Religions > Atheism > Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"SongBookz" |
| Date: |
21 Nov 2006 10:36:54 PM |
| Object: |
Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
Everyone has endured the accusations of the adherents of the Athiest
religion in these groups, this article is submitted for discussion purposes
since it is topical to those discussions:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20061121/cm_csm/ydsouza
Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history
By Dinesh D'SouzaTue Nov 21, 3:00 AM ET
In recent months, a spate of atheist books have argued that religion
represents, as "End of Faith" author Sam Harris puts it, "the most potent
source of human conflict, past and present."
Columnist Robert Kuttner gives the familiar litany. "The Crusades
slaughtered millions in the name of Jesus. The Inquisition brought the
torture and murder of millions more. After Martin Luther, Christians did
bloody battle with other Christians for another three centuries."
In his bestseller "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins contends that most of
the world's recent conflicts - in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in
Northern Ireland, in Kashmir, and in Sri Lanka - show the vitality of
religion's murderous impulse.
The problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes attributed
to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism. The
best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials.
How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually,
fewer than 25. Yet the event still haunts the liberal imagination.
It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail
against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years
ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be
about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in
jail due to malnutrition or illness.
These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at
the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls
produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of
creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph
Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no
Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered
more than 100 million people.
Moreover, many of the conflicts that are counted as "religious wars" were
not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to
territory and power. Can the wars between England and France be called
religious wars because the English were Protestants and the French were
Catholics? Hardly.
The same is true today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not, at its
core, a religious one. It arises out of a dispute over self-determination
and land. Hamas and the extreme orthodox parties in Israel may advance
theological claims - "God gave us this land" and so forth - but the conflict
would remain essentially the same even without these religious motives.
Ethnic rivalry, not religion, is the source of the tension in Northern
Ireland and the Balkans.
p>Yet today's atheists insist on making religion the culprit. Consider Mr.
Harris's analysis of the conflict in Sri Lanka. "While the motivations of
the Tamil Tigers are not explicitly religious," he informs us, "they are
Hindus who undoubtedly believe many improbable things about the nature of
life and death." In other words, while the Tigers see themselves as
combatants in a secular political struggle, Harris detects a religious
motive because these people happen to be Hindu and surely there must be some
underlying religious craziness that explains their fanaticism.
Harris can go on forever in this vein. Seeking to exonerate secularism and
atheism from the horrors perpetrated in their name, he argues that Stalinism
and Maoism were in reality "little more than a political religion." As for
Nazism, "while the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a
predominantly secular way, it was a direct inheritance from medieval
Christianity." Indeed, "The holocaust marked the culmination of ... two
thousand years of Christian fulminating against the Jews."
One finds the same inanities in Mr. Dawkins's work. Don't be fooled by this
rhetorical legerdemain. Dawkins and Harris cannot explain why, if Nazism was
directly descended from medieval Christianity, medieval Christianity did not
produce a Hitler. How can a self-proclaimed atheist ideology, advanced by
Hitler as a repudiation of Christianity, be a "culmination" of 2,000 years
of Christianity? Dawkins and Harris are employing a transparent sleight of
hand that holds Christianity responsible for the crimes committed in its
name, while exonerating secularism and atheism for the greater crimes
committed in their name.
Religious fanatics have done things that are impossible to defend, and some
of them, mostly in the Muslim world, are still performing horrors in the
name of their creed. But if religion sometimes disposes people to
self-righteousness and absolutism, it also provides a moral code that
condemns the slaughter of innocents. In particular, the moral teachings of
Jesus provide no support for - indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to - the
historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity.
Atheist hubrisThe crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through
a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using
the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God
and create a secular utopia here on earth. Of course if some people - the
Jews, the landowners, the unfit, or the handicapped - have to be eliminated
in order to achieve this utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and
their apologists have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they
confirm the truth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything
is permitted."
Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is
that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not
managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in
the past few decades.
It's time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief
has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not
religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.
* Dinesh D'Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution. His new
book, "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for
9/11," will be published in January.
Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor
.
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
22 Nov 2006 03:36:09 PM |
|
|
SongBookz wrote:
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164208863.179810.89330@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
3. The atheists mentioned did not kill others in t=
he
name of atheism,
did they?
Do you kill because of what you believe or because of
what you say?
You are a fool.
Well that makes a big difference. Just because some of =
the
murderers
happen to be atheists doesn't make atheism the cause of
these murders.
Why is it that when they are atheist, they just "happen" =
to
be atheist,
but they they are not atheist, then that is the cause of
their murders?
Who said that?
If a christian commits a murder, christianity isn't
necessarily the
cause for this murder.
If the murder is committed in the name of christianity, then
religion
is the cause for this murder.
Really? You realize that the world is full of liars, don't y=
ou?
Do
you really believe that a typical murderer would have some qu=
alm
about
lying?
I am not a fan of organized religion, but overall the effects=
of
organized christianity seem positive;
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. When I see what the religious fana=
tic
(mostly christians) are doing to the USA, I tend to think not.
They are not doing anything that they haven't been doing for the
last
400 years.
The world is full of morons and the USA is no different. When are
we
going to hear you chime in on what non-religious fanatics did in =
the
last century? When you start proposing moving away from organized
religion AND from an all-powerful State (your kind's religion), t=
hen
we
can start agreeing on some things.
The USA has been in decline in the last few decades not because of
an
increase in the influence of religion, but because of the increase
in
the size of the State.
If you frenchies had any brains,
I am not French and I won't get lessons from an American, thank you.
What do you have against all americans?
Nothing. Where have I said that?
I told you I agreed with what you wrote: "Regardless, nobody should be
condemned because of the actions
of somebody else with some similar charctheristic. Most people claim
to believe this (specially when it applies to them), but in practice
are more than happy to punish a group (or perceived group) for the
actions of one. "
By the way, I am not american,
but live in the USA by choice. As said before, the country is not
perfect, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than any other country.
Sure. I agree with you. But it's certainly not the best.
you guys would move towards a more
freedom-oriented society where people are actually accountable for
their actions and can reap the rewards of their work. Old fashio=
ned
principles, the ones that made the USA great and from it has been
moving away thanks to leftist assholes.
Sieg heil!
By the way, the Nazis were leftists; that's "National Socialist German
Workers' Party". Nothing good ever comes out of leftist organization=
s=2E
OK, you're a loon...
There's nothing to add.
Which part of "Socialist" in their name don't you understand?
What's in a name? A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Their name was their name, but not their belief and practice - the Nazi's
were a far right organization, just to the left of George Bush.
Which part of their policies were "far right"? I am guessing the ones
you don't like?
Interesting that he claims that when somebody commits a crime in the
name of Christianity, it's Christianity's fault, but when somebody
commits a crime in the name of Socialism, it's something else's fault!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
22 Nov 2006 05:34:16 PM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez schrieb:
SongBookz wrote:
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164208863.179810.89330@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
3. The atheists mentioned did not kill others in=
the
name of atheism,
did they?
Do you kill because of what you believe or because =
of
what you say?
You are a fool.
Well that makes a big difference. Just because some o=
f the
murderers
happen to be atheists doesn't make atheism the cause =
of
these murders.
Why is it that when they are atheist, they just "happen=
" to
be atheist,
but they they are not atheist, then that is the cause of
their murders?
Who said that?
If a christian commits a murder, christianity isn't
necessarily the
cause for this murder.
If the murder is committed in the name of christianity, t=
hen
religion
is the cause for this murder.
Really? You realize that the world is full of liars, don't=
you?
Do
you really believe that a typical murderer would have some =
qualm
about
lying?
I am not a fan of organized religion, but overall the effec=
ts of
organized christianity seem positive;
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. When I see what the religious fa=
natic
(mostly christians) are doing to the USA, I tend to think not.
They are not doing anything that they haven't been doing for the
last
400 years.
The world is full of morons and the USA is no different. When =
are
we
going to hear you chime in on what non-religious fanatics did i=
n the
last century? When you start proposing moving away from organi=
zed
religion AND from an all-powerful State (your kind's religion),=
then
we
can start agreeing on some things.
The USA has been in decline in the last few decades not because=
of
an
increase in the influence of religion, but because of the incre=
ase
in
the size of the State.
If you frenchies had any brains,
I am not French and I won't get lessons from an American, thank y=
ou.
What do you have against all americans?
Nothing. Where have I said that?
I told you I agreed with what you wrote: "Regardless, nobody should be
condemned because of the actions
of somebody else with some similar charctheristic. Most people claim
to believe this (specially when it applies to them), but in practice
are more than happy to punish a group (or perceived group) for the
actions of one. "
By the way, I am not american,
but live in the USA by choice. As said before, the country is not
perfect, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than any other count=
ry.
Sure. I agree with you. But it's certainly not the best.
you guys would move towards a more
freedom-oriented society where people are actually accountable =
for
their actions and can reap the rewards of their work. Old fash=
ioned
principles, the ones that made the USA great and from it has be=
en
moving away thanks to leftist assholes.
Sieg heil!
By the way, the Nazis were leftists; that's "National Socialist Ger=
man
Workers' Party". Nothing good ever comes out of leftist organizati=
ons.
OK, you're a loon...
There's nothing to add.
Which part of "Socialist" in their name don't you understand?
What's in a name? A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Their name was their name, but not their belief and practice - the Nazi=
's
were a far right organization, just to the left of George Bush.
Which part of their policies were "far right"? I am guessing the ones
you don't like?
Interesting that he claims that when somebody commits a crime in the
name of Christianity, it's Christianity's fault, but when somebody
commits a crime in the name of Socialism, it's something else's fault!
Once again: who said that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the massmurders of history |
23 Nov 2006 11:29:31 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:34:16 -0800, Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez schrieb:
SongBookz wrote:
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164208863.179810.89330@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a écrit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a écrit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a écrit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a écrit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a écrit :
3. The atheists mentioned did not kill others in the
name of atheism,
did they?
Do you kill because of what you believe or because of
what you say?
You are a fool.
Well that makes a big difference. Just because some of the
murderers
happen to be atheists doesn't make atheism the cause of
these murders.
Why is it that when they are atheist, they just "happen" to
be atheist,
but they they are not atheist, then that is the cause of
their murders?
Who said that?
If a christian commits a murder, christianity isn't
necessarily the
cause for this murder.
If the murder is committed in the name of christianity, then
religion
is the cause for this murder.
Really? You realize that the world is full of liars, don't you?
Do
you really believe that a typical murderer would have some qualm
about
lying?
I am not a fan of organized religion, but overall the effects of
organized christianity seem positive;
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. When I see what the religious fanatic
(mostly christians) are doing to the USA, I tend to think not.
They are not doing anything that they haven't been doing for the
last
400 years.
The world is full of morons and the USA is no different. When are
we
going to hear you chime in on what non-religious fanatics did in the
last century? When you start proposing moving away from organized
religion AND from an all-powerful State (your kind's religion), then
we
can start agreeing on some things.
The USA has been in decline in the last few decades not because of
an
increase in the influence of religion, but because of the increase
in
the size of the State.
If you frenchies had any brains,
I am not French and I won't get lessons from an American, thank you.
What do you have against all americans?
Nothing. Where have I said that?
I told you I agreed with what you wrote: "Regardless, nobody should be
condemned because of the actions
of somebody else with some similar charctheristic. Most people claim
to believe this (specially when it applies to them), but in practice
are more than happy to punish a group (or perceived group) for the
actions of one. "
By the way, I am not american,
but live in the USA by choice. As said before, the country is not
perfect, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than any other country.
Sure. I agree with you. But it's certainly not the best.
you guys would move towards a more
freedom-oriented society where people are actually accountable for
their actions and can reap the rewards of their work. Old fashioned
principles, the ones that made the USA great and from it has been
moving away thanks to leftist assholes.
Sieg heil!
By the way, the Nazis were leftists; that's "National Socialist German
Workers' Party". Nothing good ever comes out of leftist organizations.
OK, you're a loon...
There's nothing to add.
Which part of "Socialist" in their name don't you understand?
What's in a name? A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Their name was their name, but not their belief and practice - the Nazi's
were a far right organization, just to the left of George Bush.
Which part of their policies were "far right"? I am guessing the ones
you don't like?
Interesting that he claims that when somebody commits a crime in the
name of Christianity, it's Christianity's fault, but when somebody
commits a crime in the name of Socialism, it's something else's fault!
Once again: who said that?
That guy over there. You know, the one made of straw...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
Christianity is to religions as Windows is to operating systems.
-Scott (#1045)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
23 Nov 2006 03:01:35 PM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Interesting that he claims that when somebody commits a crime in the
name of Christianity, it's Christianity's fault, but when somebody
commits a crime in the name of Socialism, it's something else's fault!
Except Hitler proclaimed he was doing the Lord's work, but always
exulted that they would crush the Jewish rot called Socialism that was
destroying Germany. The only way Hitler was motivated by Socialism was
in stamping it out.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cazador" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
23 Nov 2006 03:15:58 PM |
|
|
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
(clip)
The only way Hitler was motivated by Socialism was
in stamping it out.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
There were differences and hostilities within the family but Hitler was
certainly a socialist, a National Socialist, theoretically and
historically connected with the overall 19th Century socialist
tradition. So was Mussolini. So, of course, was Lenin. All three of the
European totalitarian systems of the period 1917-1945 were related,
variants of a single strain. (See Pipes, Richard, "The Russian
Revolution" and Gregor, A. James, "The Faces of Janus")
.
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
23 Nov 2006 04:08:00 PM |
|
|
Cazador wrote:
There were differences and hostilities within the family but Hitler was
certainly a socialist, a National Socialist, theoretically and
historically connected with the overall 19th Century socialist
tradition.
National Socialism defended the concept of private property by
industrial capitalist firms. It rejected internationalism. It rejected
the concept of class struggle, instead asserting that it was the duty
of the German state to stamp out the unruly labor unions and to force
an alliance between proletarians and industrial capitalists against
finance capitalists. It rejected philosophical materialism.
The historical connection is one of antithesis.
So, of course, was Lenin.
You mean the Lenin who wrote "Left-wing Communism: An infantile
disorder"? You know, the tract that attacks the left-wing of the
communist movement? That escoriated the Left for rejecting his
vanguardist approach to revolution, the left-communists and libertarian
communists and the anarchists, who believed that the people should be
in charge and not the Party.
The problem of Marxism-Leninism wasn't that it was left-wing, it was
that it was enamored with right-wing ideas, like those of the needs of
a strong elite to rule the weak. This right-wing deviation of communism
is why Trotskyists and other MLs, like David Horowitz, had no problem
jumping from the totalitarian left to the totalitarian conservative
movement in the USA like rats fleeing from a sinking ship after the
fall of the USSR.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cazador" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
23 Nov 2006 10:12:48 PM |
|
|
DarkAngel wrote:
Cazador wrote:
There were differences and hostilities within the family but Hitler was
certainly a socialist, a National Socialist, theoretically and
historically connected with the overall 19th Century socialist
tradition.
National Socialism defended the concept of private property by
industrial capitalist firms.
National Socialism tolerated private property while materially
weakening it. As was the case in the Soviet Union, the Party erected a
bureaucracy parallel to those of business and government. In both cases
it was this Party aparat wherein the primary power lay. This pattern of
control is characteristic of totalitarian systems.
It rejected internationalism.
Except the internationalism implicit in aggressive militarism, the
drang nach Osten and Lebensraum.
It rejected
the concept of class struggle, instead asserting that it was the duty
of the German state to stamp out the unruly labor unions and to force
an alliance between proletarians and industrial capitalists against
finance capitalists.
Which was very close to what happened in the Soviet union where the
working class were denied unions of their own and chained to the
factory bench. This was completed by 1922 or 1923 during Lenin's
lifetime. The state became the combined finance and industrial
capitalist. To this day it's called "state capitalism". In Germany the
capitalists simply lost autonomy and kow towed to the Party. The result
was quite similar functionally.
It rejected philosophical materialism.
That's somewhat like rejecting Genesis. Materialism was useless in any
event.
The historical connection is one of antithesis. Exactly wrong. Don't forget that politics describes a circle. It is not linear. There was hostility, not antithesis. They are side by side on the political spectrum. The rivalry was in-house. They were family.
So, of course, was Lenin.
You mean the Lenin who wrote "Left-wing Communism: An infantile
disorder"? You know, the tract that attacks the left-wing of the
communist movement? That escoriated the Left for rejecting his
vanguardist approach to revolution, the left-communists and libertarian
communists and the anarchists, who believed that the people should be
in charge and not the Party.
Was Lenin not a socialist? What are trying to say here.
The problem of Marxism-Leninism wasn't that it was left-wing,
It was socialist. The radical left and right meet on a circle. They are
far more alike than different. Left and right are misleading terms to
the extent that they suggest polar opposites.
it was
that it was enamored with right-wing ideas, like those of the needs of
a strong elite to rule the weak. This right-wing deviation of communism
is why Trotskyists and other MLs, like David Horowitz, had no problem
jumping from the totalitarian left to the totalitarian conservative
movement in the USA like rats fleeing from a sinking ship after the
fall of the USSR.
That's exactly what the Bolshevik Party with its Cheka and The Nazi
Party with its SS represented, elites to rule the weak. Where are you
going with this? There is a long history of Communists shifting to the
Nazi's. Hitler encouraged them to volunteer. Totalitarian mind sets are
quite similar irrespective of party.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cazador" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
23 Nov 2006 10:12:48 PM |
|
|
DarkAngel wrote:
Cazador wrote:
There were differences and hostilities within the family but Hitler was
certainly a socialist, a National Socialist, theoretically and
historically connected with the overall 19th Century socialist
tradition.
National Socialism defended the concept of private property by
industrial capitalist firms.
National Socialism tolerated private property while materially
weakening it. As was the case in the Soviet Union, the Party erected a
bureaucracy parallel to those of business and government. In both cases
it was this Party aparat wherein the primary power lay. This pattern of
control is characteristic of totalitarian systems.
It rejected internationalism.
Except the internationalism implicit in aggressive militarism, the
drang nach Osten and Lebensraum.
It rejected
the concept of class struggle, instead asserting that it was the duty
of the German state to stamp out the unruly labor unions and to force
an alliance between proletarians and industrial capitalists against
finance capitalists.
Which was very close to what happened in the Soviet union where the
working class were denied unions of their own and chained to the
factory bench. This was completed by 1922 or 1923 during Lenin's
lifetime. The state became the combined finance and industrial
capitalist. To this day it's called "state capitalism". In Germany the
capitalists simply lost autonomy and kow towed to the Party. The result
was quite similar functionally.
It rejected philosophical materialism.
That's somewhat like rejecting Genesis. Materialism was useless in any
event.
The historical connection is one of antithesis. Exactly wrong. Don't forget that politics describes a circle. It is not linear. There was hostility, not antithesis. They are side by side on the political spectrum. The rivalry was in-house. They were family.
So, of course, was Lenin.
You mean the Lenin who wrote "Left-wing Communism: An infantile
disorder"? You know, the tract that attacks the left-wing of the
communist movement? That escoriated the Left for rejecting his
vanguardist approach to revolution, the left-communists and libertarian
communists and the anarchists, who believed that the people should be
in charge and not the Party.
Was Lenin not a socialist? What are trying to say here.
The problem of Marxism-Leninism wasn't that it was left-wing,
It was socialist. The radical left and right meet on a circle. They are
far more alike than different. Left and right are misleading terms to
the extent that they suggest polar opposites.
it was
that it was enamored with right-wing ideas, like those of the needs of
a strong elite to rule the weak. This right-wing deviation of communism
is why Trotskyists and other MLs, like David Horowitz, had no problem
jumping from the totalitarian left to the totalitarian conservative
movement in the USA like rats fleeing from a sinking ship after the
fall of the USSR.
That's exactly what the Bolshevik Party with its Cheka and The Nazi
Party with its SS represented, elites to rule the weak. Where are you
going with this? There is a long history of Communists shifting to the
Nazi's. Hitler encouraged them to volunteer. Totalitarian mind sets are
quite similar irrespective of party.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
23 Nov 2006 10:27:26 PM |
|
|
Cazador a =E9crit :
DarkAngel wrote:
Cazador wrote:
There were differences and hostilities within the family but Hitler w=
as
certainly a socialist, a National Socialist, theoretically and
historically connected with the overall 19th Century socialist
tradition.
National Socialism defended the concept of private property by
industrial capitalist firms.
National Socialism tolerated private property while materially
weakening it.
The ultimate goal was a sort of collectivizing of private property
amongst the industrial capitalist class, as a bulwark against communist
collectivization. The idea was that too lax a concept of private
property would result in a weak capitalist class which could easily be
taken by force by the proletariat's desires for collectivization. The
capitalist class should thus give up some of its individual rights in
order to discipline itself and squash out the proletariat.
It rejected internationalism.
Except the internationalism implicit in aggressive militarism
That's not internationalism, that's imperialism.
It rejected
the concept of class struggle, instead asserting that it was the duty
of the German state to stamp out the unruly labor unions and to force
an alliance between proletarians and industrial capitalists against
finance capitalists.
Which was very close to what happened in the Soviet union where the
working class were denied unions of their own and chained to the
factory bench. This was completed by 1922 or 1923 during Lenin's
lifetime. The state became the combined finance and industrial
capitalist.
The Bolsheviks were thoroughly infected with right-wing ideas, being
members of an elite class themselves. They weren't even behind the
October Revolution, only taking it over and then using it for their own
gains. They were right-wing betrayers, not revolutionaries. Their
attacks on Krondstadt and against the Maknovistas, genuine
revolutionaries both, showed that quite clearly.
To this day it's called "state capitalism".
Yes. Because it sure wasn't communism.
In Germany the capitalists simply lost autonomy and kow towed to the Part=
y=2E
Not at all. They embraced it, having financed most of the Nazi Party's
rise to power.
It rejected philosophical materialism.
That's somewhat like rejecting Genesis. Materialism was useless in any
event.
It is not. Materialism is a basic communist tenet. The Nazis were
idealists, some of their favorite propaganda involved expressions like
'Triumph of the Will', which is idealist twattle.
You mean the Lenin who wrote "Left-wing Communism: An infantile
disorder"? You know, the tract that attacks the left-wing of the
communist movement? That escoriated the Left for rejecting his
vanguardist approach to revolution, the left-communists and libertarian
communists and the anarchists, who believed that the people should be
in charge and not the Party.
Was Lenin not a socialist? What are trying to say here.
I'm trying to say that I don't have a lot of regard for
Marxism-Leninism when it comes to socialist credentials.
The problem of Marxism-Leninism wasn't that it was left-wing,
It was socialist. The radical left and right meet on a circle.
Centrist *****.
They are far more alike than different. Left and right are misleading ter=
ms to
the extent that they suggest polar opposites.
They are. The Right believes in the necessity of an elite class,
whereas the Left opposes class society.
That's exactly what the Bolshevik Party with its Cheka and The Nazi
Party with its SS represented, elites to rule the weak. Where are you
going with this?
Both are right-wing.
There is a long history of Communists shifting to the
Nazi's.
Marxist-Leninists. Fake communists.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
23 Nov 2006 04:58:01 PM |
|
|
DarkAngel wrote:
Cazador wrote:
There were differences and hostilities within the family but Hitler was
certainly a socialist, a National Socialist, theoretically and
historically connected with the overall 19th Century socialist
tradition.
National Socialism defended the concept of private property by
industrial capitalist firms. It rejected internationalism. It rejected
the concept of class struggle, instead asserting that it was the duty
of the German state to stamp out the unruly labor unions and to force
an alliance between proletarians and industrial capitalists against
finance capitalists. It rejected philosophical materialism.
The historical connection is one of antithesis.
So, of course, was Lenin.
You mean the Lenin who wrote "Left-wing Communism: An infantile
disorder"? You know, the tract that attacks the left-wing of the
communist movement? That escoriated the Left for rejecting his
vanguardist approach to revolution, the left-communists and libertarian
communists and the anarchists, who believed that the people should be
in charge and not the Party.
Still dreaming. By what mechanisms do you get "The People" to be in
charge?
Mobocracies never yield good results.
The problem of Marxism-Leninism wasn't that it was left-wing, it was
that it was enamored with right-wing ideas, like those of the needs of
a strong elite to rule the weak. This right-wing deviation of communism
is why Trotskyists and other MLs, like David Horowitz, had no problem
jumping from the totalitarian left to the totalitarian conservative
movement in the USA like rats fleeing from a sinking ship after the
fall of the USSR.
When are you going to learn that people are not always what they claim
to be? Scumbags like Horowitz would become communists again tomorrow
if it suited their purpose. In case you are wondering, their purpose
isn't your benefit.
Since the members of communist or socialist movements don't have any
respect for human rights, it's no coincidence that those movements
always degenerate into totalitarian governments. The leaders usually
being the worst of the bunch. The scum always rises to the top.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
23 Nov 2006 05:31:50 PM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Still dreaming. By what mechanisms do you get "The People" to be in
charge?
Through direct democracy.
Mobocracies never yield good results.
A standard fascist meme. The elite has to rule because the mob can't.
The problem of Marxism-Leninism wasn't that it was left-wing, it was
that it was enamored with right-wing ideas, like those of the needs of
a strong elite to rule the weak. This right-wing deviation of communism
is why Trotskyists and other MLs, like David Horowitz, had no problem
jumping from the totalitarian left to the totalitarian conservative
movement in the USA like rats fleeing from a sinking ship after the
fall of the USSR.
When are you going to learn that people are not always what they claim
to be?
Said the person who thinks Hitler parotting socialism makes him a
socialist.
Scumbags like Horowitz would become communists again tomorrow
if it suited their purpose.
Of course. But they would never become libertarian communists, because
they need authoritarianism, whether it be left-wing or right-wing, for
their purpose. They would always be right-wingers, even if they draped
themselves in the red flag.
Since the members of communist or socialist movements don't have any
respect for human rights,
Communism and socialism are all about the defense of human rights. The
right to food, shelter and to benefit of the *common* heritage of
thousands of years of human progress.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
24 Nov 2006 12:17:04 AM |
|
|
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Still dreaming. By what mechanisms do you get "The People" to be in
charge?
Through direct democracy.
Do you believe in inalienable rights? If so, which?
Mobocracies never yield good results.
A standard fascist meme. The elite has to rule because the mob can't.
The mob can rule, it just doesn't do a good job.
The problem of Marxism-Leninism wasn't that it was left-wing, it was
that it was enamored with right-wing ideas, like those of the needs of
a strong elite to rule the weak. This right-wing deviation of communi=
sm
is why Trotskyists and other MLs, like David Horowitz, had no problem
jumping from the totalitarian left to the totalitarian conservative
movement in the USA like rats fleeing from a sinking ship after the
fall of the USSR.
When are you going to learn that people are not always what they claim
to be?
Said the person who thinks Hitler parotting socialism makes him a
socialist.
Scumbags like Horowitz would become communists again tomorrow
if it suited their purpose.
Of course. But they would never become libertarian communists, because
they need authoritarianism, whether it be left-wing or right-wing, for
their purpose. They would always be right-wingers, even if they draped
themselves in the red flag.
So now authoritarianism is exclusively right wing?
Since the members of communist or socialist movements don't have any
respect for human rights,
Communism and socialism are all about the defense of human rights.
Eh? Sure!
The
right to food, shelter and to benefit of the *common* heritage of
thousands of years of human progress.
Nobody has the right to food, everyone has the right to try to earn
their food. See the difference?
What "...and to benefit of the *common* heritage of thousands of years
of human progress" mean?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
24 Nov 2006 08:02:12 AM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Nobody has the right to food,
Without the right to food, there is no other right. You can't be free
unless you are free from want. Hence why people sell themselves into
wage slavery.
What "...and to benefit of the *common* heritage of thousands of years
of human progress" mean?
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
24 Nov 2006 08:33:55 AM |
|
|
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Nobody has the right to food,
Without the right to food, there is no other right. You can't be free
unless you are free from want. Hence why people sell themselves into
wage slavery.
What a pity that people should work for what they want, and not just
take from somebody else!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
24 Nov 2006 10:19:52 AM |
|
|
On 24 Nov 2006 06:33:55 -0800, in free.christians
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1164378835.675136.3430@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a écrit :
Nobody has the right to food,
Without the right to food, there is no other right. You can't be free
unless you are free from want. Hence why people sell themselves into
wage slavery.
What a pity that people should work for what they want, and not just
take from somebody else!
People should work, but they should have the opportunity to work and be
paid fairly. Aren't the workmen worthy of being paid fairly any more? I
guess you don't like what Jesus teaches about that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
24 Nov 2006 10:36:18 AM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On 24 Nov 2006 06:33:55 -0800, in free.christians
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1164378835.675136.3430@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Nobody has the right to food,
Without the right to food, there is no other right. You can't be free
unless you are free from want. Hence why people sell themselves into
wage slavery.
What a pity that people should work for what they want, and not just
take from somebody else!
People should work, but they should have the opportunity to work and be
paid fairly. Aren't the workmen worthy of being paid fairly any more?
Sure they are; the problem is your kind wants something other than
that.
I
guess you don't like what Jesus teaches about that.
I don't know what he teaches about it, but I am sure I don't like it.
There is no lack of hate, envy and commie-like thinking in the bible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
24 Nov 2006 10:42:10 AM |
|
|
On 24 Nov 2006 08:36:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1164386178.222976.94710@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 24 Nov 2006 06:33:55 -0800, in free.christians
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1164378835.675136.3430@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a écrit :
Nobody has the right to food,
Without the right to food, there is no other right. You can't be free
unless you are free from want. Hence why people sell themselves into
wage slavery.
What a pity that people should work for what they want, and not just
take from somebody else!
People should work, but they should have the opportunity to work and be
paid fairly. Aren't the workmen worthy of being paid fairly any more?
Sure they are; the problem is your kind wants something other than
that.
I
guess you don't like what Jesus teaches about that.
I don't know what he teaches about it, but I am sure I don't like it.
There is no lack of hate, envy and commie-like thinking in the bible.
Yet the people who yammer on most about being Christian are the ones who
don't mind starving the poor or making the infirm suffer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
24 Nov 2006 09:27:36 AM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Nobody has the right to food,
Without the right to food, there is no other right. You can't be free
unless you are free from want. Hence why people sell themselves into
wage slavery.
What a pity that people should work for what they want
Our ancestors already did the work. With it they created these
wonderful machines, which can produce with one man's efforts enough to
fulfill the needs of hundreds. Your work ethic has been obsoleted, but
you still use hold to it.
We are no longer living in scarcity. It is now the common heritage of
humankind to have all their needs fulfilled with the endless bounty
that we produce, and to then choose to pursue their own path and not be
coerced into the wage system. Man is more efficient when he works for
his own enjoyment and without coercion, and not in order to make quotas
to obtain a subsistence wage.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
24 Nov 2006 09:38:33 AM |
|
|
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Nobody has the right to food,
Without the right to food, there is no other right. You can't be free
unless you are free from want. Hence why people sell themselves into
wage slavery.
What a pity that people should work for what they want
Our ancestors already did the work. With it they created these
wonderful machines, which can produce with one man's efforts enough to
fulfill the needs of hundreds. Your work ethic has been obsoleted, but
you still use hold to it.
On several previous occassions you have stated your opposition to
inherited wealth, and now you are all for it. What's keeping you from
working, saving some money, and buying some land where you can then
produce enough to fullfil the needs of hundreds? You will be rich in
no time.
We are no longer living in scarcity.
In case you haven't noticed, we can't create land. If you want mention
Holland, what land is "created" is taken from the sea.
It is now the common heritage of
humankind to have all their needs fulfilled with the endless bounty
that we produce,
It's not endless; typical failure to properly add things up from a
leftie. It's amazing how few people in the world can do something as
simple as to count properly.
and to then choose to pursue their own path and not be
coerced into the wage system.
Anybody keeping you from working for yourself? That's right, no. We
already had the conversation that would follow.
Man is more efficient when he works for
his own enjoyment and without coercion, and not in order to make quotas
to obtain a subsistence wage.
This is what I do now, thanks to my (previous) work ethic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
23 Nov 2006 06:33:09 PM |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2006 14:08:00 -0800, "DarkAngel" <drkangel666@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Cazador wrote:
There were differences and hostilities within the family but Hitler was
certainly a socialist, a National Socialist, theoretically and
historically connected with the overall 19th Century socialist
tradition.
National Socialism defended the concept of private property by
industrial capitalist firms. It rejected internationalism. It rejected
the concept of class struggle, instead asserting that it was the duty
of the German state to stamp out the unruly labor unions and to force
an alliance between proletarians and industrial capitalists against
finance capitalists. It rejected philosophical materialism.
The historical connection is one of antithesis.
It was as socialist as the Eastern European "People's Democracies"
were democratic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
22 Nov 2006 05:32:06 PM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez schrieb:
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
3. The atheists mentioned did not kill others in t=
he name of atheism,
did they?
Do you kill because of what you believe or because of=
what you say?
You are a fool.
Well that makes a big difference. Just because some of =
the murderers
happen to be atheists doesn't make atheism the cause of=
these murders.
Why is it that when they are atheist, they just "happen" =
to be atheist,
but they they are not atheist, then that is the cause of =
their murders?
Who said that?
If a christian commits a murder, christianity isn't necessa=
rily the
cause for this murder.
If the murder is committed in the name of christianity, the=
n religion
is the cause for this murder.
Really? You realize that the world is full of liars, don't y=
ou? Do
you really believe that a typical murderer would have some qu=
alm about
lying?
I am not a fan of organized religion, but overall the effects=
of
organized christianity seem positive;
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. When I see what the religious fana=
tic
(mostly christians) are doing to the USA, I tend to think not.
They are not doing anything that they haven't been doing for the =
last
400 years.
The world is full of morons and the USA is no different. When ar=
e we
going to hear you chime in on what non-religious fanatics did in =
the
last century? When you start proposing moving away from organized
religion AND from an all-powerful State (your kind's religion), t=
hen we
can start agreeing on some things.
The USA has been in decline in the last few decades not because o=
f an
increase in the influence of religion, but because of the increas=
e in
the size of the State.
If you frenchies had any brains,
I am not French and I won't get lessons from an American, thank you.
What do you have against all americans?
Nothing. Where have I said that?
I told you I agreed with what you wrote: "Regardless, nobody should be
condemned because of the actions
of somebody else with some similar charctheristic. Most people claim
to believe this (specially when it applies to them), but in practice
are more than happy to punish a group (or perceived group) for the
actions of one. "
By the way, I am not american,
but live in the USA by choice. As said before, the country is not
perfect, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than any other country.
Sure. I agree with you. But it's certainly not the best.
you guys would move towards a more
freedom-oriented society where people are actually accountable for
their actions and can reap the rewards of their work. Old fashio=
ned
principles, the ones that made the USA great and from it has been
moving away thanks to leftist assholes.
Sieg heil!
By the way, the Nazis were leftists; that's "National Socialist German
Workers' Party". Nothing good ever comes out of leftist organization=
s=2E
OK, you're a loon...
There's nothing to add.
Which part of "Socialist" in their name don't you understand?
Was the DDR "democratic"? Is North Korea "democratic"? Yet, both have
the word "democratic" in their names...
Gee, man... Go read a book...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
22 Nov 2006 05:59:32 PM |
|
|
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez schrieb:
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
3. The atheists mentioned did not kill others in=
the name of atheism,
did they?
Do you kill because of what you believe or because =
of what you say?
You are a fool.
Well that makes a big difference. Just because some o=
f the murderers
happen to be atheists doesn't make atheism the cause =
of these murders.
Why is it that when they are atheist, they just "happen=
" to be atheist,
but they they are not atheist, then that is the cause o=
f their murders?
Who said that?
If a christian commits a murder, christianity isn't neces=
sarily the
cause for this murder.
If the murder is committed in the name of christianity, t=
hen religion
is the cause for this murder.
Really? You realize that the world is full of liars, don't=
you? Do
you really believe that a typical murderer would have some =
qualm about
lying?
I am not a fan of organized religion, but overall the effec=
ts of
organized christianity seem positive;
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. When I see what the religious fa=
natic
(mostly christians) are doing to the USA, I tend to think not.
They are not doing anything that they haven't been doing for th=
e last
400 years.
The world is full of morons and the USA is no different. When =
are we
going to hear you chime in on what non-religious fanatics did i=
n the
last century? When you start proposing moving away from organi=
zed
religion AND from an all-powerful State (your kind's religion),=
then we
can start agreeing on some things.
The USA has been in decline in the last few decades not because=
of an
increase in the influence of religion, but because of the incre=
ase in
the size of the State.
If you frenchies had any brains,
I am not French and I won't get lessons from an American, thank y=
ou.
What do you have against all americans?
Nothing. Where have I said that?
I told you I agreed with what you wrote: "Regardless, nobody should be
condemned because of the actions
of somebody else with some similar charctheristic. Most people claim
to believe this (specially when it applies to them), but in practice
are more than happy to punish a group (or perceived group) for the
actions of one. "
By the way, I am not american,
but live in the USA by choice. As said before, the country is not
perfect, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than any other count=
ry.
Sure. I agree with you. But it's certainly not the best.
you guys would move towards a more
freedom-oriented society where people are actually accountable =
for
their actions and can reap the rewards of their work. Old fash=
ioned
principles, the ones that made the USA great and from it has be=
en
moving away thanks to leftist assholes.
Sieg heil!
By the way, the Nazis were leftists; that's "National Socialist Ger=
man
Workers' Party". Nothing good ever comes out of leftist organizati=
ons.
OK, you're a loon...
There's nothing to add.
Which part of "Socialist" in their name don't you understand?
Was the DDR "democratic"? Is North Korea "democratic"? Yet, both have
the word "democratic" in their names...
Gee, man... Go read a book...
Aren't you the one that believes that if somebody claims to be a
christian then he must be so?
I am only agreeing with you, there are no liars in the world, everybody
is what they claim to be!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
22 Nov 2006 11:10:10 AM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
By the way, the Nazis were leftists; that's "National Socialist German
Workers' Party". Nothing good ever comes out of leftist organization=
s=2E
OK, you're a loon...
There's nothing to add.
Which part of "Socialist" in their name don't you understand?
LOL. And the People's Republic of China is a republic. Says so right in
the name. Maybe they should have called the USSR the Union of the Free
Slavic Peoples, then you probably would have had nothing to say against
it. Because they would have been free then, says so right in the name.
Now, seriously, maybe you'd like to explain how a party which despised
internationalism, outlawed unions, rejected class warfare theory and
rejected both historical and philosophical materialism (and thus
basically rejected all the main tenets of socialism) could be
socialist. I can't wait to hear it.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
22 Nov 2006 04:02:26 PM |
|
|
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
By the way, the Nazis were leftists; that's "National Socialist Ger=
man
Workers' Party". Nothing good ever comes out of leftist organizati=
ons.
OK, you're a loon...
There's nothing to add.
Which part of "Socialist" in their name don't you understand?
LOL. And the People's Republic of China is a republic. Says so right in
the name. Maybe they should have called the USSR the Union of the Free
Slavic Peoples, then you probably would have had nothing to say against
it. Because they would have been free then, says so right in the name.
If I say "Hey I'm a christian!", then I must be one, says so right in
my self given attribute!
Now, seriously, maybe you'd like to explain how a party which despised
internationalism, outlawed unions, rejected class warfare theory and
rejected both historical and philosophical materialism (and thus
basically rejected all the main tenets of socialism) could be
socialist. I can't wait to hear it.
Maybe you would like to explain to me how a totalitarian government is
a rightist government?
We have gone down this road before, but as I have said to you before,
the natural progression of things is that leftist governements like to
increase their power (for your own good, of course!), and therefore
result in totalitarian governments.
When are you going to give up your silly communist dream?
.
|
|
|
| User: "SongBookz" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
22 Nov 2006 05:55:23 PM |
|
|
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164232946.013401.296310@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a écrit :
By the way, the Nazis were leftists; that's "National Socialist
German
Workers' Party". Nothing good ever comes out of leftist
organizations.
OK, you're a loon...
There's nothing to add.
Which part of "Socialist" in their name don't you understand?
LOL. And the People's Republic of China is a republic. Says so right in
the name. Maybe they should have called the USSR the Union of the Free
Slavic Peoples, then you probably would have had nothing to say against
it. Because they would have been free then, says so right in the name.
If I say "Hey I'm a christian!", then I must be one, says so right in
my self given attribute!
Now, seriously, maybe you'd like to explain how a party which despised
internationalism, outlawed unions, rejected class warfare theory and
rejected both historical and philosophical materialism (and thus
basically rejected all the main tenets of socialism) could be
socialist. I can't wait to hear it.
Maybe you would like to explain to me how a totalitarian government is
a rightist government?
The ultimate of extremes left or right is totalitarianism - Communism to the
left and Fascism to the right.
--
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.songbookz.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
22 Nov 2006 07:17:14 PM |
|
|
SongBookz wrote:
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164232946.013401.296310@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a =E9crit :
By the way, the Nazis were leftists; that's "National Socialist
German
Workers' Party". Nothing good ever comes out of leftist
organizations.
OK, you're a loon...
There's nothing to add.
Which part of "Socialist" in their name don't you understand?
LOL. And the People's Republic of China is a republic. Says so right in
the name. Maybe they should have called the USSR the Union of the Free
Slavic Peoples, then you probably would have had nothing to say against
it. Because they would have been free then, says so right in the name.
If I say "Hey I'm a christian!", then I must be one, says so right in
my self given attribute!
Now, seriously, maybe you'd like to explain how a party which despised
internationalism, outlawed unions, rejected class warfare theory and
rejected both historical and philosophical materialism (and thus
basically rejected all the main tenets of socialism) could be
socialist. I can't wait to hear it.
Maybe you would like to explain to me how a totalitarian government is
a rightist government?
The ultimate of extremes left or right is totalitarianism - Communism to =
the
left and Fascism to the right.
Fascism is collectivist, militarist, nationalist, totalitarian (all
leftist principles), a variation of socialism. It was nothing but
socialism, with a "personal touch" added by Hitler or Mussolini or
Franco.
Since it has long been discredited, leftists like to pretend that it's
not a leftist philosophy. Similarly, now that all those east european
socialist paradises have collapsed, it is now fashionable among
leftists to claim that those government really weren't socialist.
Any government that is founded on disrespect of basic human rights is
bound to lead to undesirable consequences. All governments with any of
the characteristics mentioned above have no respect for human rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SongBookz" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
22 Nov 2006 09:29:00 PM |
|
|
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164244634.592017.175400@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
SongBookz wrote:
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164232946.013401.296310@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
DarkAngel wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Parsifal wrote:
Tuco Ramirez a écrit :
By the way, the Nazis were leftists; that's "National Socialist
German
Workers' Party". Nothing good ever comes out of leftist
organizations.
OK, you're a loon...
There's nothing to add.
Which part of "Socialist" in their name don't you understand?
LOL. And the People's Republic of China is a republic. Says so right in
the name. Maybe they should have called the USSR the Union of the Free
Slavic Peoples, then you probably would have had nothing to say against
it. Because they would have been free then, says so right in the name.
If I say "Hey I'm a christian!", then I must be one, says so right in
my self given attribute!
Now, seriously, maybe you'd like to explain how a party which despised
internationalism, outlawed unions, rejected class warfare theory and
rejected both historical and philosophical materialism (and thus
basically rejected all the main tenets of socialism) could be
socialist. I can't wait to hear it.
Maybe you would like to explain to me how a totalitarian government is
a rightist government?
The ultimate of extremes left or right is totalitarianism - Communism to
the
left and Fascism to the right.
Fascism is collectivist, militarist, nationalist, totalitarian (all
leftist principles), a variation of socialism. It was nothing but
socialism, with a "personal touch" added by Hitler or Mussolini or
Franco.
Since it has long been discredited, leftists like to pretend that it's
not a leftist philosophy. Similarly, now that all those east european
socialist paradises have collapsed, it is now fashionable among
leftists to claim that those government really weren't socialist.
Any government that is founded on disrespect of basic human rights is
bound to lead to undesirable consequences. All governments with any of
the characteristics mentioned above have no respect for human rights.
Perhaps these two sources quoted by Wikipdeia may help you:
"Two particular definitions reflect the fact that Fascism has always arisen
from an extreme right-wing ideology:
(1) "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme
right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership,
together with belligerent nationalism." --American Heritage Dictionary
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983)
(2) "Extreme right-wing totalitarian political system or views, as orig.
prevailing in Italy (1922-43)." --The Pocket Oxford Dictionary (Oxford
University Press, 1984)"
--
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.songbookz.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
22 Nov 2006 10:25:23 PM |
|
|
SongBookz wrote:
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164244634.592017.175400@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
SongBookz wrote:
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164232946.013401.296310@b28g2000cwb.google | | | | | | |
