EU proposal to monitor "intolerant" citizens

Skybird, I said historian, not paid-up-member of the bat****-crazy Mises cult.

And yes, Ducimus, any idiot knows that the Nazi's called themselves 'national-socialists'. Anyone other than an idiot would bother to actually learn what 'national-socialism' stood for.

Here's a few clues:

They were funded by German industrialists.

They were put into power by right-wing conservatives - who (probably wrongly) saw the possibility of the left taking power in Germany.

[Skybird]

Man, you make more pointless noise than a flock of twittering geese. I gave you plenty of arguments in a substantial text, and you just behave like troll.

I conclude you are one, then.

[blip deleted from Skybird's radar]

[Sailor Steve]

Okay, it's time for everybody to take a step back and a deep breath. I let it go on for awhile because you guys were having fun fighting each other, and it was fairly confined. Now the level of hostility seems to have taken a step up and the name-calling is increasing while the level of debate is decreasing.

You have all made some good points, but from here on in let's do it without the demeaning language. You can argue without insulting each other.

Only warning.

[Penguin]

Today I learned that socialism is solely an economic concept.
Following the logic of self given names, no Nazis could have existed outside of Germany, as they were 'national'.
Bonus trivia question: how big was the percentage of workers in the worker's party NSDAP? How big was the percentage of farmers and state employees?

Originally Posted by Skybird

Es verdient in diesem Zusammenhang Erwähnung, dass Hitler (einerlei aus welchen Gründen) in einer seiner öffentlichen Reden noch im Februar 1941 erklärte: „Nationalsozialismus und Marxismus sind im Grunde dasselbe".

citation needed.
So the guy who thought Marxism was a jewish invention compared his ideology to theirs?
The same guy who held speeches like "Der Nationalsozialismus als Weltanschauung, der Marxismus ein Wahnsinn!", or the famous speech in front of the Düsseldorf Industrie Club, where he stated to rot out Marxism?
C'mon, even Nolte, who started the "Historikerstreit", an advocate of the totalitarism theory, denies any love of Adolf for Karl's theories.

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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


http://history.howstuffworks.com/wor...kers-party.htm


http://www.history.com/topics/nazi-party

So rubbish its laughable.
Hey I thought retard was classed as an insult on this forum?

None of the links fit the bill , that's a bit errr... backwards isn't it.

All of the links show the core policies of the "national socialists" which can in no way be called socialist and are in fact directly contrary to the core of that flawed ideology.

Man, you make more pointless noise than a flock of twittering geese. I gave you plenty of arguments in a substantial text, and you just behave like troll.

I conclude you are one, then.

[blip deleted from Skybird's radar]

Is that another example of a temper tantrum where someone chooses to ignore posts because they have completely rubbished his claims?

It really is simple, North Korea proves the point, another indisputable proof would be Irelands PDs.
How were they "progressive"?
Its in their name so they must be ...right??????

[Cybermat47]

Guys, calm down. At least you don't have Tony Abbot in charge.

Skybird, it is a demonstrable fact that the only people denying the historical reality that the Nazis were from the far right are themselves of the fringes of right-wing politics.

It is an obscene lie. Put about by people who are willing to exploit the deaths of deaths of millions for political advantage.

[Jimbuna]

Cool heads everyone...no name calling or insults.

Skybird, it is a demonstrable fact that the only people denying the historical reality that the Nazis were from the far right are themselves of the fringes of right-wing politics.

One only has to look at the alliances of the german parties prior to WW2 to see that the NSDAP is firmly rooted in the conservative, nationalist and far right field.
To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities....unless they are sub humans, leftists, communists, socialists, gays, wrong religion, disabled, mixed race, too foreign, gypsy.....in which case no rights and off to the camps for slaughter in the name of equality.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

One only has to look at the alliances of the german parties prior to WW2 to see that the NSDAP is firmly rooted in the conservative, nationalist and far right field.
To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities....unless they are sub humans, leftists, communists, socialists, gays, wrong religion, disabled, mixed race, too foreign, gypsy.....in which case no rights and off to the camps for slaughter in the name of equality.

Exactly. One can look at where they came from, who supported them, and what they did. Or one can look at their name, see 'socialist' in it, and bury ones head in the sand. Names are just labels. History is about deeds.

Exactly. One can look at where they came from, who supported them, and what they did. Or one can look at their name, see 'socialist' in it, and bury ones head in the sand. Names are just labels. History is about deeds.

Indeed, one of my favourites is the early 30s manifesto of theirs on agriculture.
bad harvests...its the jews, low prices.... its the jews, technology ...its the jews, land...its the jews, availability of markets.... its the jews.
They really were a one trick pony based on nothing but racial discrimination and a weird belief in "Aryan" supremacy.

But like I said earlier that muppet from Mises Sky used has to stretch definitions to fit his agenda by such an extent that they then include all of the ideologies he supports and all his visions of political and economic utopia.
It really is laughable.
Though I suppose its inevitable that the far right want to try and distance themselves from the far right as the far right do have a tendency to be somewhat crazy and most people really don't want to be associated with the far right even when they are the far right.

[MH]

Denying that national socialism has nothing to do with socialism is pure bullox.

Calm down it does not mean that some flavors socialism must be bad...no need for all this nonsense gymnastics lol.

Originally Posted by MH

Denying that national socialism has nothing to do with socialism is pure bullox.

Calm down it does not mean that some flavors socialism must be bad...no need for all this nonsense gymnastics lol.

Ignoring historical evidence is complete bullox.

[Dan D]

Skybird, do you realise that you have been fooled by the author of the article you have linked to?
True, the headline says „EU proposal to monitor intolerant citizens“, but if you read the actual text, it says that it is a non-governmental organisation that made a proposal to a comittee of the European Parliament. So we are not talking about a EU proposal but about a proposal made to the EU, which is not the same.

So one could say that the author is too stupid to sum up his own text in a headline but of course the author knows better. He made his statement with concious ignorance but that still makes him a lousy think tank and you fell into his trap.

What is the author's intention anyway?
„While European leaders are busy expressing public indignation over reports of American espionage operations in the European Union, the European Parliament is quietly considering a proposal that calls for the direct surveillance of any EU citizen suspected of being "intolerant."“

Oh okay, he wants to distract us from the NSA scandal.

Reading skills!

That Hitler Socialist dictatorship nonsense is even worse. My oral exam in history as A-level subject to graduate from school comes to my mind.
They gave me Hitler's 1932 speech to the industry club and 30 minutes time to read, analyse and explain it.

Hitler held his speech in order to gain support from the big business. The Allies later used this speech as evidence in the Nürnberg trials to prove that those German business leaders whom they had charged for war crimes knew early that Hitler would start a war of aggression because in his speech of 1932 Hitler made that already clear to them..

The German business leaders of 1932 too were sceptic about the „Socialist“ and „Worker's“ part in Hitler's „National Socialist Worker's Party“. Hitler adresses that in his speech.

If I would have told the 4 history teachers who were holding my exam that because of the name of the party Hitler was a Socialist and labour leader, I don't think that I would have graduated from school, because in his speech:
"Hitler explained to the assembled magnates that they had nothing to fear from the Nazi Party. He sold his dream of a Germany with the trade unions crushed and with the workers controlled by the state in co-operation with industrial owners. Hitler also attacked Communism and Socialism and those who supported both.“
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...peech_1932.htm

FAIL!

[Skybird]

The same people who claim that socialism is not an economic concept, are the (left-leaning, usually) people who also reject that human rights cannot be made reasonble sense of different from understanding them on a basis of property rights that give people the right to interact with material and real-world-grounded opportunities to improve their lives in accordance with said claimed rights. Property rights, human rights as being something material?! Far to profane! It has to be idealistically, it has to be brain-heavy, it has to be felt and imagined and fantasized! But the right for free speech for example does not mean Tim has the right to yell his opinion out where ever he wants, or knocking on other people's doors and shoving it down their throats. He has the right to rent a room, invite for an assembly, refuse guests to his liking, and on that assembly then announce his opinion. He has to won the place, and he has to respect the right of others not wanting to need to care for him. He also has no right to demand the newspapers owned by Tom must print his opinion, that is not freedom of speech. He has a right to buy printing space from Tom and pay him for printing it. All this - is about opportunity and ressources Tim has the right to buy. He thus "owns" them, and within that property right he bought he has the right then to announce his opinion. In principle, it is not different with any other construction you can use to illustrate this example. Without property rights, freedom of speech means NOTHING.

That is why huma n rights are so very wishy-washy today, so vague and nebulous, abstract and philosophical only. It's also a reason why human rights now got added so distorted absurdities like they are being implemented by ingeniious theoretics. A human right to have a bank account.

Needless to say that socialism is an economic concept, or better, the absence and denial and deconstruction of working economic principles, morals and ethics. In the end it means nothing else than that what somebody wants he can steal from somebody else by making the claim he needs it. What people deserve, shall play no rule anymore, like healthy price indexing and value assessment on the market shall not play any role anymore. Like the text I originally linked shows in clearness, any state wanting to be socialist, must become a totalitarian player, else he would not be able to enforce socialism. And we see that in history: all socialist and communist experiments had strong displays of right this totalitarian basic nature.

Nietzsche once said the German most beloved symbolic image is the cloud. It is vague, nebulous, unclear, it has no clear contours, everything can be read into it, it holds no form, but constantly changes. The Germans have had two socialist dictatorships in a row - and they still adore it and yearn for it. That is because they refuse to see clear, and Platonists they are (different to the British-American world, which favoured Aristotle), they have an now inbuilt sympathy for dictatorial rule. Germasn are the born submissive citizens. That's why I say since years that the Germans, although they have more at risk and pay more than anyone else in Europe for the EU, will be among the last people in Europe to revolt against the EU dictatorship suffocating the continent and destroying our wealth. They crave even for more, they even embrace needing to pay higher taxes for it...! And more and more state adminsitratrion, more regulation, more social presents (even if they increase debts). The Germans, always high by their emotions which are a drug for them they crave for and which they are unable to control, are a hopeless case, believe me. Obedience and submission to the state, trust in collectives and miracle-believing that socialism makes all things well is something that gets soaked up with the mothermilk over here. Only the French, originators of the blood-thirsty mob that killed some unlucky guards to free some criminals and villains from the Bastille and making a big hype of this and the following bloodshed, are can compare to the Germans in their love for life in socialist miracles. Or delusions.

Our most successful and competent economic leader who ever headed the ministry of economics, was Ludwig Erhard. He violated party politics, he did not care for power interests of politicians, he started by confronting the Allies and dropping their price controls without even asking them (the following economic improvement that made itself felt withion weeks proved him right), was left standing in the rain by his own "colleagues", he clashed with Adenauer over that old man's claim that economics shall be subordinate and in service of foreign politics and should even accept distortions if that is what foreign politics need. He acted by reason, ratioanlity, and common sense, and thew economic record under his rule showed him right. Poltically, as I said, he becakme soon totally isolated. What was in the interest of the economc healing and the imrpvement of the ordiunary German people'S econo9mic reality, was against the very interests of thre parties, and career politicians.

Politicians do not get elected if telling grim truths. Telling sweet lies, gets them elected. That is one of the problems with democracy that made me strictly opposing it now. Democracy guarantees that the biggest lie-teller, the moron without spine and character, the unscrupulous villain and fraudster, has the best chances: the one who sets up the best show of lies and treason, has best chances top get elected. Democracy fosters the worst in man. Democracy punishes, demotivates the best in man. Democracy loot those who nevertheless try to work honestly and keep communities together by their work. The loot is needed by said political fraudsters, to allow them making bribery gifts to voters. In the end, all social gifts and presents must get payed by the stupid people nevertheless, may it be in state debts and interests, may it be via expropriation via taxing and inflation.

Once you have seen clear these things, you never can go back to tolerating them. You have become unable to tolerate them anymore.

I think since long that Denauer is hopelessly overestimated in Germany. The most important name to mention and to explain the fast rcovery of Germany after the war, was not Adenauer (who would have messed up the economy seriously, if he would have had his ways), but Erhard.

Too materialistic again for some, I assume. But the world is material. Without material control over it, all your high-flying ideals and imaginations - are nothing. People understand this since millenia. Just the present Westerner, drunken by his own hyperintellectuality, thinks he knows it better.

Penguin, for you I have this booktip. You will hate it, I promise. LINK - Roland Baader: Totgedacht. Warum Intellektuelle unsere Welt zerstören. The book shows that all so often it is abstract intellectuals only that are not rooted by their work or excistence in solid, material reality, that have brought havoc and disaster over people and nations, and who are always being fascinated by "Kopfgeburten" (book cover) that destroy freedom, morals, self-responsibility, wealth, and the basis of functioning economics. "Hirnies", we call these walking disasters on two legs. And they have cost mankind dearly. Socialism is such a "Kopfgeburt" as well. And it will sweep european nations and people into the gully once again.

In the end, socialism means nothing else than this: "I want, and somebody else should pay; I desire, and this gives me the right to rob and to loot." It always leads to totalitarian states, necessarily. That is all glory there is in it. Sorry for not being so nebulous as to allow glorifying imagination and projecting dreams of milk and honey onto the vague cloudscreen. I'm a profane materialist, I fear. I lack fantasy.

I put something different against that: everybody according to what he deserves. Equality of rich and poor, male and female before the law. Guarantee of private property. Inviolability of family. Strict separation of politics and money, no state monopoly on money, no worthless paper money, which is nothing else than making debts a currency. Human rights understood as property rights. As small state administration as can be enforced. No socialisation of private or communal debts. Self-responsibility.

All that makes people like me a socialist's nightmare. I'm proud to be. Humanism and socialism cannot play in the same team.