Congressman: American schools should be modeled after madrassas

kraychik · July 11, 2012

Complete and utter nonsense. The National Socialist German Workers' Party had a very socialist domestic agenda. You and your ilk would have been quite proud.

Their intention is clear, to falsely associate a parallel extreme ideology to the contemporary right in order to balance out their "guilt-by-association" with communism. I was also subjected to this false narrative when I was being educated about politics. It's been a very successful lie, as well, considering a huge portion of people will reflexively describe Nazism as the "far-right".

DogOnPorch · July 11, 2012

I understand the point you're trying to make and it's well-taken, but there's much more to it than what you're getting at.

Perhaps...but, there's a reason Russia built 84,000 T-34s to Germany's lesser ammount of mixed bag machines. Guderian wanted to copy the T-34 and switch to single production...not a popular idea with the 'higher-ups' oddly enough...lol.

kraychik · July 11, 2012

Perhaps...but, there's a reason Russia built 84,000 T-34s to Germany's lesser ammount of mixed bag machines. Guderian wanted to copy the T-34 and switch to single production...not a popular idea with the 'higher-ups' oddly enough...lol.

Look, I am not going to disagree with you that the Soviet Union was far more centralised in its planning of the economy than Nazi Germany, and I will not disagree that this is a primary reason for the difference in production volume that you posted. I'm just saying there's more to it than that.

DogOnPorch · July 11, 2012

Look, I am not going to disagree with you that the Soviet Union was far more centralised in its planning of the economy than Nazi Germany, and I will not disagree that this is a primary reason for the difference in production volume that you posted. I'm just saying there's more to it than that.

Each top Nazi had his interests to watch over. Empire to run. Private fortune to amass. Unlike the Soviet Union, official corruption in Third Reich was the order of the day. This extended right into things like aircraft and tank production. This is why Nazism is more akin to Oligarchy than Socialism. You'd never see Zhukov acting like Goering...lol.

DogOnPorch · July 11, 2012

Here's how the Third Reich worked...

...meeting adjourned.

Black Dog · July 11, 2012

It is entirely relevant, because centralisation of control over society in both the economic and social spheres is what connects Nazism to other leftist ideologies.

No. It's what connects Nazism to economic socialism. And, uh, every modern western government because by your logic any intervention by the state into the economic or social spheres, regardless of the rationale, is essentially Nazism.

The broadest measurement of centralisation of government control over an economy is to look at government spending as a share of GDP. What is irrelevant is what the stated objective is, whether is be redistribution of wealth, so-called "social programs", militarisation, or anything else.

Nope. "why" does matter, Bob. Not that your comparison holds up much better when you get into the actual "whats" either.

Their intention is clear, to falsely associate a parallel extreme ideology to the contemporary right in order to balance out their "guilt-by-association" with communism. I was also subjected to this false narrative when I was being educated about politics. It's been a very successful lie, as well, considering a huge portion of people will reflexively describe Nazism as the "far-right".

It's funny because I can pull the same logical tricks you are to make the exact opposite point. When you look at Nazism's key traits it's clear that it was a reactionary social movement based on militarism, glorification of the past, hatred and fear of the Other, extreme nationalism, disdain for concepts such as human rights, institutionalized racism, oppression of organized labour, disdain for intellectualism, and on and on. On these and other scores, contemporary right wing are the true heirs to fascism and Nazism.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Black Dog

Black Dog · July 11, 2012

Complete and utter nonsense. The National Socialist German Workers' Party had a very socialist domestic agenda. You and your ilk would have been quite proud.

Oh Shady, please: grown-ups are talking.

kraychik · July 11, 2012

No. It's what connects Nazism to economic socialism. And, uh, every modern western government because by your logic any intervention by the state into the economic or social spheres, regardless of the rationale, is essentially Nazism.

The contemporary left is far more comfortable with the erosion in individual freedom in both the economic and social spheres than the contemporary left, therefore my point is simple and valid: the contemporary left shares more parallels with Nazism than the contemporary right. This is a direct consequence of certain core ideological underpinnings that Nazism shares with the broader family of leftist ideologies, which is essentially a subscription to the idea that the (arbitrarily defined) interests of the group trump those of the individual.

It's funny because I can pull the same logical tricks you are to make the exact opposite point. When you look at Nazism's key traits it's clear that it was a reactionary social movement based on militarism, glorification of the past, hatred and fear of the Other, extreme nationalism, disdain for concepts such as human rights, institutionalized racism, oppression of organized labour, disdain for intellectualism, and on and on. On these and other scores, contemporary right wing are the true heirs to fascism and Nazism.

While it is true that the contemporary right is more concerned with national security issues than the left, this is due to the left's belief that we can "hug it out" with dictators and tyrants. This is one of left's weaknesses. To draw a parallel between the militarism of Nazi Germany and the contemporary right is lacking the context that the Nazis were out to fight imaginary foes, whereas the free world has real enemies. Also, militarism is a core component of today's far-left. See North Korea, China, and Iran. If you want to look into modern history, look at the former Soviet Union.

There are elements of the past worth glorifying, namely the fact that not too long ago there was a much greater degree of personal autonomy in both the economic and social spheres. Of course conservatives glorify these components of greater self-sufficiency with less dependence on the welfare state. This is nothing to be ashamed of. Nazi glorification of the past was a glorification of an empire that had much less respect for individual freedom, and was largely fantasy-based in some sense of racial destiny. This parallel you're trying to draw between the contemporary right and Nazism is absurd once the relevant context is provided.

The contemporary right does not hate or fear "the other". So this assertion isn't really worth addressing. Ironically, the contemporary left is far more comfortable with discrimination based on race, gender, religion, and ethnicity than the right. Moreover, this type of discrimination has been and remains regularly practised with the far left, including the former Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and so on. These systems all institutionalized racism, as well. In Canada elements of the public service implement quota systems which seek to give advantages in the hiring process to groups deemed "vulnerable". This is institutionalised discrimination based on protected grounds currently implemented in free societies, and are products of the left.

Organised labour isn't oppressed by any means, today. If anything, they oppress themselves with self-destructive policies. They helped decimate the manufacturing industry, for instance. Today's right certainly is more hostile to organised labour than the left, but this is something we should feel sensitive about considering the consequences of today's big labour policies.

You're correct that the contemporary right has a healthy rejection of mastermind "intellectuals". We reject the assertion that there exists these ultra-brainiacs who are so gifted, talented, and educated that we should transfer our own freedom to make decisions to them. We recognise that no bureaucracy can outthink the market. Millions of freely-associating individuals who are making decisions in their own best interests every second of every day are infinitely more wise as a group than a leftist "intellectual" mastermind who wants to make our decisions for us. Ironically, the Nazi party exemplified the left's tendency to make gods out of its leaders. The right does not place its leadership on a pedestal and ask for orders, whereas the left does. Where do you think Hitler falls on this spectrum? He was a big thinker, a big intellectual, with grandiose designs and declarations that he, and only he, had the right idea. He could outsmart freely-associating Germans. The right is far more immune to this disease of follow-the-leader mentality, precisely because we believe in the sovereignty of the individual, whereas the left believes in the supremacy of the collective, where the collective's interests are arbitrarily defined by political demigods like Hitler who are there to organise our societies. So yes, we do have a disdain for intellectuals who only deal in the market of ideas, where we trust our own judgment much more than the instructions of a mastermind. We knows what's in our own best interests and don't need an "intellectual" to articulate our best interests for us.

The final point to address is what you described as "extreme nationalism". Yes, the contemporary right is certainly more patriotic and nationalistic than the contemporary right. And yes there is more of a parallel to be drawn here between us and the Nazis than between the Nazis and the contemporary left. Still, none of the Nazis designs would have been implemented had it not been for their core beliefs of the subjugation of the individual to the state, which again is essentially the lowest common denominator shared between them and the contemporary left. I don't see nationalism as anything to be apologetic about. Perhaps you are the typical leftist who views himself as "post-nationalistic", and sneers at us lowly folks who believe that being Canadian or American actually means something. That's fine, I expect that from the left.

Black Dog · July 11, 2012

The contemporary left is far more comfortable with the erosion in individual freedom in both the economic and social spheres than the contemporary left, therefore my point is simple and valid: the contemporary left shares more parallels with Nazism than the contemporary right.

You're confusing simple with simplistic.

This is a direct consequence of certain core ideological underpinnings that Nazism shares with the broader family of leftist ideologies, which is essentially a subscription to the idea that the (arbitrarily defined) interests of the group trump those of the individual.

That is: certain, carefully cherry picked aspects of Nazism/fascism share with an incredibly broad set of leftist ideologies encompassing everything from communism to the kind of democratic socialism that exists in many (in fact, most) western democracies. IOW a comparison both so arbitrary and broad as to be meaningless.

While it is true that the contemporary right is more concerned with national security issues than the left, this is due to the left's belief that we can "hug it out" with dictators and tyrants. This is one of left's weaknesses. To draw a parallel between the militarism of Nazi Germany and the contemporary right is lacking the context that the Nazis were out to fight imaginary foes, whereas the free world has real enemies.

The Nazis considered their enemies plenty real. Let's put it this way: the Jews and Bolsheviks were just as much a threat to the Nazis as radical Islam is a true existential threat to the west.

Also, militarism is a core component of today's far-left. See North Korea, China, and Iran. If you want to look into modern history, look at the former Soviet Union.

And here I thought we were talking about the contemporary political left of the west. Also LMFAO at Iran as a leftist state. Just goes to show the fundamental unsoundness of your premise.

There are elements of the past worth glorifying, namely the fact that not too long ago there was a much greater degree of personal autonomy in both the economic and social spheres. Of course conservatives glorify these components of greater self-sufficiency with less dependence on the welfare state. This is nothing to be ashamed of. Nazi glorification of the past was a glorification of an empire that had much less respect for individual freedom, and was largely fantasy-based in some sense of racial destiny. This parallel you're trying to draw between the contemporary right and Nazism is absurd once the relevant context is provided.

IOW: "Unlike the Nazis, our good old days really were the good old days!" :lol:

The contemporary right does not hate or fear "the other". So this assertion isn't really worth addressing.

Yeah the right loves blacks Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims. :lol:

kraychik rabble rabbles a bunch MORE of laughable stuff about "context' a word he doesn't really understand.

Yeah anyway, this isn't really a dialogue. I've been through all this before (almost literally: I suspect you're cut-and-pasting this stuff from earlier arguments on this forum or from other locations.) There's not an original thought to be found in your work and frankly, I've made my points and am not really interested in more of your pseudo intellectual playground "I know you are but what am I" wankery. It's an affront to history and basic logic.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Black Dog

kraychik · July 11, 2012

I've had this conversation several times before. While the common denominator between the contemporary left and Nazism is the emphasis on the collective over the individual, it is not so broad as to be meaningless. This is really a core philosophical component, and it is the primary bone of contention between the today's left and right. It is also a far more relevant commonality than the parallels you provided between Nazism and the contemporary right, some of which were out of context, some of which were superficial, and some of which were outright false.

Black Dog · July 11, 2012

I've had this conversation several times before. While the common denominator between the contemporary left and Nazism is the emphasis on the collective over the individual, it is not so broad as to be meaningless. This is really a core philosophical component, and it is the primary bone of contention between the today's left and right. It is also a far more relevant commonality than the parallels you provided between Nazism and the contemporary right, some of which were out of context, some of which were superficial, and some of which were outright false.

I must say, you're fine one to whinge about a lack of context given the broad strokes of your argument (as highlighted above) could efface the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. :lol:

The supremacy of the collective over the individual is about as broad a reading of the core philosophy of Nazism as could be made (it's worth asking here: who exactly is the collective being emphasized here. In case you are wondering, that's called context). It's an argument created for the sole purpose of creating a guilt by association relationship between people like members of the NDP and one of history's worst regimes. And it's a classic example begging the question

Edited July 11, 2012 by Black Dog

cybercoma · July 11, 2012

This still has nothing to do with the OP.

kraychik · July 11, 2012

This still has nothing to do with the OP.

Do you realise that discussions have a flow to them? They move in different directions, this is natural. That's how these things work, in a conversation, discussion forum, or internet chat room. Ironically, you are the one who initially derailed the thread onto this tangent. I don't begrudge you for doing so, though, because it gave me an opportunity to elaborate on an important point about Nazism being a leftist ideology. I anticipated virtually all of the challenges that were thrown my way, and responded to them accordingly. It was entertaining for me to break through this false narrative of Nazism being a "far-right" ideology.

Nobody is forcing you to read through the posts of this thread. If it is really so uncomfortable for you to have your leftist mythologies shattered, then you're welcome to ignore me or even press the little red 'x' in the top right corner of your browser window if this exchange is too much for you bear.

Edited July 11, 2012 by kraychik

The_Squid · July 11, 2012

They move in different directions

Have you posted anything other than drivel about how evil "the left" is? Your "conversations" do not move... they are one topic and one topic only... in fact, your posts are extremely dull.

Moonlight Graham · July 11, 2012

Have you posted anything other than drivel about how evil "the left" is? Your "conversations" do not move... they are one topic and one topic only... in fact, your posts are extremely dull.

If this poster just put "The right > the left" in his signature he could spare himself about 10,000 words a week.

cybercoma · July 12, 2012

Do you realise that discussions have a flow to them? They move in different directions, this is natural. That's how these things work, in a conversation, discussion forum, or internet chat room. Ironically, you are the one who initially derailed the thread onto this tangent. I don't begrudge you for doing so, though, because it gave me an opportunity to elaborate on an important point about Nazism being a leftist ideology. I anticipated virtually all of the challenges that were thrown my way, and responded to them accordingly. It was entertaining for me to break through this false narrative of Nazism being a "far-right" ideology.

Nobody is forcing you to read through the posts of this thread. If it is really so uncomfortable for you to have your leftist mythologies shattered, then you're welcome to ignore me or even press the little red 'x' in the top right corner of your browser window if this exchange is too much for you bear.

This still has nothing to do with American schools.

Signals.Cpl · July 12, 2012

Do you realise that discussions have a flow to them? They move in different directions, this is natural. That's how these things work, in a conversation, discussion forum, or internet chat room. Ironically, you are the one who initially derailed the thread onto this tangent. I don't begrudge you for doing so, though, because it gave me an opportunity to elaborate on an important point about Nazism being a leftist ideology. I anticipated virtually all of the challenges that were thrown my way, and responded to them accordingly. It was entertaining for me to break through this false narrative of Nazism being a "far-right" ideology.

Nobody is forcing you to read through the posts of this thread. If it is really so uncomfortable for you to have your leftist mythologies shattered, then you're welcome to ignore me or even press the little red 'x' in the top right corner of your browser window if this exchange is too much for you bear.

So during World War 2 the Allies were the far right while the two leftwing ideologies(Communism and Nazism) fought it out?

Black Dog · July 12, 2012

So during World War 2 the Allies were the far right while the two leftwing ideologies(Communism and Nazism) fought it out?

Nope. By kraychik's definition, the Allies were just as leftist since their governments were spending so much. Basically it was a fascist free for all and the fascists won.

Shady · July 12, 2012

Oh Shady, please: grown-ups are talking.

Facts can be stubborn things, can't they?

Black Dog · July 12, 2012

Facts can be stubborn things, can't they?

Yes, especially when you look at how the Nazis implemented their policies. Seriously, dude, read a book.

GostHacked · July 12, 2012

Facts can be stubborn things, can't they?

No, that's complete nonsense.

kraychik · July 12, 2012

Nope. By kraychik's definition, the Allies were just as leftist since their governments were spending so much. Basically it was a fascist free for all and the fascists won.

Context matters. While government spending as a share of GDP skyrocketed for a brief period of a few years during WWII in the USA, it quickly dropped back down to previous levels of around 15%. The same is not true for Nazi Germany, which admittedly had a relatively short reign of control. Also, government spending as a share of GDP in Nazi Germany was substantially higher than in the USA.

I've already addressed all of attempts to draw parallels between Nazi Germany and the contemporary right, anyways.

Shady · July 12, 2012

Yes, especially when you look at how the Nazis implemented their policies. Seriously, dude, read a book.

I have read a book. Many of them. Perhaps you haven't. What part of national health care, national education, etc don't you understand? What part of the National Socialist Workers Party don't you get? :rolleyes:

cybercoma · July 12, 2012

I have read a book. Many of them. Perhaps you haven't. What part of national health care, national education, etc don't you understand? What part of the National Socialist Workers Party don't you get?

I guess Mitt Romney is a Leftist then.

Edited July 12, 2012 by cybercoma

DogOnPorch · July 12, 2012

I have read a book. Many of them. Perhaps you haven't. What part of national health care, national education, etc don't you understand? What part of the National Socialist Workers Party don't you get?

The 'National' part, I guess. How does that fit into the International Cominform?