistic slight-of-hand you jsut brought out? Are you trying to argue that the National Socialists lied about their platform, that they were just kidding about their name, and that they really weren't serious about they way they controlled the economy?
"You accuse all socialists of being Hitlerites or Stalinists ..."
You lie. I never did. Saying all Nazis are socialists is not the same as saying all socialists are Nazis. For the uneducated: All snakes are reptiles, but not all retiles are snakes. (Or, all socialists are power hungry freedom haters but not all power hungry freedom haters are Thwap.)
There are no "irrelevant correlations" about it, thwap. The Nazis were socialists. They didn't run things like Stalin, but socialism comes in many (unappetizing) flavors.
You don't like it when people call Nazis socialists, thwap? Too bad. Just because they weren't international socialists in a Marxian vein, just because they didn't mouth the lying platitudes about uniting the workers of the world (just Germany), and just because they started a war against the the motherland of all international socialism, doesn't make them right wing. No matter what Uncle Joe says.
Looks like your "money shot" just landed in your pants, thwap.
And here it is, to save you 10 seconds on Google.
http://users.stlcc.edu/rkalfus/PDFs/026.pdf
The juicy bits of the Nazi platform:
12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the
Nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against
the Nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into
corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.
15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.
[…]
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate
communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low
rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the
owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community
authorities.
17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for
expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of
ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.
18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their
activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers,
etc., are to be punished by death without regard of religion or race.
[…]
20. In order to make higher education—and thereby entry into leading positions—
available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough
restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all
educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical
life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the
schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We
demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor
parents, without regard to the latter’s position or occupation.
21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child
care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievement of physical fitness through
legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all
organizations providing physical training for young people.
[…]
25. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central autority in
the Reich. Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the
entire Reich and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and
professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states.
What's not to like about this platform for a committed socialist? Not much.
Any state enacting these "programs," thwap, is a socialist state. It is not a capitalistic representatvie democracy. Period.
@ Nomennovum
Any reading suggestions? Would you recommend the Jonah Goldberg book thwap alluded to earlier?
"I know all about you, dweeb."
And I know all I _need_ to know about you, Asshole.
"So what? There are plenty of (a) black Republican politicians"
House-niggers are well-liked by white masters.
"The ONLY possible conclusion from these facts is that Republicans do not support slavery"
Straw man. Try reading.
"Republicans . . . are not anti-black."
I don't believe it's the Democrats who consistently play the race card or who shelter hard-core racists in their party.
While there are individual Republicans who may or may not harbour conscious racist sentiment, the party and its leadership have felt otherwise. That said, they don't want to get rid of them; they just want to make sure they stay in "their place".
"You. Have. Got. To. Be. Joking."
I know it's a stretch for your neuron, Sonny, but try reading that link I showed you.
"Socialism has killed millions"
Slippery little cockroach, aren't you? You don't like the terms of the argument, you'll just ignore it and bring up something to no point. Try sticking to the matter at hand, Boy: did the Fascists, the ones you like to call socialists in your ignorance, attack workers and leftists in general or didn't they? Answer!
"I said that the Nazis were socialists ... well, because they (a) called themselves socialists"
Right. And if my grannie had wheels, she'd be a bus.
"What the fuck is a 'social program'? Answer: just about everything."
You codless little clod.
You have no clue what you're saying, do you? You just pull this crap out of your ass to hide your ignorance!
Rigor, Boy, rigor!
"The juicy bits of the Nazi platform:"
wow. The ignoramus brings up a piece of paper and waves it around; how like McCarthy.
Try reading some history, fucktard; start with that link I gave you then get back to me.
@ nomennovum
Also, have you read "The Real Che Guvera"? If so, would you recommend?
@ wayne
Testify! Ain't nobody more racist or sexist than a pinko.
@ wayne
Saw it in the bookstore & looks like an good deconstruction of the myth behind the false idol w/feet of clay.
Keep on barking nouvdemnaf. I'm going to close the window now.
You're actually raving now. Like a mad-man.
You and your pals can have your little circle-jerk about Jeffrey Goldberg's gorgeous brain if you want, but I'm going to watch a movie or something.
Yep. Time to call it a night. I left your mom some cabfare on my nightstand. Your wife will be home tomorrow morning, after she makes me breakfast. Enjoy the movie!
"I'm going to watch a movie or something."
With all your talk about masturbation and circle jerking, I bet I know what kind of movie ...
Hey NewName (for Asshole)!
You read some history yet?
Post a Comment