Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

DEBATE: theyounghistorian77 vs. VyckRo

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 2 of 2
 [ 33 posts ] 
DEBATE: theyounghistorian77 vs. VyckRo
Author Message
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: DEBATE: theyounghistorian77 vs. VyckRo

Socialism leads to communism (sooner or later)


Only in marxist ideology. Do you know what the difference is between Utopian and scientific socialism?

Now whilst Marxism is a socialist philosophy, Not all Socialists are Marxist (Especially Utopian Socialists, Marxism is claimed to be "Scientific Socialism".)

Another point. Marx did not even invent Socialism, Robert Owen is often claimed to be the first Socialist when in 1817 (Before Marx was even born) he founded the Cooperative society. In 1825, (When Karl Marx was only 7.) he tried a community experiment in America, It is often claimed to be the first true Socialist experiment. In relation to my first point here, Owen's Socialism, along with the early socialists before Marx and Engels, were Utopian. Another prominent Socialist in the time of Marx and Engels was Eugen Dà¼hring, whose brand of Socialism was intended to replace Marxism. Engels wrote a defense against Dà¼hring which you can read here.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /index.htm

This extract below served as a critique of Utopian Socialism. (So even engels saw differences between Scientific and utopian)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /index.htm

Thirdly, Hitler's "Socialism" wasn't actualy Marxist He said so himself.

"Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not" - F L Carsten, The Rise of Fascism, 2nd ed p137

in short.

Hitler's Socialism involved God.
Marx's Socialism was Atheist
Hitler's Socialism was nationalist, and elitist (Clue is in the name. National socialist German workers party.)
Marx's Socialism was Internationalist and Classless

Fourth, Just because you have Marx as an influence doesn't make you Left Wing. Francis Fukuyama is instrumental in the Rise of Neo-Conservativism. He was very influential in setting up what has become known as the Regan Doctrine. But Without Marx, Where would he be? You can even find him here. On a Marxist Website. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subje ... kuyama.htm

No this is not genocide!


So someone who openly said that jews ought to be slain when he said "We are at fault in not slaying them" does not qualify as calling for a genocide in your opinion? Is this by any chance related to your "problems" with israel?

As for George Bernard Shaw, He wasn't the first to call for genocide, nor was he the first to suggest Gas as a method. Churchill, remember him?

As for genocide the definition. I tend to use the UN one which says

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

And Martin luther, when he called for jews to be slain, fits the definition of calling for genocide. especialy (a) and (c)

It doesnt change the fact that Genocides have been called for and carried out, over 100's of years. The old testament and Koran is quite genocidal.

But this is an atheist who only lived until the early 50's. How does he apply to atheists today?

Not, you see mankind is not limited to the little baby-war, that atheist, launched against Christian civilization.
Atheist live in a box "¦ in this case yap ther is DMCA outside the box.


Sometimes your english is so bad, i do not know what you are trying to say. :(

But still, with regards to venomFangX.



I have not seen too many examples of atheis, who do not want to offend., and spread lies
.

Typical of you. You didnt answer my question. Are you fine with non-militant Atheists ie those who do not offend and lie? Yes or No. Simple question. I Want a simple answer.

Yes but I never said the word "Christian" or "church" ! By the way, you know that the Crusades were not only motivated by religion?


Yes, but it was a pretty big factor.

Some people have traditions, others have not


But appealing to it doesnt validate an argument.

I would like to see you apply the same criteria to Alexander the Great


The key here is proving that he is the real son of god, and not some magician or fraudster. If you can do that, than i'll convert right away.

There is a difference between proving that a certain historical character existed and proving that the said character is the son of God. Cant you see that?

European culture is based indisputable, on christianity, Only because of Christianity we progressed so much.
And this European culture and civilization influences the world.

But I must say that culture and civilization are two completely different notions, but in Christianity they have blended very nicely
.

What about the contributions of the Ancient Greeks and Romans?

And what of Capatalism, Free markets, competition between states over technology and the notion of tolerance?
All of these are secular, and all have their part to play. Yes christians played their part, in the development but so did a multitude of other factors. Like i said, modern european culture and civilization is more than just religion.

I am not impressed with anything you said! have not gotten (so far) no new information from this ~young-historian".( that is so-called historian)


That's because all i've been doing so far is asking questions. Prodding and poking your little theory. Because no-one else has, You havent bothered to have it peer-reviewed. So far. Things are not looking good for you. Can you defend your original arguments? No. Have you refuted my original and defined arguments. No.

Modern atheists, regularly are attacking religion


And modern religion is attacking atheists.

and they believe they have a mission to "free" man, of his own ignorance


like you then?

They even criticizes those who do not "join ther cause".


Like all those religious fundies who say that anyone who isnt them is Hellbound?

Communists wanted to build a new society, and religion represent it for they the old and the superstition and what was worse.


"I have known many christians - Poles, frenchmen, Spaniards - Who were strict Stalinists in the field of politics but who retained certain inner reservations, believing God would make corrections once the bloody sentences of the all mighties of History were carried out. They pushed their reasoning rather far. They argue that History develops according to immutiable laws that exist by the will of God; one of those laws is the class struggle; the 20th century marks the victory of the proletariat, which is led in its struggle by the communist party; Stalin, the leader of the communist party, fulfils the law of history, or in other words acts by the will of God, therfore one must obey him. Mankind can be renewed only on the russian pattern; that is why no christian can oppose the one - cruel, it is true - idea which will create a new kind of man over the entire planet. Such reasoning is often used by clerics who are party tools. "Christ is a new man. The new man is a soviet man. therfore Christ is a soviet man!" said Justinian Marina, the rumanian patriarch" - Czeslaw Milosz - The captive mind. 1953.

christians too are guilty of this. I hope you bear this in mind?

Atheists they want to build, a new society. based on reason. Many of them are obsessed with the "evil of religion" for them, religion is against progress, more, they believe that religion will bring ~the end of this world".


And this is why many of them do not want Iran to go nuclear, Given mahmoud ahmadinejad's desire to wipe israel off the map.

In these conditions atheists consider, themself Knights of reasons struggling with "windmills" sory whit religion.
Before anyone can install a dictatorship, a reason must be found. And that is "religion" for Atheist/Communist


Religious fanaticals. Most atheists are okay with moderates such as DonExodus2 (who is christian as far as im aware)
And what is the reason for religious dictators like ahmadinejad?

These people believe that they are in war. They believe that the ~enemys" wants to destroy civilization, earth itself.


atheists like to target those who wish to bring on "the end times". Is that what you're refering to?

What stops them to kill?
response!


Their own morality?
I cannot speak for every atheist. but morals generaly speaking are clearly not given by god or the bible.

I say that we have time to stop them, especially if you, you join me :)


I agree with you in your fight against communism. and i would like to join you if that is all you do. But the trouble is, you're picking the wrong targets in the process.

Oh and about that short post, i was clarifing my arguments if they havent been clear enough already.
But you have to still debunk all of them.

About the cold War going on, it is russia that sours relations, not on our side.

Oh and as to the venus project. Sounds li I'll make a seperate thread on it. open to all On the grounds that you clarify your points about the venus project in that thread. Okays? Sounds like warped communism to me. but those are the guys you should target, not the wider atheist community. Have you done a video about the venus project?

In fact, Why do you never go after genuine communists. Like this Idiot for example? http://www.youtube.com/user/KarlinPlaistow
You would have much more credibility with me if you did.

~Terrorism and", "global warming" it is pushes us. to a purely Marxist state.
And obviously the word atheist is everywhere


there's no point denying global warming. im sure that there are free market solutions to the problem as much as there are socialist ones.

But enough for tonight.
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:38 pm
VyckRoUser avatarPosts: 177Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:55 pmLocation: Romania Gender: Male

Post Re: DEBATE: theyounghistorian77 vs. VyckRo

Today I read your text!
It's sad, you're very fundamentalist, you seem interested in denying my arguments and not in the historical truth. :cry:
You should be a lawyer or politician, not a historian.
You should go to the university of Political Science, not History!

In the lines below I will give some history lessons for FREE. A unique opportunity ;-)

communism (which i have already defined) has never been applied in so called communist countries. you so-far have Failed to define communism. And im beginning to suspect your language is delibarately Vauge.

Actually I was the one who said that!
There are several things you need to understand:
There is a difference between plan and reality

There is a difference between Napoleon's plan for the Battle of Waterloo and the reality on the ground.

In Romania, we have a popular saying that: their is a huge difference between the plan that a man makes at home and what he'll find in the marketplace.

Therefore, Communism has two parts, the ideology (beautiful and utopian) and what happens when the ideology is applied.
Real Communism is impossible, it either ends up killing masses of people, or the Communism become a type of bourgeoisie and this leads the country in to capitalism.
Basically Communism ends when the Communist "aristocracy" appears, or when the Communist system becomes inoperative and they begin to take Capitalist steps. Or by revolutions

See The Republic of Plato

Appeal to tradition. Just because something is based in a culture, does not make it right. You know slavery was a big part of Romanian culture until the 1840's - 50s, Right? Are you going to justify that too? I would never.

And dont deny That Romania had a slave industry in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Romania

Slavery never existed in Romania! Your source is a page on Wiky based on two sources, one of them published in Budapest.
In Romania, there was the term "Rob" is a proof of bad intent to compare this term with "the slave on the plantations"
In addition any ~young historian" should remember to never remove a historic event of his context.
Therefore during the period you mentioned.
A majority of Romania's population lived in a state similar whit slavery.
See Iobagia (Serfdom)

Gypsies were considered good wood workers, and workers of gold and silver. Therefore they were considered economically valuable. Exactly like peasants, in general they were treated fairly well, their owner provide food and shelter for their work.
Often this status was much better than the serfdom statute.
We knew many peasant uprisings.
No gypsy uprising.are known.

Now I will show bad-intent of the Wiky author.
1 The article is not translated into Romanian
2 It is presented an engraving of sam poor gypsys from Transylvania (which at the time, was under Hungarian domination) During that time, the Hungarian considered herself a state "racially pure" wher only where Hungarians were ~true sons of the nation" and Telkes Simon was obsessed with turning all the Hungarian minorities in to ~real Hungarians"

See my videos on this issue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UgjBXPVt18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkcahgn10E

3 It presented a picture of an African slave.

Finally, the page should be complete rebuilt (but... when I will have some time).

Also the things should not be removed from their ethnic and social context.

This is the statement of the Romanian-Jew political prisoner under communist Nicolae Steinhardt on Gypsys, a man who has often voiced against racism violence.

Nicolae Steinhardt
Racism is craziness, but - how can I put it ? non-racism, denying that separate races exist, each with its traits, is just stupid. Gypsies like to argue, that is their whole life meaning; they are noisy; without noise they just suffocate and die out; they lie a lot; we all lie, but we idealise reality, but with them it is different, as if they were antimatter. And they always enforce their lies with heavy oaths : may my eyes pop out, may my mother die, may I go crazy. If I were to take them seriously, I should see piles of eyes, like those attributed to Ante Pavelici by Malaparte in Kaputt;
I should see endless funeral processions; I should see insane asylums completely full
And you can never please them. No matter how nicely you talk to them : no matter how humble or hypocritical, it's all useless. They are lazy, they hate all those who ask them to make an effort, their laziness is as violent as an instinct of preservation. They don't drink in pubs, only outside, on streets, with a long row of bottles and their children in a circle; exhibitionism, nostalgia of carnaval; desire to insult, to scream, to show one's genitals. Just like sordid, jumping devils
http://bataiosu.files.wordpress.com/200 ... icirii.pdf
my translation

A similar story is expressed by French Frederic Dame, who wrote a monograph of Bucharest, in 1906, and many others.

For the reasons as to why Empires rise and fall. Watch this. It's tolerance, not necessarily in Liberalism or the liberal sense. There is
a difference VyckRo.




I studied the history of the Roman Empire, this woman has no idea what she's talking.
The Roman Empire was strong as long, was able to impose its culture.
That also means, that enemy fortresses and temples were destroyed and other temples and other cities, were built by Rome.
There is a myth in the West, a marble Roma, white and immaculate, democratic and civilized.lol
From what I was saying, is just a myth. The marble Rome it is most after Nero, and was not "white" but painted ( the Relie , the Sculpture, columns everything, painted) the true Rome was a ~disneyland", democratic? depends what you mean by that; civilized, so this includes slaves killed in the arena to?

that girl and you to, should read about the Conflict of the Orders, that was about more or less extended on the entire period of the republic.

The first session of the Plebinis on the sacred mountain 494/493 BC
356BC they won the right to be elected dictators
339BC they won the right for Roman Censorship.
And only in 287 BC plebeians gain equality with patricians, But only after Julius Caesar, these classes are no longer important.
For 200 years they imposed Roman culture, all over.
But "¦the Roman Empire fell on 4 September 476 when the last Roman emperor young RomulusAugustulus was removed by Odoacer. Odoacer was a former Roman soldier that joined the Roman army and rose to a position of command..
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... 87/Odoacer
So what happened?
In the period of agony, the Empire was no longer able to Romanized not even the mercenariy, the soldiers from there own army.
What happened with the Roman soldier Odoacer, was not an isolated example, Alaricus whas the first Germanic leader to take the city of Rome. 14 august 410
But in 394 Alaric served as a leader of foederati under Theodosius I ( another Roman soldier "non-integrated" )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(410)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaric_I
Yes a culture collapses, when she is no longer able to assimilate, and impose her model.

EU.(As a whole) 9.83 births/1,000 population (2010 est.)
Romania. 10.43 births/1,000 population (2010 est.)
UK 10.67 births/1,000 population (2010 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... /2054.html
It's not like you're doing much better Is it?

The Romania population decreases due to Immigration,and is not a problem strictly of demography

that your culture dies is not my theory but of Johann Gottfried von Herder.

You do not understand the difference between liberalism and socialism
You do not understand the difference between Atheism and politics
You do not understand how to factor a theory that applies to certain circumstances.

No! you refuse to understand that socialism was just a phase!
A step in the evolution of communism
History repeats

Oh, it's our fault is it? Remember 9/11? or lets go back earlier. What of the barbary pirates? And What's your problem with israel. Are You a closet Anti-semite? (VyckRo logic tells me yes. If VyckRo Screams and cries, than i need to remind him that i've given a taste of his own Medicine. I'll use VyckRo logic against VyckRo whenever i feel like it. ;) )

You have the conflict there
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5WuiBdlddU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIudn8-jJJw
Eilabun massacre
1948 Arab-Israeli War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_war

You did not know, how to manage a problem.

Is that supposed to refute my argument? You said that atheists have never achieved power outside the soviet union. I debunked that and this is all you can come up with to defend your point that atheists have never achieved power outside the soviet union?

No atheists have never achieved real power outside the soviet union!

So evolution leads to communism now? Is that what you're saying? Ever heard of that lib dem supporting biologist called Richard Dawkins? Im sure he disagrees with you.
As does this page.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_2.html

No, I have not said that, but every idea has an influence, on our lives (true or false).
~There is a moral of metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro' final cause, link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature of the other -- You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it -- & sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history. ~ Adam Sedgwick"
http://bevets.com/evolutionconsequences.htm

I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment's silence, said:
'You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .'
I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before.
'How can you say such things, Soso?' I exclaimed.
'I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,' Joseph said.
'What book is that?' I enquired.
'Darwin. You must read it,' Joseph impressed on me. G. Glurdjidze in The Life of Joseph Stalin (1940) p.8-9

Stalin in his youth was a religious man and he attended the courses of the Georgian Orthodox seminary. He should have become a priest, two books influenced him Darwin and Kar Marx.
Do you think it was well that Stalin ~discovered the truth" ?

Oh, and are you going to call the atheist experience any time soon?

is not a priority of my life to laugh, at stupid people (that believe in Zeitgeist movie! and do it on the faith only) It would be nice! but I'm not sadistic!

If they deny it like that, then they deny Communism the ideology. Period. Yet you claim that inwardly, most atheists in the west today accept communism. without any evidence to back it up.

You have shown you ample evidence, but you're blind!

Im in contact with a romanian atheist, and a Polish atheist. And both are much more lassiez-faire than you give them credit for. And both disagree with you. I just like to point that out. :)


Therefore I now talk with one person or 10?
Ther are no ~romanian atheist" Atheist maybe Romanian citizens but not ethnic.
If he is the one who gave you the link whit ~Gypsy slaves" he is a Hungarian racist.

look here 121 fake YouTube channel against a Romanian user, which is said to be Jew
http://www.youtube.com/user/KosherRazvan
http://www.youtube.com/group/romgaynia
http://www.youtube.com/user/Palocia
http://www.youtube.com/user/razionist

are thousands of channels, anti-Romanian Channels, perhaps you are speaking with one of them!

Thanks for that single example. Which unfortunately is a communist example. I will not be satisfied until i get examples from all those countries.

Atheists in the west are deny ther communism!

Even if that were true, Which in most cases is not. Would such a philosophy lead to objectivism or communism?

You need only to look at the quotes Ayn Rand gave, to see that her ideology too, involved a fight against religion.
http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_ARand.htm

ok
"Ask youself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be waiting for us in our graves--or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth"

Yes that's my argument!
Atheists want to build paradise on earth, and in their dark minds religion is the main obstacle..
It's just a matter of time!

And you provide what evidence for this?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
this part is so funny, it deserves it's own seperate debunking.

It wasn't until the early 1960's that prayer in public school was "outlawed" by a new interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the history of the U.S. includes prayer and Bible readings in all sorts of public places, including schools. In 1782, the United States Congress passed the following resolution: "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."
http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/pr ... school.htm

So began the communists here!

All you have to do is type "observed instances of speciation" into google and you get a webpage with plenty of examples of such in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Haa !! The word speciation, is disputed. :lol: :twisted:

Typical creationist logic, . If this response were a valid challenge to evolution, it would equally invalidate creationism and Christianity, since they are based on events that nobody alive today has witnessed either.

You know what history studies?


Every species in the fossil record is a transitional form, going from something, to something else. You ignorant fool.

Not creationists, but skeptical

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
You ignorant fool.
You ignorant fool.
You ignorant fool.

That is Lamarckism!
I've already exposed an Atheist for this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6y3K-PdTXk
~Every species in the fossil record is a transitional form"
Haaa!!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
No not ~Every species in the fossil record is a transitional form"
sory

Why? there's no other or better idea that explains the diversity of life on earth. If you are going to make any arguments against evolution. You need to head to http://www.talkorigins.org to see if they have beenlong debunked first.

I never said I"deny" anything
You have a limited thinking!


Yes, because i was right and you was wrong.

only in your mind

Fascism is not necessarily a thing of the political right.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... toriae.svg
You are playing with words here!

is an example of this.
But lets have a look one example of policy Namely economics, which i consider to be the most important measure on the left/right political compass.


So you, a man who do not went to university yet.
And wants to change the entire contemporary history!
LOL So Lenin was "capitalist"? ... eventually? ( or only in his heart :lol: :lol: )
But this leaves us with the logical conclusion at least, that the soviets were most certainly in their early days. State capatalist.

LOL

The difference between Fascism, Nazism and Communism, is not the purpose of this discussion!
You should become a journalist, the historien job is not to find ~hot topics"
You are wrong!

Your mistake is that you do not make a difference, between theory and practice.

In short, you cannot mistake policy for ideology. But we are debating ideology.

You keep saying that!
Even if I said this from the very beginning.
Le XXIème siècle sera spirituel ou ne sera pas - André Malraux
Eu cand discut cu un ateu e ca si cum as discuta cu usa - Petre Tutea
I want to live for immortality, and I will accept no compromise. from F.Dostoyevsky
Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:45 am
VyckRoUser avatarPosts: 177Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:55 pmLocation: Romania Gender: Male

Post Re: DEBATE: theyounghistorian77 vs. VyckRo

In short, you cannot mistake policy for ideology. But we are debating ideology.


This is what I am trying to say!
Atheists use different policies, Liberal or Democratic to attract the masses.

LOL! We moved to page two! I have not seen it

Only in marxist ideology. Do you know what the difference is between Utopian and scientific socialism?

As I said any idea has an influence on our lives.
Once Marx published his theories the socialism was not the same.

Thirdly, Hitler's "Socialism" wasn't actualy Marxist He said so himself.


"Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not" - F L Carsten, The Rise of Fascism, 2nd ed p137


I agree with this! still only partially


NY Times Nov. 28, 1925:
HITLERITE'RIOT IN BERLIN.;
Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler and Lenin.
Who was the speaker? None other than Dr Goebbels (Hitler's right-hand man)

By Wireloss to The New York Times
Berlin, Nov. 27~ The National Socialist-Labor Party, of which Adolf Hitler is patron and father, persists on believing Lenin and Hitler can be comparedor contrasted in a party meeting.or contrasted in a party meeting. Two weehs ago an attempted discussion of this subject led to one death, sixty injuris and $3,000 damages to beer glasses, tables, chairs, windows and chandeliers in Chemnitz. Last night Dr. Gobelis tried the experiment in Berlin and only police intervention prevented a repetition of the Chemnitz affair.
On the speaker`s assertion the Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight, a faction wae openedwhit whizzing beer giasses. When this sort of ammunltion whas exhauated a free fight in which fists and knives played important roles was indulgend in, Layer a gang matched to the offices of the Socialist paper Vorwlirts and smashed and smashed plate-glass windows. Police made nineteen arrosts
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F7081EFC39551B7A93CAAB178AD95F418285F9
http://spiderbites.nytimes.com/pay_1925 ... 00000.html


in short.

Hitler's Socialism involved God.
Marx's Socialism was Atheist
Hitler's Socialism was nationalist, and elitist (Clue is in the name. National socialist German workers party.)
Marx's Socialism was Internationalist and Classless

Now you are not trying to say,that the nazis were not Internationalist at all!? correct?
because if you do....
Image
Even this Nazi-black man, would laughs at you
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Not Internationalist ? ( at all?)
Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

and ....

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c193/ ... hiang2.jpg
http://www.bills-bunker.de/mediac/400_0 ... 4421f.jpeg
http://www.axishistory.com/fileadmin/us ... indien.jpg
http://www.axishistory.com/fileadmin/us ... ldiers.jpg
http://www.bills-bunker.de/mediac/400_0 ... signia.JPG
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_p3Q0eKo0OeI/S ... eers11.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_p3Q0eKo0OeI/S ... eers09.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_p3Q0eKo0OeI/S ... eers08.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ien%22.jpg
http://www.bryanrigg.com/images/HJSCover.jpg
http://www.cephas-library.com/israel/Ge ... an_Aub.jpg

So someone who openly said that jews ought to be slain when he said "We are at fault in not slaying them" does not qualify as calling for a genocide in your opinion? Is this by any chance related to your "problems" with israel?

You quoted wrong, genocide is not limited to a fragment extracted from a text, It's a policy.
My idea was that Bernard Shaw, spoke of real-genocide, and not racist speech.
My problem is not whit Israel but whit you the Western culture.
You have created a problem in that area which may lead mankind, to a nuclear war!
There have been several proposals for a Jewish state,and several proposals for a solution in Palestine (two states), but British made mistakes after mistakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_ ... wish_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Uganda_Programme


(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

No Martin Luther is not guilty of genocide, he never killed anyone, and he did not incited to murder anyone! It was just a xenophobic discourse, probably an accident. We are not talking here of a political idea, but an isolated incident, and nothing more.

But still, with regards to venomFangX.


About venomFangX and the pedofilia accusations.
That was a trap set by DPR, The film which has been sent to Venon belongs to DPR.!
DPR has filmed his video- conference. The film bears his signature.

Typical of you. You didnt answer my question. Are you fine with non-militant Atheists ie those who do not offend and lie? Yes or No. Simple question. I Want a simple answer.

Ther is such thing?

There is a difference between proving that a certain historical character existed and proving that the said character is the son of God. Cant you see that?

Course is just a question! If you apply the same criteria, for Alexander the Great that many atheists apply for Jesus' existence, would Alexander pass? I mean, as a real historical person?

The key here is proving that he is the real son of god, and not some magician or fraudster. If you can do that, than i'll convert right away.

This is a topic for another debate!

-Me Vyck:-
European culture is based indisputable, on christianity, Only because of Christianity we progressed so much.
And this European culture and civilization influences the world.

But I must say that culture and civilization are two completely different notions, but in Christianity they have blended very nicely
.

What about the contributions of the Ancient Greeks and Romans?

When the Greek civilization fell?
But the Roman?
Who has maintained that culture! ( not Atheism...surely)

And what of Capatalism, Free markets, competition between states over technology and the notion of tolerance?
All of these are secular, and all have their part to play. Yes christians played their part, in the development but so did a multitude of other factors. Like i said, modern european culture and civilization is more than just religion.

Another history lesson!

The most importantly thing brought by Christianity is"¦???
The de-sacralisation of nature.
For the pagan cults, nature was sacred, the forest, the sea, the sky, earth itself.
Most gods were simply the personifications of some phenomena of nature or of some human activity.
The lightnings in the night, the storms at sea wher seen as actions of a God, hunting, war, the domestic life were influenced by a god.
Who went to hunt, had to sacrifice something to Artemis, who went by sea he should not forget to sacrifice a white bull to Poseidon.
( Imagine how many ships are leaving from a major port today - many, many thousands of bulls would be required for sacrifice LOL)
At the same, all the phenomena were explained, through the actions of a God. For example a volcano was explained very simply.
Zeus placed a Titan, there under the mountain, and that Titan breathe from time to time..
(No need to search for a naturalistic explanation, people were living in a world of magic)

All ancient civilization which reached a high degree of civilization, faced the same problem! An elite cultivated, and a mass of people who believe in superstition. If after a war the elite was destroyed the civilization fell to.

Hence Christianity comes and declare war on all superstition, kills the ancient gods., and strips the nature from her magic.
Nature becomes just a good, available to man, which can be raped, dissected, dirt, exploited..
Man is the supreme creation of God, nature is only a gift. Not sacred, and not magic, just a gift.
And just as a child would dissect a toy,that is a gift from his parents, so the man began to explore nature.

Mircea Eliade

They have de-sacralised the universe. The ancient prophets had revolted against the orgiastic cults, and Christianity waged a battle to evacuate the sacred from the universe. To be more exact, to evacuate the pagan gods from the universe, from Nature. Thus, it was possible for proper science to begin and to develop, because Nature, having been de-sacralised by Christianity, became for the first time matter, inert matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_Eliade

Christianity is dying in the west, and along with it, people begin again to believe in the power of crystals and horoscope ...again

That's because all i've been doing so far is asking questions. Prodding and poking your little theory. Because no-one else has, You havent bothered to have it peer-reviewed. So far. Things are not looking good for you.

But meanwhile...Amaze us with your knowledge of history...between the lines. It legitimizes you and your position to.

Can you defend your original arguments? No. Have you refuted my original and defined arguments. No.

Yap
Yap

"Christ is a new man. The new man is a soviet man. therfore Christ is a soviet man!" said Justinian Marina, the rumanian patriarch" - Czeslaw Milosz - The captive mind. 1953.

I find it hard to believe that! Even for ~53,

Who knows, maybe the Patriarch, saved the life of a priest from a communist prison, or a church to be destroyed whit those words. Anyway the Patriarch is not a Pope,
He has only administrative power, he can not change the docm!

Religious fanaticals. Most atheists are okay with moderates such as DonExodus2 (who is christian as far as im aware)

He converted to atheism, few months ago.

atheists like to target those who wish to bring on "the end times". Is that what you're refering to?

In their dark minds, all Christians (especially) wish to bring on "the end times".
These people are very ignorant, they confuse the word Apocalypse whit the movie. :)

Their own morality?

Atheist morality? LOL, No such thing!

there's no point denying global warming.
[/quote]
No! but what causes it is important!
Le XXIème siècle sera spirituel ou ne sera pas - André Malraux
Eu cand discut cu un ateu e ca si cum as discuta cu usa - Petre Tutea
I want to live for immortality, and I will accept no compromise. from F.Dostoyevsky
Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:45 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: DEBATE: theyounghistorian77 vs. VyckRo

Today, i read your post. It's sorry to see that you are such in denial when it comes to making a reasoned argument. Nowhere have i seen a full rebuttial of my core arguments outlined and clarified earlier (and no, socialism is not on the rise in the UK Thanks to the reforms and changing of the post war consensus caused by Thatcher. i dont think We will never be as left wing as we were in the 70's), so i presume you simply cannot. If you cannot do it in the next post. This debate is over.

Seeing that your last post had so little to do with communism. I will simply refute those parts that will deal with the subject at hand, Other parts i will save for later. But first.

It's sad, you're very fundamentalist, you seem interested in denying my arguments and not in the historical truth.


sorry VyckRo, but a bunch of Hasty and Bad generalizations, red herrings, Strawmen, Crude stereotypes and genetic fallacies. qualify as "historical truth" in your sad alternative universe. Because those are your arguments, and your arguments have no substance whatsoever. they deserve to be ridiculed. As for me being a fundamentalist. LOL, i wasnt the one who described myself like this.

VyckRo wrote:Today I consider myself anmilitant. anti-atheist


that speaks more volume about you rather than me doesn't it? Sorry, but the fundamentalism is coming from your side, not mine.

And when i satirise your logic in a manner where i can use it against you, You scream and cry. Dont you realise that you are protesting against your own logic when you do scream and cry?

Im just having a bit of fun :P Hehe.

But i will continue to sugggest that your language is deliberately vague, An example of such begins here.

Therefore, Communism has two parts, the ideology (beautiful and utopian) and what happens when the ideology is applied.


When you talk about communism, you need to talk about the whole of communism as an ideology, not just select bits that are convenient to you like it's atheism for example. And sorry, Communism as a whole ideology has never been applied. However you wish to describe the soviet union, You cannot describe it as truly communist. And trying to use the name communist to, argue that they were truly communist only shows that one knows as much about political science, as one that would argue that a groundhog is part of the porcine family knows about biology.

Example. The withering away of the state.

"From the moment all members of society, or at least the vast majority, have learned to administer the state themselves, have taken this work into their own hands, have organized control over the insignificant capitalist minority, over the gentry who wish to preserve, their capitalist habits and over the workers who have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism - from this moment the need for government of any kind begins to disappear altogether. The more complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it becomes unnecessary. The, more democratic the "state" which consists of the armed workers, and which is "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word", the more rapidly every form of state begins to wither away."
"Then the door will be, thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society [Socialism] to its higher phase [Communism], AND WITH IT THE COMPLETE WITHERING AWAY OF THE STATE." (emphasis added)

Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution
Chpt 5. The higher phase of Communist Society

Yes VyckRo. Communism, even envisaged by lenin, was intended to be a small government philosophy. Communism and its cousin syndicalism or anarchy, are the original anti-state ideologies. Sorry if you cannot comprehend this fact. The Soviet union had a big government. You see the difference?

Did the state wither away under Lenin, Stalin or any other dictator? NO.

From the other side, the soviet union (if thats how you define communism) was dictatorial, and as you are about to learn had the elements of a fascist state. How many atheists today are fascist and believe in dictatorship VyckRo? Answer me that one.

No! you refuse to understand that socialism was just a phase!
A step in the evolution of communism
History repeats


What about Christian socialism?
http://www.thecsm.org.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism
There's a real path to USSR communism right there, :lol: :lol: Sarcasm.

No atheists have never achieved real power outside the soviet union!


ive already debunked this.

You have shown you ample evidence, but you're blind!


i have indeed shown you that your arguments are pathetic, but you're blind.

Atheists in the west are deny ther communism!


conspiricy theory.

Yes that's my argument!


No, your argument is that atheism generaly leads to communism, not to objectivism. it must be a terrible indictment on you that i have to tell you what your argument is,or what it's supposed to be.

Atheists want to build paradise on earth, and in their dark minds religion is the main obstacle..
It's just a matter of time!


political ideologies do that. as do religions. who regard other religions and atheism as the main obstacle.

only in your mind


so who made you rephrase it then?

You are playing with words here!


So you complaied then, Okays. Lets have a look at what are termed as the 14 defining characteristics of fascism, and lets see how many we can find in the soviet union shall we?

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.


Ever wondered why the great patriotic war is called the great patriotic war? It's because Stalin used all the above as propaganda.

soviet music is powerful stuff indeed
http://www.sovmusic.ru/english/

I do not know if you've ever stumbled upon North korean tv, but there's plenty of flag waving, songs, patriotism etc
http://www.elufa.net/

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.


We've already documented that in the soviet union.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

For the soviets. it was capatalists and the west. For you, it's atheists

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... budget.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_h ... viet_Union

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.


The governments of the Soviet union were male dominated. There was plenty of sexism going on there too. Also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_ ... osexuality

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.


http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12642.html
The source is brief but to the point.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.


Yep, i think it's safe to say we have that too in the soviet union.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed
to the government's policies or actions.


"Unlike Stalin, who suffered a mental collapse when the reality of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union penetrated his state of denial, on the very day of the attack metropolitan Sergei sent a message to every Orthodox parish. It reminded the Russian faithful of the heroic deeds of their ancestors, and of the saints Alexander Nevsky and Dimitri Donskoi, who had rescued Holy Russia in past crises: 'Our Orthodox Church has always shared the fate of the people. It has always borne their trials and cherished their successes. It will not desert the people now ... The Church of Christ blesses all the Orthodox defending the sacred frontiers of our Motherland. The Lord will grant us victory.' ... When Stalin did finally address the nation on 3 July, he spoke in the uncharacteristic tones of 'Brothers and sisters! My dear friends!' whose religious accents were unmistakable. He may have mentioned Lenin, but the radio address was much more like a simple priest sounding the village tocsin. In October, patriarch Sergei wrote a further address, as the Germans came within sixty miles of the capital. He condemned clergy who had defected to the enemy, notably metropolitan Voskresensky who had been despatched to the Baltic States before the war as part of a wider attempt to exploit Orthodoxy to integrate the newly acquired states into the Red Empire. On 11 November, Stalin harangued troops on Red Square as German troops battled their way towards suburban Moscow, invoking Nevsky, Donskoi, Suvarov and Kutusov, realising that common or garden patriotism and religion had greater mobilising potential than Marxist-Leninism. Typically, patriarch Sergei had been dragged from his sickbed a few days before and deported to Ulyanovsk.

Of the other two remaining Orthodox hierarchs, metropolitan Nikolai was brought back from the Ukraine to Moscow, where he became the regime's main clerical foreign policy propagandist, while metropolitan Alexei rallied the faithful during the terrible siege of Leningrad. The regime made a few cautious and parsimonious concessions to a Church that played a major role in maintaining wartime morale. It tolerated rather than encouraged religion. Overt anti-religious propaganda may have ceased for the duration, perhaps in rueful recognition of Pius XII's leading role in persuading sceptical US Catholic bishops of the legitimacy of their government's Lend-Lease aid to the Russian people despite his predecessor's comprehensive damnation of Communism, a stance that militates against the notion that anti-Communism was the overriding obsession of his pontificate. Sunday was restored as a day of rest, and artists were allowed to repair damaged icons. In 1942 the presses of the almost defunct League of the Militant Godless were used to produce a tome called The Truth about Religion in Russia, in which the weary remnants of a Church the Soviets had tried to destroy were displayed for foreign consumption. Beyond this there were no concessions. At Easter 1942 churches in Moscow were allowed to hold candlelit processions as the curfew was raised for a night. This was a meagre gesture given the enormous role that the Churches had played in the war effort. Starting with Alexei in Leningrad, sermons became appeals to donate money to the war effort. By January 1943, over three million rubles had been raised in Leningrad alone. Another five hundred thousand rubles funded a tank column named after Dimitri Donskoi. By the end of the war, the Church had contributed 150 million rubles.

In November 1942 metropolitan Nikolai became the first cleric since 1917 to have an official function, when he joined a government commission to investigate Nazi war crimes on Soviet territory. That included putting his name to accusations that the Germans had carried out massacres at Katyn for which the NKVD had been responsible. In January 1943, patriarch Sergei sent a telegram to Stalin requesting permission to open a central bank account where the Church could deposit such monies. When Stalin assented, relaying the gratitude of the Red Army, the Church effectively received corporate legal recognition for the first time. It was a sign of the times that in the same month a senior party official in distant Krasnoyarsk formally received a bishop, who was also a brilliant surgeon, the man still being a prisoner at the time. In September, the exiled Sergei was surprised to find himself brought back to Moscow and installed in the former residence of the German ambassador. At 9 p.m. the following night, he and metropolitans Alexei and Nikolai, were driven to the Kremlin for a session with Molotov and Stalin. The former improbably asked what the Church might need. Recovering from the shock of this request, Sergei said the reopening of churches and seminaries, a Church council and the election of a patriarch. As if it had nothing to do with him, Stalin gently inquired: 'And why don't you have cadres? Where have they disappeared to?' Rather than pointing out that most of these 'cadres' had died in camps, Sergei quickly joked: 'One of the reasons is that we train a person for the priesthood, and he becomes the Marshal of the Soviet Union.' This set Stalin off on a monologue about his days as a seminarian which went on until 3 a.m. Stalin helped the elderly Sergei down the stairs, saying, 'Your Grace, this is all I can do for you at the present time,' although he also appointed Georgi Karpov as the regime's liaison with the Orthodox Church. Karpov was the NKVD official who had arrested and shot most of the clergy, though Stalin added, 'I know Karpov, he is an obliging subordinate.' At some point in the course of that night there was oral agreement regarding the future status of the Orthodox Church. Within four days nineteen bishops were found who elected Sergei patriarch, successor to patriarch Tikhon who had died in 1925. They issued a joint exhortation to Christians around the world to unite against Hitler." - From Sacred Causes. The Clash of Religion and Politics, From the Great War to the War on Terror, by Michael Burleigh, pp. 233-236:

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.


http://www.jstor.org/pss/421852

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.


which is why Solidarity was feared. and why martial law imposed.
http://www.gdansk-life.com/poland/solidarity
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/p ... html/1.stm

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.


I only need to insert The name dmitri Shostakovich here as one example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Macbe ... ict_(opera)

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.


which is why there were much more secret policemen in the soviet union than there was under the tsar.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.


http://www.springerlink.com/content/r58611v52vh88gg3/

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.


http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12641.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy

There was no real democracy in the soviet union.

Looks like all the points are pretty much covered. The soviet union was, in it's own way. Fascist cloaked with the clothing of communism. A wolf in sheep clothing, if you like.

And look what i found on Mussolini. The quintessential fascist.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/musso.html

Like i said, fascism is not necessarily a thing of the political right. I suspect you probably think That all fascism is far-right and thus opposed to communism simply because they went to war, but that is in its own way a common misconception.


LOL So Lenin was "capitalist"? ... eventually? ( or only in his heart )


The soviet union was, in it's early days, state capatalist. The soviet union was, during the war, state capatalist. i've provided the sources and recommend a history book. But anyways. you missed my main point, you cannot mistake policy for ideology. But you continue to do so. (but then, what do i expect of you?)

This is what I am trying to say!
Atheists use different policies, Liberal or Democratic to attract the masses.


liberalism is a seperate political ideology from communism. (but not in your alternative universe, obviously)
Liberal atheists do not believe in communism. period.

I agree with this! still only partially



NY Times Nov. 28, 1925:
HITLERITE'RIOT IN BERLIN.;
Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler and Lenin.
Who was the speaker? None other than Dr Goebbels (Hitler's right-hand man)


The Nazis were not as Cohesive in their ideology as you would like to assume. The Nazis did indeed have a left wing of their Party, Comprised of indivudials like Goebbels, Along with the Likes of Ernst Rohm (Both were influenced by Gregor Strasser). Unfortunately for you, Hitler himself did not belong to this aspect of the Party, He actively tried to suppress it,
First, he called a conference in the City of Bamberg on 14th feb 1926 to instill the Fà¼hrerprinzip onto aspects of the party he felt were dissenting, And that included, guess who? That's Right, Goebbels, Rohm and strasser, Goebbels submitted To Hitler, although he felt dissapointed in the process, He wrote in his diaries that after the meeting "I feel devastated," "What sort of Hitler? A reactionary?" "I no longer fully believe in Hitler. That's the terrible thing: my inner support has been taken away."
Sorry, you cannot use goebbels like you just did. Next time. try quoting hitler.

Now you are not trying to say,that the nazis were not Internationalist at all!? correct?
because if you do....


you clearly have not an ounce of understanding as to what nationalism is.

Nationalism turns devotion to the nation into principles or programmes. it thus contains a different dimension to mere patriotism, which can be a devotion to one's country or nation devoid of any project for political action.
it is important to distinguish between paticular nationalisms, which do not imply a general approach to politics, and a universial principle of nationalism. Most 'nationalists' have a programme for their own paticular nation; but do not necessarily hold views about the significance of nationality elsewhere. it is in this sense that nationalism has been described as an ideologicaly empty bottle with strength and shape, but no paticular content. Thus the nationalism of the congress party in india before independance was able to incorporate such varied figures as Jawaharlal nehru, a modernizer and believer in rational planning, Krishna Menon, a Marxist and M.H Ghandi, an anti-industrial Hindu ascetic.

The general feature of universial principles of nationalism is an assertion of the primacy of national identity over class, humanity etc.
as an example. One strain can be loosely called "Romantic" nationalism. It is paticularly associated with german reactions to the universalism and rationalism of the enlightenment period.
in this view, people can be understood in terms of the linguistic, cultural and historical factors which bind them to a paticular territory than by reference to their general human capacities. Thus the important meanings and values which form societies and provide the context for human action are local, not universial.

The leadng theorist of romantic nationalism was J.G Herder (1744-1803) who wrote of the importance of the volksgeist, the essential spirit of a paticular people.

the economic dimension of such nationalism is the belief that the ownership and control of important resources should be
maintained firmly within the nation itself. the political application is the principle of self determination which seeks to base political life on the nation-state, a soverign entity dominated by a single nation. - Oxford Concise dictionary of politics.

Now im sorry VyckRo, but Hitler qualifies as an ideological nationalist. he would have laughed at you if you tried to call him anything else.

As for non-aryans in his army, it would have been a case of "So long and thanks for all the fish" after the war. What i mean, is that assuming the nazis had won the war, their use to the nazis would have expended and they would have been sent to the concentration camps or used as slaves, They are not considered to be of the Aryan race. (You must understand Hitler had a different conception of what the Aryan race is to what the indo-european definition is today.)

And as to propaganda, they had an obvious agenda for winning over the masses of eastern europe, against the communists. duh.

You also seem to fail to understand the machiavellian nature of Hitler and the nazi regime.

You quoted wrong, genocide is not limited to a fragment extracted from a text, It's a policy.


"Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In the book 'The Jews and Their Lies,' Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them..." - Julius Streicher. Nuremburg trial.

The line of "anti-Semitic descent" from Luther to Hitler is "easy to draw," - Lucy Dawidowicz. The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945. p23

it is indeed a policy. One that luther thought out and one that Hitler carried out. maybe you misread me when i said that he Called for it.

calling for jews to be slain is calling for a genocide of the jews even by UN Standards. Your defence of luther is plain stupid and laughable.

No Martin Luther is not guilty of genocide, he never killed anyone


George bernard shaw never physicaly himself killed anyone either. That is not an excuse for what he did. And yes, both soke of real genocide. Sorry.

he did not incited to murder anyone!


What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Are you on drugs? Do i need to grab a prescription pad? You need some therapy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8BWBn26bX0

Calling for Jews to be slain is inciting murder. You must be insane if you cannot see that.

It was just a xenophobic discourse


Just? Just? Just? Just? Just? Just? :lol:

Xenophobia is hatred for foreigners, like you have a hatred for westerners. Hatred of jews has another name, Can you guess what it is Or do i need to tell you?

probably an accident.


oh yeah, you think it was just some little typo that he didnt mean it.. :facepalm: I think not.

We are not talking here of a political idea


Anti-semitism Became political. You ignorant fool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lindbergh
For just one example.

but an isolated incident


There were no anti-semities between Luther and Hitler or there is no link between them? Is that what you're saying? Because after all, according to you, it was just an "isolated incident"

You need to wake up FAST. and smell the coffee.

and nothing more


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiani ... tisemitism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_antisemitism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

Yap
Yap


Nope
Nope

1) atheism which is defined as thus,
/aythi-iz'm/

"¢ noun the belief that God does not exist.

, DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.

, ORIGIN from Greek a- 'without' + theos 'god'.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk

does not lead anywhere. politicaly speaking. There is a diference between political ideologies such as communism along with it's opposite philosophy, Objectivism. (Both started by atheists and both philosophies were intended to be atheistic.), and atheism simply by definition. For whatever reasons this difference is Something VyckRo does not acknowledge or want to acknowledge. The definition above does not suggest anything about politics, nor does it tell you where you are on the political compass. Contrary to what VyckRo thinks.


2) Atheists tend to be much more politicaly diverse than what VyckRo gives it for,


3) Atheism is on the rise whilst Communism is dead, and these trends are at odds with VyckRo's narrative.

If Atheism generaly leads to communism, should it not be the case that Communism is On the rise today as fast as atheism is on the rise today? And should it not be further the case, that those two trends are linked to the extent that most modern atheists today in the west are communist?

all these questions have to be answered yes in order for me to take VyckRo's points with more interest. But even then, assuming the answers are yes. he wouldn't be able to make a final linkage between Communism by definition and atheism by definition. because atheism by definition does not say anything about the politics of atheism. So his arguments cannot be proved anyways.


If you cannot answer these points in the next post, the Debate is Over. What i want is the number of communists by % of population, in all the countries especialy the west, plus atheists by % of population in the west. I demand those figures. If you cannot provide them, than you have no basis to make your judgments on modern atheists.

I keep asking you for them and to answer my points but my patience is snapping with you.

And no, socialism is not on the rise here. We in the UK have shifted to the right, even accounting for Blair and brown. New labour is now in effect a right-wing party, It embraces the reforms and policies of thatcher.

I find it hard to believe that! Even for ~53


you're in denial.

Anyway the Patriarch is not a Pope,


I never said he was.

He converted to atheism, few months ago.


Fine. But he was tolerated whilst being a christian. Something you would probably fail to acknowledge.

Atheist morality? LOL, No such thing!


Morals dont come from any one of the 2850 or so listed gods that there are here. http://www.godchecker.com/

----------------------------------------------------------------

This will do just for now, I'll come onto his other points later.
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:58 am
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: DEBATE: theyounghistorian77 vs. VyckRo

Quick Note, LoR Show 02: Sunday 20th June, 7pm UT/GMT BlogTv

i would like to see you take part VyckRo. I dare you. Or are you going to chicken out of the new dare like you chicken'd out of calling the atheist exprience?



"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:28 am
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: DEBATE: theyounghistorian77 vs. VyckRo

Because many of the discussions we're having are in fact off topic and not related to the debate. ive decided to set up this new thread dealing with them. I'll post my thoughts on those in the coming days.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=4686

Feel free to add your contributions.
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:56 am
VyckRoUser avatarPosts: 177Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:55 pmLocation: Romania Gender: Male

Post Re: DEBATE: theyounghistorian77 vs. VyckRo

Unfortunately the discussion deviates, and that because, I must give many history lesson! To this young-historian:
because he believes:
The Nazis were not internationalist at all.
One of the reasons the Roman Empire collapsed, was not that has become too diverse. (Opposite of the fascia)
European culture is not based on christianity, that science is evolved so much in Europe(And cultures influenced by Europe) is just a coincidence
The Christians began the DMCA story! LOL
Babeuf. (In fact, his supporters) invented the word Communism
I also learn new information: slavery in my country and a amazingly large number of agnostic.
And this is just what I remembered.
So I am glad that you have created another topic, good idea!


In the last three days I spent an hour typing the message ( for 3 times) for this forum and when I put it = error. And once, I have not found any forum!

Let's try again to educate these atheists:

Stalin should have to become a priest, but he lost his faith and was attracted to Marxism.
In his youth he knew that morality is given by God but by this spread, he became atheist.
Without God, there is no objective morality! ( morality should be a product of evolution, a social concept and nothing more.)
Who could really blame a velvet monkey for theft????????????????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSm7BcQHWXk
Just as for these monkeys ther is no idea of theft, for an Atheist ther is no objective morality!
A good parallel with communism
A fox kills a rabbit but the fox do not murder a rabbit, (would be foolish to say that), an atheist / communist do not murder a dissident it kills him and that for very logical purpose.
So in a world without God, it could be moral to kill an individual.(Not necessary, but can be)



Most atheists base their atheism on evolution (I do not understand why), but so did the communists and that includ Stalin.
In communist the biology textbooks: Darwinism was blended with lamarckism, and with primitive notions of cosmology.
Everything was presented very simply,
Darwin made a journey "¦where he observed birds beaks, and so he founded the theory of evolution.
Lamarckism was presented as the way evolution, happened, (a deer, a Llama, a giraffe). And various theories were presented about the appearance of life.
Between the time when in America was held The Scopes Trial and the publication of The Great Monkey Trial book, in Russia, a Caricature of evolution, was imposed everywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutiona ... tical_left
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

And so Lysenkoism was born!

The basic idea was that we do not need a God!

We must observed that communists and atheists, follow the same plan.
-- evolution - evidence are often forged.
-- so we do not need any God
-- Abortion - In 1920, Russia became the first country in the world to allow abortion in all circumstances!
-- Full social equality!
-- state atheism Albania was the first atheist country from in world.
-- discrimination against religion.
-- The disappearance of private property



About the last, communist/atheist, they consider that the man has, evolved from a primitive form ( so man is a social animal) the idea that an animal does not require private property, it is not far!
I mean "the world hunger" is increaseing and the state should stand after every farmer who wants to cultivate his land or not? When It is obvious that a cooperative is more efficient!

-- Civil rights? Why?for some animals? NO! the state must control everything, no rights!State the knows what is best.

-- Antireligious propaganda, religion is bad, she is the one that makes the man to make irrational. decision.

The Communist propaganda
http://www.smith.edu/artmuseum/exhibiti ... _india.htm
http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/yy ... etpori.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3238/312 ... f11449.jpg
http://www.soviethistory.org/images/Lar ... lidays.jpg
http://www.nls.uk/collections/rarebooks ... hposte.jpg
http://soviethistory.org/images/Large/1 ... enness.jpg
http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/1i7aar4mqf ... poster.jpg
http://www.soviethistory.org/images/Lar ... people.jpg
http://www.soviethistory.org/images/Lar ... ez1926.jpg
http://www.soviethistory.org/images/Lar ... ligion.jpg

The Atheist propaganda ( what atheism needs propaganda ?)

http://thedevilsdoor.files.wordpress.co ... ter_41.jpg
http://thedevilsdoor.files.wordpress.co ... =450&h=360
http://redbrandog.files.wordpress.com/2 ... ter_12.jpg
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivat ... 482181.jpg

More:
- Atheists seem to oppose "free speech" ( that is other speeches besides atheism)
- Atheists have a kind of superiority, that us they consider themselves to be smart, beautiful, just because they are atheists.
- often they make serious mistakes in their rhetoric ( scientific error, logical, historical; but are not interested in correcting their errors. Often even promote such errors, if If these errors support atheism.
- atheists divide the world into two classes ( Atheist and Teist)that) that in ther dark minds ar at war. They believe that atheism must win, and a atheist world dictatorship must be installed.

and now to answer your questions ...
Le XXIème siècle sera spirituel ou ne sera pas - André Malraux
Eu cand discut cu un ateu e ca si cum as discuta cu usa - Petre Tutea
I want to live for immortality, and I will accept no compromise. from F.Dostoyevsky
Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:40 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: DEBATE: theyounghistorian77 vs. VyckRo

The Nazis were not internationalist at all.


He confuses Hitler with Nazis, A common mistake, but remember that the nazis were'nt as cohesive in their outlook as VyckRo would like to presume.

While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested - mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism." - Sir Alan Bullock from "Adolf Hitler

Please discuss Hitler specificly

I'll answer his other points as soon as he finishes his next post
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:21 pm
VyckRoUser avatarPosts: 177Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:55 pmLocation: Romania Gender: Male

Post Re: DEBATE: theyounghistorian77 vs. VyckRo

And before I answer your objections, I want to say something.

Before I have gone to university, I thought, a little, as you! That I will redefine, notions like fascist, communist, nationalist.
My mind was full only whit documentary films, and tabloid articles.
That changed quickly.
An education system offers something more than "information"

so i presume you simply cannot. If you cannot do it in the next post. This debate is over.


So we see here a small fascist attitude? (that is politics, not ideology.)
I mean you invite me to debate, you have fixed all debates conditions, even the title (the title which I have rejected), and you continue to behave in the same way.
Perhaps you believe you are in control? Certainly you are not!

Now we see:

sorry VyckRo, but a bunch of Hasty and Bad generalizations, red h- Strawmen, Crude stereotypes and genetic fallacies.


Nice! to use my arguments against me!, but this would not invalidate the arguments? I mean that they were proposed by me? because you want to invalidate all that comes from me? or now you pick and choose, what you like?
By the way you know the meaning of Strawmen?
about the genetic fallacy I see that you can use it without any problems below, where you say that I am anti-atheist sohow does this relate to the arguments proposed?


But i will continue to sugggest that your language is deliberately vague, An example of such begins here.
When you talk about communism, you need to talk about the whole of communism as an ideology, not just select bits that are convenient to you like it's atheism for example. And sorry, Communism as a whole ideology has never been applied.


I must remind you that the idea the Communism as an ideology has never been applied in communist countries, I've said it from the beginning ... so? you quote ME?
And yet it that has no relevance, or you now want to change the definition from history and political science?
And what's your problem that I talk about the atheism & communists?
What? it is not this the subject that we discuss???
Certainly is not Hitler, or Musolini,or the Holocaust, or the fascists, or Gypsies, or the Second World War, or the parallels between communism, fascism or Nazism?


However you wish to describe the soviet union, You cannot describe it as truly communist. And trying to use the name communist to argue that they were truly communist only shows that one knows as much about political science, as one that would argue that a groundhog is part of the porcine family knows about biology.



Obviously it was communism, you realize what you are saying? so this is not communism?
Image
ok! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Yes the recipe and cake are both communism!
Communism was an utopian idea, which could never be reached. What we see in the communist countries is the application of the communist doctrine. And the result is the application of communism. Never mind that the ideology has not reached the ultimate goal, it was applied!
If we use the same tactics, We can say that there is no democracy in most democratic countries maybe just in Switzerland. And certainly if you apply your method America becomes a fascist state. ( And with that, we can not agree..correct?)
That is why in political science, we have a method of study!
And that method is not limited, to small observations, and sorry you're not the man who will change the definitions in this science. ( that until a few days ago you did not know it exist.


Yes VyckRo. Communism, even envisaged by lenin, was intended to be a small government philosophy. Communism and its cousin syndicalism or anarchy, are the original anti-state ideologies. Sorry if you cannot comprehend this fact. The Soviet union had a big government. You see the difference?

Did the state wither away under Lenin, Stalin or any other dictator? NO.


Do you realize that that most communist countries have never declared themself a Communist country(I mean to include this title in the official name, of the State)? Obviously they were led by a communist party (the only party)
They have a communist : youth union, a workers union which were virtually part of the Communist Party, they have a communist writers union to. The Name: communism appear everywhere but the state itself, was only in the transition to communism
for example
Socialist Republic of Romania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_ ... of_Romania
Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_So ... t_Republic
People's Republic of China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_ ... Yugoslavia
( This is true communism a continuous transition to .. an impossible ideal)

Yes VyckRo. Communism, even envisaged by lenin, was intended to be a small government philosophy. Communism and its cousin syndicalism or anarchy, are the original anti-state ideologies. Sorry if you cannot comprehend this fact. The Soviet union had a big government. You see the difference?

Did the state wither away under Lenin, Stalin or any other dictator? NO.

LOL Strawmen LOLLL

From the other side, the soviet union (if thats how you define communism) was dictatorial, and as you are about to learn had the elements of a fascist state. How many atheists today are fascist and believe in dictatorship VyckRo? Answer me that one.


Aaaa so they were fascists now, I understand, but I have a better idea, why not directly Nazis?If you rewrite history!

ive already debunked this.

No you did not! You just compared a prime minister from a democratic country with Stalin! LOL

conspiricy theory.


What is that? another Rhetoric fallacy! ( because if I'm right, would not matter if is conspiracy or not)

political ideologies do that. as do religions. who regard other religions and atheism as the main obstacle.


Today we have a form of atheism, which is practically a religion!

so who made you rephrase it then?


You, obvious and your Overgeneralization about theist and Holocaust ( but i rephrase it, in compared to you)

So you complaied then, Okays. Lets have a look at what are termed as the 14 defining characteristics of fascism, and lets see how many we can find in the soviet union shall we?


With these words you convinced me, you're not interested in history, or political science!
You are interested in sensational, or Tabloid if you prefer.
The problem is very simple, All characteristics listed by you are belonging to the totalitarian ideologies ( implicitly Fascism)
Totalitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
It's amazing, when you compare so much communism and fascism, as you do, how it is possible to do not mention the principles of totalitarianism (at least once)


Totalitarian regimes differ from older concepts of dictatorship or tyranny. Totalitarian regimes seek to establish complete political, social and cultural control, whereas dictatorships seek limited, typically political, control. Two types of totalitarianism can sometimes be distinguished: Nazism and Fascism which evolved from "right-wing" extremism, and Communism, which evolved from "left-wing" extremism. Traditionally, each is supported by different social classes. Right-wing totalitarian movements have generally drawn their popular support primarily from middle classes seeking to maintain the economic and social status quo. Left-wing totalitarianism has often developed from working class movements seeking, in theory, to eliminate, not preserve, class distinctions. Right-wing totalitarianism has typically supported and enforced the private ownership of industrial wealth. A distinguishing feature of Communism, by contrast, is the collective ownership of such capital.




The government of Nazi Germany was a fascist, totalitarian state. Totalitarian regimes, in contrast to a dictatorship, establish complete political, social, and cultural control over their subjects, and are usually headed by a charismatic leader. Fascism is a form of right-wing totalitarianism which emphasizes the subordination of the individual to advance the interests of the state. Nazi fascism's ideology included a racial theory which denigrated "non-Aryans," extreme nationalism which called for the unification of all German-speaking peoples, the use of private paramilitary organizations to stifle dissent and terrorize opposition, and the centralization of decision-making by, and loyalty to, a single leader.


Totalitarianism is a form of government in which all societal resources are monopolized by the state in an effort to penetrate and control all aspects of public and private life, through the state's use of propaganda, terror, and technology. Totalitarian ideologies reject the existing society as corrupt, immoral, and beyond reform, project an alternative society in which these wrongs are to be redressed, and provide plans and programs for realizing the alternative order. These ideologies, supported by propaganda campaigns, demand total conformity on the part of the people.


Totalitarian forms of organization enforce this demand for conformity. Totalitarian societies are hierarchies dominated by one political party and usually by a single leader. The party penetrates the entire country through regional, provincial, local and "primary" (party-cell) organization. Youth, professional, cultural, and sports groups supplement the party's political control. A paramilitary secret police ensures compliance. Information and ideas are effectively organized through the control of television, radio, the press, and education at all levels.


---
http://remember.org/guide/Facts.root.nazi.html




A totalitarian regime is a government which controls every aspect of the life of the people. People living under a totalitarian regime generally also support it, sometimes almost cultishly, thanks to extensive propaganda missions which are designed to promote a positive view of the government. Citizens are also usually afraid to criticize the government, so they may be outspoken supporters to avoid closer scrutiny
.

The concept of the totalitarian regime in political theory arose in the 20th century, and although there are a few examples of such governments which predate the 20th century, some of the most distinctive examples, such as Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, date to the 1900s. Communist governments such as those of China and North Korea are also sometimes accused of being totalitarian


http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-total ... regime.htm




"A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)

Adj. 1. totalitarian - characterized by a government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control; "a totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul"- Arthur M.Schlesinger, Jr.
undemocratic - not in agreement with or according to democratic doctrine or practice or ideals; "the union broke with its past undemocratic procedures"
2. totalitarian - of or relating to the principles of totalitarianism according to which the state regulates every realm of life; "totalitarian theory and practice"; "operating in a totalistic fashion"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/totalitarian


Even if at first only the fascism was considered totalitarian, the definition has been extended.

----

To prove you how much you wrong, when you say that the communists were fascists, I will reduce your argument to absurdity
So let's analyze the political regime from US in the period George W. Bush - Barack Obama

1 Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.



-George W. Bush
Image
http://www.september11news.com/March_Ma ... shFlag.jpg
http://zerozeros.com/wp-content/uploads ... h_flag.jpg


-Barack Obama

Image
http://chumaspiritmagazine.typepad.com/ObamaFlag.jpg
http://2009.inwent-iij-lab.org/wp-conte ... -copy1.jpg
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/08/senator ... a_flag.jpg

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.


Patriot Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act


3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.


Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran


4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_b ... ted_States


5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.


what does that have to do with URSS?
What!!!!!!!! you do never heard of the Soviet Woman?


Women in the Russian and Soviet military
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_t ... t_military
http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/kollo ... 6/full.htm
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/ ... ilots.html
Image
Image
Image
http://www.energia.ru/energia/astronaut ... ova_01.jpg
http://sociology.berkeley.edu/public_so ... g_3.11.jpg
http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/f/images/f ... hov_lg.jpg
http://www.russianartandbooks.com/russi ... r00258.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FIpqiYaPHzw/S ... fucoid.jpg
http://www.imow.org/dynamic/user_images ... e_3232.jpg
http://russophilia.files.wordpress.com/ ... -1925e.jpg
http://www.madridman.com/blog-madrid/in ... ns-day.jpg
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/bl ... ter-09.jpg

LOL
and on abortion see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia
http://www.wgsr.uw.edu.pl/pub/uploads/mcg04/25wites.pdf


6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.


The FBI used the USA PATRIOT Act 13 times to request journalists that had interviewed computer intruder Adrian Lamo to preserve their notes and other information while they petitioned the Department of Justice for a subpoena to force the reporters to hand over the information. Journalists involved included newspaper writers, wire service reporters, and MSNBC writers. The Department of Justice did not authorize the subpoena requests because the language of the subpoena violated the Department's guidelines for a subpoena request, rather than recognition of any reporter/source privilege. The requests to preserve information were dropped. In some cases, the FBI apologized for the language of the reques
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controvers ... te_note-15


7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

The terrorist threat.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed
to the government's policies or actions.


This is typical for you, religion was persecuted in Russia!Your argument is wrong

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.


This argument is absurd for the USSR!
For anyone to claim such nonsense... on the USSR!


10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

No, unions became party organizations

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.


NO! http://sitemaker.umich.edu/artunderfascism/architecture


12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.


that is Totalitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism


13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.


It is a regime where it does not happen?


14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.


that is Totalitarianism ( that all the above points!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism


Looks like all the points are pretty much covered. The soviet union was, in it's own way. Fascist cloaked with the clothing of communism. A wolf in sheep clothing, if you like.


1. NO It was totalitarian.
2. A Chronological fallacy, You realize when communism was born, and when fascism no?
3. "A wolf in sheep clothing, if you like" I hope YOU do not suggest somehow that the fascists were worse than the communists? communist=sheep


Like i said, fascism is not necessarily a thing of the political right. I suspect you probably think That all fascism is far-right and thus opposed to communism simply because they went to war, but that is in its own way a common misconception.


You're a waste of time
Fascism is generally defined as of extreme right a very small number of writers tried place it on the left-right political spectrum, but to suggest that the fascists are communists and communist are fascists it is pure madness.


The soviet union was, in it's early days, state capatalist. The soviet union was, during the war, state capatalist. i've provided the sources and recommend a history book. But anyways. you missed my main point, you cannot mistake policy for ideology. But you continue to do so. (but then, what do i expect of you?)


No! You need to understand, that some policies applied isolated means nothing
In my country after the Second World War, Communists came to power, and the first thing they did was to give land to peasants. ( So?what in a few years have nationalized everything anyway)


The Nazis were not as Cohesive in their ideology as you would like to assume. The Nazis did indeed have a left wing of their Party, Comprised of indivudials like Goebbels, Along with the Likes of Ernst Rohm (Both were influenced by Gregor Strasser). Unfortunately for you, Hitler himself did not belong to this aspect of the Party, He actively tried to suppress it,


Yes that is I was right

The leadng theorist of romantic nationalism was J.G Herder (1744-1803) who wrote of the importance of the volksgeist, the essential spirit of a paticular people.


Again! I was the one that I mentioned first JG Herder!
I was the first to mentioned that tha: ideological communism was not applied.
I was the first that I accused you of Genetic fallacy
You're somehow a child, that is google searching everything I say and them he return my arguments? Under the assumption that "I do not know about it."

As for non-aryans in his army, it would have been a case of "So long and thanks for all the fish" after the war. What i mean, is that assuming the nazis had won the war, their use to the nazis would have expended and they would have been sent to the concentration camps


No Hitler had a clear idea about post-war Germany and that Germany it stopped at the mouth of Danube.
He had no reason to exterminate the indigenous peoples from Asia and Africa


And as to propaganda, they had an obvious agenda for winning over the masses of eastern europe, against the communists. duh.


but not only eastern europe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Free_Corps
The Brits Who Fought For Hitler :shock:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVRPO4T6A2g

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/asstd2/bfc03.jpg
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-con ... h_free.htm
Americans :shock:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_James_Monti
http://www.bills-bunker.de/64490.html

.... the nazis had big plans


oh yeah, you think it was just some little typo that he didnt mean it.


Yes this is exactly what I thought, ( a mistranslation) few books that I studied about Martin Luther do not mentioned nothing about this story( probably they had Protestant authors)!
Martin Luther is presented as a great reformer, a man ahead of his time, and just that.

The topics below are avoided:
Martin Luther: The Jews and Their Lies
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... _Jews.html
Martin Luther and "The Jews"
A Reappraisal
http://www.theologian.org.uk/churchhist ... ejews.html

However, that you know something from Luther's life that I did not know does not help with your argument!
Namely defending the atheist faith :D :lol:

If you cannot answer these points in the next post, the Debate is Over. What i want is the number of communists by % of population, in all the countries especialy the west, plus atheists by % of population in the west. I demand those figures. If you cannot provide them, than you have no basis to make your judgments on modern atheists.


As far as I have said I do nat trust statistics, I am afraid to do not fall in to the False precision fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision
I already said that atheists are afraid to show their communist feelings publicly.
So statistics are not an argument

Fine. But he was tolerated whilst being a christian. Something you would probably fail to acknowledge.


No they humiliated and insulted him

-----
About the links between atheists and communists:
Richard Dawkins: believe that religion is a mental disorder.
Yap him the great liberal, would put 90% of the world population in asylum. I mean we talk about massive concentration camps. I hope that you do not supports the idea, that crazy people should not get treatment .

Communists believed in this idea to, and yap they had psychiatric camp for "crazy people" as the students in theology, monks, or or political dissidents.
If atheism win, many people loved by you will end in tha Athesist psychiatric camp
Le XXIème siècle sera spirituel ou ne sera pas - André Malraux
Eu cand discut cu un ateu e ca si cum as discuta cu usa - Petre Tutea
I want to live for immortality, and I will accept no compromise. from F.Dostoyevsky
Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:48 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: DEBATE: theyounghistorian77 vs. VyckRo

Looks like VyckRo needs a lesson on political science. Badly

The place, that one takes on the political spectrum is both often and mainly determined by the position that one takes on the ownership of the means of production and the distribution of property and wealth in general. It is a political economy position. That is the academic position, and it has nothing necessarily to do with government interference or control and has not changed. There is no such concept as there being a 'modern left' that is different in conception to a 'non-modern or past Left'
There is only one true Left and Right, and it is determined by the political economy position I just stated, and that determiner has not changed, which is why it is a useful measure in history and political economy. It is separate from 'Liberal' and 'Communist' and as long as it is used correctly in the academic manner it is always consistent. Then you have the problem in that you are mixing the economic and social sphere in your categorization of communist and liberal. eg Calling the liberal Richard dawkins a "communist in the making"

Now i've already given you a definition of communism, I have also given you a definition of liberal. Yet despite both having nothing to do with each other in terms of core ideology. You seem to cheerfully blend the two together into something sinister and evil that all atheists follow everywhere. Tell me, Assuming Nick Clegg stays on and wins the next election, Do you think he would turn the UK into some awful dystopia? And is Nick Clegg a secret communist? I can speculate without evidence (like you do with atheists) that you think so.

One must also factor The inception of maintaining the elites (i.e., acting in a conservative manner.) in the Usa, The de-facto conservatives do this by pushing the idea of the 'free-market' and total laissez faire which shifts money and power upward and gives more power to the large trusts. In the Soviet Union, Once the so called communist elites got into power, They enacted the 14 points spread earlier. Yes VyckRo, the leaders of the Soviet union were acting in a consistently Fascist manner. (and if you want to define Fascism as totalitarian, Fine with you. But it doesn't change History as to how they behaved.) A liberal or, to liberalize is one who wishes to remove restrains, but it, like 'conservative' it must be delineated as to whether this involves the social or economic sphere.

Another factor is that one can be fiscally conservative but socially liberal for example,, as is the case for what are called conservative Democrats in the USA, and to varying degrees the present day Libertarians. (Although many Libertarians are so far to the Right economically they are beyond being fiscally conservative, they are reactionary ultra-right. Neoliberals on steroids)
In the modern usage, a fiscal liberal is, not one who wishes to, remove restrains on the economy, but one who wishes to remove economic restraints put upon the lower classes by the economy using social programs and regulation to do so.
-
So lets take into account (just for the sake of argument) the particular ideas and policies pushed by those called Liberal or communist may shift, ie VyckRo's paranoia that the overwhelming majority of liberal atheists are really communists in disguise. It still remains the case that the exact concept behind those terms do not change.

When you say that modern communists are liberals in disguise this is, not really the case either. First of all, in the social sphere, it is the present day liberals that carry on the mantle of the Classical Liberals in political freedoms with positive policies on civil rights, anti-discrimination legislation and fostering free speech through organizations such as the ACLU for example. Those beliefs are Core, not the product of disguise and not intrinsicly Communist. Sorry if you think otherwise.

Additionally, the Classic Liberal economists were not "free-market' as is it is interpreted by the modern libertarian crowd or even most Republicans. Not even Adam, Smith himself preached the type of fanatical type of 'free-market' that is put forth by the modern liberation crowd.
"Adam Smith was not a dogmatic proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. A careful exposition of his work will demonstrate that there were many functions which the government could fulfil in capitalist-organized society. In many (although not quite all) ways, Smith's position on the role of the state in a capitalist society was, close to that of a modern twentieth century US liberal democrat" Spencer Pack "Capitalism as a Moral System, Adam Smith's critique of the Free Market Economy" p1 When VyckRo confuses state intervention with communism. :roll: He doesnt take this into account.

The Classical Liberals in the economic sphere refers really to the ones who wished to dismantle the mercantilist trading system and the privilege of the aristocracy, issues which; neither is relevant to contemporary society. That was the extent of their idea of "free-market" not the modern usage, of lowering the taxes on the wealthy and totally unregulated markets and trade. (dont confuse it with communism.)
Admittedly the contemporary conservatives do try to claim that they acting from the same concepts, but more properly the modern conservatives are Neoliberal, or, if they include a social aspect Neoconservative, but both push Neoliberal economic policies like 'free-trade' and 'privatization' which is the way to keep the existing social structure and elite status quo; in other words, a conservative policy.
A policy of all the economic voodoo that has seen the wealthy get wealthier, monopolies grow, jobs outsourced, and economic woe throughout the world that results in structured settlements and IMF loans when the unregulated economies come crashing down from unfettered speculation and the pirating of wealth out of the county for private interests causing the destruction of the middle class, and the debasement of the poor. That was the economic crisis in a vry brief nutshell, Oh and btw, if you havent guessed it yet. Im quite liberal.

And we still have to factor this.

You should know that a person's place on the political spectrum is not decided simply by some support of a 'checklist' of organizations and ideas supported by that person. It is decided by their stances on things like personal freedom, economics, social policy, et cetera and the connections between them. Even then, it is a poor way to attempt to understand one's political ideology, as even people on the same side of the left/right scale can hold ideologies that are almost completely incompatible with each other. Consider two left-wing ideologies, say, communism and social democracy, for example: Communism is anti-capitalist and calls for a complete overthrow of the capitalist system, social democracy on the other hand calls for the capitalist system to be reformed via a mixed economy and progressive policies. Communist economic policies are incompatible with social democracy, as communists want to change the entire system and not just make it more tolerable or equal within the confines of the current system. Politics is much more complicated than just left and right, even if you bring the authoritarian-libertarian scale into the equation. I thought you, as a someone who supposedly understands politics ought to know this? yet your labeling of Dawkins as a communist in the making clearly shows that you do not understand, or do not wish to understand differences between left wing ideologies. Are you aware of just how much the Left is prone to fracture? Communism is only of one ideology of the left. there are many more. at any rate. Dawkins is liberal, and you calling him communist was just sad and pathetic.


Yes, Checklisting in the way you do it is bad, without taking into account other factors and lies of course. But to keep it brief, the standard and acedemic political compass looks a little something like this.

Image

Thats right VyckRo. Fascism is not necessarily the opposite of Communism, and Statelessness, (Anarchism) is the opposite to where Stalin is. Notice how high Both are on the fascist (authoritarian) scale? Im sorry, But Stalin was pretty fascist in his policies. (And i'll come onto your responses to the 14 points shortly.)

Now suppose we use another Compass, this one for example By David Nolan.

Image

Notice How close Hitler and Stalin (inc Marx) are on this one too? This pic doesnt show it but Nolan hypothesised a box in the middle of the chart where most of the general populace are, and i would further add that this is where i bet most atheists (especialy in the west) are too.

Communism is however one likes to define it, an extreme political philosophy, not simply because it's only believed by a handful today but also because of it's entire worldview. Not a mainstream one. VyckRo from what i gather would like to assume it's mainstream. Just so he can troll atheists around the place with it. Now i want to know, what political compass he uses and how he makes the conclusion that Atheists generaly are communists because of it. you certainly haven't defined anything so far.

And now, Lets do a little merry go-round.

Most atheists base their atheism on evolution


Oh really? How did you gather that idea? Evolution doesn't really say anything about religion and it says nothing of politics either. I find it funny when people become atheists because of evolution. I mean, praying and having no answered prayers, seems like a more reasonable way to become one. Or opening up the old testament and Koran and unlike most theists, actualy reading it. Did you know that Darwin was agnostic? not atheist? So i dont see how that one works.

But lets assume it to be true for the sake of argument because that's a big freudian slip from you there. Yes, according to you. Most Atheists base themselves on the most proven scientific biological discovery of all time. Do you notice that there is a difference between this and your argument that atheists like richard dawkins base themselves on a certain political ideology that we are supposed to be discussing?

Here's that approach in a nutshell.


evolution by means of natural selection -> Communist atheism
evolution by means of natural selection -> liberal atheism

you offer No link between the two branches it seems.

Without God, there is no objective morality


Which of the 2850+ Gods are we talking about? Oh yeah, the genocidal happy psycho of the OT or the Koran. What's wrong with the rest of those Gods Vyck? How do you know you've picked the right God to believe in?

But at any rate, if you wish to discuss evolution and atheist morality, you should have put your comments in the new thread, not here.

Nice! to use my arguments against me!, but this would not invalidate the arguments?


it's called calling out your arguments for what they really are. Your arguments are Not arguments at all. You havent made anything substantial yet.

I mean that they were proposed by me? because you want to invalidate all that comes from me? or now you pick and choose, what you like?


no, I'll cut through your BS in good time. Patientce ;)

about the genetic fallacy I see that you can use it without any problems below, where you say that I am anti-atheist sohow does this relate to the arguments proposed?


you basicly admitted your religious fundamentalism, and it is that which drives your arguments, otherwise you would have been a little bit more reasonable.

VyckRo wrote:I must remind you that the idea the Communism as an ideology has never been applied in communist countries, I've said it from the beginning


the debate is supposed to be about the ideology, not it's consequences.

Certainly is not Hitler, or Musolini,or the Holocaust, or the fascists, or Gypsies, or the Second World War, or the parallels between communism, fascism or Nazism?


the similarities between the soviet union and Nazi Germany as well as the fascists are inescapable. Hence why i recommended that book by Richard Overy. Who knows more the similarities than you do.

Yes the recipe and cake are both communism!
Communism was an utopian idea, which could never be reached. What we see in the communist countries is the application of the communist doctrine. And the result is the application of communism. Never mind that the ideology has not reached the ultimate goal, it was applied!


Parts of communist ideology which were favourable to the newly created elite, Not the whole of communism. Oh dear, you dont understand that it seems. And for Vyckro's next trick, he'll start the march of the porcine Groundhogs. :lol:

LOL Strawmen LOLLL


It's one example of communist ideology that wasnt put into practice. duh

Aaaa so they were fascists now, I understand, but I have a better idea, why not directly Nazis?If you rewrite history!


you haven't answered my question. Typical of you.

No you did not! You just compared a prime minister from a democratic country with Stalin! LOL


No, you did. Your original point is that no atheist has had power outside the soviet union. and I showed that you were wrong.

What is that? another Rhetoric fallacy! ( because if I'm right, would not matter if is conspiracy or not)


That's a bit audacious for someone who has never had his ideas peer-reviewed to make. If you were right, your ideas would be mainstream and not confined to idiotic fundamentalist christians. Until you do have your ideas peer-reviewed, i will continue to call it what it deserves, A half-baked conspiricy theory. You're no better than those idiots who claim 9/11 was an inside job.

Today we have a form of atheism, which is practically a religion!


Image

A perfect satire of religion then. But satire being something you fail to get.

You, obvious and your Overgeneralization about theist and Holocaust ( but i rephrase it, in compared to you)


Ah, the holocaust denier, :roll: Now who do you remind me of again? Oh yes.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Holy-Reich-Conceptions-Christianity-1919-1945/dp/0521823714/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277346084&sr=8-2

With these words you convinced me, you're not interested in history, or political science!
You are interested in sensational, or Tabloid if you prefer.
The problem is very simple, All characteristics listed by you are belonging to the totalitarian ideologies ( implicitly Fascism)
Totalitarianism


"But the resemblances are inescapable. Both tyrannies relied on a desperate ideology of do-or-die confrontation. Both were obsessed by battle imagery: 'The dictatorships were military metaphors, founded to fight political war.' And despite the rhetoric about a fate-struggle between socialism and capitalism, the two economic systems converged strongly. Stalin's Russia permitted a substantial private sector, while Nazi Germany became rapidly dominated by state direction and state-owned industries.

In a brilliant passage, Overy compares the experience of two economic defectors. Steel magnate Fritz Thyssen fled to Switzerland because he believed that Nazi planning was 'Bolshevising' Germany. Factory manager Victor Kravchenko defected in 1943 because he found that class privilege and the exploitation of labour in Stalinist society were no better than the worst excesses of capitalism." Book review, the observer

Time for you to read his book.

It's amazing, when you compare so much communism and fascism, as you do, how it is possible to do not mention the principles of totalitarianism (at least once)


the totalitarian aspect is so obvious it needs no comment, but if you cannot see the similarities, than you're blind. Now go watch the Soviet story again. Or delete your positive review vid. one or the other.

To prove you how much you wrong, when you say that the communists were fascists, I will reduce your argument to absurdity
So let's analyze the political regime from US in the period George W. Bush - Barack Obama


Are you some kind of warped Glenn Beck in disguise? Now what conclusions should i make only using VyckRo logic? Hmmmmmmm? Oh yes. hehe.

What!!!!!!!! you do never heard of the Soviet Woman?


Wow, you've fallen for soviet propaganda hook line and Sinker. are you really that credulous? Tell me, how many women were there at the very top?

After the war, most women left the armed forces. Those that stayed to make a career in the post-war armed forces saw old attitudes return and promotion and opportunities more difficult. Also, some military academies closed their doors to women despite the supposed official policy of equality. In 1967, the Russian Universal Military Duty Laws concluded that women offered the greater source of available combat soldiers during periods of large scale mobilisation. Thus, several programs during the height of the Cold War were set up to encourage women to enlist. Participation in military orientated youth programs and forced participation in the reserves for ex-servicewomen up to the age of 40 are some examples. Universities contained reservist officer training which accompanied a place in the reserves themselves, especially for doctors. But some roles open to women during the war were later barred.


from wikipedia, your own source.

I see you didnt refute the point on homosexuality in the soviet union, so i presume you cannot. I just wonder how many gay and lesbian atheists disagree with you?

This is typical for you, religion was persecuted in Russia!Your argument is wrong


it became a tool of the state. especialy during the "Great patriotic war" Justinian mariana. Remember him?
Despite what church propaganda tells you, The soviets re-opened the churches in the "Great patriotic war". To revive the "spirit of 1812" you know, that other "Patrioric war". and you know what happened then?

This argument is absurd for the USSR!
For anyone to claim such nonsense... on the USSR!


you didnt read the source i provided did you?

there was a private sector that flourished under stalin. but oh dear. you really need to go read a book one of these days.

oh and Lenin was hardly a "working class" figure. His father, ilya In 1869, was appointed inspector of public schools in the Simbirsk guberniya (in 1874-1886 - their director). In 1882, he was promoted to the rank of Actual Civil Councellor, which gave him a privilege of hereditary dvoryanstvo and accompanied with the award of the Order of St.Vladimir, 3rd Class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Ulyanov

No, unions became party organizations


Tell me, what happened to those who decided to go on strike?

Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked


Sorry, this did happen. Tell me, what happened to those artists who made expressions that went against the state?

It is a regime where it does not happen?


so you think that there was no corruption and cronyism in the soviet union whatsoever? Is that what you're saying? you must be living in denial if you're saying that. or is it the language barrier.

1. NO It was totalitarian.


well done for spelling the obvious. Of course it's totalitarian and that's why so many atheists oppose it.

A Chronological fallacy, You realize when communism was born, and when fascism no?


the fathers of the ideology that you call communism are Marx and engels. Fascism came much later, but the similarities you do not recognise.

3. "A wolf in sheep clothing, if you like" I hope YOU do not suggest somehow that the fascists were worse than the communists? communist=sheep


the reference is that it was fascism disguised as communism. You need to brush up on your english too. Even you said that communism is "beautiful and utopian" but what was applied wasn't

You're a waste of time
Fascism is generally defined as of extreme right a very small number of writers tried place it on the left-right political spectrum, but to suggest that the fascists are communists and communist are fascists it is pure madness.


ideologicly no, what happened, yes.

No! You need to understand, that some policies applied isolated means nothing
In my country after the Second World War, Communists came to power, and the first thing they did was to give land to peasants. ( So?what in a few years have nationalized everything anyway)


except i wasnt talking about post-war romania, i was talking about pre-war and war Soviet union.

But look what i found anyways.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... a783767801
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v01714823476w2l1/

"PRIVATE enterprise in the Soviet Union is as old as the socialist regime itself."

"The private sector in the fields of agriculture, wholesaling and retailing, craft trades and light industry, already well-developed in the People's Republic of China and a number of Eastern European countries, is now to be given a more significant role in the Soviet Union. Moscow's economic reformers believe this will contribute to an improved standard of living, as has been the case in China during the economic reform which has now been underway since 1978/79. It is therefore tempting to compare the concepts underlying the reforms and the course they have taken in the two socialist "super-powers", the key question being whether the Russians will achieve similar successes with their reforms, once all the teething troubles are overcome, to those of the Chinese" - 1988 ( in real terms it's just before the collapse of the soviet union.)

Again! I was the one that I mentioned first JG Herder!
I was the first to mentioned that tha: ideological communism was not applied.
I was the first that I accused you of Genetic fallacy
You're somehow a child, that is google searching everything I say and them he return my arguments? Under the assumption that "I do not know about it."


I've quoted more books than you have. But the context of the JG Herder has to be accounted for here, I used him as an example of one type of nationalism, you used him as an example of the death of culture. (which makes me wonder seing that you love his ideas so much where you are on any given political compass. I mean, who do you remind me of again? oh yes.) Me, im just satirising you. But the language barrier prevents you from understanding humour. (i suspect you dont have a sense of humour at all) And your definition of communism. What is it? What the soviet union was maybe is your definition?

------

continued later on. Dont reply until i've finished
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:55 am
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: DEBATE: theyounghistorian77 vs. VyckRo

No Hitler had a clear idea about post-war Germany and that Germany it stopped at the mouth of Danube.
He had no reason to exterminate the indigenous peoples from Asia and Africa


Image

no more east than the danube mouth eh?

German historian Christian Gerlach (Kalkulierte Morde, pages 51 and following) wrote:["¦]Die von Hitler genehmigte Vernichtungspolitik durch Hunger richtete sich gegen zwei Bevà¶lkerungsgruppen: einerseits gegen die Menschen in der ~Waldzone" in Mittel-, Nordruβland und Weiβruβland, und andererseits gegen die städtische Bevà¶lkerung der Sowjetunion allgemein. Zwar enthielt dieser Plan, den im Juni 1941 sogar noch die Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung der Deutschen Reichsbank à¼berprà¼fte und grundsätzlich guthieβ, einige grundlegende Schwächen, die ihre Urheber à¼bersahen. Zum Beispiel waren Ãœberschuβ- und Zuschuβgebiete in der Sowjetunion keineswegs klar getrennt, und vor allem war die Ukraine gar nicht das wichtigste sogenannte Ãœberschuβgebiet, sondern versprach, selbst wenn man den Verbrauch der Bevà¶lkerung gewaltsam herabdrà¼ckte, nur relativ geringe ~Ãœberschà¼sse". So muβte die Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung der IG Farben am 26. November 1941 feststellen, daβ die bisher eroberten ~Gebiete zusammen, unter der Voraussetzung normaler Ernährung, Zuschussgebiete fà¼r Brotgetreide" seien, die theoretisch Lieferungen aus dem Wolga-Ural-Gebiet benà¶tigt hätten. Vor allem aber scheint niemand eine genaue Vorstellung gehabt zu haben, wie das Verhungern eigentlich in einem Gebiet, wo mindestens zum Teil deutsche Truppen stehen sollten, genau vor sich gehen sollte.
Trotzdem wurde das Vorhaben, Millionen Menschen in den besetzten sowjetischen Gebieten verhungern oder anders umkommen zu lassen, zur Leitlinie fur viele Entscheidungsträger. Dabei spielte oft die ominà¶se Zahl 30 Millionen, um die die Bevà¶lkerung nach den Vorstellungen Backes zu vermindern war, eine Rolle. Die Tatsache, daβ viele entsprechende Äuβerungen von Akteuren aus dem Bereich Weiβruβland und ~Ruβland-Mitte" stammen, ist kein Zufall, sondern dà¼rfte mit dessen Zugehà¶rigkeit zur ~Waldzone" zu erklären sein.
So hielt der Reichsfà¼hrer-SS und Chef der Deutschen Polizei, Heinrich Himmler, ~Anfang 1941, vor Beginn des Ruβlandfeldzuges auf der Wewelsburg, [eine Rede], wo er davon sprach, daβ der Zweck des Ruβlandfeldzuges die Dezimierung der slawischen Bevà¶lkerung um dreiβig Millionen sein sollte", wie der ehemalige Hà¶here SS- und Polizeifà¼hrer von dem Bach-Zelewski 1946 in Nà¼rnberg aussagte. Schriftliche Befehle habe es fà¼r diese Slawenvernichtung nicht gegeben. Bei der Rede sollen etwa zwà¶lf Gruppenfà¼hrer anwesend gewesen sein. Tatsächlich fand die fragliche Tagung der SS-Gruppenfà¼hrer auf der Wewelsburg mit Himmler erst zwischen dem 12. und 15. Juni statt. Nach späterer Aussage des Chefs des Persà¶nlichen Stabs Reichsfà¼hrer-SS, Karl Wolff, sagte Himmler auf der Wewelsburg, daβ der Tod dieser Millionen Menschen nicht das Ziel, sondern vielmehr Folge des Krieges gegen die UdSSR sein wà¼rde. Bach-Zelewski ergänzte hierzu im Strafverfahren gegen Wolff, Himmler habe damals prognostiziert, Kriegshandlungen und Ernährungsschwierigkeiten wà¼rden zu dieser hohen Zahl von Opfern fà¼hren. Himmlers Erà¶ffnung kam allerdings ziemlich spät und sehr ungenau, wie eben auch das Projekt der Ernährungsplaner vieles offenlieβ. Zufall oder nicht: zwei Tage vor dem Treffen auf der Wewelsburg hatte Himmler mit Backe à¼ber die Landwirtschaft der zu besetzenden sowjetischen Gebiete gesprochen.
Fà¼r sich genommen hätte man von dem Bach-Zelewskis Verlautbarungen vielleicht als bloβen Entlastungsversuch erklären kà¶nnen, da er sich auf einen hà¶heren Befehl berief. Sie wird aber gestà¼tzt von einer Aussage des ehemaligen HSSPF Ostland Friedrich Jeckeln kurz zuvor im Januar 1946 in Riga:
~Herf sagte mir, daβ von dem Bach-Zelewski ihm erzählt hätte, er, von dem Bach, habe von Himmler den Befehl zur Vernichtung von 20 Millionen Sowjetbà¼rger[n] auf dem Territorium Weiβruβlands und anderer Gebiete à¶stlich von Weiβruβland, gleich dem Vormarsch der deutschen Armee nach dem Osten folgend, erhalten."
Dabei ist zu beachten, daβ Bach-Zelewskis territoriales Aufgabengebiet ~Ruβland Mitte" mit Sitz in Moskau werden sollte. Er selbst schrieb sogar einmal, es werde vor allem à¶stlich von Moskau bis zum Ural liegen. Ein Groβteil der sogenannten Waldzone wäre damit in seine Kompetenz gefallen, was erklären kann, warum ihm die Aufgabe zufiel, einen so groβen Teil jener 30 Millionen Menschen zu vernichten, eine Tatsache, die er in Nà¼rnberg ~vergaβ". Das in Mittelruβland vorgesehene Inferno sollte so furchtbar werden, daβ sogar Erich Koch, einer der brutalsten NS-Politiker à¼berhaupt, im Juni 1941 den Posten des Reichskommissars in Moskau mit der Begrà¼ndung ablehnte, es handle sich um eine ~gänzlich negative Tätigkeit".
In seinen Memoiren berichtet der ehemalige Abwehroffizier der Heeresgruppe Mitte, Rudolf-Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff, à¼ber einen Besuch des Leiters des Vorkommandos Moskau der Einsatzgruppe B, Professor Franz Six, der ihm kurz nach dem Umzug des Stabsquartiers nach Borissow, also vermutlich im Juli 1941, von dem Plan erzählte:
~Dabei berichtete er, Hitler beabsichtige, die Ostgrenze des Reiches bis zur Linie Baku-Stalingrad-Moskau vorzuschieben. Ostwärts von dieser Linie werde bis zum Ural ein ‚Brandstreifen' entstehen, in dessen Bereich alles Leben ausgelà¶scht werden wà¼rde. Man wolle die in diesem Streifen lebenden etwa dreiβig Millionen Russen durch Hunger dezimieren, indem man alle Nahrungsmittel aus dem riesigen Gebiet entfernte. Allen an dieser Aktion Beteiligten werde bei Todesstrafe verboten werden, einem Russen auch nur ein Stà¼ck Brot zu geben. Die groβen Städte von Leningrad bis Moskau sollten dem Erdboden gleichgemacht werden; der SS-Fà¼hrer von dem Bach-Zelewski werde fà¼r die Durchfà¼hrung dieser Maβnahmen verantwortlich sein.[...]
Eine geringfà¼gig abweichende Version des gleichen Vorgangs gibt Wilfried Strik-Strikfeldt. Danach besuchten ~ein Sonderbeauftragter des Ostministeriums Rosenberg in Begleitung eines hohen Parteifunktionärs die HG [Heeresgruppe] Mitte in Borissow." Nach Wiedergabe des Oberbefehlshabers der Heeresgruppe, Generalfeldmarschall Fedor von Bock, hätten sie mit von Bock beim Essen von der Kolonisierung Ruβlands bis mà¶glicherweise à¶stlich von Moskau gesprochen. Eine Quintessenz sei dabei gewesen: ~Vierzig Millionen Russen zuviel! Sie mà¼ssen ‚umkommen'!" Damit sei verhungern gemeint gewesen. Von ihm, Strik, darauf angesprochen, habe Rosenberg erwidert, das seien ~Hirngespinste" der SS und einiger anderer ohne Bedeutung. Von Bock habe das Gehà¶rte gar nicht glauben mà¶gen. Doch der Generalfeldmarschall hatte sich schon am 5 Juni 1941 mit Himmler getroffen und von ihm informieren lassen, ~Ziel des Feldzuges im Osten [sei] die Zertrà¼mmerung Ruβlands in kleine Einzelstaaten und Ausdehnung der deutschen Interessensphäre weit à¼ber den Ural hinaus." Am 6 Juli notierte er: ~Das Gebiet ist Hungerland. Seine Erträge werden kaum reichen [...], so daβ ich nicht weiβ, wie man die Frage der Ernährung der Bevà¶lkerung là¶sen will." Gar so fremd waren von Bock diese Gedanken also keineswegs. Als ihn Himmler am 24. Oktober in Smolensk besuchte, bedankte er sich zumindest nach Aussage Bach-Zelewskis bei ihm fà¼r die Ermordung der Juden, diese ~unsaubere Arbeit", die man so nicht selbst tun mà¼sse.
Zurà¼ck zu Six. Die von ihm vorgetragenen Vorstellungen beruhen offensichtlich auf dem Backe-Plan und zeigen auch merkliche Ãœbereinstimmungen mit dem von Jeckeln Ausgesagten. Bezà¼glich der Durchfà¼hrung blieben die Vorstellungen von Six wie auch in den ~Wirtschaftspolitischen Richtlinien" aber naiv und unklar. So einfach lieβ sich das Vorhaben zum Glà¼ck nicht umsetzen.
Der Hungerplan tauchte auch noch bei anderen Gelegenheiten auf. Fà¼r Gà¶ring war er geradezu ein Lieblingsthema. Im November 1941 sagte er dem italienischen Auβenminister Graf Ciano, innerhalb eines Jahres wà¼rden 20 bis 30 Millionen Menschen in Ruβland verhungern. Vielleicht sei das gut so, denn bestimmte Và¶lker mà¼ÃŽÂ²ten reduziert werden. Hitler sprach von einer ~Volkskatastrophe" fà¼r das ~Moskowitertum" und erklärte, wegen fehlender oder zerstà¶rter Nahrungsmittel in den besetzten sowjetischen Gebieten ~mà¼ÃŽÂ²ten Millionen sterben". Die deutsche Fà¼hrung erklärte laut Goebbels ~in aller Öffentlichkeit, daβ Ruβland nichts von uns zu erwarten habe und wir es verhungern lassen werden." Der Generalbevollmächtigte fà¼r den Arbeitseinsatz, Frizt Sauckel, sagte am 4. August 1942 bei einem Besuch in den besetzten sowjetischen Gebieten, als er im Herbst 1941 dort gewesen sei, hätten ~alle deutschen Dienststellen auf der Ãœberzeugung bestanden, daβ im kommenden, also im vergangenen Winter, mindestens zehn bis zwanzig Millionen dieser Leute einfach verhungern wà¼rden." Zumindest einige Besatzungsbehà¶rden an Ort und Stelle vertraten also durchaus die Richtlinien, wie sie ähnlich wiederholt gegeben wurden: ~Wir kà¶nnen nicht das ganze Land verwalten. Die Intelligenz ist totgeschlagen, die Kommissare sind weg. Groβe Gebiete werden sich selbst à¼berlassen bleiben (verhungern)." Auch der Ostminister Rosenberg äuβerte mehrfach, der Hungertod von Millionen Menschen sei ~eine harte Notwendigkeit, die auβerhalb jeden Gefà¼hls steht." Hans Tesmer, der Chef der Abteilung Kriegsverwaltung beim Befehlshaber rà¼ckwärtiges Heeresgebiet Mitte (1941-1942) und bei der Heeresgruppe Mitte (1942-1944) erinnerte sich miβbilligend: ~Es kamen Parolen auf, dass in Ruβland ruhig einige Millionen verhungern kà¶nnten, dass die Russen verdummen sollten und ähnliche Ansichten mehr."[...]


my translation wrote:["¦]The policy of annihilation by hunger approved by Hitler was directed against two population groups: on the one hand against the people in the "forest zone" of central and northern Russia and Belorussia, on the other against the urban population of the Soviet Union in general. It is true that this plan, which in June 1941 was even checked and in principle approved by the Macroeconomic Department of the German Reichsbank, contained some basic flaws overlooked by its authors. For instance the surplus and deficit regions in the Soviet Union were by no means clearly separated, and especially Ukraine was not the most important surplus region, for it promised only relatively little "surpluses" even if the population's food consumption was forcibly reduced. Thus the Macroeconomic Department of IG Farben had to conclude on 26 November 1941 that, "under the assumption of normal nourishment", the territories conquered so far were "all together deficit regions in regard to bread grain", which theoretically would have required supplies from the Volga-Urals region. The main flaw, however, was that no one seems to have thought how the starvation was to occur in an area which at least partially contained German troops.
Nevertheless the intention of letting millions of people in the occupied Soviet territories starve or otherwise perish became the guideline for many decision-makers. In this respect the ominous number of 30 million, by which [State Secretary at the Ministry of Food and Agriculture] Backe considered that the population would have to be reduced, played a part. The fact that many corresponding statements were made by acting figurers from the areas of Belorussia and "Central Russia" is no coincidence, but likely to be related to the fact that these regions were part of the "forest zone".
Thus the Reichsfà¼hrer-SS and Head of the German Police, Heinrich Himmler, "at the beginning of 1941, before the start of the campaign against Russia, held [a speech] on the Wewelsburg, in which he stated that the purpose of the Russian campaign was the decimation of the Slav population by thirty million", as the former Head of SS and Police von dem Bach-Zelewski testified in 1946 at Nuremberg. Written orders for this annihilation of Slavs had not existed. At the speech twelve Gruppenfà¼hrer (higher SS officers) were said to have been present. In fact the mentioned conference of the SS-Gruppenfà¼hrer on the Wewelsburg with Himmler took place only between 12 and 15 June. According to a later deposition of the Head of the Personal Staff Reichsfà¼hrer-SS, Karl Wolff, what Himmler had said on the Wewelsburg was that the death of these millions of people was not the goal, but would be the consequence of the war against the USSR. To this Bach-Zelewski, at the criminal trial against Wolff, added that Himmler had back then predicted that military actions and crises of food supply would lead to this high number of victims. Himmler's announcement, however, came very late and was very vague, just like the food planners' project left many things open. Coincidence or not, two days before the meeting on the Wewelsburg Himmler had talked with Backe about the agriculture of the Soviet regions to be occupied.
All by themselves Bach-Zelewski's utterances might be explained as a mere attempt to relieve himself, as he was invoking a higher order. They are supported, however, by a deposition that the former Head of SS and Police for the Eastern Territories, Friedrich Jeckeln, made shortly before in January 1946 at Riga:
"Herf [Eberhard Herf, commander of the Order Police Minsk from about January to March 1942 and August 1943 to January 1944, Head of the Staff of the Anti-partisan Units Reichsfà¼hrer SS (Bach-Zelewski) for one month in July/August 1943] told me that von dem Bach-Zelewski had told him that he, von dem Bach, had been given by Himmler the order to destroy 20 million Soviet citizens on the territory of Belorussia and other regions east of Belorussia, immediately upon the heels of the advancing German Army."
In this respect it must be taken into account that Bach-Zelewski's territorial area of action was to be "Central Russia" with head-office in Moscow. He himself even wrote once that it was to lie principally to the east of Moscow up to the Urals. A great part of the so-called forest zone would thus have fallen under his jurisdiction, which could explain why he was given the task to destroy so large a part of those 30 million people, a fact that he "forgot" at Nuremberg. The inferno foreseen for Central Russia was to be to terrible that even Erich Koch, one of the most brutal NS politicians, rejected the place of Reich Commissar in Moscow with the justification that this was "a wholly negative activity".
In his memoirs the former counterespionage officer of Army Group Center, Rudolf-Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff, wrote about a visit by the head of the Advance Detachment Moscow of Einsatzgruppe B, Professor Franz Six, who shortly after the moving of the staff quarters to Borissow, i.e. presumably in July 1941, told him about the plan:
"He reported that Hitler had the intention to push the eastern border of the Reich up to the line Baku-Stalingrad-Moscow. To the east of this line there would be created a 'fire strip' in the area of which all life was to be wiped out. It was intended to decimate the about thirty million Russians living in this area by hunger through the removal or all food from this gigantic area. All taking part in this action would be forbidden under punishment of death to even give a piece of bread to a Russian. The big cities from Leningrad to Moscow were to be leveled to the ground; Head of SS von dem Bach-Zelewski would be responsible for the execution of these measures.[...]
A slightly different version of the same event is given by Wilfried Strik-Strikfeldt. According hereto "a special envoy of Rosenberg's Eastern Ministry, in the company of a high-ranking party officials, visited the Army Group at Borissow." As recalled by the Supreme Commander of Army Group Center, General Field Marshal Fedor von Bock, they had spoken with Bock at the meal about the colonization of Russia until possibly east of Moscow. A quintessence in this respect had been the following: "Forty million Russians too many! They must 'perish'!" This meant starving to death. Asked about this by him, Strik, Rosenberg had answered that these were "fantasies" of the SS and some others without significance. Von Bock is supposed to have refused to believe what he heard. Yet the General Field Marshal had met Himmler already on 5 June 1941 and been informed by him that the "goal of the campaign in the East was the splitting of Russia into small single states and the extension of the German sphere of interest far beyond the Urals." On 6 July he noted the following: "The region is a hunger region. Its products will hardly be sufficient [...], so that I don't know how one is to solve the problem of feeding the population." Thus von Bock was by no means that much a stranger to these thoughts. When Himmler visited him on 24 October in Smolensk, he, at least according to Bach-Zelewski's testimony, thanked him for the murder of the Jews, this "dirty work" which he thus would not have to do himself.
Back to Six. The considerations exposed by him are obviously based on the Backe Plan and also show notable coincidence with Jeckeln's deposition. In what concerns the execution his vision remained naà¯ve and unclear, like in the "Guidelines of Economic Policy". Fortunately the project could not be put into practice that easily.
The Hunger Plan also appeared on other occasions. For Gà¶ring it was a favorite subject. In November 1941 he told the Italian foreign minister Count Ciano that within a year 20 to 30 million people would starve to death in Russia. Maybe this was a good thing, for certain peoples needed to be reduced. Hitler spoke of a "population catastrophe" of the "Muscovites" and declared that due to lack or destruction of food "millions would have to die". According to Goebbels, the German leadership declared "publicly that Russia has nothing to expect from us and that we will let it starve to death." The General Plenipotentiary for Labor Employment, Fritz Sauckel, stated on 4 August 1942, during a visit in the occupied Soviet territories, that when he had been there in the autumn of 1941 "all German authorities had persisted in the conviction that in the following, i.e. in the past winter, at least ten to twenty million of these people would simply starve to death." At least some occupation authorities on site thus stuck to the guidelines as they were repeatedly stated similar to this: "We cannot feed the whole land. The intelligence has been killed, the commissars are gone. Huge areas will be left to themselves (starve to death)." Also the Eastern Minister Rosenberg repeatedly stated that the starvation death of millions was "a harsh necessity that stands outside any sentiment."Hans Tesmer, head of the Department War Administration at the Commander of the rear area of Army Group Center (1941-1942) and of Army Group Center (1942-1944) disapprovingly remembered the following: "Slogans came up that in Russia several million might well starve to death, that the Russians were to be kept dumb and other similar views of this sort."[...]


looks like those in the regions immediately concerned to germany. They were to be decimated, displaced or turned into helots.

And to the geography part. How could VyckRo miss this?

Mein Kampf wrote:If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states.


Russia is a bit futher east than the mouth of the danube. Dont you think?

I'll concede slightly on the blacks, but Nazi treatment of them was not as cheerful as you seem to assume.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php ... d=10005479
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_blac ... _Holocaust

but not only eastern europe...


Okay, but the agenda for winning over the masses against the soviet union, was obvious and not evidence of ideological internationalism, Lest we forget. Hitler wanted the means of production to be held primarily in germany. By germans.

Yes this is exactly what I thought, ( a mistranslation) few books that I studied about Martin Luther do not mentioned nothing about this story( probably they had Protestant authors)!


The thing is, Luther not only wrote 'On the Jews and their lies,' but also dubious and intolerant works such as 'Against the Sabbatarians', 'Against the Antinoman,' and 'Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants.' In the latter, Luther called for the stabbing and slaying of peasant rebels which triggered the death of an estimated 100,000 human beings. These rebels were not only Christians but were mostly slaughtered after their surrender to the German princes. There is nothing to like about the man.

As far as I have said I do nat trust statistics, I am afraid to do not fall in to the False precision fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision
I already said that atheists are afraid to show their communist feelings publicly.
So statistics are not an argument


You little liar of a chicken. Is that it? is that your response to my questioning. I despair.

The only reason you dont wish to trust stats is because they negate what you have to say, and you know it. These are the Facts,

1) Commumism, as an ideology has ALWAYS BEEN insignificant in the western World. More so today.
2) Atheism is on the rise. Even you have admitted that christianity is dying in the west.
3) Both the above when put together are incompatiable with your idiotic and half-baked worldview.
4) I've hidden this one from you, for deliberate reasons Contrary to what you think. communists here are not ashamed to be communist. here are open about it. They show their communist feelings Publicly
http://communist-party.org.uk/
http://www.newworker.org/index.html
http://www.cpgb-ml.org/
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/
http://www.scottishcommunists.org.uk/
http://www.workers.org.uk/
http://www.rcpbml.org.uk/
http://www.welshcommunists.org/
And i could go on.
5) Im going to have to question if you are a professor at all. You're too lazy to have your major idea behind your Half-baked worldview peer-reviewed. You haven't defined anything. I have had to do that for you. You do not understand what liberalism is or Nationalism is. And worst of all, you do not trust Statistics at all. like anti-intelectual dimwits tend to do Those stats i have been asking you for a long time. You should be a politician, You're very good at being evasive. Like this.


And like Jeremy paxman "I despair" But i despair at you. Because when it comes to the crunch, you cannot produce the statistical goods. And you cannot claim to win the debate until you do so. My patietence has snapped. Debate over. Atheists in the west are no more communist than you are a NAZI. Using VyckRo logic, It is easy to speculate that You'd make a very good little Nazi if only you were pure enough, why with your hatred for Communism is Nazi-esque. Your Hatred for Atheism is Nazi-esque. Your hatred for the material is nazi-esque. you affiliate with nationalist theorists. You're a fanatical christian. Yep. VyckRo logic tells me you'd fit right in. Hey, it's your logic, I can use it and abuse it whenever i want against you.

And all you have left is an unsubstaintiated smear campaign against richard dawkins and Donexodus2

Im going to consider whether to respond to this thread again. You have nothing good to offer to me. You anti-intelectual waste of space. I was hoping you offer something of substance, But you havent. So because of that. Goodbye. VyckWoe. I'll leave you to start the march of the porcine Groundhogs.
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:02 am
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: DEBATE: theyounghistorian77 vs. VyckRo

Slight correction seeing as i cannot edit posts once submitted.

You're a waste of time
Fascism is generally defined as of extreme right a very small number of writers tried place it on the left-right political spectrum, but to suggest that the fascists are communists and communist are fascists it is pure madness.
ideologicly no, what happened, yes.


If im not clear here, what i mean is that ideologicly, they were different, but in policy they were very similar. Sorry, but the so called communists did persue policies that were vary fascist.
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:03 am
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2561Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: DEBATE: theyounghistorian77 vs. VyckRo

***Mod Note***

This seems to have gone on long enough, and died down now, so I am closing it now.

Thanks to both parties for participating.
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:57 pm
Previous
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 2 of 2
 [ 33 posts ] 
Return to Debates Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
cron