Socialism in action

[George Affleck]

3. Trump is the antithesis of conservatism and traditional Republican principles

I will disagree with this as a statement and make a general observation. The reason this seems a reasonable assumption is because we have had hundreds of years of conservative capitulation to the left's socialist ideals. From 1933 - 1969 (except for Eisenhower who was elected not on policy but as a post-war hero) the average U.S. citizen began to demand, from government, more and more control and equality of income. The result is that the concept of hard work equals success has been seriously eroded.

- "The Donald" could hardly be considered the standard-bearer for "family values"

This is true. He is a product of the times in which he has lived. But 'squeaky clean' can no longer get elected - example Mitt Romney - example on the other side - Bill Clinton.

- Trump only recently became a supporter of proLife and the 2nd Amendment, once he realized that it was to his political

Trump has become a facilitator for the political right. Prior to becoming president he did not have to make decisions on these issues. The fact that he falls off the fence on the conservative side is proof of his conservatism. His desire to protect the country and the constitution is diametrically opposed to the new democratic wave of socialists in the house.

- this President doesn't support the conservative doctrine of supporting free trade and allowing the capitalist marketplace to operate free of government interference and tariffs

This is not a conservative doctrine. It is a nationalist, protectionist doctrine. Neither Reagan or Bush were protectionists. Trump has the guts to be a protectionist based on what he sees as 'artificially' unfair trade. Labor practices in communist countries are abominable and should not be allowed to compete because (for one example) child labor makes their products dirt cheap.

- "Donald J's" foreign policy promotes closer ties with Russia and North Korea, traditional archenemies of the Republicans

There are no "ties" with North Korea. Trump has been tougher than any president before him yet offers reconciliation under the right conditions because he keeps the dialog open. He has no ties to Russia. You guys spent millions of dollars finding that out and still don't believe it.

- Republicans supported strong military treaties with America's allies (ie NORAD), while Trump criticizes them and insults their democratically elected leaders

Any country deserves to be called out for not pulling their weight. I am Canadian and prior to Trump taking office, I had no idea the rest of the world was taking advantage of the US in NATO and the UN. I am ashamed in fact. Let every country bear an equitable share - good on him for letting the world know and for heaven's sake don't shoot the messenger.

- Republicans favoured stationing American military forces around the world as a deterrent, Trump wants to disengage from all military entanglements and foreign wars

In the last century it was democratic presidents who issued declarations of war in the two world wars and Kennedy who backed the Russians down in Cuba, so I don't think you can make the blanket statement that strong foreign engagement is a Republican only doctrine. It's just not that simple.
Engage and the US is called war mongering right wing bullies. Disengage and you call that anti-republican.
I don't see a win here.
But why should the US shoulder all the responsibility for the world's evils anyway? Who made them the planet's sole police force?
It was actually Trump who ordered the increased US presence in the Persian Gulf recently and who continues war games with South Korea under Kim's nose.

The Democrats recipe for disaster is to bankrupt the American economy and open your borders to anyone. And the average US citizen picked the only guy who could keep that from happening, as rough around the edges as he might be. And they will do it again in 2020, I hope.

 

[Supremum]

Sorry, I missed this one, but I think this is important to say.

One of the difficulties here is that it has been suggested that fascism borrows from the left or from the right as it deems necessary to fulfill it's goals and that it is really an entity that is not anywhere on the line between left and right on the political spectrum. This is patently false.

This is literally true.

The whole point of having a line at all is to place all political/economic entities somewhere on the line for purposes of understanding underlying principles. To suggest that any exist outside the line, off the charts, is to negate the purpose and function of the line entirely.

Relevant portion bolded for emphasis.
During the Spanish Civil War the anarchists desecrated cathedrals by gangraping clergy on the altars. They dug up the bodies of deceased nuns and paraded them around on the streets. They were anarchists, though, so they were...right wing? I mean they advocated for the smallest government possible. None at all. How do you square this? What on God's green earth do you think you or I have in common with them?

Fascism, due to its total governmental subjugation of personal goals in favor of the collective goal of domination, lies squarely on the left and rivals communism in socialist controlling goals.
The difference between them is that communism is economically driven and fascism is politically driven.

Power is just power. It's what you use it for that matters. There's so much more to these ideologies that separates them that is not accounted for in the big vs small government dichotomy.

 

[George Affleck]

During the Spanish Civil War the anarchists desecrated cathedrals by gangraping clergy on the altars. They dug up the bodies of deceased nuns and paraded them around on the streets. They were anarchists, though, so they were...right wing? I mean they advocated for the smallest government possible. None at all. How do you square this? What on God's green earth do you think you or I have in common with them?

A group of people who are without a political/economic agenda ("None at all") can be categorized about the same as bananas. They are not on the line "at all". No government is not the same as the smallest government possible.

 

[Yorzhik]

[boxThe whole point of having a line at all is to place all political/economic entities somewhere on the line for purposes of understanding underlying principles. To suggest that any exist outside the line, off the charts, is to negate the purpose and function of the line entirely. [/box]
Relevant portion bolded for emphasis.
During the Spanish Civil War the anarchists desecrated cathedrals by gangraping clergy on the altars. They dug up the bodies of deceased nuns and paraded them around on the streets. They were anarchists, though, so they were...right wing? I mean they advocated for the smallest government possible. None at all. How do you square this? What on God's green earth do you think you or I have in common with them?

There is a good argument that states that anarchy is the largest government, with a per-capita ratio of government officials to citizens being closer to 1 than any other form of governance.

But, on to the topic at hand, Nazi government was leftist, and leftists are more racist than rightists (Nazis being a prime example). If you want to dispute that the Nazis were on the left, you'll have to define what a socialist is first. So, please, tell us what a socialist is and we'll compare.

 

[genuineoriginal]

In other words, you are incapable of answering the question I asked you. But thanks--I guess--for the free, meaningless bumper sticker.

In other words, you are incapable of thought. Thanks for trying.

 

[genuineoriginal]

1. National socialism in Nazi Germany had nothing to do with socialism - once Hitler took power he dissolved the unions and cultivated the support of the industrialists!

National socialism in Nazi Germany had everything to do with socialism as Hitler understood it.

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian When one remembers that the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party — Mises's identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism? What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive.

​

2 Hitler viewed the communists as Germany's greatest enemy, many of whom he placed in concentration camps to relief of the wealthy industrialists and the conservative German military!

Hitler's main objection to communism was that the communist form of socialism did not match his own ideals of socialism.

Hitler and the socialist dream As for communists, [Hitler] opposed them because they created mere herds, Soviet-style, without individual life, and his own ideal was "the socialism of nations" rather than the international socialism of Marx and Lenin. The one and only problem of the age, he told Wagener, was to liberate labour and replace the rule of capital over labour with the rule of labour over capital. These are highly socialist sentiments, and if Wagener reports his master faithfully they leave no doubt about the conclusion: that Hitler was an unorthodox Marxist who knew his sources and knew just how unorthodox the way in which he handled them was. He was a dissident socialist. His programme was at once nostalgic and radical. It proposed to accomplish something that Christians had failed to act on and that communists before him had attempted and bungled. "What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish," he told Wagener, "we shall be in a position to achieve."

​

3. Trump is the antithesis of conservatism and traditional Republican principles
- "The Donald" could hardly be considered the standard-bearer for "family values"
- Trump only recently became a supporter of proLife and the 2nd Amendment, once he realized that it was to his political
- this President doesn't support the conservative doctrine of supporting free trade and allowing the capitalist marketplace to operate free of government interference and tariffs
- "Donald J's" foreign policy promotes closer ties with Russia and North Korea, traditional archenemies of the Republicans
- Republicans supported strong military treaties with America's allies (ie NORAD), while Trump criticizes them and insults their democratically elected leaders
- Republicans favoured stationing American military forces around the world as a deterrent, Trump wants to disengage from all military entanglements and foreign wars

Your leftist misunderstandings about conservatism is to be expected.
It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism.

 

[George Affleck]

National socialism in Nazi Germany had everything to do with socialism as Hitler understood it.

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian When one remembers that the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party — Mises's identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism? What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive.

​

Hitler's main objection to communism was that the communist form of socialism did not match his own ideals of socialism.

Hitler and the socialist dream As for communists, [Hitler] opposed them because they created mere herds, Soviet-style, without individual life, and his own ideal was "the socialism of nations" rather than the international socialism of Marx and Lenin. The one and only problem of the age, he told Wagener, was to liberate labour and replace the rule of capital over labour with the rule of labour over capital. These are highly socialist sentiments, and if Wagener reports his master faithfully they leave no doubt about the conclusion: that Hitler was an unorthodox Marxist who knew his sources and knew just how unorthodox the way in which he handled them was. He was a dissident socialist. His programme was at once nostalgic and radical. It proposed to accomplish something that Christians had failed to act on and that communists before him had attempted and bungled. "What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish," he told Wagener, "we shall be in a position to achieve."

​

Your leftist misunderstandings about conservatism is to be expected.
It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism.

Nail - head - hit!

Post of the week

 

[jgarden]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6bSsaVL6gA

Perhaps "George Afflick" should research the background of his supposed authority, Dinesh Souza, on the ideological leanings of "National Socialism" before posting his link on "Toutube!"

Dinesh Souza
- Indian-born American conservative political commentator, author, filmmaker, and conspiracy theorist, often described as a far right provocateur by media sources

FELONY CONVICTION - May 20, 2014, D'Souza pleads guilty in federal court to one felony charge of using a "straw donor" to make an illegal campaign contribution to a 2012 United States Senate campaign
- September 23, 2014, D'Souza sentenced to eight months in a halfway house near his home in San Diego, five years probation, and a $30,000 fine
- May 31, 2018, D'Souza was issued a full pardon by President Donald Trump

CONSPIRACY THEORIST - D'Souza's films and commentary have generated considerable controversy due to their promotion of multiple conspiracy theories
- October 2018 - in response to the mail bombing attempts on prominent Democratic politicians in D'Souza tweeted "Fake sexual assault victims. Fake refugees. Now fake mail bombs" and spread the conspiracy theory that because there was no cancellation mark on the bomb-containing packages they were not mailed

HOMOSEXUALS - D'Souza faced criticism during his time at the Review for authoring an article publicly outing homosexual members of the school's Gay Straight Alliance student organization

MOCKING SCHOOL SHOOTING VICTIMS - February 2018, D'Souza was widely criticized for a series of tweets which mocked the survivors of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
- in response to a photo of survivors reacting to Florida lawmakers voting down a proposed ban on assault weapons in the aftermath of the shooting, D'Souza tweeted "worst news since their parents told them to get summer jobs"
- D'Souza's comments were condemned by both liberal and conservative commentators. Jonathan M. Katz wrote, "Let it never be said that Dinesh does not actively root for the death of children."
- others accused D'Souza of "trolling kids"
- D'Souza was also denounced by Conservative Political Action Conference, which removed him from the roster of speakers, and called his comments "indefensible"

CATHOLICS - September 1985, in an article titled "The Bishops as Pawns," D'Souza theorized that Catholic bishops in the United States were being manipulated by American liberals in agreeing to oppose the U.S. military buildup and use of power abroad
- D'Souza believed that they knew very little about these subjects to which they were lending their religious credibility
- his assertions didn't go unnoticed and D'Souza served a policy adviser in the administration of President Ronald Reagan between 1987 and 1988, before becaoming a US naturalized citizen in 1991

RACISM - n 1995 D'Souza published The End of Racism, in which he claimed that exaggerated claims of racism are holding back progress among African Americans in the US;
- he defended the Southern slave owner, and notes that "The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well"
- Michael Bérubé referred to the book as "encyclopedic pseudoscience", calling it illogical and saying some of the book's policy recommendations are fascist; it is "so egregious an affront to human decency as to set a new and sorry standard for 'intellectual'"

COLONIALISM - ... proved to be the mechanism that brought millions of nonwhite people into the orbit of Western freedom."
- D'Sousa holds up the European colonization of India as an example, arguing that in the long run colonization was beneficial for India, because it introduced Western law, universities, infrastructure, and the like, while effectively ending human sacrifice, the practice of Sati, and other "charming indigenous customs"
- D'Souza challenges the notion that all world cultures are equal: "D'Souza challenges one of the central premises of today's intelligentsia: The equality of all cultures

9/11, MUSLIMS -D'Souza published The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for 9/11 (2007)
- argues that the American cultural left was in large part responsible for the Muslim anger that led to the September 11 attacks
- Muslims do not hate America because of its freedom and democracy, but because they perceive America to be imposing its moral depravity (support for sexual licentiousness) on the world
- D'Souza's conclusion urges conservatives to condemn products of the American entertainment industry
- American conservatives should join the Muslims and others in condemning the global moral degeneracy that is produced by liberal values
- book was criticized in major American newspapers and magazines and described as, among other things, "the worst nonfiction book about terrorism published by a major house since 9/11" and "a national disgrace"

THE BIG LIE - July 2017, D'Souza published The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left
- D'Souza asserts that the 2016 Democratic Party platform was similar to the platform of the Third Reich
- statement received further media attention in 2018 when repeated by Donald Trump Jr with PolitiFact giving the claim its "Pants-on-Fire" rating,
- noted that "only a small number of elements of the two platforms are clearly similar, and those are so uncontroversial that they appear in the Republican platform as well"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D'Souza

 

[George Affleck]

Perhaps "George Afflick" should research the background of his supposed authority, Dinesh Souza, on the ideological leanings of "National Socialism" before posting his link on "Toutube!"

I know all about his background and I never said he was an authority. Why would you tell a lie like that?

Thanks for publishing this however. If someone has been living on Mars it is good to be brought up to date.
Pretty impressive what he has been able to accomplish with so much against him.

 

[jgarden]

I know all about his background and I never said he was an authority. Why would you tell a lie like that?

Thanks for publishing this however. If someone has been living on Mars it is good to be brought up to date.
Pretty impressive what he has been able to accomplish with so much against him.

Why would "George Afflick" provide a link to Dinesh Souza's views on "National Socialism" and then dismiss all responsibility for him as his chosen authority and his mountain of political "baggage?"

"George Afflick" can't have it both ways, either he's providing a link to D'Souza, a convicted felon, whom he considers a reputable authority on "National Socialism" that shares his opinion or he's just wasting our time!

My guess is that "George Afflick" simply "googled" "national socialism," failed to do his "due diligence" by researching it to be a reputable source he could defend, and is now trying to bluff his way out!

 

[genuineoriginal]

Dinesh Souza
- Indian-born American conservative political commentator, author, filmmaker, and conspiracy theorist, often described as a far right provocateur by media sources

Are you racist against him because he has brown skin and was born in India?
Are you sexist against him because he is a male?
Do you just hate him because he doesn't kowtow to the far leftist provocateurs running your preferred media sources?

 

[Supremum]

CONSPIRACY THEORIST - D'Souza's films and commentary have generated considerable controversy due to their promotion of multiple conspiracy theories
- October 2018 - in response to the mail bombing attempts on prominent Democratic politicians in D'Souza tweeted "Fake sexual assault victims. Fake refugees. Now fake mail bombs" and spread the conspiracy theory that because there was no cancellation mark on the bomb-containing packages they were not mailed

Lol. The bombs were literally fake. They were just pipes with clocks duct taped to the side.

HOMOSEXUALS - D'Souza faced criticism during his time at the Review for authoring an article publicly outing homosexual members of the school's Gay Straight Alliance student organization

lol

MOCKING SCHOOL SHOOTING VICTIMS - February 2018, D'Souza was widely criticized for a series of tweets which mocked the survivors of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
- in response to a photo of survivors reacting to Florida lawmakers voting down a proposed ban on assault weapons in the aftermath of the shooting, D'Souza tweeted "worst news since their parents told them to get summer jobs"

lol

- D'Souza's comments were condemned by both liberal and conservative commentators. Jonathan M. Katz wrote, "Let it never be said that Dinesh does not actively root for the death of children."

lol

RACISM - n 1995 D'Souza published The End of Racism, in which he claimed that exaggerated claims of racism are holding back progress among African Americans in the US;

I agree that that's silly. Black people are keeping black people from "progressing."

- he defended the Southern slave owner, and notes that "The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well"

Well, is he wrong?

- Michael Bérubé referred to the book as "encyclopedic pseudoscience", calling it illogical and saying some of the book's policy recommendations are fascist; it is "so egregious an affront to human decency as to set a new and sorry standard for 'intellectual'"

Oh noes! We have to stop the fascisms.

COLONIALISM - ... proved to be the mechanism that brought millions of nonwhite people into the orbit of Western freedom."
- D'Sousa holds up the European colonization of India as an example, arguing that in the long run colonization was beneficial for India, because it introduced Western law, universities, infrastructure, and the like, while effectively ending human sacrifice, the practice of Sati, and other "charming indigenous customs"

This is unequivocally true.

- D'Souza challenges the notion that all world cultures are equal: "D'Souza challenges one of the central premises of today's intelligentsia: The equality of all cultures

It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that cultures and peoples are not equal.

- Muslims do not hate America because of its freedom and democracy, but because they perceive America to be imposing its moral depravity (support for sexual licentiousness) on the world

Fact check: true.

- D'Souza's conclusion urges conservatives to condemn products of the American entertainment industry

Wow wtf I love Dinesh D'Souza now.

- book was criticized in major American newspapers and magazines and described as, among other things, "the worst nonfiction book about terrorism published by a major house since 9/11" and "a national disgrace"

Being criticized by major American newspapers and magazines isn't a negative, in my book. It's actually a positive, and a sign you're on the right track.

THE BIG LIE - July 2017, D'Souza published The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left
- D'Souza asserts that the 2016 Democratic Party platform was similar to the platform of the Third Reich
- statement received further media attention in 2018 when repeated by Donald Trump Jr with PolitiFact giving the claim its "Pants-on-Fire" rating,
- noted that "only a small number of elements of the two platforms are clearly similar, and those are so uncontroversial that they appear in the Republican platform as well"

Yeah, well, he's an RNC shill. What do you expect? Both sides are responsible for turning the modern political discourse into nothing but comparisons to a cartoon of a German worker's movement from 80 years ago.

 

[Supremum]

A group of people who are without a political/economic agenda ("None at all") can be categorized about the same as bananas. They are not on the line "at all".

They do have a political/economic agenda, though. There are many different conceptions of a stateless society that all differ in important places.
Anyways, I'm sorry, but if you place totalitarian governments on one end of a spectrum then you have to put anarchism on the other end. This is how everyone uses this spectrum. I suspect its what you would have said two days ago.

No government is not the same as the smallest government possible.

No government literally is the smallest government possible.

There is a good argument that states that anarchy is the largest government, with a per-capita ratio of government officials to citizens being closer to 1 than any other form of governance.

There is something to be said about anarcho-tyranny being just as bad if not worse than, you know, regular tyranny. But this just sounds like word games. Democracies aren't more governmentier than monarchies because more people have a say in the process.

But, on to the topic at hand, Nazi government was leftist

Third Positionist.

and leftists are more racist than rightists (Nazis being a prime example).

Should I actually explain Nazi racial thinking again? Bro, the Nazis weren't "racist" for any value of "racist" that you'd recognize. The SS believed in this bizarre race cult that involved ancient ice giants from some sort of arctic Atlantis. They fit it in with a reconstructed neo-Odinist religion that incorporated tons of Hindu mysticism. The Allies, for example the United States, had white-only naturalization and immigration laws, enforced segregation, etc...
The idea that we fought WW2 for some sort of noble goal like ending muh racisms or saving the Jews is revisionist nonsense that was invented in the 1960s by actual communists.

If you want to dispute that the Nazis were on the left, you'll have to define what a socialist is first. So, please, tell us what a socialist is and we'll compare.

You see, it's difficult to do this because anyone can come up with some economic platform and call it socialism. Or real socialism. Heck, the Nazis did that. They did, however, oppose communists(Marxists), such as the ones in Spain, on very basic philosophical grounds, such as a rejection of materialism.

 

[jgarden]

Lol. The bombs were literally fake. They were just pipes with clocks duct taped to the side.


lol


lol


lol


I agree that that's silly. Black people are keeping black people from "progressing."


Well, is he wrong?


Oh noes! We have to stop the fascisms.


This is unequivocally true.


It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that cultures and peoples are not equal.


Fact check: true.


Wow wtf I love Dinesh D'Souza now.


Being criticized by major American newspapers and magazines isn't a negative, in my book. It's actually a positive, and a sign you're on the right track.


Yeah, well, he's an RNC shill. What do you expect? Both sides are responsible for turning the modern political discourse into nothing but comparisons to a cartoon of a German worker's movement from 80 years ago.

Its thought that it would be painfully obvious that the thoughts and actions of convicted felon, Dinesh Souza, would be considered reprehensible.

Apparently "Supremum" and "genuineoriginal" have adopted him as a "role model" - which literally speaks volumes as to their lack of a "moral compass" and understanding of Christian values!

 

[Right Divider]

Its thought that it would be painfully obvious that the thoughts and actions of convicted felon, Dinesh Souza, would be considered reprehensible.

Ad hominem fallacy.

 

[7djengo7]

Stand back for a second. Suppose that some clinic in the U.S. that performs these operations, or that gives puberty blockers to kids, had the same thing done to it. What do you think their motivations were?

By the word, 'their' (in "their motivations"), whom do you mean? Do you mean people who are morally repulsed by, and hate, the wicked deeds of such a clinic, or, instead, do you mean amoral, God-despising people who, not repulsed, couldn't care less whether or not the clinic's practices are evil and deleterious to mankind, and do not hate such practices?

You have not answered this underlined question. If you cannot answer, or refuse to answer, this question, then why should you expect me to say, "Ah, yes! Their motivation must have been their moral repulsion to the clinic's evil practice!" And, if you would answer my question by saying, "By the word 'their', I mean people who are morally repulsed by, and hate, the wicked deeds of such a clinic", then, why would you even need to ask me, "What do you think their motivations were?" Obviously, people who are morally repulsed by such deeds would be motivated to take action against such deeds by their moral repulsion to such deeds.

I'm referring to the people who took the action. That's it.

Why is that? Why are you not referring to the people who ordered the action? Or, would you say that no one ordered the action--that it was, instead, spontaneous action taken by rank and file Nazis, on their own initiative, and ordered by none of the Nazi leaders?

Without any other information, what is your first, naive belief about their motivations?

Supposing that, by your word "their", you're only referring to some of the rank and file SA men, here, and not the higher-ups leading them, have I not already answered this question? Here:

For my part--supposing (at least for the sake of argument) that the SA did, in fact, burn such infinitely burn-worthy, vile, damnable, Satanic trash-- I could sooner imagine that such incineration would have been more or less eagerly, dutifully carried out by lower level SA men out of real conscience and natural repulsion than that it would have been spearheaded by SA leadership on account of any moral concern, or hatred for the heinous nature of the tinder.

Suppose two thugs just robbed a bank. On the run, while laying low, one of the robbers kills the other. To ask what you just asked is like asking: "What, other than hatred for the evil done by the one robber, could possibly be the motive of his partner in crime, the other robber, in killing him?"

The thing is, I can think of other motivations for this pretty easily, greed being one. In fact, with no other information, my first instinct would be to assume it was greed.

Yeah, and that's exactly why the question I devised is quite like the question you asked: it is possible, nay, easy, to conceive of more than just one, realistic motivation to account for the deed.

What is your first instinct in the scenario I laid out, and why is it such a difficult question to answer in relation to the SA?

In relation to whom? In relation to the rank and file, order-following SA men, or, instead, in relation to the Nazi leadership?

The party leadership made no qualms about their hatred for this kind of degeneracy.

Sure, because no power-seeking political party leadership ever lies about anything, right? And, certainly, the heads of the Nazi party weren't about to try to propagandize anybody so as to gain followers, right?

If not moral repulsion, what could have been their motivations?

Um, maybe to dish out some powerful, "plain folk" propaganda for the consumption of those who actually were morally repulsed by such vileness?

Because nobody has ever gained public trust and political power by hiding their motives, right? Or, were the Nazis, somehow, uniquely incapable of such perfidy?

The Nazis weren't uniquely anything.

So then, you admit that the Nazi chiefs were not uniquely incapable of such perfidy, which admission entails that the Nazi chiefs were capable of such perfidy. That they were capable of doing, and saying, whatever they deemed necessary to do, and to say, so as to acquire, and maintain, political power.

People have trouble parsing the motivations behind the growth of the party because they have this Hollywood-created caricature of Hitler burned into their brain.

I suppose, then, that you recommend people to ditch Hollywood productions, and to start watching only, say, films by Leni Riefenstahl, instead, so that they will, thereby, acquire an accurate view of Hitler?

There was a lot more to their rise than just "inflation happened and magic mustache man brainwashed everybody."

Oh, I certainly do not doubt it.

Is fascism big on the rule of law? Are fascists qua fascists big on the rule of law? Or, are you just saying that some, though not necessarily all, fascists happen to be big on the rule of law?

In short, yes.

If you are saying "yes" to both questions ("Are fascists qua fascists big on the rule of law?" AND "[Do] some, though not necessarily all, fascists happen to be big on the rule of law?"), then you are contradicting your one "yes" by your other "yes", and vice versa. If it is true that fascists qua fascists are big on the rule of law, then it is false that not necessarily all fascists are big on the rule of law, and vice versa.

Oh, and, the rule of what law would you say fascism is big on?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Its thought that it would be painfully obvious that the thoughts and actions of convicted felon, Dinesh Souza, would be considered reprehensible.

Are you aware of the facts behind the conviction, including the way the prosecution threw the book at Dinesh D'Souza to get him to take a plea agreement?
Our "Justice" system is reprehensible.

Apparently "Supremum" and "genuineoriginal" have adopted him as a "role model" - which literally speaks volumes as to their lack of a "moral compass" and understanding of Christian values!

You seem to be lacking a "moral compass" yourself, so how could you possibly be able to understand another person's moral compass?

 

[Gary K]

Its thought that it would be painfully obvious that the thoughts and actions of convicted felon, Dinesh Souza, would be considered reprehensible.

Why? Dinesh owned up to his mistake in court, said he shouldn't have done it. Sounds like an honest man to me. Now let's examine the Democrats who have done the same exact thing and Democrat prosecutors allowed them to skate without even a fine. They just walked free.

John Edward soliciting millions from campaign donors to hide his mistress and her child from his wife who was dying of cancer at the time. And you think d Sousa is evil for trying to help a friend win an election? https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/john-edwards-retried-campaign-finance-charges/story?id=16561020

How about Hillary's campaign finance law violations? They are far worse than Dinesh ever thought of doing. https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/hillary-superpac-coordination/

How about the Clinton's ripping of the Haitians for billions of dollars after the big earthquake there? https://www.wnd.com/2016/08/the-clintons-crimes-in-haiti/

 

[Gary K]

Here is a very interesting article from the Sacramento Bee, a newspaper in the capital city of California. It notes that California, which is more socialist than any other state in the nation, has the highest poverty level of any state in the nation. This is exactly what happens under socialism. The USSR, Red China, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, etc... had the lowest per capita income of any nations on earth. Their poverty rates were extremely high. China's poverty rates have dropped some and their flat line economy is improving as they move more towards a capitalist economy, but the average person there is still very poor. Their per capita income is still dreadful.

California, typically one of the most prosperous and progressive states, is also one of the poorest.


That’s according to new data from the US Census Bureau that offers insight into the economic status of people in California and the nation. The annual release of survey data measures income, poverty and insurance status.


For California, that means another reminder that the state’s poverty rate of 18.2 percent is exceeded only by Washington DC, which has a poverty rate of 18.4 percent when you account for the cost of living. It accounts for about 1 in every six residents.


The state’s poverty rate in 2018 was about 5 percentage points higher than the national average of 13.2 percent, using the “supplemental poverty measure” that accounts for the cost of living in each state, namely food, clothing, housing and utilities. Only states in the Deep South like Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida came close with poverty rates floating around 16 percent.

The rest of the article is found here: https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article234920662.html

 

[George Affleck]

They do have a political/economic agenda, though. There are many different conceptions of a stateless society that all differ in important places.
Anyways, I'm sorry, but if you place totalitarian governments on one end of a spectrum then you have to put anarchism on the other end. This is how everyone uses this spectrum. I suspect its what you would have said two days ago.

Anarchy definition:
"Anarchy refers to the state of a society being without authorities or a governing body, and the general confusion and chaos resulting from that condition. It may also refer to a society or group of people that totally rejects hierarchy" - Wikipedia.

"an·ar·chy
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose."

That which is absent of politics is not on any political spectrum for the same reason that bananas is not on the spectrum - neither are political. To be rated on the political spectrum an ideology must have a stated political aim. You are confusing a political spectrum with an ideological spectrum.

Example: Atheism is not within the spectrum of Christian beliefs because it is not Christian. It is within the realm of religion because religion is a larger set and includes all belief systems; of which atheism is one.

No government literally is the smallest government possible.

Incorrect. No government is no government and no politics. Zero. Nada. If you have no bananas, is this the smallest number of bananas that you can have? Not at all. the smallest number of bananas you can have is 1.