Go Home, Gamer girl: Press release on unjust banishment from Calgary Expo

Don’t argue with Americans. They apply their twisted world views to just about anything while ignoring history books.

It’s called ideology.

No, you’re being a dupe. The National Socialists were called such because they presented themselves as an alternative to International Socialism, which was actual socialism. The Nazis were entirely supported by the capitalists, which is rather odd if they were actual socialists.

The Nazis were socialists in the exact same way that the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea is a democratic republic — i.e. not at all.

So…the Nazs were socialists who support came entirely from capitalists, and whose first acts once in power were to arrest socialists and destroy the unions. Sure. That makes sense.

Only small-minded idiots who don’t understand political realities try to shove everything into “right” and “left”. Those terms are only meaningful in the context of a liberal democracy. Outside of liberal democracy, they are meaningless and add nothing to the conversation.

Stalin is one of many examples of why the violent revolution Marxists call for, and the state-sponsored socialism that follows, will always fail. In order to win a violent revolution and seize the means of production and apparatus of the state, the Marxist revolution will ALWAYS have to turn to violent, inhuman men — Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, Chavez, etc. Those men, once they gain control of the state and means of production, will never allow a communist society to develop, because that would lead to a loss of their own power and status. Thus revolutionary Marxists states will ALWAYS collapse into regressive, totalitarian dictatorships.

A totalitarian dictatorship is NEITHER left nor right. Left and right presume the existence of a plurality of voices exercising control, but in a totalitarian dictatorship there is ONLY THE DICTATOR. How could Stalin be “right wing” or “left wing?” HE WAS THE WHOLE GODDAMN BIRD.

Because you fail to understand these realities, you fail to understand why conservatism must always lead to fascism. History cannot be stopped, change is ever present. Progress is ever present. With change and progress comes the destruction of traditional institutional power. No force can stop this.

However, through extreme and violent repression, it can be made to *appear* to stop. Like you can’t stop people from being gay, and once gay people decide they want equal rights, the only thing you can do to stop it is to start killing gay people. That’s why all conservative governments fail or become fascist. The very thing that conservatives promise — that things won’t change — can never be delivered without resorting to fascist violence. Thus anyone promising it is either a fascist, a fraud, or both.

Go fuck yourself, you disingenuous fucking piece of shit. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I just argued, you lying little reptilian fuck. You fucking fascist fuckwads argue exactly like the fucking feminists.

I’m not wasting anymore time aruinng with the kind of rat-bastard FUCK who would sum up my arument as the EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE OF WHAT I JUST SAID. You’re lying sack of shit, just like every other fucking “conservative” crypto-fascict fuckwad I’ve ever had the displeasure of arguing with.

Go suck George Bush’s dick, you fuck.

OK, that’s you second tantrum under the name miles adams.
1. “New” civility, or
2. Don’t feed the simple contrarians.

READ THIS:

“A totalitarian dictatorship is NEITHER left nor right. Left and right presume the existence of a plurality of voices exercising control, but in a totalitarian dictatorship there is ONLY THE DICTATOR. How could Stalin be “right wing” or “left wing?” HE WAS THE WHOLE GODDAMN BIRD.”

READ IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WORDS MEAN, YOU STUPID, LYING SACK OF DOGPISS! YOU ARE DISINGENUOUS FUCKING RAT! TROLLING FUCKSTAINS LIKE YOU ARE THE REASON WHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE MEANINGFUL DEBATE ON THE INTERNET. BECAUE YOU CARE NOTHING ABUT TRUTH, DECENCY, OR FACT. YOU ARE NOTHING BUT LYING, DISEMBLING, DISHONEST SACK OF CRAP WITH THE ETHICS OF A FUCKING WEASEL.

Then explain the success of Mondragon. Oops, you can’t. You probably don’t even know what it is.

But you said a third way was impossible.

Mondragon was founded in 1956 under Franco’s fascism including his policy of economic autarky and thus had many years to build and extend without having to be very good. It also had a Catholic priest at its heart which endeared it to the Francoists. Since the end of the Franco era, Mondragon profited from the EU’s push to equalize Spain with the rest of the member nations. Mondragon had its first major component failure with the bankruptcy of Fagor. It has slowly moved away from employee ownership and currently operates under a two tier labor system between favored employee owners and a larger group of employee non-owners.

So, yes, Mondragon’s success is not that difficult to explain. It was born with an impeccable Catholic pedigree in a time when very Catholic Franco was running the show and perfectly willing to put his thumb on the scale for favored institutions. It has benefited from EU economic spending for political aims and when the money to subsidize its inefficiencies started running low it pragmatically and virtually silently shifted its business model to one that is much less distinctive.

Does this help?

That’s really funny. No.

I actually researched and based my commentary on the Wikipedia article on Mondragon, refreshing my memory of dates and learning about the relatively recent bankruptcy. The two tier labor arrangement was new to me as well. Any resemblance to somebody else’s commentary is an artifact of parallel construction.

My first point was that Mondragon was founded in 1956. My second point was that it was founded in Spain while Franco ruled the place. My third point was that Franco had an economic policy of autarky. My fourth point was that Mondragon is, at heart, a profoundly Catholic institution. My fifth point is that Franco liked Catholicism, a lot. So which one of these is wrong?

Ah so if I don’t accept your ad hoc definitions, then I’m a lying weasel with no ethics.

Hm… guess that means it makes it a lot easier to dehumanize me then, eh? Tell me, am I such a problem to your worldview that you’ll have to get rid of me to make your system work? Will I have to go to a reeducation camp? Seems you’re well on the path to being a regressive, totalitarian dictator yourself…

I have read a lot of your online comments. You seem sad. Lost. Lonely.

Whatever, man. I have been trying to figure out what conservatism is about by asking conservatives for twenty years, and from what I’ve gathered conservatism is pretty much exactly the same as feminism: A bunch of fascist fuckheads who lie, dissemble, and engage in disingenuous bullshit so that they can never be pinned down.

All I know is that conservatives are lying sacks of shit and they always vote for fascists.

I’m glad someone else sees it. They’re exactly like feminists. They use the same sort of motte and bailey defense to defend conservatism from any and all criticism, they revel in No True Scotsman fallacies, and they constantly ignore that their supposedly radical fringe are the most popular voices on their side.

I mean seriously, look at how popular Glenn Beck became. Tell me how Glenn Beck is any fucking different from Anita Sarkeesian? It’s the exact same bullshit.

Lol ‘scuse me NAFALT NOT NAWALT.

>>you fail to understand why conservatism must always lead to fascism.

And yet it’s always Leftist governments that actually bring fascism and totalitarianism. Odd that. I’m thinking that your theory, when compared to real world results, needs a little work. In science it would be called a failed or disproved hypothesis.

I bet the Trots thought so.

For a more recent example of the phenomenon, look up Israeli donations to Hamas in the 1980s when Israel thought they’d be a good counterweight to the PLO. The idea that successfully fighting off the bolsheviks meant we had to inoculate society with a sort of socialism lite had support in a lot of societies. It was one of the arguments used to advocate for the New Deal in the US.

The Nazis were totalitarians. They sought to strip out anybody that could form the nucleus of an independent power center. Unions qualify which is why they were transformed into the DAF union, an organization thoroughly under Nazi control. The nazis hated the internationalist socialists, in part because they appealed to and fought over the same recruits. The history of people shifting back and forth between nationalist and internationalist socialism is pretty well documented in diaries and organization membership lists of the time.

Nah man, International Socialism was just a worker’s solidarity movement engaged in struggle for greater recognition of worker rights. It was the Marxists — who were largely not from the working class at all, but rather petit bourgeois, just like our modern SJWs — who introduced violent revolution and vanguard political parties into the mix.

The Communists destroyed International Socialism from within, but they should not be confused with International Socialism. Real socialism is necessarily nonviolent, free market and requires no vanguard of elites. Real socialism is just another name for anarchism.

“The National Socialists were called such because they presented themselves as an alternative to International Socialism, which was actual socialism.”

WRONG, Nationalist Socialists were called as such because they thought the socialist murder of peoples oppressors should be based on etnicity, not on class. Stalin was in fact a very nationalist socialist while the internationalist socialism movements ideological leader was Trotsky. Stalin also had the exact same plans as Hitler which is why he built the worlds large scale Paratrooper-divisions. He did not want the revolution to go international (as Trotsky did). He wanted it to stay national,build an socialist red army which would conquer the non-socialist countries by force. Except Hitler was faster.

How nice. Ein Volk, Ein Theory, eh? They don’t agree with you:

>’The “Liberalism” discussed here is primarily 19th-century liberalism, the free-market ideology, from which, Maennel explains, Marxism has evolved. National-Socialism, as a true, folk-based socialism, opposes both Liberalism and its bastard child Marxism.”

I am not American but even I understand the absurdity of speaking about Americas 50+ states like there werent huge general differences in what world view they have depending on what state they live in,

Was he also an atheist?
I mean, most people that claim he was a socialist also claim he was an atheist despite the fact he avowed repeatedly his catholic faith and the fact the Vatican celebrated his birthday every year of his rule over Germany.

Basically, the way people justify this none nuanced claim is to ignore almost everything Hitler said and did and cherry pick statements.
He took over what amounted to a working class party. He did so by using rhetoric they would accept.
As he secured his leadership he was quite open with his contempt for “other socialists”
He explicitly stated that his own socialism was separate from other inferior forms.
Why?
Because socialism has always been international, not nationalist.

It’s like if you said, well, I’m an American patriot! I just hate America and all the politicians!
Maybe, in the mind of a warped individual that makes sense, but in reality, declaring yourself something does not make it so.

Now, did Hitler and the Nazi’s shamelessly steal socialist policy and rhetoric?
Yup.
They did the same with religion, spirituality, nationalism, capitalism (there are some pretty successful companies that started their fortunes under those socialists! Because it totally makes sense that private companies would make lots of money under a despotic socialist regime, right?)

Be critical of things that are, not of what you wish were so.

You might want to look up Nazi sponsored Positive Christianity. It’s fair to say that Hitler grew up Catholic but what he said in private and what he said in public about it split in the 1930s and clearly by 1937 the split had become severe. He didn’t dare denounce the faith of so many Germans publicly and hope to have his government survive but his actions clearly diverged from mainstream christianity in radical ways. What his true beliefs were is actually unclear to me. Much clearer is that he is very unlikely to have died a Catholic.

The idea of national socialism arose in a number of countries including the faraway empire of Japan. Were all of these national socialist movements perpetrating the same fraud or do they collectively constitute a legitimate variant of the socialist family? How does their well documented cooperation differ from the cooperation of the internationalist socialists?

In practice, the “internationalist” socialists could act pretty nationalist. If we’re looking at the difference between declarations of what is so vs what is reality, isn’t the internationalist claim of the marxists just as fair game as the socialist claims of the national socialists?

“But when we just arbitrarily put different values on different utterances based exclusively on how well they support out conclusions, that is just dishonest.”

Exactly.

Physician, heal thyself.

My father, as a boy, walked with my grandfather past the local fascists in Romania who were speechifying (totally a word) in the village square. He asked my grandfather about them. The reply was a simple dismissive “they will take our land”. National socialists are socialists because they do socialist things and they call for socialist things to be done and they adopt the label of socialism. It’s not just an adoption of a label alone that makes them socialists but the label is not the sum of the evidence and you’ve been ignoring the other forms of evidence that have been presented up thread.

I’m sorry but I’m a little unclear what constitutes being a socialist other than saying you are and acting in the broad tradition of socialist economic policy. Socialism is, after all, an economic doctrine.

I’ll throw you a bone and give you a real potential point for confusion, catholic social justice theory has had some historic confusion. But there’s a real difference between socialism and catholic social justice in that the popes include the principle of subsidiarity along with solidarity and that they only want government to intervene where private solidarity fails. If you look closely at all, you can differentiate between the two. I’ve not seen any difference between internationalist socialism and nationalist socialism besides the limiting principle to which they apply their solidarity. Class enemies in the case of internationalists, people outside the national group for nationalists. The activities themselves are not readily distinguishable.

So what’s the point of differentiation in economic policy between the nazis and what you term the socialists?

By your standard, Lenin was a capitalist. Sorry, that’s about where I stop taking you seriously.

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

“The Nazi’s were DEEPLY conservative. ”

Do you beliveve I slept through history lessions or something? The nazis was not conservative at all. However the person most successful at stopping the nazis WAS. Nobody in the entire Germany did a better job against Hitler than old conservative general Hindenburg. In the 1932 election at a whopping 84 years of age Hindenburg still defeated Hitler and before his death Hindenburg still was a threat against Hitler due to the fact that had they ended up in conflict the army would side with old war hero Hindenburg. Hitler needed the armys support so bad he pretended to respect Hindenburg and arranged his own men to be murdered in “night of long knives”.

By todays standard the nazis would probably in many ways be conservative yes but now you forget that it did NOT happen today. This was in the 30s where what you today would see as conservative values would not be regarded conservative at all because conservative back then meant UPPER-CLASS values, And Hitler was a working class upstart who idolized the successes of Josef Stalin. He was utterly despised by 30s era conservatives and could not even defeat a senile 80+ Hindenburg for the presidency.

“I BELIEVE MOST CONSERVATIVES ARE MOTIVATED BY THE BEST OF INTENTIONS AND WANT TO PRESERVE WHAT WORKS!”

Yes but that is also the problem with your argument. This was not at all what consevative meant in Germany during the 30s.

You are confusing what would be considered conservative today (when universities are like one inch from banning being conservative at all because feminists are so “inclusive”) with what meant being conservative in Germany. Hitler and his ilk was NOT conservatives back then in their reality. Hindenburg however was a real upper class conservative who even at his death bed called hitler “your majesty” cause in senility he thought Hitler was actually Kaiser Wilhelm.

Compared to Hindenburg (a real conservative of his time) its just ludicruos to call Hitler conservative. Conservatives were the old people Hitler was the candidate for youth and virility. Consertives were the old money people. Hitler was the “rich from business” person which would be considered conservative today but by no means whatsoever was consevative values in the 30s. Conservatives was the “god and king” people. Hitler hated religion cause he wanted to be god, not worship one. etc…

“My commentary here has been all about arguing with right wing morons”

Yes, except I am not rightwing at all. I am however anti-SJW but it was the F-N leftwing people that chose to support the SJW-crowd attacking my hobbies and interests. They chose me to be against them – not the other way around. The reason we even have this discussion is that the left is currently in every way worse than rightwingers used to be at typical rightwing stuff. In fact I would say SJW has the same opposition to free speech based on religion. Because in every single way SJW actually IS a religion based on worshipping strawman-conservative-fascism (invented by Adorno as I understand it) as an “evil god” which every step of the way in SJW-eyes decide how me must live.

1) “Socialism is populist in much of the world.”

Ohh really? Funny then how it seems the people escaping over the Berlin Wall went the wrong direction. But off course its very popular with professional liars at university to teach a pretend socialism which doesnt exist.

2) “Hell, the PRINCIPLES of socialism are popular in the US,”

Yes, as long as the people promoting them do not have to live by the awful crap rules they promote. Its very popular among academics like Chomsky and West to become rich the capitalist way while selling socialism as a product. Its called hypocrisy!

3) “there are PLENTY of shitty regimes that rose from left wing rhetoric and left wing ideology. National socialism just wasn’t one.”

Actually initially it was, except the first experiment did not go very well with the voters. So the nazis toned down the Lenin-propaganda. But not before the Lenin-Hitler comparison had been reported by the New York Times 1924 under the heading “Hitlerite riot in Berlin – Beer glasses fly when speaker (Göbbels) compare Hitler to Lenin”

4) “It did however adopt many socialist policies. The ones that worked.”

Same as every single socialist “republic” (dictatorship) on earth. They ALL adopt the policys which “work” (in getting power) and they ALL ignore the stuff which does not work. As Lenin stated, as long as they end up in power it doesnt matter. As soon as they have power they dont NEED to adopt the policys they promised.

Thus marxist academics never think a socialist country has “true real communism” As you said they only like the PRINCIPLES of socialism. Not the actual reality of socialism.

“The other tools it used to accomplish this were; nationalism”

YES AND So did the Soviet Union. Stalin was the nationalist part of russian communism. The “internationalist” part of Russian communism was Trotsky who got an axe in his head in Mexico.

“authoritarianism”

YES AND So did the Soviet Union as well as practically for every other socialist country in the world. For example Cuba, Northern Korea and pre-90s China.

“racism (engineering an outside “threat” to unite people)”

YES AND so did the soviet union. Not only were the Soviet version of ethnic extermination in Ukraine (HOLODOMOR) equal in terms of horrible crimes against humanity. In 2003 the historian Shane O’ Rourke discovered evidence that the ethnic cleansing of cossaks (DECOSSACKIZATION) also were much worse than believed and actually constituted a genocide against the cossacks according to him.

You guys really do just consume copious amounts of propaganda….
It’s actually amazing.
It’s more funny because you’re all convinced that “liberals” are in a conspiracy to do the same. Class projection.
Much like the SJWs.
The most ironic thing is that you both do it, you both hate each other, and yet you both rely on and support the same entrenched systems.

That’s a better way of putting it, I think.