Muslims in Toronto demand end to freedom of speech and expression.

[kraychik]

We're going to have to disagree here. The Nazis allowed business as usual with normal competitions for military contracts right up until 1944 and Totaler Krieg. Heinz Guderian, then inspector general of armored forces, had to deal with people chasing the almighty Deutsche Mark when it came to tank production. That over a dozen competing designs were being built in the factories was the height of inefficiency.

I think you're missing my point, it's a free market competition for a demand that was created by the Nazi regime. It's all still predicated on the government. Without the militarisation occurring to actualise Hitler's plans for conquest, funded primarily by debt, none of these bids for the contracts would have existed.

Remember that in the social sphere of society, individual freedoms were crushed. This is also what I want people to understand connects Nazism and leftism, because we know that the left is far more likely to prioritise its own vision of the collective interest whereas the right is far more likely to recognise that broader collective good is best achieved through strong protections of individual freedoms (both economic and social).

Edited October 3, 2012 by kraychik

[DogOnPorch]

To me, it's still Oligarchy. We'll just have to disagree.

[kraychik]

This sounds about right. Proof positive that conservatism can be statist and draconian.

Not Canadian conservatism, and not American conservatism, which is what you're trying to imply. Whereas leftism is inherently statist, largely rooted in contempt for the individual masquerading as compassion.

[bleeding heart]

the right is far more likely to recognise that broader collective good is best achieved through strong protections of individual freedoms (both economic and social).

Except when they don't. As with the Nazis.

At least your "far more likely" phrasing opens the door a bit, an implied eschewing of your previosu Give No Quarter approach.

[kraychik]

To me, it's still Oligarchy. We'll just have to disagree.

Call it what you want, that's fine. Oligarchy is an accurate term to describe the economic landscape of Nazi Germany, but remember that it was premised on the government's demands. The fact that there were private factories manufacturing the goods for war doesn't change my premise that it was driven by the demand from an ever-expanding government.

[bleeding heart]

Not Canadian conservatism, and not American conservatism, which is what you're trying to imply.

European conservatism; it has nothing to do with implication.

Whereas leftism is inherently statist, largely rooted in contempt for the individual masquerading as compassion.

Genuine compassion is frequently the engine, though I don't expect you to abandon your religious faith in its inherent evils.

Further, as per our discussion with which you refused to engage since I proved you wrong, it is not "inherently statist," but can be directly opposed to statism.

Edited October 3, 2012 by bleeding heart

[kraychik]

Except when they don't. As with the Nazis.

At least your "far more likely" phrasing opens the door a bit, an implied eschewing of your previosu Give No Quarter approach.

Look, I can't go on and on with you on this. You don't understand basic terms like right and left, let alone conservatism. Go badger someone else with your Wikipedia links, maybe you'll impress Michael Hardner. Maybe there's a link to "free market communism" or some other nonsensical term coined by those on your side of the aisle.

[DogOnPorch]

Call it what you want, that's fine. Oligarchy is an accurate term to describe the economic landscape of Nazi Germany, but remember that it was premised on the government's demands. The fact that there were private factories manufacturing the goods for war doesn't change my premise that it was driven by the demand from an ever-expanding government.

The one thing the Nazis were good at was keeping the size of the government at a minimum. They could 'get things done' with amazing quickness if the rubber stamp was out. Seriously, entire areas were run by a single Gauleiter. At it height, the Gestapo had only 32,000 employees of which only 5,000 were your typical Nazi dirt-bag Gestapo-type as seen in the movies. That 32k includes the typing pool.

[kraychik]

The one thing the Nazis were good at was keeping the size of the government at a minimum. They could 'get things done' with amazing quickness if the rubber stamp was out. Seriously, entire areas were run by a single Gauleiter. At it height, the Gestapo had only 32,000 employees of which only 5,000 were your typical Nazi dirt-bag Gestapo-type as seen in the movies. That 32k includes the typing pool.

That efficiency was scary, and I remember reading about it from a different perspective in memoirs from Primo Levi and Miklos Nyiszli. You see what I'm getting at, though? Put aside the economic component for a moment and consider the laws that Nazi Germany passed in the early thirties, culminating in the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. The state had very few limits on what it could do if Hitler or one of his cronies gave the order. There was nothing protecting the rights of the individual against the will of the government, and that is why I join many others who characterise Nazism as a leftism ideology, considering it has far more in common with today's left than today's right.

[bleeding heart]

Look, I can't go on and on with you on this. You don't understand basic terms like right and left, let alone conservatism. Go badger someone else with your Wikipedia links,

Look, you said--declared, imperiously--that libertarianism has always been only and specifically a right-wing phenomenon, and never a leftist one.

Further, you claimed that my assertion to the contrary (you know--the correct assertion) only displays my ignorance, and (as usual) my lack of knowledge in "political science"...fuelled by a misunderstanding, thanks to contemporary misuses of words like "liberal," "conservative" and on and on.

Now you've been proven wrong.

And now, you can't even admit that you had no idea, none whatsoever, of those assertions made in declarative sentences, always accompanied by insults about others' ignorance.

Well, honestly, I expected you to be monumentally dishonest...about being outed in such a way by someone you consider an ignoramus.

Ouch!

Research man, research...it's your friend!

Edited October 3, 2012 by bleeding heart

[DogOnPorch]

That efficiency was scary, and I remember reading about it from a different perspective in memoirs from Primo Levi and Miklos Nyiszli. You see what I'm getting at, though? Put aside the economic component for a moment and consider the laws that Nazi Germany passed in the early thirties, culminating in the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. The state had very few limits on what it could do if Hitler or one of his cronies gave the order. There was nothing protecting the rights of the individual against the will of the government, and that is why I join many others who characterise Nazism as a leftism ideology, considering it has far more in common with today's left than today's right.

Yet the Nazi's own anthem, Horst Wessel Lied, describes taking the fight to the socialists in the streets with the flags held high. No matter our view of the Nazis, they viewed themselves as being apart from socialism/communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst-Wessel-Lied

[kraychik]

Yet the Nazi's own anthem, Horst Wessel Lied, describes taking the fight to the socialists in the streets with the flags held high. No matter our view of the Nazis, they viewed themselves as being apart from socialism/communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst-Wessel-Lied

Oh come on! That's not a compelling argument. Trotsky and Stalin hated each other, where they not both communists? What about the Shiahs and Sunnis, each declaring the other isn't a real Muslim? The main difference between Nazis and communists is the racist national nature of the former contrasting the universalist-international ambitions of the latter.

[DogOnPorch]

Oh come on! That's not a compelling argument. Trotsky and Stalin hated each other, where they not both communists? What about the Shiahs and Sunnis, each declaring the other isn't a real Muslim? The main difference between Nazis and communists is the racist national nature of the former contrasting the universalist-international ambitions of the latter.

I think we can agree that on the political spectrum, totalitarian dictatorships are where right and left meet after falling off their respective edges. In my opinion, perhaps others...I don't know...the political spectrum is only useful when describing democracies in action. It's really not fair to describe some hippy at Occupy as akin to the NKVD nor is it fair to refer to a guy who thinks immigration needs fixin' as an SS man.

[kraychik]

I think we can agree that on the political spectrum, totalitarian dictatorships are where right and left meet after falling off their respective edges. In my opinion, perhaps others...I don't know...the political spectrum is only useful when describing democracies in action. It's really not fair to describe some hippy at Occupy as akin to the NKVD nor is it fair to refer to a guy who thinks immigration needs fixin' as an SS man.

I completely reject the premise that the right-left political spectrum is loop rather than a line, with opposing ends being the same.

I am NOT trying to describe the hippy as an NKVD or KGB agent. What I am saying is that if we're to examine Nazism and compare it to the contemporary left and contemporary right, it shares far more in common with the former than the latter. By that standard, it's incorrect to characterise Nazism as right-wing. Look, I learned the exact same bullshit as you did in school - that Nazism is "far right extremism". But if we ask ourselves what the contemporary right actually stands for: individual sovereignty and rights, protections for the most basic freedoms both economic and social, then we cannot place Nazism in this same category. Conversely, if we examine today's left it's all about eroding the sphere of control the individual has over his or her life in order to better serve what are defined by the state as the collective interest of greater good. Doesn't that ideology have a lot more of a relationship with Nazism than today's right? Submit to our designs, because we know better than the masses! A much smaller version of this is provided with NYC's banning of sugary drinks over 16 oz.

I know that many people on this forum are leftist lemmings who don't grasp the consequences of their own worldview. I don't view them as a bunch of malicious wannabe NKVD or KGB agents (although a handful of them certainly would be), but rather as politically, economically, and historically ignorant and therefore vulnerable to manipulation by demagogues like Jack Layton or Barack Obama. I have leftists who are close to me, I don't hate them. I am not trying to slander contemporary leftists as Nazis, but hopefully some of them will wake up over time and see the end result of the path they want us to walk with them. I don't think bleeding heart is a malicious Nazi, either, it's just that he's either unable or unwilling to see the commonalities between his ideology and that of Nazis and communists. Again, I don't view leftists as bad people and I don't hate them (in fact there as some leftists that I really care about), but I recognise how dangerous they are politically.

[dre]

You don't even grasp the meaning of basic political terms, I know.

:lol:

[Argus]

I don't get it - these accommodations were probably provided because the Jews wanted them. Can you understand that ?

The Jews in Canada are a western people with modern concepts of justice. The Muslims in Canada are largely an Asian people with medieval concepts of justice.

See the difference?

Edited October 3, 2012 by Argus

[Argus]

Sharia law is like anything else to do with religion. It depends on the interpretation.

I think we should leave it up to Muslim women. If they want it, sure.

Muslim women, by and large, do not have the right to choose not to accept it.

[Argus]

But... they WERE going to ask them, right ?

Riiight. They're going to say "Do you wish to accept God's holy judgement or do you reject Allah, reject his blessed prophet Muhammed's Koran, and embrace infidel justice instead?

There would be enormous peer and family pressure on any immigrant Muslim woman to accept whatever the Imam says. She is not really free to choose.

[Argus]

No...they were going to what they broadly viewed as an empty or practically-empty land, in which infrastructure and government would need to be set up...by definition.

The current immigrants are not along these lines at all. They're entering a pre-existing, infrastructure-heavy, stable-governed society, heavy with laws and rules, and in which they wish to find their place.

Most of our early immigrants didn't come out here to tents in the wilderness, you know. There were already towns and cities here when most immigrants arrived.

[Argus]

That's because of the declining standards in screening them as opposed to earlier years.

I've seen no evidence of this. I would suggest the evidence indicates the reasons are related more to the lack of communication skills among third world types trying to make their way in an English world, and the degree of sophistication our technological economy has now reached as compared to their own. There aren't many decent jobs available for those who can't communicate effectively.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Argus

[Argus]

Most immigrant Muslims aren't even slightly an "enemy."

A few radicals here and there, sure.

I remain stubbornly unafraid.

You know, in a riot, 90% of the people are actually not doing anything but standing around and watching, providing cover by their presence. They're not burning anything or breaking into anything, or attacking anyone, but if they weren't there, the actual rioters couldn't get away with much. In that same way does the Muslim world provide cover for the extremists by accepting much of what they say, by supporting much of their stated goals, and by their dedication to the belief that every word in the Koran is the absolute and incontrovertible word of God. So while they might not be altogether comfortable with the more violent acts of the Islamists there isn't nearly enough disagreement with the proclamations and desires of those Islamists as I would want to see.

And yes, that includes in Canada, where so far as I know, ALL religious leaders among the Muslims are foreign born.

So when the Islamists among them make statements, most of the rest are, whether enthusiastically or reluctantly nodding their heads in agreement.

[Argus]

Islam has never been at war with the west. Muslims have.

What is Islam but the collective vision of those who call themselves Muslims?

[Argus]

Glad we had this chat. I look up to you.

How sweet.

I look down on both of you.

[Guest]

Muslim women, by and large, do not have the right to choose not to accept it.

They are in Canada. I seem to remember Muslim women were very outspoken against Sharia law being allowed in Ontario under McGuinty, and were instrumental in his decision not to allow it.

But having said that, I agree that coercion of Muslim women is a good reason to not allow Sharia law to take a hold anywhere in a free country.

Edited October 4, 2012 by bcsapper

[cybercoma]

How sweet.

I look down on both of you.

I'm happy to be in the company of every single person on this planet, other than the one you look at in the mirror when you're getting ready in the morning.