Interesting to see how this forum devolved into practicing cannibalism

[vegetariantaxidermy]

How ironic

Indeed. You speak of "two wonderful authors" who wrote to combat racism, and hold it up as evidence that Americans are bad people, merely by dint of being Americans.

That's pretty ironic, I'll grant you.

Only to a stupid person. There are many American authors I love and several Americans I admire, although modern American authors use illiterate American proofreaders, making them too stressful and irritating to read.

How exquisitely appropriate that the Nazis also banned (and burned) Mark Twain's books.

[Immanuel Can]

How exquisitely appropriate that the Nazis also banned (and burned) Mark Twain's books.

Well, that's no surprise. The national socialists and the international socialists have been ideological twins. It's only the scope of their ambitions they have different.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

How exquisitely appropriate that the Nazis also banned (and burned) Mark Twain's books.

Well, that's no surprise. The national socialists and the international socialists have been ideological twins. It's only the scope of their ambitions they have different.

There was nothing 'socialist' about the Nazis. 'National socialist' was coined by Hitler to have a greater appeal to the general public of the time. He was a very skilled propagandist and manipulator. You need to read some history. One of the first things Hitler did was ban unions (hardly a 'socialist' act). Hitler's Nazism was a fascist, extreme right wing dictatorship.
You really do need to learn a bit more about politics and political terms.

[Immanuel Can]

There was nothing 'socialist' about the Nazis.

Their economic plan was 100% socialist, involving nationalizing the major industries and centralizing the power in the government, just like the Communists wanted to do. Their uniqueness was in their nationalism, not the other aspects of their ideology. And that's why Hitler and Stalin could start out on the same side. So long as their borders didn't intersect, they both wanted the same things, and had the same view of their own roles in it.Hitler's objection to the Communists was not their socialism; it was their international ambitions. Hitler had his labour camps, and Stalin had his. Both hated the Jews, but with slightly different rationales. Both practiced dictatorship, and eliminated rivals with violence. Both were militaristic...

Hitler said:

"As National socialists we see our programme in our flag. In red we see the social thoughts of the movement, in white the nationalist thoughts, in the hooked-cross the mission of fighting for the victory of Aryan man and at the same time the victory of the concept of creative work"

Renowned Communist historian Eric Hobsbawm wrote:

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

Fascism itself comes from the Italian "fasces" the bundle of sticks collected together to increase strength. In other words, even at root meaning, "fascist" means "collectivist." But I could give you a ton more stuff on this, and you won't care.

So who should study some history? Somebody, for sure.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There was nothing 'socialist' about the Nazis.

Their economic plan was 100% socialist, involving nationalizing the major industries and centralizing the power in the government, just like the Communists wanted to do. Their uniqueness was in their nationalism, not the other aspects of their ideology. And that's why Hitler and Stalin could start out on the same side. So long as their borders didn't intersect, they both wanted the same things, and had the same view of their own roles in it.Hitler's objection to the Communists was not their socialism; it was their international ambitions. Hitler had his labour camps, and Stalin had his. Both hated the Jews, but with slightly different rationales. Both practiced dictatorship, and eliminated rivals with violence. Both were militaristic...

Hitler said:

"As National socialists we see our programme in our flag. In red we see the social thoughts of the movement, in white the nationalist thoughts, in the hooked-cross the mission of fighting for the victory of Aryan man and at the same time the victory of the concept of creative work"

Renowned Communist historian Eric Hobsbawm wrote:

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

Fascism itself comes from the Italian "fasces" the bundle of sticks collected together to increase strength. In other words, even at root meaning, "fascist" means "collectivist." But I could give you a ton more stuff on this, and you won't care.

So who should study some history? Somebody, for sure.

You are a bloody idiot. HUMANS are collectivists. Stalin's Russia was a totalitarian dictatorship run by a madman. Hitler's Germany was a totalitarian dictatorship run by a madman. Don't give me other people's quotes. If you can't think for yourself then fuck off.

[Nick_A]

Get over it folks. You are all one of the great unwashed or the deplorables Hillary spoke of. Know your place. Experts have now condescended to tell you what to read. You must listen to and obey your superiors. The educated elite including the QEP and AOC will now live your life for you. How lucky can you get.

[henry quirk]

Sure, just as soon as they prove, to my satisfaction, that they are superior, I'll take a knee.

[Nick_A]

Sure, just as soon as they prove, to my satisfaction, that they are superior, I'll take a knee.

This is proof of your need for reeducation. The inferiors are never required to prove themselves to their superiors. Even to think something like this is a direct insult to the elite you should be bending your knee to.

Should a king have to prove himself to his peasants? Of course not.The peasants automatically bow. You are fortunate to be able to bow to a government and its educated representatives who have condescended to lead all the deplorables into a glorious utopia just a few years away. All you have to do is believe, obey, and pay the bills. It would be the greatest insult to ask for anything else.

[henry quirk]

Sure, just as soon as they prove, to my satisfaction, that they are superior, I'll take a knee.

This is proof of your need for reeducation. The inferiors are never required to prove themselves to their superiors. Even to think something like this is a direct insult to the elite you should be bending your knee to.

Should a king have to prove himself to his peasants? Of course not.The peasants automatically bow. You are fortunate to be able to bow to a government and its educated representatives who have condescended to lead all the deplorables into a glorious utopia just a few years away. All you have to do is believe, obey, and pay the bills. It would be the greatest insult to ask for anything else.

Well, in for a penny in for a pound: kneel? Make me.

[Luxin]

deleted474

[Immanuel Can]

4. The sincere arguer -- the person who comes with ideas, and is willing to discuss, debate, critique and exchange, but focused on the ideas rather than the persons. Some have strong views, and some have weak ones; but their common hallmark is their willingness to negotiate without arguing personalities or getting into insults.

I think if we could all be type 4, this would be a great forum.

Truth is not negotiable.

A strange statement. Nobody said it was.

But the fact is that nobody here is already possessed of complete truth. We all have learning to do. So we need a method to produce good learning, as opposed to bad misleading...or worse, unlearning dogmatism.

Arguing is evil and can never lead to truth.

You misunderstand here. The term "argument" in philosophy, does not refer to "aimless or angry disputation," as you seem to imply it does. It means "a reasoned exchange of intelligent ideas." So unless you're against the whole idea of people exchanging reasons, I can't see what your point would be.

Truth is intuited by some individuals who never argue about it.

This would be mere closed-mindedness. When a person only knows an idea by "intuition," and refuses to hear any arguments about it, that person is a mere dogmatist -- even if, by accident, he happened to have a true idea. All good ideas can stand up to critique. And critique requires rational debate and philosophical argument.

...brainwashing suggested.

Please point to the part of the message where "brainwashing" was, according to you, "suggested." It certainly was in nothing I wrote.

[Dontaskme]

Hell hath no fury like a mind scorned.

Welcome to hell.

Hell have no fury like a dominant mind that desires to take centre stage.

My teaching, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to
reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even
claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody.


Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I'll meet you there.

The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection; The water has no mind to retain their image.

There's no cure for mind, any cure is to give mind no mind.


What you feed yourself (ego)with, will eventually grow. Whether be good or bad, it will grow. It will affect your entire mood, enviroment, and the way of thinking... Most of all, it will affect your entire outcome of your today.

Mind is no thing, nothing, but mind does not like to be no thing - so there is no cure for any apparent problem, if thought is your enemy, you'll know exactly what to do.Your wanting something that does not exist is the root of your problems.

.

[Dontaskme]

Be there
Light!
Said God
And
There
Was
Total
Black out.
Be there
Peace!
Said God
And
There
Were
World Wars.
Be There
Order!
Said God
And
There
Was
Utter Chaos.
Dismayed
Disillusioned
God said
Be there
No God!
And
Instantly
He
Became
A
Cannibal.

[Dontaskme]

But the fact is that nobody here is already possessed of complete truth.

And that complete truth is the realisation there is nobody to possess truth, the truth cannot be possessed else it become a lie.

And every lie is the complete truth.

[Dontaskme]