Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Darwinism Has Led To The Holocaust And Genocide Of Blacks

[ThePainefulTruth]

"He's a conspiracy theorist": not an ad hominem, just a claim. Whether it's incorrect is a separate matter, but being incorrect doesn't necessarily imply that there was a logical fallacy in the reasoning.

"He's a conspiracy theorist and he's wrong": again, not an ad hominem.

"He's wrong because he's a conspiracy theorist": ad hominem.

Do you see the difference?

"Conspiracy theorist" has been used as a intimidating pejorative since the JFK assassination when it was first used that way. So now we're 50 years down and people are still afraid to say the obvious--LBJ did it and it was massive. People, including me, couldn't see how nobody, especially Bobby, would say anything. The reason was Hoover and the FBI files he had on everybody.

Only if you say why there's a conspiracy or why not, is it not an ad hominem.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You hatred of liberalism, you would deny said liberals their constitutional rights.

Who is it constantly wanting to us force to shut people up? And where have I denied anyone their rights. I argue for the protection of the rights of all. I even defend you're right to be wrong as long as you don't try to lock me up with it.

As for the rest, your tinfoil hat has slipped

You just can't resist it appears.

Business is for the most part run by capitalism, true that capitalism and Nazism are authoritarian right wing ideologies. Your ignorance of politics is not my problem

Its called fact, not name calling, sorry if fact offends you

I showed you the definitions, I can do no more.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The economic model was State Corporatism, which is fundamentally different to socialism.

State control and state ownership is a difference without a operational distinction. If the government tells me how to run my business, it is the effective owner. We don't even own land in the US anymore, we rent it from the government.

The normative goal of socialism (although not necessarily in practice) was an equalisation of power relationships. Nazis were Social Darwinists who believed those who proved to be the fittest should hold the power, successful industrialists fit this mould. State corporatism was about linking private business to the state so that they served its interests (modern China and Russia have elements of this system). Favoured enterprises increased their inequality in power relationships, rather than decreasing them which was the purpose.

I've already said that any form of government can be oppressive, e.g. the US as a capitalist slave state. Economic policies are what define socialism or capitalism. The use and limits of the power the state acquires defines how the state protects or violates the rights of the people. They're two separate mix and match issues--except to note that socialism concentrates more power to the state, which then tends to use it for oppression.

Plenty of US industrialists were proponents of fascism, I'm not too sure if there were many proponents of socialism.

That's because they were sucked into believing it was a capitalist friendly system, and some probably liked the Darwinian stuff.

The system wasn't socialist or capitalist, this was the point of it. It was supposed to be an alternative.

But unfortunately it was/is socialist, just not communist.

Likewise, trying to fit it into the modern right/left political equation is pointless as it is neither (and most terms used in the discussion are fairly meaningless anyway as they are so distorted and contentious). It's just 21st century people engaging in political point scoring based on selective perception.

Which is why I went straight to the definitions as a starting point. And academia is at fault for much of the confusion here. "The professor said that NAZIs are right-wing, so even though they called themselves socialists, they were wrong." And even those who think he's wrong, say he's right on the test if they want a good grade. And next thing you know they end up going along to get along, and supress what they actually think for themselves into their subconscious.

Nationalism, and even imperialism, are other things that are associated with the right today, but were not necessarily considered right wing in the past.

Nationalism can mean anything from defending the rights of individuals from domestic or foreign abuse, to capitalism, socialism, slavery, genocide or foreign imperialism.

And most of what is "associated with the right today", is done so by the left. More putzing with the dictionary. Christians did the same thing to deism in the 19th century. "Deists believe that God is an uncaring Creator who wound up the clock and then walked away".

 

[Darkstorn]

"Conspiracy theorist" has been used as a intimidating pejorative since the JFK assassination when it was first used that way.

Doesn't matter. You were presenting conspiracies, by your own admission. You actually made the argument that using "conspiracy theorist" automatically implies that the conspiracy isn't real. Well.

You were claiming there's a conspiracy. You were even theorizing about it.

I think you're a conspiracy theorist by definition.

I think you should have focused on the word "crackpot." I did use that one too.

I think my point still stands. You cry that you've been insulted, yet you call others names in the very same posts. Literally. You call them libs, even "illiterate libs". Hell, you called libs illiterate in a post where you attribute an image to me i never posted. So who's illiterate?

You pick a definition that says "conspiracy theorist" can be used as an insult. Ever considered that "lib" can be considered that? Seeing as it's only used in this context: Someone non-libertarian making fun of real or perceived libertarians.

 

[ChristineM]

Who is it constantly wanting to us force to shut people up? And where have I denied anyone their rights. I argue for the protection of the rights of all. I even defend you're right to be wrong as long as you don't try to lock me up with it.



You just can't resist it appears.


I showed you the definitions, I can do no more.

So who is constantly wanting people you don't like to the extent you make your hasted public, kind of a hypocritical stance you take

If the tinfoil hat fits...

What definitions? I don't believe you did because the definitions are contrary and so make a fool of your claims

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Doesn't matter. You were presenting conspiracies, by your own admission. You actually made the argument that using "conspiracy theorist" automatically implies that the conspiracy isn't real. Well.

Because it's almost always used as a pejorative, yes, and used in conjunction with no reasoned arguments against it other than it's "bad".

You were claiming there's a conspiracy. You were even theorizing about it.

When people unite for or against an idea but can't explain why it or the opposition is good or bad, it is, even though it may be emotional and/or subconscious.

I think you're a conspiracy theorist by definition.

So, is that always good or always bad? And don't you always need to show why that's so?

I think you should have focused on the word "crackpot." I did use that one too.

I think my point still stands. You cry that you've been insulted,

Oh please, I don't care if you call me every name in the book, but when that's all you do, when you don't even try to defend your position or show where mine's wrong, that's the problem, and why this divide we're experiencing is so concrete.

You pick a definition that says "conspiracy theorist" can be used as an insult. Ever considered that "lib" can be considered that?

I didn't pick the definition, it's used that way, but yeah, lib can be an insult, but unlike those libs, I can defend what I believe, and sometimes know, is right. And I have to call them something. Would you rather I call them (you?) NAZIs? Y'all really hate that.

 

[Darkstorn]

lib can be an insult, but unlike those libs, I can defend what I believe, and sometimes know, is right. And I have to call them something. Would you rather I call them (you?) NAZIs? Y'all really hate that.

I'm just going to say that this makes very little sense in logical terms. None of your reasons remove the fact that it's you calling people names. While crying that you've been called names.

You are just self-justifying a higher ground based on your own personal observations of your personal ability. That is not evidence of you actually arguing from higher ground.

You can call me whatever you want, because it basically reinforces what i'm saying. You are welcome to call me a nazi, and i won't get offended by it. But it would PROVE that you are a hypocrite. Just like you calling me a lib makes you a hypocrite already...

And since when do you have to call people names in a debate? It isn't required. Usually it's a sign of weakness. The thing here is: My only argument is making the claim that you're essentially a hypocrite, for saying and doing things you accuse others of saying and doing. There is evidence for this claim. I called you a crackpot conspiracy theorist, not to support that point. Because it doesn't need to be supported by anything other than YOUR posts. It's me calling it like i sees it:

You going on about crackpot conspiracy theories. I still think you are a conspiracy theorist by definition, and no, it's not required for me to explain whether it's the bad kind, or good: I only need to show you how the statement is true.

And you theorize about conspiracies. You can load the word however you want to. The actual insult was "crackpot."

Let me pose you a question: What exactly is it with you and your ridiculous extension of the American political system into these forums? You are trying to make it into a republicans(i.e people who agree with you) and "libs"(people who don't agree with you) divide.

This is not a political debate forum. Yet you are refusing to distance your and other people's messages from your political agendas. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a leftist socialist libertarian. The fact that you always call them such actually makes taking you seriously much more difficult.

Newsflash: I am not a libertarian. And i know you won't believe that. But i don't think you'll get many people on your side if you keep calling EVERYONE who doesn't agree with your every point a lib.

 

[Augustus]

That's because they were sucked into believing it was a capitalist friendly system, and some probably liked the Darwinian stuff.

It was friendly to government approved capitalists, as long as they supported the goals of the state they didn't have to worry about pesky democracy, labour disputes, etc. and could often get some nice state subsidies.

But unfortunately it was/is socialist, just not communist.

No, it's just ideologically convenient for you to say it is. There aren't simply 2 potential economic systems capitalism and socialism, it is possible something is neither.

Socialism, as the name suggests, focused on social ownership of the means of production to prevent the exploitation of the working class. It is a class based ideology. Socialism doesn't mean anything that has any form of government interference in the economy.

Fascism wanted an economy that supported the goals of the state. It had no overall preference about how this was to be achieved and fascist governments both nationalised and privatised businesses. It is a Social Darwinist leader/follower based ideology.

The Nazis generally preferred private ownership and valued entrepreneurship, they privatised banks and numerous industries and generally saw state industry as a last resort. They were economically pragmatist as, unlike socialists, they didn't see the economic structures of society as being the primary driver of human history.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It was friendly to government approved capitalists, as long as they supported the goals of the state they didn't have to worry about pesky democracy, labour disputes, etc. and could often get some nice state subsidies.

OK.

No, it's just ideologically convenient for you to say it is. There aren't simply 2 potential economic systems capitalism and socialism, it is possible something is neither.

Anarchy springs to mind. There's barter and communism but they're just subsets of the two primary systems. You think of any others?

Socialism, as the name suggests, focused on social ownership of the means of production to prevent the exploitation of the working class. It is a class based ideology. Socialism doesn't mean anything that has any form of government interference in the economy.

Unions and collective bargaining prevent the exploitation (now there's a loaded term) of the working class, and are part of the capitalist system--until the government sells out to management or the unions....or both. Government unions are another problem as they soon develop an incestuous relationship with government, support big government politics and actually promote higher taxes.

Fascism wanted an economy that supported the goals of the state. It had no overall preference about how this was to be achieved and fascist governments both nationalised and privatised businesses. It is a Social Darwinist leader/follower based ideology.

No preference? So if they weren't doing things the government way, the state said sure, have it your way. Sorry. And again, the social Darwinism spiel is outside the economic issues. Tagging one to the other is purely arbitrary.

The Nazis generally preferred private ownership and valued entrepreneurship, they privatised banks and numerous industries and generally saw state industry as a last resort. They were economically pragmatist as, unlike socialists, they didn't see the economic structures of society as being the primary driver of human history.

Sure, private ownership is great, as long as it's under government control which is socialism.

 

[Augustus]

OK.

IG Farben for example told the Nazis which chemical plants should be secured and given to them as new facilities.

Sure, private ownership is great, as long as it's under government control which is socialism.

It wasn't under direct government control, although it had to fulfil certain obligations to government alongside its other business practices.

Anyway, government influence alone is not what defines a system as being socialist.

Your namesake (I assume) Thomas Paine probably has better cause to be called a socialist than Hitler as he considered redistribution of wealth to serve social goals as being important. Hitler 'redistributed' money to promote state power.

Terms like socialism, conservatism, right, left, etc. are pretty meaningless now though as they are so ill defined and and politicised that they communicate very little information.

Anarchy springs to mind. There's barter and communism but they're just subsets of the two primary systems. You think of any others?

All pre-modern ones like feudalism, etc.

The Mercantilism of Renaissance Europe is probably a better comparison for the system of the Nazis than socialism or capitalism.

No preference? So if they weren't doing things the government way, the state said sure, have it your way. Sorry. And again, the social Darwinism spiel is outside the economic issues. Tagging one to the other is purely arbitrary.

The was no common 'fascist' model of economics across the various fascist regimes that have existed.

They were anti-Marxist and anti-liberalist, but Hitler for example saw economics as unimportant beyond its ability to provide what was needed. The Nazis favoured private ownership, whereas Mussolini nationalised large sectors of the economy.

And Social Darwinism is not outside of economic issues. Society must be run by Great Men, and Great Men rise to the top via competition. Removing competition from the economy contradicts this principle, which is why private industry was still seen as a good thing.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

IG Farben for example told the Nazis which chemical plants should be secured and given to them as new facilities.

???

It wasn't under direct government control, although it had to fulfil certain obligations to government alongside its other business practices.

Please differentiate between direct government control and indirect control as it affects owners.

Anyway, government influence alone is not what defines a system as being socialist.

Not "influence", but control. And what else is there?

Your namesake (I assume) Thomas Paine probably has better cause to be called a socialist than Hitler as he considered redistribution of wealth to serve social goals as being important. Hitler 'redistributed' money to promote state power.

Paine wasn't perfect. He also believed, like many deists back then, in divine providence. Hands off means just that.

Terms like socialism, conservatism, right, left, etc. are pretty meaningless now though as they are so ill defined and and politicised that they communicate very little information.

I agree. A corrupt establishment will promote whatever policies keeps it in power, regardless of political ideology.

All pre-modern ones like feudalism, etc.

The Mercantilism of Renaissance Europe is probably a better comparison for the system of the Nazis than socialism or capitalism.

The distinction is between government protection of business and industry, and government control.

The was no common 'fascist' model of economics across the various fascist regimes that have existed.

Socialism, no matter how it's implemented, is still socialism. Oscillating between one and the other is to be expected in their pursuit of maintaining government power. You don't expect hypocrites to not be hypocritical.

They were anti-Marxist and anti-liberalist, but Hitler for example saw economics as unimportant beyond its ability to provide what was needed. The Nazis favoured private ownership, whereas Mussolini nationalised large sectors of the economy.

See above.

And Social Darwinism is not outside of economic issues. Society must be run by Great Men, and Great Men rise to the top via competition. Removing competition from the economy contradicts this principle, which is why private industry was still seen as a good thing.

I'm not arguing otherwise. But Social Darwinism was used primarily as justification for racial supremacy and genocide.

 

[Augustus]

???

An example of how fascism can benefit capitalists and thus why many supported the Nazis.

Please differentiate between direct government control and indirect control as it affects owners.

In one the government 100% runs the companies as part of a command economy, in the other the owners run the companies with some limitations ad some freedoms.

If the Nazis saw them as the same thing then why go to the bother of privatising a company only to control exactly what it did anyway?

The distinction is between government protection of business and industry, and government control.

Why?

Why not focus on the shared desire for autarky and the economy as an instrument of state power? There are many variables that make up particular systems.

Socialism, no matter how it's implemented, is still socialism. Oscillating between one and the other is to be expected in their pursuit of maintaining government power. You don't expect hypocrites to not be hypocritical.

Based on political expediency, you are choosing 1 variable - the degree of government control of the economy - as being the be all and end all of a socialism/capitalism (false) dichotomy.

I'm not arguing otherwise. But Social Darwinism was used primarily as justification for racial supremacy and genocide.

It was part of an overall worldview that applied to all aspects of life, some are just more infamous than others.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

An example of how fascism can benefit capitalists and thus why many supported the Nazis.

...appear to benefit capitalists. Socialists stock in trade is telling you what you want to hear so you'll give them the power they want. It's the oldest con in the book.

In one the government 100% runs the companies as part of a command economy, in the other the owners run the companies with some limitations ad some freedoms.

If the Nazis saw them as the same thing then why go to the bother of privatising a company only to control exactly what it did anyway?

And of course, they can always just nationalize it. But leaving it private keeps the companies doing the nuts and bolts management, it maintains incentive to a degree, and the state probably hopes they make a good profit so they're less traumatized and it helps the overall economy. But again, they'll sacrifice all that to maintain control.

Why?

Why not focus on the shared desire for autarky and the economy as an instrument of state power? There are many variables that make up particular systems.

It inevitably leads to a concentration of power which always corrupts. And besides, the state is not as good at deciding policy for thousands of businesses as those businesses themselves, not to mention the morality of the whole thing.

Based on political expediency, you are choosing 1 variable - the degree of government control of the economy - as being the be all and end all of a socialism/capitalism (false) dichotomy.

They're both socialism. And while one may lead more quickly to corruption, the determining variable with the greatest consequences is the choice between socialism and capitalism.

It was part of an overall worldview that applied to all aspects of life, some are just more infamous than others.

Well in that case, if you're talking about the system that benefits the survival and thriving of the most, that would be capitalism. That's never what socialism is about even though the protest mightily that it is. That point was never made better than with LBJ, who was cynically pointing out to a couple of his fellow racist governors, why he was pushing a welfare state. Because, he said, "I'll have those n*****s voting Democratic for 200 years." Fifty years and counting with Trump being the first serious bump in that road--a bump primarily there because they're always wanting more, no matter what--yet it's the conservatives who are greedy.

 

[Darkstorn]

Well in that case, if you're talking about the system that benefits the survival and thriving of the most, that would be capitalism. That's never what socialism is about even though the protest mightily that it is.

This sounds a bit like empty biased rhetoric. Could you even try to act objective?

Or i suppose you know a socialist's mind better than a socialist does. Grand. The problem is that you haven't shown that you actually do know. You've only asserted that you do.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

This sounds a bit like empty biased rhetoric. Could you even try to act objective?

Or i suppose you know a socialist's mind better than a socialist does. Grand. The problem is that you haven't shown that you actually do know. You've only asserted that you do.

Yes it's objective and I don't have to read their minds, only see the results.