Should there be liberty for the intolerant?

[Revoltingest]

Oppressor? I'd say more like, moderator.

Moderation & oppression could be one & the same?

Don't tell RF moderators about what I said.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Moderation & oppression could be one & the same?

Don't tell RF moderators about what I said.

Had a little reflection time upon our recent vigorous debate here. I would like to express a private hypothesis.

Humanism, comes in various forms. I believe, that both communists and ethno-nationalists and even liberals, are different classes of humanist.

If by basic definition, humanism means to be primarily but not exclusively concerned with the human condition and its future direction going forward.

Nazis believe the true human struggle is a racial one. Communists see a class struggle, Liberals see a struggle between individualism and collectivism, increasing personal automy v a loss of personal autonomy.

So, we're all humanists perhaps, some are dark and pitilessly ruthless. Some are mostly benign. Some like me, are perhaps merely reactionary and only arise when the trumpet calls, so to speak.

 

[Stevicus]

No, you added your own inference.
Underlining added....

Seriously? Someone advocating for an "all-white America" when America has over 100 million people who aren't white. That is their stated political objective; there's nothing to infer here.

Advocating economic equality doesn't imply anything other than just that.

 

[Stevicus]

Nazi Germany's government did exercise great
control over the economy. So they were socialistic,
if not full blown socialist.

They still had private ownership and private wealth (i.e. Krupp, I.G. Farben, etc.). So, therefore they were capitalist.

They also still had counts and barons, titles which would be made illegal under socialism (and in the U.S. as well).

 

[Revoltingest]

Had a little reflection time upon our recent vigorous debate here. I would like to express a private hypothesis.

Humanism, comes in various forms. I believe, that both communists and ethno-nationalists and even liberals, are different classes of humanist.

If by basic definition, humanism means to be primarily but not exclusively concerned with the human condition and its future direction going forward.

Nazis believe the true human struggle is a racial one. Communists see a class struggle, Liberals see a struggle between individualism and collectivism, increasing personal automy v a loss of personal autonomy.

So, we're all humanists perhaps, some are dark and pitilessly ruthless. Some are mostly benign. Some like me, are perhaps merely reactionary and only arise when the trumpet calls, so to speak.

I'm a pragmatist with libertarian goals.
What works best is what I advocate.

 

[Revoltingest]

Seriously? Someone advocating for an "all-white America" when America has over 100 million people who aren't white. That is their stated political objective; there's nothing to infer here.

Your inference seems obvious to you.
But it's still added.

 

[Revoltingest]

They still had private ownership and private wealth (i.e. Krupp, I.G. Farben, etc.). So, therefore they were capitalist.

Private ownership of the means of production, but
controlled to a great extent by government is a mixed
economy. The PRC operates like this too.
So "socialistic" rather than strictly "socialist" applies.

They also still had counts and barons, titles which would be made illegal under socialism (and in the U.S. as well).

There's nothing inherent in the definition of socialism
to prevent royal titles. But it strikes me as unlikely.

 

[Secret Chief]

humanism means to be primarily but not exclusively concerned with the human condition

we're all humanists perhaps

Possibly not me then.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Possibly not me then.

What drives your political opinion?

 

[Stevicus]

Your inference seems obvious to you.
But it's still added.

I'm still not seeing it. Let's look at this logically.

According to their platform, they advocate an all-white America. Currently, the U.S. non-Hispanic white population is about 61.5% (Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia). Without inferring anything in particular, we can already see there that is a conflict between a platform advocating an all-white America and the current demographic breakdown in the United States.

The only real "inference" I'm making here is that, it stands to reason that any political party with a platform will actually try to carry it out and implement it if they have the political power to do so.

 

[Revoltingest]

The only real "inference" I'm making here is that, it stands to reason that any political party with a platform will actually try to carry it out and implement it if they have the political power to do so.

You went farther than merely recognizing effecting
the platform when you said how they'd do it....

An all-white National Socialist America? How much more clear can it be? That means that anyone who is not white or not Aryan (which is a term that's always confused me) has no place in America. If that's their political objective, then that would imply genocide - or at least some sort of forced mass resettlement of over 100 million human beings.

 

[Stevicus]

Private ownership of the means of production, but
controlled to a great extent by government is a mixed
economy. The PRC operates like this too.
So "socialistic" rather than strictly "socialist" applies.

Well, even our own economy is a mixed economy, as are other economies which you might consider to be capitalist (even though they have some socialistic aspects). Some might argue that FDR was a socialist, although I don't think he was.

There's nothing inherent in the definition of socialism
to prevent royal titles. But it strikes me as unlikely.

The point is, Nazi Germany still maintained a class hierarchy, an aristocracy, private ownership, a wealthy capitalist class (which profited handsomely from the regime's policies). But the main thing that drove them was in wanting to expand their "lebensraum" for their "Reich," so the Nazis made war production a priority.

Systemically, it was still largely capitalistic in form and process, although many were highly nationalistic, patriotic, and compelled to do their "duty to the Fatherland." That was the overriding principle, which was enough to keep both management and labor under positive control.

In the areas they occupied, Germans were the upper caste, much like colonial masters lording it over the natives. If Germany had won, they would not have had anything at all like a "socialist" Reich. It would have probably resembled something more like a twisted, 20th century version of the Roman Empire. But the Roman Empire wasn't socialist either. They were capitalists.

 

[Secret Chief]

What drives your political opinion?

Good question! I think the vital word is "primarily." I have it, but it's declining! I'm rather disengaging of late - I cancelled my party membership last month. I view humanism as more speciesist than I can relate to. The problem for this planet is humans. imo.

 

[Stevicus]

You went farther than merely recognizing effecting
the platform when you said how they'd do it....

When you first linked this platform upthread (post #187), you said that, in the platform, "There's no call for genocide." You also commented that their platform "very liberal in many ways," such as being pro-environment.

I posted excerpts of their platform in my response, such as their advocacy of an "all-white America" and defining U.S. citizenship along those same lines - things that most liberals and socialists would vehemently reject and condemn, as well as many conservatives, for that matter. Not to mention the 40% of the population that's automatically excluded from citizenship according to the Nazi platform.

So, based on the actual demographics of the country, how can anyone argue that such a goal can be implemented and realized, without bringing about what most reasonable people would consider genocide? It may not constitute any kind of blatant or overt "call for genocide," nothing so obvious as "Let's kill all the ____!" But there's no reason to be coy about it. How else would they implement such a goal? Would they politely ask all the non-Aryan people to leave quietly and in an orderly fashion? Maybe they'd offer cash payments - $30 and a mule?

But yeah, I'm sure it would be peaceful and non-violent.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, even our own economy is a mixed economy, as are other economies which you might consider to be capitalist (even though they have some socialistic aspects). Some might argue that FDR was a socialist, although I don't think he was.



The point is, Nazi Germany still maintained a class hierarchy, an aristocracy, private ownership, a wealthy capitalist class (which profited handsomely from the regime's policies). But the main thing that drove them was in wanting to expand their "lebensraum" for their "Reich," so the Nazis made war production a priority.

Systemically, it was still largely capitalistic in form and process, although many were highly nationalistic, patriotic, and compelled to do their "duty to the Fatherland." That was the overriding principle, which was enough to keep both management and labor under positive control.

In the areas they occupied, Germans were the upper caste, much like colonial masters lording it over the natives. If Germany had won, they would not have had anything at all like a "socialist" Reich. It would have probably resembled something more like a twisted, 20th century version of the Roman Empire. But the Roman Empire wasn't socialist either. They were capitalists.

Some are mixed more in one direction then the other.
Nazis & socialists have much more in common than
the latter will admit. So it's rather myopic & hypocritical
for them to link Nazis only with the right.

 

[Revoltingest]

When you first linked this platform upthread (post #187), you said that, in the platform, "There's no call for genocide." You also commented that their platform "very liberal in many ways," such as being pro-environment.

Those are all factual claims, verifiable
by simply reading their platform.

I posted excerpts of their platform in my response, such as their advocacy of an "all-white America" and defining U.S. citizenship along those same lines - things that most liberals and socialists would vehemently reject and condemn, as well as many conservatives, for that matter. Not to mention the 40% of the population that's automatically excluded from citizenship according to the Nazi platform.

So, based on the actual demographics of the country, how can anyone argue that such a goal can be implemented and realized, without bringing about what most reasonable people would consider genocide? It may not constitute any kind of blatant or overt "call for genocide," nothing so obvious as "Let's kill all the ____!" But there's no reason to be coy about it. How else would they implement such a goal? Would they politely ask all the non-Aryan people to leave quietly and in an orderly fashion? Maybe they'd offer cash payments - $30 and a mule?

But yeah, I'm sure it would be peaceful and non-violent.

Your deductions (even if reasonable) are still your
own opinions, & not attributable to them as factual.

 

[Stevicus]

Some are mixed more in one direction then the other.
Nazis & socialists have much more in common than
the latter will admit. So it's rather myopic & hypocritical
for them to link Nazis only with the right.

Nazis are traditionally linked with the far-right because much of their idealism is rooted in the malignant nationalism which was predominant in Germany from 1871 until the First World War. They were also strongly rooted in conservative traditions, as well as the culture, myths, and folklore, which figured prominently in their propaganda and mindset.

The right is often associated with older, conservative, traditional values and ideals, whereas the left is associated with newer, progressive ideals which often buck against tradition.

The thing that socialists and nationalists (to include, but not be limited to, Nazis) might tend to have in common is "collectivism." That's the dirty word you're looking for, if you really want to tar them both with the same brush. The key difference is that, for nationalists, only people of their own nationality or race is part of the collective which they value.

Socialists, with some exceptions, tend to be more internationalistic in their worldview, viewing all of humanity as part of one big collective. That doesn't mean they've always acted that way. Governments can often go awry.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nazis are traditionally linked with the far-right because much of their idealism is rooted in the malignant nationalism which was predominant in Germany from 1871 until the First World War.

It's also traditional for the left to ignore their having so much
in common with Nazis, eg, command economy, speech
regulation, environmentalism.
To admit this commonality would weaken using "Nazi" as
a demonizing epithet for the "right".

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Good question! I think the vital word is "primarily." I have it, but it's declining! I'm rather disengaging of late - I cancelled my party membership last month. I view humanism as more speciesist than I can relate to. The problem for this planet is humans. imo.

You're not alone there I assure you. Humanism is speciest when narrowly applied. I would like to see a truly humanist society, wherby we coexist with the natural order, compliment it, not wreck it. I am a Green, before everything else. After all if there is no sustainable future, then the only political ideology that will count in several decades time will be survivalism at the individual and small group level.

 

[Secret Chief]

You're not alone there I assure you. Humanism is speciest when narrowly applied. I would like to see a truly humanist society, wherby we coexist with the natural order, compliment it, not wreck it. I am a Green, before everything else. After all if there is no sustainable future, then the only political ideology that will count in several decades time will be survivalism at the individual and small group level.

I suppose I am too but it's always been such a lost vote (unless you live in Brighton!). I realise I'm perpetuating a self-fulfilling prophesy.