snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Archived Forums » Politics Archive » What's so bad about Nelson Mandela? (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: What's so bad about Nelson Mandela?
Cold DecEmbra Brings The Sleet
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 86 posted      Profile for Cold DecEmbra Brings The Sleet   E-mail Cold DecEmbra Brings The Sleet   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I can get many more quotes on this aspect of Nazism, but I think I’ve made my point
These guys were not only leftist, they were on the left-fringe of the spectrum.

Exqueeze me? I know Luis will probably be along pretty soon to tidy up this car-wreck, but I can't resist this.

You are saying, Kilrati, that Nazi opposition to the Christian church is proof positive that they were a left wing party?

Please, please show me how this manifestation of nationalist totalitarianism is more important than anything else (little things like economic and social policy, for example) in defining the Nazis as "left wingers".

Embra

Now, back to work Luis

--------------------
I want you to lay down your life, Perkins. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war.


Posts: 4495 | From: Surrey, UK | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Guinastasia
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Please check your tinfoil hat, Kilrati. I think it's slipping.

As far as Hitler's Pope, I agree a lot of it is NFBSK. From what I understand, the Vatican did help to save over maybe 800,000 Jews who hid there. Could he have spoke out more, and done more? Maybe. But to say he was in agreement with Hitler is merely sensationalism.

Hitler may not have been religious. So what? That doesn't mean anything in and of itself.

Sheesh!

And would you PLEASE quit expecting us to take The New American seriously? It's the JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!


IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Richard W   E-mail Richard W   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kilrati:
Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty,"
Albert Einstein

I have to admit I've not checked this quote, but surely you're trolling, Kilrati?

Even in horrible extremist conspiratorial terms, Jack Chick condems Catholics because they didn't condemn Nazi atrocities. See here:

http://www.chick.com/bc/1989/holocaustorinquisition.asp?FROM=Catholicpage

I've left it as a URL to show that it's really from his page; I had also thought that I was perhaps distorting what his organisation believed, but in fact they really do seem to think that not only did Catholics not condemn the Holocaust, but that the whole thing was a Jesuit plot.

Is Jack Chick "left wing" in your terms, or is it irrelevant? He seems to be fairly conservative to me - something that is normally associated with the Right wing, not that that apparently means anything in these things.

I shouldn't point this out; may I stress here (if I need to) that I think pretty much everything on the site I've linked to is absurd? But I also think that the "Hitler was left-wing" argument is self-evidently absurd; Naziism almost exemplifies the extreme right under most definitions.

Somebody above (sorry for hanging another of your munchkins, chinpira - I think it was Embra) said that they thought this might be something put about by the US extreme right, who couldn't handle the idea that they might be linked in any way at all with people who might at one time have done something wrong. In other words, people who think that they must be 100% correct the whole time, and that those that disagree must be 100% wrong; and that because they disagree with "leftists" and also with "Nazis", and they consider themselves to be on "the right", then the Nazis must therefore have been on the left.

That's really the only way I can see this idea even coming about - "Left" and "Right" are classifications, not condemnations; Naziism is put into the extreme Right group under pretty much all definitions (just as Stalinism is in the Left group); I don't understand why people would even want to argue with the classification apart from the reason above!


Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Kilrati
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 13 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
How do you classify left and right. Is it not that certain policy tend to be found on the right, and that other are on the left?(Even though there are of course, exceptions and movements who will fall outside this classification.)Isn’t hostility to organized religion a clearly a left-liberal policy?

That (and doing my part to counter the Hitler's pope urban legend)was the point of my previous post.

Also I disagree with your assessment that left-right is nothing but a classification. Cleary, the realization that a movement shares roots with the Nazi, or the Stalinist, has major implications, and should prompt major discussion on the subject inside the movement. Anything lest would be negligent at best, dangerous at worst.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Guinastasia
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
What about Ayn Rand? She was a militant atheist who thought religion was evil.

You cannot possibly tell me that AYN RAND was a leftist!


IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Cold DecEmbra Brings The Sleet
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Cold DecEmbra Brings The Sleet   E-mail Cold DecEmbra Brings The Sleet   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
the realization that a movement shares roots with the Nazi, or the Stalinist, has major implications

But the implication of your point about the church seemed to be that these two political movements should both be classified as "left wing". You seem to suggest that the defining policy of Nazism was its antipathy to organised christianity, and that since many (American) left-wingers are atheists (I think this is what you were getting at), then being left wing today has its antecedents in Nazism. Which is nonsense.

"Left" and "right" are just classifications (and in terms of a debate like this, not very useful ones at that). You seem to be saying that the modern (American?) left should make some kind of admission that it takes its policies from the Nazis.

NB I have been sticking the word "American" in as a qualifier only because I mentioned it in connection with atheism. I don't know whether being an atheist does in fact carry lefty implications in the USA, but one's religious faith is certainly less politically important in everyday UK politics (Northern Ireland notwithstanding) so I wouldn't want to add to the confusion by suggesting that atheism in the UK is considered particularly relevant to one's political orientation.

Embra "why am I here at the weekend?!"

--------------------
I want you to lay down your life, Perkins. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war.


Posts: 4495 | From: Surrey, UK | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
PatYoung
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 01 posted      Profile for PatYoung   E-mail PatYoung   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kilrati:
These few quotes, on the Nazi’s stance on religion, might be sufficient to establish their liberal credential :
[Edit]

I can get many more quotes on this aspect of Nazism, but I think I’ve made my point
These guys were not only leftist, they were on the left-fringe of the spectrum.


Kind a nutty Kilrati. The Nazi's, particularly after they took power fought to insure that they controlled the churches. They, like Bismark before them, were particularly perturbed by the independent structure of the Catholic church and fearful of its internationalism which seemed a direct challenge to their claims of German superiority. No one considers Bismark a liberal simply because he waged a Kultur Kampf against the Church. Hitler, a baptized Catholic, did not become a liberal by terrorizing lay people and clergy who opposed his regime. Did the Salvadoran death squads become leftists when they murdered Archbishop Romero?

A few quotes are no substitute for analysis. It was clear to all during the 1940s that Hitler's movement came out of a long German nationalist tradition and that it stood opposed to the German left and the international left as well as to liberal and democratic ideals (ideals not shared by the communists). This did not make Hitler a hero to conservatives internationally (Churchill was his most persistent adversary), although some Latin American authoriarians who would later siddle up to the United States tried to emmulate him.

--------------------
pat "Megadittoes Rush" young

THUMP, THUMP, THUMP


Posts: 5442 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
PatYoung
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 01 posted      Profile for PatYoung   E-mail PatYoung   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Embra:


NB I have been sticking the word "American" in as a qualifier only because I mentioned it in connection with atheism. I don't know whether being an atheist does in fact carry lefty implications in the USA, Embra "why am I here at the weekend?!"



Embra, in the U.S. religion and politics are very intermixed, on both the left and right. ince 90-95% of americans identify themselves as "believers", atheists are a negligible slce of the polity. (Well, you are). Religious activism has been as likely to come from the left as the right. A few "left" movements with strong religous components: anti-slavery movement (Protestant evangelicals and quakers), social gospel, christian socialists, civil rights movement (led by African American Protestant clergy), anti-war movement, anti-nuclear movement, sanctuary movement. Progressive Catholics, Jews and Protestants have been in the forefront of reform movements in the U.S. since at least the Second Great Awakening. Of course, many god fearing folks from each of these traditions have also found their relgions a basis for conservativism as well.
The point is, the right has no monopoly on religion in America nor does the left.

--------------------
pat "Megadittoes Rush" young

THUMP, THUMP, THUMP

Posts: 5442 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Cold DecEmbra Brings The Sleet
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Cold DecEmbra Brings The Sleet   E-mail Cold DecEmbra Brings The Sleet   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Pat.
I often feel confused throwing around terms like "left" and "right" and "liberal" when it seems that they seem to have different connotations to American and European readers.

I'm interested that you say that such a large percentage of the US population would identify themselves as "believers": what proportion of that 90-95% do you think actively have their political philosophy led by their faith? Can politicians garner support by stating that their policies are the "Christian" thing to do, or by appealing to the electorate's faith in God?

Embra

--------------------
I want you to lay down your life, Perkins. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war.


Posts: 4495 | From: Surrey, UK | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Fusca 1976
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Fusca 1976   E-mail Fusca 1976   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Some posters, namely Kilrati, are raising new issues, wich I would like to address, but for the moment I will keep my promise to comment on Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.'s article on World Daily Net.

quote:
Notice that some events precipitate wide-ranging discussions on political philosophy, while others do not. After a series of school-yard killings in which the murderers were linked to violent Satanic cults, and even after it was shown that the deranged kids set out to kill students who believe in God, there was no hunt for atheistic "left-wing extremists."

Probably because it would be very strange to link "atheistic left-wing extremists" to murders committed in name of an entity whose existence atheists, be them of the "left-wing extremist" flavour or not, actively disbelieve? On the other hand, it seems obvious that some sectors of the religious right in the United States not only could, but probably had, try to link violent Satanic cults murders to a general perception that excessive freedom for religious positions they find unacceptable (namely, satanism, atheism, agnosticism, gnosticism and politheism) lead to a situation that makes such crimes possible. This last point, though certainly not self-evident, is debatable, and not necessarily absurd.

If we can determine that the 9/11 attacks were carried by right-wing theists (and unless there is a gross mistake by American secrete serices, that is what happened), do the Pope and Jerry Fallwell become instantly suspects?!

That is to say, there are many different kinds of atheists, theists, politheists and whatever. In the same way, right-wingers are not necessarily all equal, and so aren't left-wingers.

quote:
That would have been an unseemly attempt to use tragedy to advance a partisan agenda.

Of course, it would. As tryng to link Buford Furrow's crimes to right-wingers in general would. But what Rockwell is complaining about is most probably that some political biased commentarists, from the center-right to the left, are probably trying to link Furrow's crimes to a general perception that the activities of certain political positions they find unacceptable (neo-Nazis, extreme libertarians, militiamen, the religious right) lead to a situation that makes such crimes possible. And, as above, though this is certainly far from self-evident, it is not absurd.

quote:
But Furrow, a deranged criminal, gives the media an opportunity to do what they love best: attack those who oppose the ever-increasing government control of our lives.

But, off course, if I correctly understand, those who "oppose the ever-increasing government control of our lives" constitute only one sector of the American far-right (and, in fact, contains also a huge sector of the American moderate right, moderate left, and far left). In fact, the "ever-increasing government control of our lives" is constituted by different issues, that may range from the right to maintain a private arsenal to the right of smoking a joint. I would dare say that the particular items a person thinks should be controlled/not controlled by government give us a much better insight on such person's political position than sweeping statements about "government control" in general.

quote:
Furrow, then, is being called "right wing" because he was associated with Neo-Nazi groups that imagine themselves as successors to Hitler. Their acts of violence are designed to set off a domestic war that would lead to the establishment of a New Order run by them.

Which I suppose Rockwell takes as fact. What he opposes is the following:

quote:
But what, in Heaven's name, does any of this have to do with "right-wing" theory? By "right wing," the media can mean one of these killer Nazi thugs, or they can mean someone who believes in private property, free enterprise, and bourgeois social norms.

So, he says,

quote:
The blurring of the difference -- they are really polar opposites -- is wildly dishonest but obviously purposeful.

This is confusing what "polar opposites" mean. Suppose two high-rank military officers of country A are engaged in finding the better way to win the war against country B. Suppose General X comes with a plan that suggest a heavy bombing of symbolic targets - government facilities, monuments, churches, etc. He argues that this is more efficient than bombing ammonition plants, because while the latter could temporarily harm the material ability of the enemy, the former could quickly and decisively break the enemy's moral. Suppose General Y opposes vehemently this idea, stating that, on contrary, this would only strenghten the resolve of the enemy, with the side effect of making neutral nations more sympathetic to B than to A.

Are General X and General Y "polar opposites"? Unless we could prove that one of them is in fact a treator, a B'an spy that is eager to make his own country be defeated in the war, I can't see how this could be. Both want to defeat B, both try to find the best ways to do that. Unhappily they come up with completely opposite ideas, and it is possible that one must defeat the other in this internal strife so that A'an army can properly fight the war; maybe this strife is so deep and bitter that it will necessarily end by one of the Generals being courtmarshalled and hanged. Still, I would maintain that they are in the same side, and are not "polar opposites".

So the proper debate would be, are countries A and B capitalism and socialism, and generals X and Y fascism and conservatism-liberalism, striving on which is the better way to defeat socialism? Or are countries A and B the above, but fascism and socialism are generals X and Y for B (socialism), striving over the proper way to defeat capitalism? Or are countries A and B dictatorship and democracy, and fascism and socialism are the generals, striving on which is the most appropriate content for dictatorship, national chauvinism or transition to an international peaceful government?

But such must wait for the next post...

Luís Henrique


Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jaime Vargas Sanchez
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Jaime Vargas Sanchez   E-mail Jaime Vargas Sanchez   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Guinastasia:
Marxist? Give me a break! I hate Marx. I don't like communism-I think it's a hideous, disgusting brutal system. However, one does not have to be a communist to be a brutal opressor. Somoza, Pinochet, Hitler, Mussolini were all violently anti-communist, and I wouldn't want them in charge. The whole idea that communism is the biggest evil facing the planet and that anything is preferable is dangerous and disgusting.

Don't hate Marx so violently - I always had a feeling that our present world owe at least a bit of something to him. Then again, I'm not a Marxist scholar, so don't quote me.

Jaime

--------------------
"Everyone has problems. They only vary in design" - Mama Duck


Posts: 4988 | From: Spain | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Guinastasia
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, did you ever read him? bleh bleh bleh...

I agree, you shouldn't totally dismiss Marx, but reading him is almost as bad as reading Ayn Rand.

Give me Kerensky anyday!


IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jaime Vargas Sanchez
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Jaime Vargas Sanchez   E-mail Jaime Vargas Sanchez   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kilrati:
These few quotes, on the Nazi’s stance on religion, might be sufficient to establish their liberal credential :

Ahem. There's a thing called right-wing anticlericalism too. I've informed you, if you don't believe it, it's your issue.

Jaime

--------------------
"Everyone has problems. They only vary in design" - Mama Duck


Posts: 4988 | From: Spain | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
PatYoung
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 01 posted      Profile for PatYoung   E-mail PatYoung   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Embra:
Thanks Pat.
I often feel confused throwing around terms like "left" and "right" and "liberal" when it seems that they seem to have different connotations to American and European readers.

I'm interested that you say that such a large percentage of the US population would identify themselves as "believers": what proportion of that 90-95% do you think actively have their political philosophy led by their faith? Can politicians garner support by stating that their policies are the "Christian" thing to do, or by appealing to the electorate's faith in God?

Embra


Politicians use religion quite frequently to garner support. Former Vice Pres. Al Gore was notorious for breaking into the cadences of a Black Baptist preacher when speaking to an African American audience. Nutty California conservative Bob Dornan sent cards with the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe (a Mexican apparition of the Blessed Vigin Mary) to his Latino constituents in an unsuccessful effort to woo voters from Congresswoman Sanchez. George W. Bush seems to dip into the well of faith at every possible opportunity, occassionally taking on the visage of the sort of idiot-mystics who people the pages of Dostoyevski's novels.

You used to be able to tell someone's political party by his/her religion. Jews and Catholics were Democrats. The (white) Methodists were sometimes referred to as the "Republican party at prayer". Times have changed. In 1994, for example, Catholics for the first time gave a majority of their votes to Republican congressional candidates. When Republican Rudy Guilianni ran for re-election against a Jewish Democrat, New York's generally liberal Jewish population voted more heavily for him than his Catholic co-religionists did. So generally religion plays a role in politics, no candidte can be seen as anti-clerical, but it is an ambiguous one in most faith communities. Catholic doctrine, for exmple, follows the Republican line on abortion and homosexuality, and is to the left of the Democratic line on immigration, social welfare, the death penalty and foreign policy.


There are two exceptions.

The church had been the dominent indigenous institution in the African American community from 1865 until the late 1960s. It was the focal point of opposition to segregation, and the wellspring of the leaders of the civil rights movement. It is no accident that the one African American to have a holiday named after him was Rev. Martin Luther King, or that Rev. Jesse Jackson would be the first serious African American presidential candidate.

The other exception is among white Southern fundamentalists. They were reluctant to engage in politics after their chastening during the Scopes trial over the teaching of evolution and went underground until the last three decades of the 20th Century. Since then they became the shock troops of the Reagan revolution and the move of the U.S. to the right.

In a poll taken during the early 1990s [found in One Nation Under God by Kosmin and Lachman] 52% of fundamentalists identified as Republicans and 10% as Democrats. Among Catholics, by contrast, 38% were democrats and 27% were Republicans, a close split. BTW, those with no religion were 27% Democrat and 21% Republican, hardly indicating that the Democrats are the party of atheism. Also interesting to note is that Democrats outnumber Republicans by 5 to 1 in most traditionally "Black" denominations.

I hope this is helpful embra.
[edited for spelling]

--------------------
pat "Megadittoes Rush" young

THUMP, THUMP, THUMP


Posts: 5442 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
chinpira
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 01 posted      Profile for chinpira   Author's Homepage   E-mail chinpira   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Luis, I like your analysis. I agree with some of your points, but the bottom line is the same. I concur with embra somewhat, but there are other issues besides disassociating conservatives with nazis. By the same token, I could say that people who have left leaning views have the same sentiments, of trying to disassociate themselves from extremists like the nazis. It’s all about finding what suits your agenda and making everything fit into your arguments, we all do it. It’s all good though.
Posts: 5729 | From: HellPaso, TX | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
F S J Ledgister
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kilrati:
My two cents.
It’s hard to understand how a movement called national socialism ( formerly National Socialist German Workers’ Party, NSDAP), could ever be considered a part of the right, even more, a far-right ideology.

A solid argument can be made that Nazi, regardless of their view on any other subject, were left-wingers simply in respect for their view of government, that is that government should be big and powerful, see this assay for an explanation.
http://thenewamerican.com/tna/1998/vo14no23/vo14no23_holocaust.htm

from their platform :

"The German National Socialist Workers Party ... fights against all reactionary trends, against ecclesiastical, aristocratic, and capitalist privileges and every alien influence, but above all against the overpowering influence of the Jewish-commercial mentality in all domains of public life...."



Perhaps, then, you might explain why the Social Democratic Parties of Portugal and Brazil are considered parties of the right?

Hint: The label is not the thing.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Cold DecEmbra Brings The Sleet
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Cold DecEmbra Brings The Sleet   E-mail Cold DecEmbra Brings The Sleet   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
chinpira said: By the same token, I could say that people who have left leaning views have the same sentiments, of trying to disassociate themselves from extremists like the nazis

Extremists maybe, but this is the first debate I have ever had where the possibility of lefty views being somehow connected to Nazism has been raised. Aren't we normally meant to have to disassociate ourselves from Stalinism?

Pat - thanks, that really is very interesting. As a person who opposes the ongoing established status of the Church of England (often called "the Tory party at prayer") it fascinates me that religion seems to play such a small role in UK politics when in the States, with such a firm belief in the separation of Church and state, religion seems to have such a fundamental role. Even though the Queen is the official head of the C of E, and even though bishops may sit in the House of Lords, religious principles are not the norm for directing political philosophy or campaigning.

Although I still support the dismantling of the church-state establishment (not to mention the monarchy, but that's another story!), I wonder whether the apparently benign nature of the Church of England takes some of the religious sting out of political debate in general.

Embra

Edited for as much crap spelling and punctuation as I could spot on a brief read-through

--------------------
I want you to lay down your life, Perkins. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war.


Posts: 4495 | From: Surrey, UK | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
F S J Ledgister
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Embra:

Extremists maybe, but this is the first debate I have ever had where the possibility of lefty views being somehow connected to Nazism has been raised. Aren't we normally meant to have to disassociate ourselves from Stalinism?

Pat - thanks, that really is very interesting. As a person who opposes the ongoing established status of the Church of England (often called "the Tory party at prayer") it fascinates me that religion seems to play such a small role in UK politics when in the States, with such a firm belief in the separation of Church and state, religion seems to have such a fundamental role. Even though the Queen is the official head of the C of E, and even though bishops may sit in the House of Lords, religious principles are not the norm for directing political philosophy or campaigning.

Although I still support the dismantling of the church-state establishment (not to mention the monarchy, but that's another story!), I wonder whether the apparently benign nature of the Church of England takes some of the religious sting out of political debate in general.

Embra

Edited for as much crap spelling and punctuation as I could spot on a brief read-through



That's because we have a bloody boring established church (goes double for Scotland) which has blanded itself down over the generations in order to maintain its status given the potential hostility of governments which draw much of their support from dissenting sects.

The Americans, who separate church from state, take religion altogether more seriously.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
PatYoung
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 01 posted      Profile for PatYoung   E-mail PatYoung   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Embra:

Pat - thanks, that really is very interesting. As a person who opposes the ongoing established status of the Church of England (often called "the Tory party at prayer") it fascinates me that religion seems to play such a small role in UK politics when in the States, with such a firm belief in the separation of Church and state, religion seems to have such a fundamental role.
Embra

Edited for as much crap spelling and punctuation as I could spot on a brief read-through



It has been suggested that the important role religion plays in politics is in part due to the separation of church and state. Since no church enjoys national hegemony, religious leaders had to develop the same skills as democratic politicians to be able to be heard in the rough and tumble policy debates.

Also, where state religion exists, religion tends to become a kind of national wallpaper, always there, but in the barely acknowledged background. Every adult American who is a member of a religion is so through free choice. Every dollar received by the preacher was freely given by the members of the congregation. Hence, religion becomes intimately tied into the beliefs, practices and identites of many Americans.

Also, while there has been much rudeness by the members of religions towards one another, we have no history since independence of the kinds of fatal persecutions carried out in the name of religion which mock the faiths of Europe and the Middle East. Religions have done unsavory things, the Catholic molestation scandal being a current example, but they have not advocated the murder of pagans and heretics, by and large. Also, all the major American faiths have endorsed democracy for more than 2 centuries. So you don't find the same antipathy towards the church which you find in places like Italy or Spain. Also, not having the threat of Prince Charles running our church is a definite leg up for religion in America.

--------------------
pat "Megadittoes Rush" young

THUMP, THUMP, THUMP


Posts: 5442 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Fusca 1976
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fusca 1976   E-mail Fusca 1976   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Warning: longer than the usual rant.

quote:
Of course, the media are free to define terms however they like, but the fact is that the ideological origins of Nazism are with the left. The term Nazi itself is short for the National Socialist German Workers Party.

The name question has already been addressed. Of course, it is worth to underline that Rockwell seems to much intelligent and knowleadgeable for me to believe that he is making a bonafide mistake - it clearly looks as a deliberate effort to deceive.

About ideological origins of Nazism, we would need to stablish what are them, so we could compare them to the ideological roots of socialism and see if they are the same.

To my knowledge, the ideological roots of Nazism include:

- understanding political bodies as similar to biological ones;
- believing social unequality is functional to society;
- believing in that political, religious, phylosophical views are, at least partially, hereditary, and linked to biology;
- believing in the validity of the concept of "race";
- believing in the natural superiority of some races over others;
- believing that "race" is the adequate basis for a political community;
- believing in social-darwinism;
- believing that private property and market are the best way to circulate and distribute wealth within a society, provided that they are not distorted by some "unfair" practices (normally associated with the Jews);
- believing in war as a way to promote eugeny and affirmation of "race" and nation.
- believing in the "principle of leadership", or the idea that decisions are best when taken by one leader alone and obeyed without discussion.

As for socialism, I would state it roots in:

- understanding that political bodies can not be compared to biological ones;
- believing that social unequality is (no longer) functional to society;
- believing that political, religious and phyolosophical views are not hereditary neither linked to biology;
- disbelief in the concept of "race", in the superiority of some "races" over others, and in the idea that "race" is proper basis for a political community;
- rejection of social-darwinism;
- rejection of the idea that private property and market are the best way to circulate and distribute wealth within a society.
- rejection of war in any of its forms and under any of its pretexts.
- believing that decisions are best when thoroughly discussed among the interested parts and taken by the majority rule.

Similar?

quote:
Nazism was fashioned as a totalitarian nationalist alternative to the totalitarian international socialism of the Lenin model.

When Rockwell speaks of "totalitarian socialism of the Lenin model", he is unwittingly admitting that there may be other models of socialism besides Lenin's. But are there other models of fascism besides that of Hitler? Is there possibly a model of "national-socialism" that is not inherently totalitarian? Are there "national-socialist" counterparts for Rosa Luxemburg or Bakunin? If not, why not? Or was Rosa "freedom is always freedom for those who oppose us" Luxemburg totalitarian? I would like to learn how can someone come to such conclusion...

quote:
But national or international, the relevant word is socialist, which should be the first tip-off to Nazism's leftist origins.

This is again confusing label and content, but I would argue that the relevant word is "national", which should be the first tip-off to Nazism rightist origins. Socialism cannot be "national". It is like "poisonous sugar"; if it is sugar, it cannot be poisonous, if it is poisonous, it can't be sugar. If I find a pot labeled "poisonous sugar", I won't assume it is sugar and eat it in spite of the label. If I find a political movement labeled "national-socialist", I won't take it for socialism and adhere to it - it would be even more dangerous than "poisonous sugar".

quote:
It was no accident that the Nazi flag was a red banner; it was taken from the flag of socialism.

Yes, on the explicit intention of swaying socialist workers from their parties.

quote:
Hitler:
It was obvious that the symbol of a régime which had been overthrown by the Marxists under inglorious circumstances was not now worthy to serve as a banner under which the same Marxism was to be crushed in its turn. However much any decent German may love and revere those old colours, glorious when placed side by side in their youthful freshness, when he had fought under them and seen the sacrifice of so many lives, that flag had little value for the struggle of the future.

quote:
As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn showed in his book, "Leftism" (1974 and 1990), Hitler and all his top lieutenants were hard-core socialists

Well, this is what is to be proved. Kuehnelt-Leddihn may have a long, impressive name, but that hardly makes him any reliable authority on Socialism and "national-socialism". I will quote two brief reviews on his work From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot, so you may get the gist of this obscure author:

quote:
By Booknews:
An erudite, if eccentric, feat of historical/philosophical legerdemain by virtue of which "leftism" more-or-less subsumes every belief and act to which the (explicitly) right-wing author objects, including liberalism (commonly understood), fascism, communism, socialism, egalitarianism, atheism, democracy ("democratism"), even homosexuality (it's subsidized by liberal democracy). His alternative is "rightism", i.e. religion (Christian, preferably Catholic), tradition, monarchy, elitism, and personal freedom. Preface by William F. Buckley. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR

quote:
From M.D. Aeschliman - National Review
The book's} scholarship is beyond praise; it includes primary sources inperhaps a dozen languages, handled deftly and deployed brilliantly. Mr. Kuehnelt-Leddihn has lived through much of what he writes about. . . . I know of no other recent non-fiction book that attempts so successfully to see life steadily and to see it whole. . . . It is {the author's} thesis that Jacobins, Communists, . . . Fascists, and National Socialists were all leftist collectivists and atheistic radicals whose greatest enemies were the ideas of God and Freedom. . . . Although most would call Mr. Kuehnelt-Leddihn a conservative, it isone of his Quixotic goals to reclaim the word 'liberal' in its nineteenth-century sense. He demonstrates why and how the 'liberalism' of men like Burke, Tocqueville, Burckhardt, and Acton, as well as contemporaries such as Ropke, was perverted, ignored, or redefined by the leftist campaign.

It would be important, however, to make you aware that, in spite of all of this, this monarchist author probably considers most of the American right as Communist, or is perhaps Communist himself, since he is Catholic...

quote:
who hated everything about the old Europe, including small states,

Well, I am not sure here if "small states" means "small countries" or the opposite of the Stalinist-Clintonian Leviathan. Certainly Hitler and his cronies would love "small states" in the first acception, since they would be easier to swallow. In regards to the second meaning, they were obviously in favour of a big totalitarian State, as proved by their actions once they where in charge. That would not prevent them, however, from making statements as:

quote:
Hitler:
For them the fact that the State exists is sufficient reason to consider it sacred and inviolable. To protect the madness of human brains, a positively dog-like adoration of so-called state authority is needed. In the minds of these people the means is substituted for the end, by a sort of sleight-of-hand movement. The State no longer exists for the purpose of serving men but men exist for the purpose of adoring the authority of the State, which is vested in its functionaries, even down to the smallest official.

quote:
Goebbels:
The state is not an end in itself for us, rather a means to an end. The true end is the race, the sum of all the living, creative forces of the people. The structure that today calls itself the German republic is not a way to maintain our racial inheritance. It has become an end in itself with no real connection to the people and their needs. We want to abolish the slave colony and replace it with a people's state in freedom.

As it is easy to understand, were we to take their claims seriously, we could write an article titled "Libertarian Origins of Nazism" and expect to be taken in earnest.

quote:
the monarchs, the Church,

Certainly. From the picture, however, it is easy to understand who else they used to hate: those they would depict in red...

quote:
the landed aristocracy, peace,

Well, at the time seems that everybody hated peace, except the Communists. In fact, it was necessary a Communist revolution in Russia to take the country out of the juggernaut, since Kerensky and his likes were willing to continue the slaughter of Russian people to "honour" their treaties with France and Britain.

quote:
and the free economy of the 19th century.

Was there a free economy in the 19th century?!

quote:
They imagined themselves running a centralized, protectionist, and statist Germany under the executive-branch "leadership principle."

Yes, they imagined all that, I suppose, though they lied about "State being not an end in itself". None of these features, however, are Socialist, or even uncompatible with capitalism.

quote:
They talked constantly of a proletarian revolution that would destroy the bourgeois class.

I was not the fly on the wall to hear what they talked about. The closest thing to that, I suppose, would be Albert Speer's memories. If this is not another step of the Nazi-Communist-Jewish-Catholic conspiracy, however, nope. They did talk about a lot of things, but not of proletarian revolutions.

In the next ranting, some about cigarettes, vegetarianism and ecological concerns of the Nazis... please bring your tinfoil hats in the case we need to make practical exercises.

Luís Henrique


Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Kilrati
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
This web site shows voting patterns according to religion.from CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
PatYoung
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 01 posted      Profile for PatYoung   E-mail PatYoung   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Pew conducted a poll released this month which looks at religion and public life. Religion Poll
A few interesting results:
-67% said U.S. is a Christian Nation
-80% said you can be a good American without being Christian
-71% of White Evangelicals think God gives U.S. special protection, but only 39% of White Catholics agree.
-66% of Southerners have a bad opinion of atheists.
-74% of Catholics and Jews rated Muslims favorably, but only 55% of Evangelicals, 47% of Muslims (not a misprint), and 34% of Atheists viewed them favorably.
-62% of Americans, including 56% of Catholics, think the Catholic Church is covering up the child sex abuse scandal.

--------------------
pat "Megadittoes Rush" young

THUMP, THUMP, THUMP

Posts: 5442 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
krash
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 02 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
He's a fucking raciest
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Goes-Hmmm
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by krash:
He's a fucking raciest

Nelson Mandela, who, in his inauguration speech, said whites had as much right to be South Africans as blacks because they had been there for over 400 years, but if they or anybody else doesn't want to be South African should leave, is a racist?

Or is he just "raciest" as krash wrote? Racier than whom?

Note to krash: You kind of take the shock value out of your expletive when you misspell "racist".

Goes-"too bad he has no control over those who are racist"-hmmm

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Astra
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 18 posted      Profile for Astra     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
/Steve Irwin voice/
Looks like we got a live one here mates!
It appears to be the rare krash troll.
Like some other species of troll, it has a natural tendency to badly mangle simple words and uses expletives in place of reasoning. The little blokes are pretty harmless and usually go away, unless you feed them.
: looks at Goes-Hmm :
You didn't feed, didja?
:screams as troll leaps from its hole and bites off his head :
/end Steve Irwin voice/

--------------------
This has been yet another... USELESS POST.

Posts: 6105 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Goes-Hmmm
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Astra the Hound DAWG:
/Steve Irwin voice/
: looks at Goes-Hmm :
You didn't feed, didja?
:screams as troll leaps from its hole and bites off his head :
/end Steve Irwin voice/

Arrrrggghhh!! I accidently fed it. What was I thinking?

Goes-"sorry about losing my head"-hmmm

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Astra
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 18 posted      Profile for Astra     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
We all make mistakes. May Steve rest in pieces.

--------------------
This has been yet another... USELESS POST.

Posts: 6105 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Worker and Parasite
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
question-
During elections, the TV people often color-code the 50 US states. Red for Democrats, Blue for Republicans.

if I was to take a map of the world, would it be possible to color every country either red or blue, depending on if the country was run by a right or left-leaning government?

What color would the majority of African states be?

Would it even be possible to color-code the whole world with just the two catagories?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
You're the DoubleD in Disguise
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 13 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
You know what -- I really don't care if we label Hitler a "left-winger" and Stalin a "right-winger" (speaking of which - if Hitler was a lefty, wouldn't Stalin then be a righty, thereby still giving kilrati and his fellows the same problem they're trying to escape?). Let's do this instead: instead of "left" and "right" let's split everyone up into "friends of humanity" and "murderous pigs." As Richard W pointed out earlier, it's more realistic to think of the political "spectrum" not as a linear plane but as a circle. The extreme "left" and the extreme "right" go at their business through different means, but they end up at the same point: the supremacy of the "State," the denigration of groups of humanity into "life unworthy of life" (whether that's Jews, Serbs, Gypsies, Communists, atheists, left-handed violinists, whatever), and, ultimately, killing people. Hitler was a murderous pig; so was Stalin. So were Pol Pot and Idi Amin and Slobodan Milosevic. I don't care if they were left or right. If they were on the left, as I tend to be, I will still oppose them; I won't need to find spurious "research" to distance myself from them.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
JK Will
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd be more worried about WINNIE Mandela not Nelson. He cooled his heels in prison.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Viva Las Guinastasia
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I thought I mentioned Winnie Mandela. She was, IIRC, the one involved with terrorist groups.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Fusca 1976
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Fusca 1976   E-mail Fusca 1976   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Whew, this thing I call "my job" is severely interferring with my snopesposting. Sorry for the delay; here you have some more.

quote:
Furthermore, as Robert Proctor showed in "Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis" (1988), the Nazis were health fanatics who banned cigarette smoking, promoted vegetarianism and organic gardening,
Hm. Hitler himself was a smoker and quit the vice. The idea that the Nazis banned smoking, however, seems completely false, unless by "ban" he means restrictions to doing such in public indoor places or the like. In the same way, Hitler became a vegetarian, for health considerations. According to Speer, his meal was cooked separately from that of the other Nazi leaders, who weren't vegetarians and didn't feel the need to become such (it looks like there was some freindlich teasing about the issue, nothing more than that). Of course, Rockwell would be in trouble if he was to point the actual Nazi legislation on organic gardening, vegetarianism, or tobacco. The Nazis where so evil that they kept all those things secret!

Also, I don't think that Dr. Proctor would be comfortable with the use Rockwell makes of his scientific authority. Let's take a look at his protest against the use of his work by what he calls "tobacco apologists":

quote:
I was sorry to see Pierre Lemieux using my book, The Nazi War on Cancer, to attack the sensible steps now being taken in many parts of the world to combat tobacco; this was a danger I explicitly warned against in my book.
Tobacco apologists have been trying to equate the right to smoke with the right to free speech for quite some time, though the analogy is flawed on two counts: 1) because most smokers are addicted, and find it extremely difficult to stop -- even when they want to, and 2) people are harmed by tobacco who do not smoke, primarily from so-called "second-hand smoke."

Here for the complete complaint.

quote:
engaged in abortion and euthanasia, frowned on all capitalist excess, and even promoted animal rights.
There is a clear difference between the Nazi attitude towards abortion ond euthanasia and the modern "liberal" American view on it. While the latter often consider abortion and euthanasia a matter of individual rights, Nazis viewed them as instruments of strenghtening "the race". The idea that a healthy German pure-blood woman, pregnant from a healthy German pure-blood man would have "a right" to abort was as alien to them as the idea that cows should be represented in the Reichstag. Of course, Rockwell won't be distracted by such minor considerations.

If we were to take Rockwell seriously, we would need to put an equal sign between Nazis' intents of "government control" of women wombs to ensure a offspring of aryan soldiers, to his own demand for a "government control" of women wombs to prevent "socialistic abortions", and come to the conclusion that he is a dangerous communist...

Considering capitalist excesses, the main complaint the Nazis had about them was that they endangered social order, in that they gave legitimacy to socialist propaganda. Or, to quote Goebbels,

quote:
The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism's nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive.

"Animal rights" aren't a leftist issue. As Pat Young pointed once, in the United States you may discuss important issues like gays on the military, provided that you agree that the rich must become richer. Perhaps because of that, so many people create issues where they do not exist, to give their lives an appearance of meaningfulness. But, on the contrary, it may be argued that the blurring of the line between human and no-human can only happen if you don't understand the basic notion of "mankind" and the difference between intelligent life and non-intelligent life - understandment that is basic to any leftist politics. Frankly, I can't understand how the expression itself - animal rights - can be anything but a gross misunderstanding or sheer mockery (oh do you Palestinians feel oppressed?! Hah, this is nothing compared with what happens to dogs. Anti-semitism, holocaust? Oh you have to see what happens in a slaughterhouse. Equal rights for Black people? What about thinking on equal rights for chipmunks instead?).

quote:
Several AAN papers have run or will be running an animal rights ad that employs Holocaust imagery to draw attention to its cause. The ad juxtaposes photos of mangled bodies of Holocaust victims, the Swastika and dead slaughterhouse animals, and features a quote from Nobel Prize Winner Isaac Bashevis Singer comparing animal slaughter to Nazi thuggery.
But even then, I am to be presented to any evidence that the Nazis wasted their time with such issues. They were too busy taking rights away from people to be concerned about animal rights.

quote:
They were environmentalists who locked up land from development to promote paganism.
Well, if the reason they locked land up was to promote paganism, they would not be really environmentalists, would they? They certainly promoted juvenile associations dedicated to outdoor activities, but I doubt very much that this would be linked to pagan religion. They were aware of the necessity to preserve their natural resources. They were not Sauron - but, honestly, how did Sauron expect to win his war if he was destroying his land first place?!

Luís Henrique

Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Viva Las Guinastasia
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Perhaps you may find this rather interesting. It's a thread at the SDMB started by the webmaster of African Crisis.

*sigh*
Nice guy, eh?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Cold DecEmbra Brings The Sleet
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cold DecEmbra Brings The Sleet   E-mail Cold DecEmbra Brings The Sleet   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Heh, Guin, I'm only at the bottom of page one, but this from Waverley:

quote:
Guin, well meaning uber-liberal and internet danger-girl... meets Jan, troubled webpage host and possessor of a perspective few could understand
can have only one ending:

THEY FIGHT CRIME!

Sorry - couldn't resist bringing that over here [Smile]

Embra

--------------------
I want you to lay down your life, Perkins. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war.

Posts: 4495 | From: Surrey, UK | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Richard W   E-mail Richard W   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not sure I really want to restart this debate, but this was interesting, anyway:

According to this interview in The Guardian (25.04.02) it's not just the US far right that have decided that Nazism was left-wing; French National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen also "incidentally" defines national-socialism as being a "leftist movement":

quote:
In the past, there were Nazi collaborators in his party. Has there been a deliberate change in the party, or have those people simply died out? "I don't think it is accurate to say that the movement was founded or run by Nazi collaborators. First of all, my influence in the party has always been decisive and I have never compromised on these things. In the movement itself, there was no mention of fascism or national socialism. In my speeches I always condemned communism, national-socialism and fascism. Incidentally, I define all of them as leftist movements that were spawned by the French Revolution.
..."

He doesn't actually answer the question, so presumably isn't denying that there were Nazi sympathisers in his party; odd that people who supported the "leftist Nazi movement" should suddenly feel comfortable joining a far-right party... unless his party is left-wing too?

The reason I feel uncomfortable with these redefinitions (which I think are new; I've only just become aware of them) is that people who hold some quite extreme views are trying to associate everything bad that's happened in the world with those who disagree with them. At least a portion of the world's problems arise from people with extreme views similar to Le Pen's.

Of course "left" and "right" are labels, and often unhelpful ones, but if they're not important then why are people like Le Pen going to the trouble of trying to associate everything bad with the "left" and themselves with the "right"? Is it an attempt to distract people from the actual issues with semantic argument? I have a sneaky feeling the world is becoming a slightly more dangerous place...

Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2