Why is nazism popular today?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Justintruth
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by Justintruth » Thu May 23, 2019 4:40 pm

Dachshund wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 12:23 pm
My understanding is that the Soviet ICBMs on CUBA either were operational , or if not at the rime of the crisis very, very close to being fully primed and ready for launch.
I think the missiles were about to go operational and the blockade prevented it.

If they had been operational, the nuclear side of the equation would have been more complicated but the Soviets already had substantial capability over the pole. I think Kennedy was actually blocking that increment in their capability. The timeline of the SIOP is very important. I think he didn't want his decision/action time crowded by the difference over the pole or from a sub as opposed to Cuba. It was more complicated back then because the subs didn't really have a high p-kill against a hardened target compared to land launched. Presumably the Cuban missiles would - like we had in Turkey.

I knew of course about the U2 being shot down but not about the Soviet sub. The detail of that will be very interesting. Must have been an interesting moment on that sub.

When I was in the US military I had a US artillery officer from the European theater say...close paraphrase...."Any officer in Europe who would wait for authorization to nuke a Russian advance would not be worth his salt". It shocked me because I always thought that the decision to go nuclear was reserved for the president.

Also found out that it is very important operationally in the event of an invasion from Russia into Europe to go nuclear immediately. Else you end up needing to nuke your own troops. This was discovered in early computer battle simulations. If they move, we nuke them right away.

Of course the idea that the Russians would not first strike is crazy. That whole scenario of them trying to test their conventional superiority by an armored assault through the gap is just stupid. Used to crack me up watching junior officers puzzle over how they would fight it. We are so wide open to first strike by a small force distributing nukes, that they would almost surely carry it out. Back in the day I actually sailed a boat into San Francisco bay and touch an aircraft carrier unmolested. Bet I couldn't do that these days!

Technically, deterrence functions by denying your opponent the option to escalate in the hopes of an improved outcome. But I have always thought that the word "improved" was a little ambiguous. If I executed a counter value strike, simultaneous time on target against every US city with population greater than a million with very high probability of kill, I would have denied the people in the silos and the subs hopes of improving their outcomes except by negotiating with me...in a sense.

But how many would stand by. I think they would launch just to get even. In other words "an improved outcome" might be both countries destroyed not just my own and me getting some sweetheart deal in Moscow. Many of the US officers were, presumably are, motivated by nationalism. They are not just glory seekers. They have love of country infecting their emotions and are quite capable of killing out of wounded sentiment.

Anyway, the current nation state system is ridiculously obsolete. We need to free up the resources, get people fed, clean water, education for a generation or so, festivals everywhere (circus) and security, security, security. A big part of that is how to restrain those at the apex of any hierarchy. Clubs, religions, government, business, whatever. Zero freedom to organize anything clandestinely - with very stiff penalty. Take privacy away from those dominant in any hierarchy and protect the privacy of the unorganized. Really look at ways of restraining police forces without disabling them. Remember that Hitler started his rearmament with neighborhood clubs organizing.

Socialism might not work but unbridled capitalism surely won't either. Need to make it one man one vote, not one dollar one vote. Or some meritocracy where you have to pass a basic test to vote or something. Where are the political scientists who are supposed to think this stuff up!?

For example, imagine that after we go global we have all police officers operating only with a second "shadow" officer whose job is basically to be a press officer, document what that officer does that day and put it out for all to see. If there is an investigation needed the press is embedded in it and records and publishes after the event when they decide. The press officer has arrest authority on the police officer he shadows. The police officer has a weapon and can use it unless the press officer decides to disable it with some button he has. If the press officer is not near the police officer the police officer's weapon disables automatically.

As for those at the apex's of any organization, they loose their privacy as they go up. Someone like the president can be with his wife in a communication proof room, or can take a dump in one, but cannot speak or communicate with anyone except on the internet. We do that and really break the government up into pieces and we may be able to manage.

Then we just need to worry about the mob!

We really need a kind of Rousseau, to think through the new rights we need to put in place. For example, no generation should be able to rape the planet and destroy its resources then die to avoid the consequences.

It is very challenging. What is for sure is that what we have is not stable and will, is, leading to disaster. Where are the political scientists identifying the ideal political systems given homo sapiens sapiens instincts and talent distribution?

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8182
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Thu May 23, 2019 5:53 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 3:59 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Of course, because money is everything, especially when it's in the hands of a few, and rich people are known for their generosity and altruistic qualities and high regard for the environment. :lol:
No idea what you read into what I said but it was just to point out to the sausage dog that his rich white males who fear near environmental and social collapse have done their analysis and picked NZ as the place to be to hold out the longest.
AUK is a fuckwit.
And you're a bitter colonial troll who would be more suited to Twitter.
NZ hasn't 'held out'. It's just a very young country with a tiny population (increasing fast). Obviously the more people you have in a confined space in a modern society the more pollution and crime etc etc. That's the only reason it 'appears' to be so clean and green. Actually it's anything but.

Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by Dachshund » Fri May 24, 2019 2:34 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 3:59 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Of course, because money is everything, especially when it's in the hands of a few, and rich people are known for their generosity and altruistic qualities and high regard for the environment. :lol:
No idea what you read into what I said but it was just to point out to the sausage dog that his rich white males who fear near environmental and social collapse have done their analysis and picked NZ as the place to be to hold out the longest.
AUK is a fuckwit.
And you're a bitter colonial troll who would be more suited to Twitter.
Dear AUK,

I would like to explain to you how the American's DID win the Vietnam war when Nixon was President. I can prove it, but the moderators will not allow me to publish the story They are pretty good (the Mods) wrt allowing most arguments to be posted, but for some reason, they are touchy about this issue ? So ma be I could send the argument to you in a PM ?

Would that be OK, Mods ?

Regards

Dachshund

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11989
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by Arising_uk » Fri May 24, 2019 10:28 am

Dachshund wrote:Dear AUK,

I would like to explain to you how the American's DID win the Vietnam war when Nixon was President. I can prove it, but the moderators will not allow me to publish the story They are pretty good (the Mods) wrt allowing most arguments to be posted, but for some reason, they are touchy about this issue ? So ma be I could send the argument to you in a PM ?

Would that be OK, Mods ?

Regards

Dachshund
I have no idea why you are asking the mods whether you can send a PM as the mods only act on PM's that are reported to them?

That the mods have lately taken to deleting American political threads appears to be in the main because they are not philosophical enough.

If you are going to punt the old-news argument that Nixon had gained the Paris peace treaty and had won the war but was scuppered by the democrats refusing to supply the South Vietnamese like for like arms to defend themselves then I think you just another right-wing weeble trying to resuscitate Nixon's reputation for whatever reason but that was not a war won was it as the North was still there, it was just a cease-fire hence the offer of unlimited arms to deter the North from future conflict and it's an arguable point that even with those arms the South would still have lost as the Yank government puppets were as usual corrupt and inept and gave the South Vietnamese population and military grunts little reason to support them and fight the communists especially as a large chunk of the South had sympathy for their cause as, right or wrong, they seemed to offer a solution to the massive poverty of the bulk of the population. Reasonably new news tho' is that Nixon was engaged in treason by making behind the scene attempts to scupper President Johnson's peace talks with the North Vietnamese just because he feared that if successful his election chances could be scuppered. Makes you think about why the Trumpette is rattling the sabre at Iran at the moment eh!

So no, please do not PM me your 'proof' unless of course it differs from what I've said above then feel free.

gaffo
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by gaffo » Sun May 26, 2019 12:15 am

Justintruth wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 11:44 am

HOWEVER,... what I didn't read until recently was that there were tactical nukes in Cuba at the time of the crisis. Further, Khrushchev had pre-authorized their use in case of a US invasion. That means no authorization would have been required by Khrushchev to use them!!!
Yes, i heard this several yrs ago. 4 tactical field nukes - under Castro's command.

of course if he used them, we would/might prob reply, and so not pretty overall. so who knows if he would have given the command (or the ones with the button would have obeyed).

better to have to not find out IMO.
Justintruth wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 11:44 am
No intelligence was available in the USA on these nukes. If we had invaded we would have been faced tactical nukes that we did not know were there. Anyone who understands the Art of War will see the significance of these two facts. It's worst case.
yep, we did not know this at all at the time.

Justintruth wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 11:44 am
Further, the military was recommending invasion and, unaware of what they faced, were predicting a quick victory. Kennedy was so concerned that the military would cause a war without his authorization, that he sent McNamara down to their command center to make sure it didn't happen.

Kennedy basically traded Castro and Cuba and the removal of some obsolete missiles aimed at Russia for an end to the crisis. Great trade as what he gave was largely hidden at the time, whereas what the Russians gave was made public. Genius because Kennedy needed to worry about the press but Khrushchev had his press under his thumb. Those two men therefore found the way out by exploiting the difference in what they needed and found common ground on which they came to a win/win in a situation that everyone thought was lost! The international press was that Kennedy had "stared down" Khrushchev. That was a great outcome for the USA from a propaganda point of view - well worth the trade - and given how much data we had on Russian targets it was great for Russia too. It was good for Castro but not necessarily for the Cuban people.
agreed, of topic, but i think the mafia killed kennedy for losing Cuba to Castro (not that he had any influence - Badolio was the one to blaime of course mafia should of taken him out instead - lol). not related to bay of pig faisco - but think the cubal missile crises was the result of the failed bay of pigs invasion.

Justintruth wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 11:44 am
I am so glad of the life that I have had. The whole thing could very easily have been cut short at that time had the military invasion option been selected. It is a tribute to both Kennedy and Khrushchev that this did not happen..
"it" was a close thing indeed, i don't think most folks understand how close ww3 was during those 10? days.

Justintruth wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 11:44 am
What is most interesting is that the real standoff seems to have been between Kennedy and his military and Khrushchev and his military. Both men were as concerned about loosing control over their own country's forces. In case there had been a nuke of the US invasion forces it is possible that neither man could have prevented a strategic war being initialed by their own forces.
yep.


Justintruth wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 11:44 am
Now it takes a little imagination to understand what that means. Until I was in the military I thought "Nuking...good way to die...you just vaporize." After studying blast radii, and realizing that there is everything from a sunburn all the way in to those lucky ones that get incinerated, and realizing that the supply of pain killing medication would be completely overwhelmed by the demand...well...I am just so glad they successfully stopped it and I didn't have to walk around with the flesh all burnt up waiting as I died in agony of infection or radiation poisoning without medical attention. Not so bad for me but having to look around at all those other burn victims in the streets would have been disgusting!

The environmental consequences of nuclear war were not even known then. There would have been a lot of suffering all over the world - major starvation.

Until we organize a properly restrained global government with civil institutions to resolve conflict and we make these nukes obsolete we will never be safe. We have got to deal with two threats: the nukes, and the environment. And we need the resources now enslaved to create institutes on human biology so we can fix the real threat - aging and its inevitable consequences. If we fail to do this we may not be so lucky next time.

And "we"? Well that means the population of the earth.
yep, one word movie reference "threads" one of the best movies of all time (each vewing will remove your life by 2 weeks - on Bluray now BTW - its a good transfur, i have it and the early DVD - this worth the upgrade visually (though filmed in 16mm so never "clear" - the blu is notably better visually than the prior DVD).

there will always be the Southern Hemisphere, so if we have a ww3, South American.Africa and Australia (not all of it - there as some targets worthy of taking out sadly) - will do well enough to continue, and later collonize/conquer the former Northern hemisphere Empires.

thanks for the wise post Sir/Madam.

gaffo
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by gaffo » Sun May 26, 2019 12:21 am

Dachshund wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 12:23 pm
Justintruth wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 11:44 am
Dachshund wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 9:27 pm


Yeah, I do Vegetable,

Nikita Khrushchev, who was a pig - ignorant, Russian peasant and lying, Kommunist Kunt (bit like ewe in a way) said to his buddy, Fidel Castro, in 1962, who was a Kuban, Komminist Kunt, "Fidel, I'm sending you some Soviet nuclear missiles on a ship and when they arrive at Kuba, I want you set set them up so that they're pointed at America and ready to be fired if we give the word to let them go, bro."

The Soviet missiles on Kuba were supposed to be a secret, but the Americans didn't trust the Soviets and they used air surveillance to sus out what was actually going on.

JFK was really pissed off when he saw aerial photo evidence of the Soviet missiles prepped for launch at sites on Kuba because Kuba was only about 90 miles from the US coast (Florida) and if the Soviets launched the Kuban ICBM missiles that Kastro had set up for them, it could mean that lots of major cities in America would be fucked (completely).

So, to cut a long story short, there was a Mexican stand-off at sea in October 1962, afterJFK said to Khrushchev, "We know you've got nukes on Kuba aimed at us, you lying piece of shit, and you'd better get those nukes off Kuba asap, and don't fuck with me, coz if you don't, I'll glassify the whole USSR." Khruschev backed down and removed the Russian ICBMs from Kuba, and that's the end of the storey ,Veggie.



Aroha xx

Dachshund
I am pretty sure the strategic missiles that were to be installed in Cuba never got the nukes mounted on them and never became operational.

HOWEVER,... what I didn't read until recently was that there were tactical nukes in Cuba at the time of the crisis. Further, Khrushchev had pre-authorized their use in case of a US invasion. That means no authorization would have been required by Khrushchev to use them!!!

No intelligence was available in the USA on these nukes. If we had invaded we would have been faced tactical nukes that we did not know were there. Anyone who understands the Art of War will see the significance of these two facts. It's worst case.

Further, the military was recommending invasion and, unaware of what they faced, were predicting a quick victory. Kennedy was so concerned that the military would cause a war without his authorization, that he sent McNamara down to their command center to make sure it didn't happen.

Kennedy basically traded Castro and Cuba and the removal of some obsolete missiles aimed at Russia for an end to the crisis. Great trade as what he gave was largely hidden at the time, whereas what the Russians gave was made public. Genius because Kennedy needed to worry about the press but Khrushchev had his press under his thumb. Those two men therefore found the way out by exploiting the difference in what they needed and found common ground on which they came to a win/win in a situation that everyone thought was lost! The international press was that Kennedy had "stared down" Khrushchev. That was a great outcome for the USA from a propaganda point of view - well worth the trade - and given how much data we had on Russian targets it was great for Russia too. It was good for Castro but not necessarily for the Cuban people.

I am so glad of the life that I have had. The whole thing could very easily have been cut short at that time had the military invasion option been selected. It is a tribute to both Kennedy and Khrushchev that this did not happen.

What is most interesting is that the real standoff seems to have been between Kennedy and his military and Khrushchev and his military. Both men were as concerned about loosing control over their own country's forces. In case there had been a nuke of the US invasion forces it is possible that neither man could have prevented a strategic war being initialed by their own forces.

Now it takes a little imagination to understand what that means. Until I was in the military I thought "Nuking...good way to die...you just vaporize." After studying blast radii, and realizing that there is everything from a sunburn all the way in to those lucky ones that get incinerated, and realizing that the supply of pain killing medication would be completely overwhelmed by the demand...well...I am just so glad they successfully stopped it and I didn't have to walk around with the flesh all burnt up waiting as I died in agony of infection or radiation poisoning without medical attention. Not so bad for me but having to look around at all those other burn victims in the streets would have been disgusting!

The environmental consequences of nuclear war were not even known then. There would have been a lot of suffering all over the world - major starvation.

Until we organize a properly restrained global government with civil institutions to resolve conflict and we make these nukes obsolete we will never be safe. We have got to deal with two threats: the nukes, and the environment. And we need the resources now enslaved to create institutes on human biology so we can fix the real threat - aging and its inevitable consequences. If we fail to do this we may not be so lucky next time.

And "we"? Well that means the population of the earth.


Justintrith,

My understanding is that the Soviet ICBMs on CUBA either were operational , or if not at the rime of the crisis very, very close to being fully primed and ready for launch.

Yes,that's right, the tactical Soviet nukes on Cuba were called "LUNAR "missiles. The US didn't know they existed at the time of the CMC.

The Cuban Missile Crisis what a Kenedy-Khrushchev affair, your wrong about the a standoff being between JFK AND HIS MILITARY and KHRUSHCHEV AND HIS MILITARY. There was also a Soviet B - 52 submarine" in the picture, the Americans were unaware of at the time, that almost launched a nuclear torpedo at the height of the crisis, and in addition a US U-2 spy plane was shot down by the Reds, two incidents that were serious Soviet slip-ups and demonstrate that the Russian's ground command was dangerously dislocated from the leadership in the Moscow.

Regards

Dachshund
yes those two events happened and were part of the dire-pressure and near ww3 result.

esp the sub.

gaffo
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by gaffo » Sun May 26, 2019 12:27 am

Justintruth wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 4:40 pm


When I was in the US military I had a US artillery officer from the European theater say...close paraphrase...."Any officer in Europe who would wait for authorization to nuke a Russian advance would not be worth his salt". It shocked me because I always thought that the decision to go nuclear was reserved for the president.
as any professional viewpoint would be - your euro-compatriot was a nit IMO.

there was a latter close call via the Russians in 1980's - i forget the particulars (but the radar of the USSR (80's) showed a "nuclear attack" - one guy in charge of several nuks refused to "launch on warning" - awaiting higher orders/results of US missiles - and his wise choice to not respond resulted in life for a few more decades at least.

I forget his name/particular, but sure YT will provide the details if interested.

gaffo
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by gaffo » Sun May 26, 2019 12:51 am

Justintruth wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 4:40 pm

Also found out that it is very important operationally in the event of an invasion from Russia into Europe to go nuclear immediately.

yep, this was NATO's operational orders from around 1960-1990. The West lacked the manpower (conventional armer/troops) to halt an invasion of Western Germany. Standing orders were to use Nato conventional army/troops - after softening up USSR armor via "tactical nukes" - artillary 1-kiloton and neutron bomb variety.

we lacked the manpower to prevent conventional invasion, and so made it clear to the Soviets that we will use "tactical nukes" if we had to. (of course they also had tactical nukes too - but they were not reliant upon them per any theoratical invasion of Western Europe.

simply put, we lacked the manpower to rule out nukes, and made it clear to the Ruskies that we will us Tacticals, they then had to decide if to catagorize our use of during their invasion of Western Europe as "general Nukes - so "let the ICBMs fly - and ww3) - or allow "us" to use them during their attempted invasion of Western Europe via convention USSR armer/troops.

not so good policy - i think any use of "nukes" - even small wimpy battlefield ones 1/1000th the size of Hiroshima is not a good idea (in theory it means "using nukes is ok" - and thus ww3 whrn things go south.

BUT i understand it was about $$ and the cost of a standing army in Western Europe equal the Soviets was a cost most americans/western europeans were not willing to abide by, and so what we ended up with.
Justintruth wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 4:40 pm
Of course the idea that the Russians would not first strike is crazy. That whole scenario of them trying to test their conventional superiority by an armored assault through the gap is just stupid.

I don't follow, history is full of stupid.

Justintruth wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 4:40 pm
Used to crack me up watching junior officers puzzle over how they would fight it. We are so wide open to first strike by a small force distributing nukes, that they would almost surely carry it out.
with respect, i dissagree, the Soviets would prefer to use convention army/armor - over tactical nukes (using the latter opens up pandora box) - unlike the West, they had the luxery to a larger conventional army to do just than, and so not consider using their battlefield nuks when invading Western Europe.


Justintruth wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 4:40 pm
Anyway, the current nation state system is ridiculously obsolete.
it is, and why Nation states now bow down to Transnational Corporations - head of state's in all nations are bought out by corps.

so the less obsolete "bow to your master corporate overloads" is the modern reality.

-----i never like Nationalists 30 yrs ago, nor do i like Corporatists today.

but the latter rules this realm, and former only think they rule - but instead server the latter.

gaffo
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by gaffo » Sun May 26, 2019 1:12 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 10:28 am
Dachshund wrote:Dear AUK,

I would like to explain to you how the American's DID win the Vietnam war when Nixon was President. I can prove it, but the moderators will not allow me to publish the story They are pretty good (the Mods) wrt allowing most arguments to be posted, but for some reason, they are touchy about this issue ? So ma be I could send the argument to you in a PM ?

Would that be OK, Mods ?

Regards

Dachshund
I have no idea why you are asking the mods whether you can send a PM as the mods only act on PM's that are reported to them?

That the mods have lately taken to deleting American political threads appears to be in the main because they are not philosophical enough.

If you are going to punt the old-news argument that Nixon had gained the Paris peace treaty and had won the war but was scuppered by the democrats refusing to supply the South Vietnamese like for like arms to defend themselves then I think you just another right-wing weeble trying to resuscitate Nixon's reputation for whatever reason but that was not a war won was it as the North was still there, it was just a cease-fire hence the offer of unlimited arms to deter the North from future conflict and it's an arguable point that even with those arms the South would still have lost as the Yank government puppets were as usual corrupt and inept and gave the South Vietnamese population and military grunts little reason to support them and fight the communists especially as a large chunk of the South had sympathy for their cause as, right or wrong, they seemed to offer a solution to the massive poverty of the bulk of the population. Reasonably new news tho' is that Nixon was engaged in treason by making behind the scene attempts to scupper President Johnson's peace talks with the North Vietnamese just because he feared that if successful his election chances could be scuppered. Makes you think about why the Trumpette is rattling the sabre at Iran at the moment eh!

So no, please do not PM me your 'proof' unless of course it differs from what I've said above then feel free.
as in honest observer:

1. Nixon did not care about SV - just his skin, if ending that war which was not winnable - yet never calling it a "loss" - and instead a "peace with honour" he did. and so refer to history.
2. dems in congress rightfully refused to fund a war lost (oh sorry, a ceasefire/peace accord (BTW the NV knew they won the war, and had no interest in honouring the "peace accord" they understood Nixon need an "out" for ego, they gave it to him with that "piece of paper" (equal to the Champerlian one decades prior - good for wiping your ass with at most - when signatories do not affirm Rule of Law. so what else is new.
3. Hue fell without a fight in jan 75 (why so? - i'd like to understand the mindset of the SV during that whole war - honestly asking here...........the arms the SV had was akin to the French in 40 - and like the French, instead of standing fast with enough arms to do so (but not a will) - let the NV (Germans) walk over them! why so?
4. after Hue fell, and so after it was too late, SV army outside of Suigan(sp) fought honourably and with teeth, and held out 3 days. again, the SV fought well THEN! - but why not 6 weeks earlier, and instead just let Hue fall without a fking fight?

............

I think the "War" was dumb" - but do feel for the SV that did not wish to join the NV.

i also wonder why the SV never fought for shit - in general.

i am also thankful that the NV were reasonable and did not go all "Pol Pot" on the southern half of their people.

............

now we can just rem the Veitnam war as folly, a bad memory. all those living there are doing well enough today.

Justintruth
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by Justintruth » Mon May 27, 2019 10:39 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 12:27 am
....
I forget his name/particular, but sure YT will provide the details if interested.
http://time.com/4947879/stanislav-petro ... -obituary/

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by -1- » Fri May 31, 2019 6:08 pm

Gary Childress wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 11:15 am
Found the Goethe quote: “Beauty is a manifestation of secret natural laws, which otherwise would have been hidden from us forever.”
This Goethe quote is reminiscent of the Beethoven quote, "Music is the language of another world which comprehends us, but we can't comprehend it" (Quoted from memory, not exact.)

Maybe the trend of deep thought in the classicist period of the 19th century Germany was to think that our world partly derives from worlds that are beyond our comrehension or sensation... not a bad idea, I tend to think.

The only reference I can think of sprung in modern times, compared to the "secret" and "unseen" worlds of the 19th century German intelligentsia is the idea that mirrors reverse left and right, but not up and down. Some people think (may be true, I don't know) that the reflective quality of mirrors reflect a deep, underlying "up-and-down-ness" of the universe.

I dunno.

gaffo
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by gaffo » Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:39 am

Justintruth wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 10:39 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 12:27 am
....
I forget his name/particular, but sure YT will provide the details if interested.
http://time.com/4947879/stanislav-petro ... -obituary/
yes, you do him him honour in providing the link and his name.

i personally honour him for having a mind of his own in a time when it was easier to just be a robot.

he save millions IMO.

not being hypoberipic(sp) here.

IMO than man deserves a statue in "Moscow Square".

Justintruth
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by Justintruth » Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:18 pm

gaffo wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:39 am
Justintruth wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 10:39 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 12:27 am
....
I forget his name/particular, but sure YT will provide the details if interested.
http://time.com/4947879/stanislav-petro ... -obituary/
yes, you do him him honour in providing the link and his name.

i personally honour him for having a mind of his own in a time when it was easier to just be a robot.

he save millions IMO.

not being hypoberipic(sp) here.

IMO than man deserves a statue in "Moscow Square".
Or at the United Nations

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by Gary Childress » Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:02 pm

-1- wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 6:08 pm
Gary Childress wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 11:15 am
Found the Goethe quote: “Beauty is a manifestation of secret natural laws, which otherwise would have been hidden from us forever.”
Maybe the trend of deep thought in the classicist period of the 19th century Germany was to think that our world partly derives from worlds that are beyond our comrehension or sensation... not a bad idea, I tend to think.
I think the Goethe quote sort of invokes feelings of reverence for what is beautiful; that the beautiful is something that deserves to be or ought to be appreciated or understood in a way not given to ugliness. I think an alternative perspective would be to treat beauty as purely accidental or ultimately inconsequential. However, the latter view seems maybe somewhat unfulfilling to me.

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by Gary Childress » Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:04 pm

Justintruth wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:18 pm
gaffo wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:39 am
yes, you do him him honour in providing the link and his name.

i personally honour him for having a mind of his own in a time when it was easier to just be a robot.

he save millions IMO.

not being hypoberipic(sp) here.

IMO than man deserves a statue in "Moscow Square".
Or at the United Nations
I would definitely say the UN, also.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests