tinfoilhat Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I see you couldnt resist the insults says more about you than anything I could say,now back on topic this isnt about hitler or the 1930s its about a political philosiphy and one that inspite of attempts to destroy it has stood the test of time. If you think its ok for the bankers to rip off the people than thats your choice and if you think class has any part to play in society then again thats your opinion,MY alternative is to get rid of both. Your liberal ideas have failed and its time for another appoach,no more, its time the nation state was re born and we all work to make it better than we found it.people are cying out for a better way and we are sick of the mess the other parties and their ideology have left. I don't like bankers either but prefer them to secret police, gas chambers and war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 The present system of 2 party politics being mainly liberal in nature even from the so called right wing part i e the Tory Party has utterly failed. Is it time for National Socialism to be looked at again?the idea of one nation one people and one race and the idea that we all working for one goal the nation state,and to be rid of class barriers and for us all to work for the common good.? And what happens if some people believe that the work being done is not for the common good and differ accordingly and have other ideas? Is there any room for such people in such a society?. One nation, one people, one race? Leave the last one out unless prejudice and intolerance are to be a part of that new world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I see you couldnt resist the insults says more about you than anything I could say,now back on topic this isnt about hitler or the 1930s its about a political philosiphy and one that inspite of attempts to destroy it has stood the test of time... The problem with National Socialism is that at its heart are 3 malignant concepts, that stemmed from the difficult social conditions at the time this disgusting philosophy was conceived: 1) authoritarianism- this is fanatically applied not just by the power elite, but by every member of the society. It stems from a position of negative freedom (freedom from the old order) which leaves individuals feeling anxiety, depression and a lack of security, which they seek to counteract by imposing strict order upon the world, usually through sadistic or masochistic force and brutality. 2) destructiveness- anything or anyone which cannot be controlled must be eliminated from society in order to keep the society strong. 3) conformity- the individual must give up their individuality and conform to social normative behaviour in order to prove that they are under control. This is the absolute antithesis of the 'free thinking' that you admire so much in yourself. If you're not sure what social conformity looks like I'd recommend you read/watch Orwell's 1984 and consider whether you'd really be willing to permanently hide your own thoughts and opinions for the 'good of the nation'. You don't want to attribute National Socialism to 1930's Germany, fine? Try asking yourself whether these 3 key elements aren't very similar to Islamic Fundamentalism in the modern era. Authoritarian control by strictly dictating how the Quran is to be interpreted, destructiveness through murdering and rioting against any perceived opposition or affront and conformity through shared faith being more important than the individual. See, they're not so different! National Socialism is social insanity at its very worst and I would truly urge you to open up that free thinking mind of yours and reconsider your position. You do not want to be in the position that many Germans alive in the 1930's faced when their own children grew up, learned their history and realised that their parents were responsible for some of the worst atrocities ever committed in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 And what happens if some people believe that the work being done is not for the common good and differ accordingly and have other ideas? Is there any room for such people in such a society?. One nation, one people, one race? Leave the last one out unless prejudice and intolerance are to be a part of that new world I suppose you could always go for a dictatorship. Government by executive decree order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I suppose you could always go for a dictatorship. Government by executive decree order. Kind of rings a bell Eine volk, eine rasskund (Maybe my German's out of whack) My hats off to any miracle worker who could achieve 100 percent success in persuading 100 percent of the population to totally agree on what is the "common good". Robots dont count Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Yes it is indeed. I think you mean: "One people, one Empire" (Ein Volk, ein Reich.) Obama's version is "Bugger the people, I'm the emperor!" (Die Leute versauen, ich bin der Kaiser.) [i am being polite ] I take it you are familiar with the purpose behind 'executive orders' Harleyman? - They're supposed to enable the head of the Administration (the President) to 'Administer'. They are not there to enable him to act to without the oversight of Congress. When Obama took power, he had a Congress which was on his side. Why did he need so many 'executive orders'? You've lived in the US through many presidential 'reigns'. Why - do you think - did Obama need to pass an executive order which granted him total control of all food and energy supplies and resources in the US? Does he not trust the elected government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Yes it is indeed. I think you mean: "One people, one Empire" (Ein Volk, ein Reich.) Obama's version is "Bugger the people, I'm the emperor!" (Die Leute versauen, ich bin der Kaiser.) [i am being polite ] I take it you are familiar with the purpose behind 'executive orders' Harleyman? - They're supposed to enable the head of the Administration (the President) to 'Administer'. They are not there to enable him to act to without the oversight of Congress. When Obama took power, he had a Congress which was on his side. Why did he need so many 'executive orders'? You've lived in the US through many presidential 'reigns'. Why - do you think - did Obama need to pass an executive order which granted him total control of all food and energy supplies and resources in the US? Does he not trust the elected government? When Obama took power the Congress had a Democrat majority so yes it was on his side. When the Tea Party reared it's head by winning several seats in Congress and Congress passed to the GOP the Tea Leaf Queen was quoted as saying when addressing the newly elected Tea Pary members "Let's make sure Obama is a one term President" That's been the story since then, keyword "Obstructionism" No President in history came into power with such a mess to deal with and later a Congress that had no intention of passing any of his programs and damn the rest of the country. There's far more danger of freedom lost by the agendas of the Evangelical far right nut jobs who run the GOP than a hundred Obamas could ever achieve Something's happened to the GOP. It was never so far right extremist as I see it now. I even voted Republican in elections past, Reagan and George Bush Senior but they were a different breed than what the GOP leadership is today. It's no secret that Romney is not much liked by the GOP. He's looked on as being too moderate but that only reinforces my opinion that picking Romney as the candidate indicates that the party saw it as the only viable candidate who stood a chance against Obama. Look at the rest of the GOP candidates, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachman, Texas Governor Perry and of course good old Newt who keeps cropping up. He had his chance as House Speaker and fizzled out like a damp squib I'll bet you the farm that if Romney wins we'll be in Afghanistan beyond 2014 and worse yet up to our necks in another war before he's through. Just remember what I said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoast Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 The problem with National Socialism is that at its heart are 3 malignant concepts, that stemmed from the difficult social conditions at the time this disgusting philosophy was conceived: 1) authoritarianism- this is fanatically applied not just by the power elite, but by every member of the society. It stems from a position of negative freedom (freedom from the old order) which leaves individuals feeling anxiety, depression and a lack of security, which they seek to counteract by imposing strict order upon the world, usually through sadistic or masochistic force and brutality. 2) destructiveness- anything or anyone which cannot be controlled must be eliminated from society in order to keep the society strong. 3) conformity- the individual must give up their individuality and conform to social normative behaviour in order to prove that they are under control. This is the absolute antithesis of the 'free thinking' that you admire so much in yourself. If you're not sure what social conformity looks like I'd recommend you read/watch Orwell's 1984 and consider whether you'd really be willing to permanently hide your own thoughts and opinions for the 'good of the nation'. You don't want to attribute National Socialism to 1930's Germany, fine? Try asking yourself whether these 3 key elements aren't very similar to Islamic Fundamentalism in the modern era. Authoritarian control by strictly dictating how the Quran is to be interpreted, destructiveness through murdering and rioting against any perceived opposition or affront and conformity through shared faith being more important than the individual. See, they're not so different! National Socialism is social insanity at its very worst and I would truly urge you to open up that free thinking mind of yours and reconsider your position. You do not want to be in the position that many Germans alive in the 1930's faced when their own children grew up, learned their history and realised that their parents were responsible for some of the worst atrocities ever committed in the world. point 1, I prefer to call it dicipline,working for the common good of the state. Point 2,no one is advocating the destruction of anything unless it is going to weaken the will of the majority. Point 3,being able to conform as you term it is to work for the common good in my book,do you really think you live a free country? its not free and you and everyone else is spied on all the time,please dont be naive. Now seeing as you mention Germany in the 30s ,I think you will find that the country was enjoying record standard of living and job security,I suggest you look at the smiling faces of the people to see for yourself,before war came the Germans under National Socialsim had never had it so good. You have to have a open mind on political systems,lets be honest the radical parties are gaining ground and the people have had enough of the coruption and lies of the political class all over the western world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I see you couldnt resist the insults says more about you than anything I could say,now back on topic this isnt about hitler or the 1930s its about a political philosiphy and one that inspite of attempts to destroy it has stood the test of time. If you think its ok for the bankers to rip off the people than thats your choice and if you think class has any part to play in society then again thats your opinion,MY alternative is to get rid of both. Your liberal ideas have failed and its time for another appoach,no more, its time the nation state was re born and we all work to make it better than we found it.people are cying out for a better way and we are sick of the mess the other parties and their ideology have left. There isn't a single insult in my post. Opinions aplenty, but no insults. I think we've moved a long way since the 1930s and we've no need to delve back into such a sorry chapter in human history. Nation states are coming to an end. Read the writing on the wall. For Christ's sake, it is big enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretty_big Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I believe that there is a different option for us politically than the usual two/ three party politics, but I don't think we could implement it straight away, possibly after a few generations worth of preparation. Having a government essentially disempowers people. You have a vote and then for 4-5 years you're at the mercy of the winning party's decisions and policies. Remember how disempowered the people were when the government took the country to war with Iraq, when we bailed out the banks, when all of our public services were cut? There was little to no national debate over these issues, they were just forced upon us despite massive opposition. This is not really democracy, especially when all of our top level politicians have stronger vested interests in corporations than they do in their constituencies. The alternative political system I propose would empower us, but would also force responsibility for our decisions upon us and this is perhaps what we're not yet ready for as a nation. We could easily, with the aid of technology, the internet and the media, run this country ourselves, completely eradicating parties and turning us all into active politicians, but we'd have to educate ourselves from a young age in all aspects of 'statecraft' in order to make reasoned decisions and we'd have to be prepared to take responsibility for our bad choices. We have already had a glimpse of how this can work. When Myspace first came out it took power away from the music industry, they could no longer dictate what we listened to through their limited choice of single releases, we could suddenly listen to a huge range of bands, both signed and unsigned and bands that wouldn't have stood a chance before suddenly found a massive fanbase. It was a real example of what can be gained in terms of an expansion of knowledge, opportunities and ideas when the masses have power rather than the elite few. It's no coincidence that Facebook, which didn't have this music facility, was advertised everywhere as the place to be until it gradually usurped Myspace's role as the biggest social network. The problem at the moment is that we as a society are not prepared to take on issues regarding the economy, foreign policy, welfare etc. Most people in fact switch off when these issues are discussed because they have no real power over them. However, we are a set of people that can run a wide variety of businesses, raise children, create and produce cutting edge technologies, compassionately assist those who need it etc etc so I don't think it's beyond us to make the decisions necessary to set our country on a path which is fairer and provides better opportunities for all. If we paid for our local public services (schools, police, hospitals etc) directly our money would go further (there would be no government borrowing to have to pay off through deficit or debt reduction) and we'd have much better control over how and where that money was spent. If we recognised nationally that our energy infrastructure was failing due to the increasing scarcity of oil and gas we wouldn't send our young people to invade another country for their oil reserves, we'd organise to develop new technologies that would serve us better. It would be a system brimming with a wide range of ideas and empowering opportunities just as Myspace once was. In essence, I think it could be a better system, but it would only ever be as good as the people that participate in it. I also think that in the long run we'd see a huge improvement in the general mental health of the nation, a greater sense of community, less fear, better educated citizens and more pride in ourselves and our environments. We did'nt invade iraq for oil. NO oil has been taken........ http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110101005520AAIs5Xl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.