I thought Germany was one of the countries that valued privacy, the 'right to be forgotten' on the Internet, etc? How come all of the sudden they sound like the UK?
I guess like many things in life this is bound to remain a mystery.
Communism and fascism/National Socialism are both "progressive" left wing ideologies. National Socialism may be to the right of communism but it is still a left-wing socialist ideology.
More on the BNP’s success at stealing labor votes. Here are some wonderful posts about the BNP by Daniel Hannan. For instance:
Incidentally, any BBC presenters reading this, why do you keep calling the party “far Right”? Weren’t you listening to Nick Griffin’s acceptance speech? He wasn’t going to talk about immigration policy he said, since everyone knew where he stood on the subject. No, his priority was to expose the way in which public assets had been privatised. Look at the BNP’s manifesto: it wants nationalisation, subsidy, higher taxes, protectionism and (sotto voce) the abolition of the monarchy. And look at where its votes came from. The BNP is a symptom of Labour’s collapse.
Plus readers might remember his interview with Vox Day:
VD:One thing that tends to confuse Americans is that the British National Party is not very popular despite holding what appear to be populist views on immigration and the European Union. Why do they enjoy so little support compared to the three major parties?
DH:Because they are, contrary to the way they are described in the BBC, a party of the far left. They’re in favor of nationalization, they’re in favor of protectionism, they want workers’ councils to run industry, they want a massive state program of rebuilding manufacture. Like Hayek said about the socialist roots of Nazism, they are a national socialist party and the socialist bit is very important to them. Plus, there is a line, a very important line in politics, between being anti-immigration and anti-immigrant. And they’ve crossed that line.
VD: In a certain respect, they really are fascists, but in the Italian Fascist sense.
DH: Yeah. I think most of these so-called “far right” parties are on the left by any normal definition. It’s a brilliant media trick in Europe to always refer to them as “the far right”. The target of that is the mainstream right. Every time you read about the BNP in the press, it’s always prefaced with “the far right BNP”, as though they were like us, but more so, which is the opposite of the case. When somebody reads that, it doesn’t make them think any worse of the BNP, it makes them think worse of the right. Which, of course, is why they do it.
"What it says to you is basically the electorate doesn't fully understand impeachment," he told TIME. "Their understanding of impeachment is I'm sending a message of disapproval."
Despite your seemingly "reasonable" tone and content your post is a load of rubbish. Lets look in detail.
You mistakenly presume that there is any sort of government censorship of Republicans by "left-wing thugs" to begin with. This claim does not stand up to even the most basic form of scrutiny....
That is a straw man. He didn't write that it was government censorship, but rather "left-wing thugs" shutting down speech. That is true. Here are just two of many recent examples:
...not to mention the judicial which now leans conservative;
Really? The judiciary "leans conservative" so soon after 8 years of Obama appointments? Of the last 24 years Democrats have had 16 years of making appointments and 8 years of obstructing Republican appointments as best they could. Trump has made 1 (one) judicial appointment that was seated only a few weeks ago. If the judiciary "now leans conservative" how are Trump's travel ban executive orders being challenged in such unprecedented ways and on what are essentially frivolous grounds? You don't know what you are talking about.
so if we are to talk realistically about what you perceive to be an infringement of your right to call those who disagree with you "left-wing thugs," your own post is clear proof to the contrary.
This is more nonsense. He isn't complaining about being unable to "call those who disagree with you "left-wing thugs," he is complaining about the left-wing thugs (previously cited) who are using violence to shut down speakers invited by or speaking from a conservative or Republicans viewpoint.
But perhaps, like many of your ilk, you are too ignorant to understand the difference between someone who disagrees with the kind of ill-informed, uneducated, right-wing vitriol that you spew, and someone who actually imposes a legal order against your ability to speak out in this "marketplace of ideas" that you vaguely refer to.
You appear to be misinformed. Mobs wielding baseball bats and fire bombs are not "someone who actually imposes a legal order against your ability to speak out." As to the question of who is "spewing" vitriol, I suggest a comparison of your response and the post you relied to. You have things backwards.
As your political class has never historically had their actual constitutional freedoms curtailed by law, perhaps a more charitable observer would forgive you for such a spectacularly persistent inability to recognize whether the government is actually oppressing you.
For practical purposes they have been as close to peace as North Korea has wanted to allow - by and large any incidents were the creation of North Korea.
Somehow South Korea managed to rebuild itself and become a major economic power in the world. At the same time the militarists in North Korea continue to cling to the fantasy of reuniting Korea by force while starving their people.
The North Koreans could have sought peace, prosperity, and improved treatment of its people, but the DPRK preferred other paths. They are warmongers.
Marx and Engels called for killing people because of their race, and called for killing people because of their class. That is not "the elimination of race."
It doesn't matter if race represents anything "scientifically concrete", people make use of it every day.
Before you take too much at face value from him you might want to watch: The Soviet Story - an award winning documentary supported by the European Parliament. (A library copy would be better so the subtitles are available, but it is still well worth the time.)
There is more to the Night of the Long Knives than a hard core Leftist like dunkelfalke cares to let on. The actions of the leadership of the SA were a direct threat to continued Nazi rule and threatened a revolution.
Communist and fascist regimes are well known for faction wars, including the brutal extermination of enemies in other factions of the party. Just for starters you can look at the Soviet treatment of the Mensheviks, the Old Bolsheviks, the Trotskyites, and others.
National Socialists repressed international socialists, a.k.a. Communists, as well as a faction within the Nazi party that both threatened Nazi rule and pursued a more radical ideology. Faction wars are a common part of rule by communists, fascists, and various other ideologies. Maybe you should look into how the Soviets treated other socialists, such as the Mensheviks, the Old Bolsheviks, the Trotskyites, and various other factions in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
You do know that early Nazi propaganda declared Lenin a great man second only to Hitler?
There are a few other things you skip over, such as the non-aggression pact with the Communists in the Soviet Union, the subsequent division of Europe, and partitioning of Poland. There was also the cooperation with French communists after the invasion and occupation of France.
The European Parliament supported the production of this documentary, you might want to watch it sometime. (A copy from the library would be better so the subtitles are available.)
They pretended to be, adopted popular socialist policies
So they adopted socialists policies . ..
...and claimed to represent the people against the establishment.
The treatment of workers and unions under National Socialism would be familiar to workers and Unions in the Soviet Union at the time.
As soon as they got into power they dropped the pretence.
After the National Socialists rose to power they began collaborating with the Communists in the Soviet Union. They signed a non-aggression treaty, conspired in the invasion of Poland and the splitting of its territory, exchanged political prisoners of interest to each other. When the National Socialists invaded France, the French Communist party applauded their actions and worked with them.
After taking power the National Socialists, like the Communists, began killing. The Communists mainly killed by class, the National Socialists by race. Marx and Engels called for both the killing by class and by race.
Maybe you should watch The Soviet Story, there seem to be some gaps in your knowledge. (It would be better to watch a copy from the library so you can to get the subtitles.)
In your thinking "socialism" seems to be either a substitute for, or conflated with, "good". It still baffles me how you regularly defend the evil regime in North Korea.
Even the Guardian gets it. If you can defend North Korea as "not so bad," (as you did some months ago) is there anything Stalin did that you personally couldn't defend? I'm not sure how there could be other than the fact the DPRK exists and Stalin's USSR doesn't.
That's a pretty disingenuous definition of the Nazi's over-all goals. Your statement would lead some to think you are whitewashing history, and might even be a Nazi ideology sympathizer.
Your statement would lead some to think you are engaging in the commonly used tactic on the Left of smearing people whose politics they disagree with in an effort to shut down debate. Do you think it would be fair to add something like, "It might even raise the question of you being a Communist sympathizer, prone to supporting all of the evil excesses it has demonstrated"?
. Socialism can also be the means of production "regulated by the community as a whole". Their socialism was nothing more than a smokescreen for their true goals of a "pure Aryan race" motherland,
How little you know. Marx called for the destruction of both classes and races. The Communists murdered by class, the Nazis by race. Both Communism and Nazism tried to create a new breed of humanity. Have you not heard of "The New Soviet Man"? Early Nazi propaganda declared Lenin was a great man, second only to Hitler. The Communists and Nazis made common cause for years. The Soviets worked with the Germans to destroy Poland. After the German occupation of France the French Communists applauded the German National Socialists and worked with them.
Maybe you should watch The Soviet Story. (Supported by the EU parliament by the way.)
I think you could pay for all of the IT upgrades needed by the US Federal government if only we could monetize the continuing butt-hurt over Trump's victory in the election.
So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is a, it is a huge problem. I have a son.
He's 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it's unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it's hardly do-able. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing, but that's true throughout our whole governmental society.
What a fucking moron.
Now you've got me curious..... what does Trump have wrong there, specifically? Are you claiming that the Federal government does it right? (Despite the repeated break-ins and theft of government documents from multiple agencies regularly covered on Slashdot?)
Or don't you like his wording?
Or is this just an expression of your anger and rejection of Trump as president for beating the entitled candidate that "should have" won?
Do you just prefer the redundant failure modes that Hillary and her campaign created for their IT because that is the "smart" thing to do and the obvious model to use for the Federal government?
+5 "insightful" in this case ~= "shared spite" - You have lots of company.
Could you point to some examples of this so-called "jingoism" as you think it applies to the contemporary United States? Where do you think the foreign policy is "belligerent"?
What about examples of "extreme chauvinism" or "extreme nationalism"?
Do you think it is going too far to suggest that people that hope the United States is attacked because "it deserves it" aren't really patriotic? What about people that hope for its military or political defeat?
In viewing the above post you must keep in mind that the Left has decreed that dissent is no longer "racism" as it was deemed under President Obama. Now that a Republican president holds power, dissent is again the highest form of "patriotism" , and the military and political defeat of the United States is the goal of true "patriots." .
Q Can I first ask about the shooting in Kansas of the two Indian Americans and what the President’s response to it was, but also if there’s any concern that some of the rhetoric that the President or -- that generally has been out here recently could have contributed in any way to that or stepped up violence?
MR. SPICER: I mean, obviously, any loss of life is tragic, but I’m not going to get into, like, that kind of -- to suggest that there’s any correlation I think is a bit absurd. So I’m not going to go any further than that.
If rhetoric killed by itself I doubt there would be anyone left alive to post on Slashdot by now.
No presumption is required when you so lavishly demonstrate your views over multiple posts. Your advice comes from an empty vessel, and you lack the wisdom to recognize it. Instead of trolling with posts you might do well to explore that beyond your experience so that you might achieve understanding and wisdom.
So you think the role of the US is to replicate the role of EU? Not really, otherwise the US would have Chancellor Merkel.... er,.. President Hillary Clinton.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought Germany was one of the countries that valued privacy, the 'right to be forgotten' on the Internet, etc? How come all of the sudden they sound like the UK?
I guess like many things in life this is bound to remain a mystery.
Leaked Report Says 6.6 Million Refugees Are Trying to Get into Europe
Hmmmm .....
Unhinged Rhetoric About 'Nazis' and Trump Derangement Syndrome Lead to Bloodshed
Communism and fascism/National Socialism are both "progressive" left wing ideologies. National Socialism may be to the right of communism but it is still a left-wing socialist ideology.
Misconstruing Mussolini
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt
British Fascists To the Left
More on the BNP’s success at stealing labor votes. Here are some wonderful posts about the BNP by Daniel Hannan. For instance:
Incidentally, any BBC presenters reading this, why do you keep calling the party “far Right”? Weren’t you listening to Nick Griffin’s acceptance speech? He wasn’t going to talk about immigration policy he said, since everyone knew where he stood on the subject. No, his priority was to expose the way in which public assets had been privatised. Look at the BNP’s manifesto: it wants nationalisation, subsidy, higher taxes, protectionism and (sotto voce) the abolition of the monarchy. And look at where its votes came from. The BNP is a symptom of Labour’s collapse.
Plus readers might remember his interview with Vox Day:
VD:One thing that tends to confuse Americans is that the British National Party is not very popular despite holding what appear to be populist views on immigration and the European Union. Why do they enjoy so little support compared to the three major parties?
DH:Because they are, contrary to the way they are described in the BBC, a party of the far left. They’re in favor of nationalization, they’re in favor of protectionism, they want workers’ councils to run industry, they want a massive state program of rebuilding manufacture. Like Hayek said about the socialist roots of Nazism, they are a national socialist party and the socialist bit is very important to them. Plus, there is a line, a very important line in politics, between being anti-immigration and anti-immigrant. And they’ve crossed that line.
VD: In a certain respect, they really are fascists, but in the Italian Fascist sense.
DH: Yeah. I think most of these so-called “far right” parties are on the left by any normal definition. It’s a brilliant media trick in Europe to always refer to them as “the far right”. The target of that is the mainstream right. Every time you read about the BNP in the press, it’s always prefaced with “the far right BNP”, as though they were like us, but more so, which is the opposite of the case. When somebody reads that, it doesn’t make them think any worse of the BNP, it makes them think worse of the right. Which, of course, is why they do it.
.
There is plenty more.
Well, more Americans want to see Trump impeached than support him. That's been shown in many polls (including those with moving averages over time).
Why You Should Be Skeptical About Polls on Impeaching Trump
"What it says to you is basically the electorate doesn't fully understand impeachment," he told TIME. "Their understanding of impeachment is I'm sending a message of disapproval."
Despite your seemingly "reasonable" tone and content your post is a load of rubbish. Lets look in detail.
You mistakenly presume that there is any sort of government censorship of Republicans by "left-wing thugs" to begin with. This claim does not stand up to even the most basic form of scrutiny....
That is a straw man. He didn't write that it was government censorship, but rather "left-wing thugs" shutting down speech. That is true. Here are just two of many recent examples:
College Protestors Send Professor to the ER
Conspiring to stifle free speech is a crime: Glenn Reynolds
...not to mention the judicial which now leans conservative;
Really? The judiciary "leans conservative" so soon after 8 years of Obama appointments? Of the last 24 years Democrats have had 16 years of making appointments and 8 years of obstructing Republican appointments as best they could. Trump has made 1 (one) judicial appointment that was seated only a few weeks ago. If the judiciary "now leans conservative" how are Trump's travel ban executive orders being challenged in such unprecedented ways and on what are essentially frivolous grounds? You don't know what you are talking about.
so if we are to talk realistically about what you perceive to be an infringement of your right to call those who disagree with you "left-wing thugs," your own post is clear proof to the contrary.
This is more nonsense. He isn't complaining about being unable to "call those who disagree with you "left-wing thugs," he is complaining about the left-wing thugs (previously cited) who are using violence to shut down speakers invited by or speaking from a conservative or Republicans viewpoint.
But perhaps, like many of your ilk, you are too ignorant to understand the difference between someone who disagrees with the kind of ill-informed, uneducated, right-wing vitriol that you spew, and someone who actually imposes a legal order against your ability to speak out in this "marketplace of ideas" that you vaguely refer to.
You appear to be misinformed. Mobs wielding baseball bats and fire bombs are not "someone who actually imposes a legal order against your ability to speak out." As to the question of who is "spewing" vitriol, I suggest a comparison of your response and the post you relied to. You have things backwards.
As your political class has never historically had their actual constitutional freedoms curtailed by law, perhaps a more charitable observer would forgive you for such a spectacularly persistent inability to recognize whether the government is actually oppressing you.
Oh absolutely! Who could possibly notice the infringement of rights .. which never happen?
Police Can Seize And Sell Assets Even When The Owner Broke No Law
Top Ten Worst Abuses of Eminent Domain Spotlighted in New Report
Wichita State University: Student Government Denies Recognition to Libertarian Group Because It Defends Free Speech
Part of D.C. Gun Carry Law Struck Down in Federal Court
But perhaps, like many of your ilk, you are too ignorant to understand the difference between someo
For practical purposes they have been as close to peace as North Korea has wanted to allow - by and large any incidents were the creation of North Korea.
Somehow South Korea managed to rebuild itself and become a major economic power in the world. At the same time the militarists in North Korea continue to cling to the fantasy of reuniting Korea by force while starving their people.
The North Koreans could have sought peace, prosperity, and improved treatment of its people, but the DPRK preferred other paths. They are warmongers.
It appears you misunderstand.
Marx and Engels called for killing people because of their race, and called for killing people because of their class. That is not "the elimination of race."
It doesn't matter if race represents anything "scientifically concrete", people make use of it every day.
I suggest you watch this.
hell, the Nazis had the German people convinced they were Socialists...
Do you think it had anything to do with their program and how they interacted with other socialists?
Well, there is the inconvenient fact that he was essentially correct.
Before you take too much at face value from him you might want to watch: The Soviet Story - an award winning documentary supported by the European Parliament. (A library copy would be better so the subtitles are available, but it is still well worth the time.)
There is more to the Night of the Long Knives than a hard core Leftist like dunkelfalke cares to let on. The actions of the leadership of the SA were a direct threat to continued Nazi rule and threatened a revolution.
Communist and fascist regimes are well known for faction wars, including the brutal extermination of enemies in other factions of the party. Just for starters you can look at the Soviet treatment of the Mensheviks, the Old Bolsheviks, the Trotskyites, and others.
National Socialists repressed international socialists, a.k.a. Communists, as well as a faction within the Nazi party that both threatened Nazi rule and pursued a more radical ideology. Faction wars are a common part of rule by communists, fascists, and various other ideologies. Maybe you should look into how the Soviets treated other socialists, such as the Mensheviks, the Old Bolsheviks, the Trotskyites, and various other factions in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
You do know that early Nazi propaganda declared Lenin a great man second only to Hitler?
There are a few other things you skip over, such as the non-aggression pact with the Communists in the Soviet Union, the subsequent division of Europe, and partitioning of Poland. There was also the cooperation with French communists after the invasion and occupation of France.
The European Parliament supported the production of this documentary, you might want to watch it sometime. (A copy from the library would be better so the subtitles are available.)
Do you know what a red triangle on an Auschwitz uniform meant?
Yes - you were caught at the wrong time in the wrong political faction.
See also: USSR & Mensheviks, USSR & Old Bolsheviks, USSR & Trotsky, PRC & Gang of Four, and ... and ... and....
The Nazis weren't internationalist socialist.
FTFY
They pretended to be, adopted popular socialist policies
So they adopted socialists policies . . .
The treatment of workers and unions under National Socialism would be familiar to workers and Unions in the Soviet Union at the time.
As soon as they got into power they dropped the pretence.
After the National Socialists rose to power they began collaborating with the Communists in the Soviet Union. They signed a non-aggression treaty, conspired in the invasion of Poland and the splitting of its territory, exchanged political prisoners of interest to each other. When the National Socialists invaded France, the French Communist party applauded their actions and worked with them.
After taking power the National Socialists, like the Communists, began killing. The Communists mainly killed by class, the National Socialists by race. Marx and Engels called for both the killing by class and by race.
Maybe you should watch The Soviet Story, there seem to be some gaps in your knowledge. (It would be better to watch a copy from the library so you can to get the subtitles.)
In your thinking "socialism" seems to be either a substitute for, or conflated with, "good". It still baffles me how you regularly defend the evil regime in North Korea.
Revealed: the gas chamber horror of North Korea's gulag
Even the Guardian gets it. If you can defend North Korea as "not so bad," (as you did some months ago) is there anything Stalin did that you personally couldn't defend? I'm not sure how there could be other than the fact the DPRK exists and Stalin's USSR doesn't.
That's a pretty disingenuous definition of the Nazi's over-all goals. Your statement would lead some to think you are whitewashing history, and might even be a Nazi ideology sympathizer.
Your statement would lead some to think you are engaging in the commonly used tactic on the Left of smearing people whose politics they disagree with in an effort to shut down debate. Do you think it would be fair to add something like, "It might even raise the question of you being a Communist sympathizer, prone to supporting all of the evil excesses it has demonstrated"?
. Socialism can also be the means of production "regulated by the community as a whole". Their socialism was nothing more than a smokescreen for their true goals of a "pure Aryan race" motherland,
How little you know. Marx called for the destruction of both classes and races. The Communists murdered by class, the Nazis by race. Both Communism and Nazism tried to create a new breed of humanity. Have you not heard of "The New Soviet Man"? Early Nazi propaganda declared Lenin was a great man, second only to Hitler. The Communists and Nazis made common cause for years. The Soviets worked with the Germans to destroy Poland. After the German occupation of France the French Communists applauded the German National Socialists and worked with them.
Maybe you should watch The Soviet Story. (Supported by the EU parliament by the way.)
I think you could pay for all of the IT upgrades needed by the US Federal government if only we could monetize the continuing butt-hurt over Trump's victory in the election.
And I quote:
So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is a, it is a huge problem. I have a son.
He's 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it's unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it's hardly do-able. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing, but that's true throughout our whole governmental society.
What a fucking moron.
Now you've got me curious ..... what does Trump have wrong there, specifically? Are you claiming that the Federal government does it right? (Despite the repeated break-ins and theft of government documents from multiple agencies regularly covered on Slashdot?)
Or don't you like his wording?
Or is this just an expression of your anger and rejection of Trump as president for beating the entitled candidate that "should have" won?
Do you just prefer the redundant failure modes that Hillary and her campaign created for their IT because that is the "smart" thing to do and the obvious model to use for the Federal government?
+5 "insightful" in this case ~= "shared spite" - You have lots of company.
Could you point to some examples of this so-called "jingoism" as you think it applies to the contemporary United States? Where do you think the foreign policy is "belligerent"?
What about examples of "extreme chauvinism" or "extreme nationalism"?
Do you think it is going too far to suggest that people that hope the United States is attacked because "it deserves it" aren't really patriotic? What about people that hope for its military or political defeat?
In viewing the above post you must keep in mind that the Left has decreed that dissent is no longer "racism" as it was deemed under President Obama. Now that a Republican president holds power, dissent is again the highest form of "patriotism" , and the military and political defeat of the United States is the goal of true "patriots." .
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Sean Spicer, 2/24/2017
Q Can I first ask about the shooting in Kansas of the two Indian Americans and what the President’s response to it was, but also if there’s any concern that some of the rhetoric that the President or -- that generally has been out here recently could have contributed in any way to that or stepped up violence?
MR. SPICER: I mean, obviously, any loss of life is tragic, but I’m not going to get into, like, that kind of -- to suggest that there’s any correlation I think is a bit absurd. So I’m not going to go any further than that.
If rhetoric killed by itself I doubt there would be anyone left alive to post on Slashdot by now.
Conflating a killer in a bar in Kansas City with Donald Trump? Seems to be another case of TDS - Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's real.
No presumption is required when you so lavishly demonstrate your views over multiple posts. Your advice comes from an empty vessel, and you lack the wisdom to recognize it. Instead of trolling with posts you might do well to explore that beyond your experience so that you might achieve understanding and wisdom.
You don't seem to have any real familiarity with the medium. Allow me to get you started:
The Dennis Prager show (Check out Prager University)
The Hugh Hewitt show
The Eric Metaxas show
The Larry Elder show
The Michael Medved show
The John Batchelor show
was no need to invade and force your orgasm,
There's that problematic language again.
THE CONVERSION OF COMMANDER ROGERS
Try again?
Obama administration originally flagged 7 countries in Trump's order
So you think the role of the US is to replicate the role of EU? Not really, otherwise the US would have Chancellor Merkel.... er, .. President Hillary Clinton.
Germany's Migrant Rape Crisis Spirals out of Control
‘Cologne is every day’: Europe’s rape epidemic
Why Did British Police Ignore Pakistani Gangs Abusing 1,400 Rotherham Children? Political Correctness