"Real Thanksgiving," a "poem" by billcihak

[crushing]

Yes, they must, indeed, know more about Nazism than Adolph Hitler:

Interesting quote of Hitler selling his brand of "true" Socialism as being better than the Marxist Socialism.

 

[billc]

Friedrich von Hayek:

from wikipedia:

Unwilling to return to Austria after the Anschluss brought it under the control of Nazi Germany in 1938, Hayek remained in Britain and became a British subject in 1938.


Hmmmm....It looks like he was alive and well during Hitlers rise to power and eventual downfall.

 

[Tez3]

Friedrich von Hayek:

from wikipedia:

Unwilling to return to Austria after the Anschluss brought it under the control of Nazi Germany in 1938, Hayek remained in Britain and became a British subject in 1938.


Hmmmm....It looks like he was alive and well during Hitlers rise to power and eventual downfall.

and was politically to the right, he was a Conservative. It actually just proves my point that these people who you revere as being learned can just as easily be biased politically. They aren't immune form having political agendas. He didn't live in Germany during the war, he left before then.

 

[K831]

While doing undergraduate work, I had two polisci professors (one a moderate conservative, the other a progressive) who would place fascism left of spectrum, and discussed often the many similarities in ideology. Graduate work I had one professor (another self-proclaimed progressive, who sat on my thesis defense) who would argue the same.



This notion is not underrepresented or fringe. Debated, yes. Many who take odds with the notion will admit to the many similarities in means and ends to fascism, socialism etc, while they also contend that fascism is still in possession of distinctly right wing facets. I have been told many times that they simply avoid any discussion of these similarities with the general public as any admittance to such would link their preferred form of government and ideology to a historically stigmatized reference, and it is better to avoid that than to engage in intellectual honesty with the general public.

They didn't have to make it up, all they had to do was ignore countervailing evidence. .

If you would actually take the time to read any of the prominent writers on the subject, you would discover that all of the countervailing evidence is discussed at length. That of course, would require you actually study something that doesn’t fit YOUR political agenda.

Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that they are overwhelmingly outnumbered in the academy in their conclusions? .

This can’t seriously be your counter argument, can it? Exposing the general public to the fact that modern progressivism shares many ideological underpinnings with other sociopolitical, economic systems and ideologies on the left,( such as fascism, communism and socialism) would hinder their agenda. The scrubbing of liberalism's roots in relation to such movements listed above has been a long term undertaking, and one which has been discussed openly on many college campuses.



You are seriously ready to apply the logic that if a dissenting view is “overwhelmingly outnumbered” it can only be explained as being false? Yikes.

Ask "your guys" to explain the Night of the Long Knives if the Nazis were leftists. Ask them to explain why the land redistribution and other socialist planks of the early party platform were never, ever acted upon. Ask them to explain the critical alliance between Hitler and entrenched business interests and the entrenched aristocratic military elite. Ask them to explain how the yearning for a return to a mythic past and the rejection of modernism could ever be considered leftism, when that yearning and that rejection is the sine qua non of conservatism.

Besides the fact that none of these run counter to the argument that fascism is more accurately represented on the left of the spectrum, you bringing these up as some type of "proof" simply indicates that you do not recognize the nuanced difference between achieving the liberal social end by means of technocratic authoritarianism and/or force vs pursuing a fascist end but in what one attempts to argue is a more ‘liberal’ way.

(also, your idea of what is sine qua non of conservatism indicates you either do not understand it, or you are confused as to the definition of mythic and modernism as they relate.)

Liberal rhetoric from Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt to our current president have worked to establish a fascist-like concentration of power in Washington, convincing themselves and others that it is ok, and not truly fascist so long, as FDR said, it is a "'wholesome and proper' buildup of power because he was leading 'a people's government.'

Liberals have convinced themselves that authoritarian government is fine as long as representatives of 'the people' (which is of course, themselves) are in charge, and that they of course know best, even when it conflicts with the majority of the governed. (As we have seen under our current president, and many past).

Ask them when their politics became more important to them than the truth.

Oh please. The self-righteous hypocrisy. Wow you can lay it on thick... almost poetic.

and was politically to the right, he was a Conservative. It actually just proves my point that these people who you revere as being learned can just as easily be biased politically. They aren't immune form having political agendas. He didn't live in Germany during the war, he left before then.

If this is the standard by which we judge a scholarly work, research or any intellectual assertion then they all fail. ANYONE you refer to on the other side fails this same test.


Some research on some of the authors being maligned in this thread would do some good. To say Mr. Sowell isn't a deep thinker, or that he isn't incredibly bright and insightful is ignorant. And since political affiliation seems to denote whether or not many here give any credence to scholars, you should note, Sowell is a convert, from the left to the right, and has a firm grasp of the driving ideology and psych. of people on both sides. His grasp of history, economics and politics are such that all would do well to read him.


In terms of comparing him or any other scholar to the rest of us with advanced degrees, perhaps we should all post our published works and accolades? Maybe all of us together can reach 1/100th of Mr. Sowells. Peoples willingness to marginalize the success of others. Interesting.

Bill you are still just quoting other people.

Please, someone list some substantive counter arguments, and do so from the depths of your own intellect. I'd like to see it done without quoting or referencing "other people", since that apparently is pretty taboo around here. Any takers? It will be fun to see how quickly I can find those arguments used previously by someone else.

Endless quotes from people who's politics as far as I can see are the polar opposite of socialism and they seem to feel the need like yourself to paint everything bad in the world as the fault of the socialists. Of course your lot are going to paint Hitler and the Nazis as socialists, you want to portray socialism as the Great Satan of political systems. It's sad, pointless and just wrong.

"AS far as you can see" clearly illustrates that you haven't read them. Why is delineating the relating ideological underpinnings of Socialist government and Fascism "sad pointless and wrong?" There is one reason and one only; It conflicts with your personal notions. Read the authors you are so willing to malign and condemn. Hell, I'll even mail you some of their works, along with the works of those on the other side. Send them back with some modicum of proof you have read them, then it might be worth having such a discussion. Until then, you are ignorantly accusing men and women’s whose work you have never read.

What's your take on the Spainish fascists under Franco then? More socialists? perhaps you could explain then why the communists were fighting him? On second thoughts no don't bother, I really don't need more fairy stories.

You see, if you had even glanced at the work of some of those we are discussing you would have your answer. Fairy stories? You do understand the purpose of a coup, yes? Are you somehow under the impression that such authors have contested that there is no difference at all amongst these ideologies, or are you naively convinced that those with similar agendas, or similar ideologies never compete for power? Do you believe that communist countries have never had conflict?


I have seen billcihak post things that I do not agree with – the willingness of so many on this board to immediately spew criticisms and accusations on whatever or whomever he linked to, without even reading the works of those authors, then simultaneously condemning him for being “uniformed” or not “researching” is so outwardly hypocritical, I just can’t believe it. I guess that is why my post count is so low in “the study” – if ever there was a misnomer.

 

[Blade96]

You didn't put anything in the poem about liberals in hollywood, I think that would have helped round out the poem. You could mention some of the people I disagree with, that might make it more interesting to some of the people I have had the longest debates with.

****The fact that you didn't once mention Blade 96 is really a travesty. If there is one poster that should get recognition it is her. She at least recongnizes my humor, if not my genius. You could also mention long suffering Tez. She doesn't like me much but mentioning her would round out the poem and give it a touch of seriousness.*****

****Yeah, you really need to mention Blade 96******

****Now they may not agree with me but I think Big Don, Twin fist, Crushing, Cryozombie and lucky boxer could use a mention as well. ****

***Elder, you and Bill Mattocks, should also be mentioned. A man should be measured by his opponents as well as his friends. And the also long suffering Bob the man who really made that poem possible deserves some kudos as well, don't you think.

It may be unwieldly with all the extra material, but you could pull it off if you tried.

Thanks Elder, nice work.

Haha, thanks. Yeah I do find you humorous. I understand why Irene (Tez) wouldnt though, because the holocaust is personal for her, so saying hitler is a socialist for her is like Stevebjj saying that bully victims are kind of to blame for the attacks of the bullies. Struck a nerve with me, because I was a bully victim. But i realized he wasnt trying to insult me or anyone, and I don't think you mean to hurt Irene, either.

I'm willing to bet we can find more than 4 Ph.D.'s here on MartialTalk that will tell you that those other 4 Ph.D.'s are full of crap.

Empty Hands is one, I'll happily volunteer to go second. Any other takers?

I would, but I just have a undergrad degree in history, not a PhD in it, I'm afraid.

 

[granfire]

While doing undergraduate work, I had two polisci professors (one a moderate conservative, the other a progressive) who would place fascism left of spectrum, and discussed often the many similarities in ideology. Graduate work I had one professor (another self-proclaimed progressive, who sat on my thesis defense) who would argue the same.



This notion is not underrepresented or fringe. Debated, yes. Many who take odds with the notion will admit to the many similarities in means and ends to fascism, socialism etc, while they also contend that fascism is still in possession of distinctly right wing facets. I have been told many times that they simply avoid any discussion of these similarities with the general public as any admittance to such would link their preferred form of government and ideology to a historically stigmatized reference, and it is better to avoid that than to engage in intellectual honesty with the general public.






If you would actually take the time to read any of the prominent writers on the subject, you would discover that all of the countervailing evidence is discussed at length. That of course, would require you actually study something that doesn’t fit YOUR political agenda.





This can’t seriously be your counter argument, can it? Exposing the general public to the fact that modern progressivism shares many ideological underpinnings with other sociopolitical, economic systems and ideologies on the left,( such as fascism, communism and socialism) would hinder their agenda. The scrubbing of liberalism's roots in relation to such movements listed above has been a long term undertaking, and one which has been discussed openly on many college campuses.



You are seriously ready to apply the logic that if a dissenting view is “overwhelmingly outnumbered” it can only be explained as being false? Yikes.





Besides the fact that none of these run counter to the argument that fascism is more accurately represented on the left of the spectrum, you bringing these up as some type of "proof" simply indicates that you do not recognize the nuanced difference between achieving the liberal social end by means of technocratic authoritarianism and/or force vs pursuing a fascist end but in what one attempts to argue is a more ‘liberal’ way.

(also, your idea of what is sine qua non of conservatism indicates you either do not understand it, or you are confused as to the definition of mythic and modernism as they relate.)

Liberal rhetoric from Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt to our current president have worked to establish a fascist-like concentration of power in Washington, convincing themselves and others that it is ok, and not truly fascist so long, as FDR said, it is a "'wholesome and proper' buildup of power because he was leading 'a people's government.'

Liberals have convinced themselves that authoritarian government is fine as long as representatives of 'the people' (which is of course, themselves) are in charge, and that they of course know best, even when it conflicts with the majority of the governed. (As we have seen under our current president, and many past).



Oh please. The self-righteous hypocrisy. Wow you can lay it on thick... almost poetic.




If this is the standard by which we judge a scholarly work, research or any intellectual assertion then they all fail. ANYONE you refer to on the other side fails this same test.


Some research on some of the authors being maligned in this thread would do some good. To say Mr. Sowell isn't a deep thinker, or that he isn't incredibly bright and insightful is ignorant. And since political affiliation seems to denote whether or not many here give any credence to scholars, you should note, Sowell is a convert, from the left to the right, and has a firm grasp of the driving ideology and psych. of people on both sides. His grasp of history, economics and politics are such that all would do well to read him.


In terms of comparing him or any other scholar to the rest of us with advanced degrees, perhaps we should all post our published works and accolades? Maybe all of us together can reach 1/100th of Mr. Sowells. Peoples willingness to marginalize the success of others. Interesting.



Please, someone list some substantive counter arguments, and do so from the depths of your own intellect. I'd like to see it done without quoting or referencing "other people", since that apparently is pretty taboo around here. Any takers? It will be fun to see how quickly I can find those arguments used previously by someone else.



"AS far as you can see" clearly illustrates that you haven't read them. Why is delineating the relating ideological underpinnings of Socialist government and Fascism "sad pointless and wrong?" There is one reason and one only; It conflicts with your personal notions. Read the authors you are so willing to malign and condemn. Hell, I'll even mail you some of their works, along with the works of those on the other side. Send them back with some modicum of proof you have read them, then it might be worth having such a discussion. Until then, you are ignorantly accusing men and women’s whose work you have never read.




You see, if you had even glanced at the work of some of those we are discussing you would have your answer. Fairy stories? You do understand the purpose of a coup, yes? Are you somehow under the impression that such authors have contested that there is no difference at all amongst these ideologies, or are you naively convinced that those with similar agendas, or similar ideologies never compete for power? Do you believe that communist countries have never had conflict?


I have seen billcihak post things that I do not agree with – the willingness of so many on this board to immediately spew criticisms and accusations on whatever or whomever he linked to, without even reading the works of those authors, then simultaneously condemning him for being “uniformed” or not “researching” is so outwardly hypocritical, I just can’t believe it. I guess that is why my post count is so low in “the study” – if ever there was a misnomer.

A couple of interesting points.
The moment I can sit down and pick it apart I will do so.

 

[Blade96]

Oh I'm sorry,Tez, I called you by your real name, then i read on the other thread thats now closed that you didnt want that. I didn't know you wished to be called Tez. I apologize.

 

[billc]

Elder,
I just have to say that I am flattered by your poetry. I just want you to know though, that trying to "woo" me with poetry is not going to work, I enjoy the company of women. I appreciate the thought and effort on your part, but it really isn't "my thing." Now, let me say that I don't think there is anything wrong with that lifestyle, but it just isn't me. I think you mentioned that you were married, does your wife know that you are writing poetry to another man? Elder, it is the twenty first century, you owe it to yourself and to your wife to be truthful. You shouldn't be afraid to express yourself, in fact, you should live your life to the fullest, but just be honest about it.

On a side note, I'm curious. I saw an episode of Oprah where she talked about African American men who live on the "down low," is that what you are doing? Just curious. Live free or die Elder. thanks again for the poetry, it is awfully nice, but it really isn't for me.

A poem by Elder:

I am just a guy on the internet.
There are serious thinkers,
probably just made it all up in their heads.
Men of great education and wisdom
didn't kill all those people
the socialist Hitler did.
Debate it, hate it,
You guys will believe your guys
I will believe mine.

 

[elder999]

saw an episode of Oprah where she talked about African American men who live on the "down low," is that what you are doing? Just curious

Oh, honey-don't...:lfao:

 

[elder999]

In the tradition of "Make the Pie Higher," another poem by billcihak-history major at the University of Illinois at Chicago,originally from Lombard, Illinois, lately of Peoria, Illinois, where he attends church regularly, is single, and claims to enjoy the company of women......(now, you can be flattered, Bill. :lfao: )

"Down Low"

I enjoy the "company of women"
On a side note, I'm curious.
about African American men
who live on the "down low,"
Just curious
to be truthful
Live free or die
you owe it to yourself
You see how that works?

 

[Ramirez]

Hey Bill, you know I like you and all, and find you harmless.

I agree with Tez, you at least don't get personal in your posts even though I tried to get your goat a few times.....but seriously this Hitler was a socialist thing is just getting tiresome.

Not only that but as Blade points out it is upsetting a few posters who have a personal stake in it and not just a personal stake but some serious tragedy.

Just give it up mate.

 

[billc]

Ramirez, I didn't start this thread, just responding to it. Elder and some others want to engage in this so I am going to post articles that dispute what they put out. If they are offending people then they should stop. Also, I am not wrong. Hitler was a socialist. I don't quite understand where the emotion in this comes from. Ask Trotsky if socialists kill other socialists. Trying to use guilt to stop someone from posting their opinion is weak and silly. If they see the topic and they are truly upset by it, they shouldn't read it. I like you Ramirez but seriously, I'll post what I post and defend it. Have you looked at any of the articles that I have found?

Yours in freindship,
Billcihak

You know, my sister in-laws grandparents were children in Poland when the german socialists came in. They won't talk about what happened. I am someone trying to point out the dangers of socialism, especially the people who call themselves communists today. Socialists killed over 100 million people world wide. The national socialists killed 12-15 million the international socialists killed over 100 million world wide. For some reason, people remember the german socialists, and have convinced themselves that they weren't socialists, and yet can sit there and ignore the crimes of the communists. They ignore the history of communism and even accept them marching in the open with SEIU. That is where the problem is. If you don't want the mass murder to happen again, you need to remember who did it. I don't want it to happen again.

I also find you harmless Ramirez.

 

[K831]

Hey Bill, you know I like you and all, and find you harmless.

I agree with Tez, you at least don't get personal in your posts even though I tried to get your goat a few times.....but seriously this Hitler was a socialist thing is just getting tiresome.

Sir,

The ideological underpinnings of fascism in general, (and much of Hitlers methodologies in particular) and the similarities with socialism is a study of comparative politics, economics, and history currently being studied by scholars far brighter than most. Simply because you find it tiresome that Hitler was one the opposite side of the spectrum from what you previously conceived, is no ones problem but your own, and it doesn't lessen the validity of the argument.

Not only that but as Blade points out it is upsetting a few posters who have a personal stake in it and not just a personal stake but some serious tragedy.

Just give it up mate.

I'm sorry, but this is a cop-out. No amount of tragedy equates to a valid reason not to move forward intellectually. The PC notion that we should stop studying, evaluating and discussing any aspect of history or politics or economics or psychology etc...simply because it upsets someone is pretty silly.

Understanding in greater depth the socio-economic, sociopolitical and cultural environment that existed in any era of great tragedy, and understanding the driving ideology that led to a person(s) actions, or to the decision of a populace to grant (at least at the outset) that person(s) power is key to slowing or halting the reproduction of such context and actions.

Were people more able to do just that, we wouldn't have much of the politics and politicians we have these days.

Refusing to look at similarities between currently popular ideologies and political movements and refusing to compare them and evaluate them against past movements and ideologies is pretty intellectually weak, even if it is because it makes someone upset.

They do not have to read the material, and if they wish, can keep their heads planted firmly in the sand. However, if such events do hold personal pain and tragedy for them, one would think that gaining a more comprehensive and less one-sided view of the debate would be in their interest more than the rest. No?

 

[Carol]

Sit around and curse Apocalypse in verse
Gets so you can't recognize the gentlemen from the jerks
Verbal masturbation prime time on the air
Outside there's another rights parade
Somebody hands you isms of despair

And we were sitting in this room
You and me and these four walls
Talking through each others eyes
And saying nothing nothing nothing at all
And it was the best waste of time I ever had
It was the best waste of time I ever had

(T.Cochrane)

 

[Ramirez]

They do not have to read the material, and if they wish, can keep their heads planted firmly in the sand. However, if such events do hold personal pain and tragedy for them, one would think that gaining a more comprehensive and less one-sided view of the debate would be in their interest more than the rest. No?

Whatever, but this whole Hitler/socialist thing is beating a dead horse, it's been going on for a while and no one has changed their position. Also this is not an academic institution but a discussion board. Also you are asking the wrong person, using Hitler as a bogeyman on socialism...while it find it distasteful I can't relate to it the way the posters who have lost family have.

I really have no dog in this fight so to speak, and I probably shouldn't be speaking for Tez and CanuckMA except that I am quite fond of them and would hate to see Tez disappear off the board again.

Don't bother replying, I am going to let the interested parties fight it out without further comment.

 

[elder999]

Ramirez, I didn't start this thread, just responding to it. Elder and some others want to engage in this so I am going to post articles that dispute what they put out. If they are offending people then they should stop. Also, I am not wrong. Hitler was a socialist. I don't quite understand where the emotion in this comes from. Ask Trotsky if socialists kill other socialists. Trying to use guilt to stop someone from posting their opinion is weak and silly. If they see the topic and they are truly upset by it, they shouldn't read it. I like you Ramirez but seriously, I'll post what I post and defend it. Have you looked at any of the articles that I have found?

Hey, I don't care if you think "National socialists are socialists and communists are international socialists." are fascists are leftists are all that's evil and wrong in the world.....and I'm tired of arguing the finer points of it, Mr. Cihak-frankly, I'm not entirely sure you read all of those articles yourself, and you just keep posting them, and posting them, like a baby in a crib smearing the walls with it's own excrement.

At least K831 cogently explained his point of view, and interpretation of those ideas-frankly, fascism can and has been rightist and leftist, socialist and capitalist. Governments of all sorts-including ours- have elements from both sides of the divide.

Next you'll be saying that Marcos, Allende, and Somosa were leftists.....

I just think it's some ridiculous **** to make fun of, and that's all I've done. It ranks right up there with "the real triumph of the first Thanksgiving was a triumph over socialism" or whatever-that's some George W. Bushism worthy **** that merits memorialization in verse....:lfao:

(Thanks for "Ask Trotsky if socialists kill other socialists." That's some Wallace Stevens emperor of ice cream right there....:lfao: )

Of course, it bugs me that you bug Tez and CanuckMA, but hey-that's between you and them, though I also don't want to see Tez leave again.

(BTW, in case you hadn't noticed, I'm from New York. You pretty much can't insult or even slight (as though gay sex is some sort of insult ) my sexuality, because I'm secure that the reality of it is more than you could ever possibly wrap your mind-or hands!-around without feeling wholly inadequate and scarred for life.)

 

[Ramirez]

(BTW, in case you hadn't noticed, I'm from New York. You pretty much can't insult or even slight (as though gay sex is some sort of insult ) my sexuality, because I'm secure that the reality of it is more than you could ever possibly wrap your mind-or hands!-around without feeling wholly inadequate and scarred for life.)

Holy Crom.....that was funny!

 

[CanuckMA]

It's getting tiresome. I'm on the fence looking out. One foot on the fence, the other out of the Study already. It comes mainly from 2 things. The whole Hitler thing is one. Not just the "Hitler is a socialist" thing, but the constant bringing up og him and what he did. It is extremely painfull to me.

The other is the rapid ratcheting up of a lack of civility. Noticed it more when Twin Fist came back. and it centers o the increasing use of real names in posts. We use screen names for a reason. I find it very rude and disrespectful when real names are used. Also a littel bit creepy. It's adding a feeling of "I know who you are".

 

[billc]

I use my real name because I was new to posting when I signed up here at martialtalk and so I just used my name. Also, I didn't think it was right to hide behind a screen name. As I told Ramirez, I am just responding here to this thread. That's not to say I won't post about socialism and the national socialists in the future, or anything else for that matter, but talk to Elder. You have more of a problem with him here than with me.

 

[elder999]

but talk to Elder. You have more of a problem with him here than with me.

In keeping with the original intent of this thread, another poem by billi, in the tradition of "Make the Pie Higher"

"Talk to Elder"

You have more of a problem with him here
Elder and some others want to engage in this
"on the down low."
Talk to Elder
Also, I am not wrong.
Ask Trotsky if socialists kill other socialists
Hitler killed communists
They won't talk about what happened.
sit there and ignore the crimes of the communists.
Elder and some others want to engage in this.
Talk to Elder
The stories are virtually the same
So please, Hitler was a lefty
it will make people feel bad
Because you are wrong
Talk to Elder
I am just someone on the internet.

The other is the rapid ratcheting up of a lack of civility. Noticed it more when Twin Fist came back. and it centers o the increasing use of real names in posts. We use screen names for a reason. I find it very rude and disrespectful when real names are used. Also a littel bit creepy. It's adding a feeling of "I know who you are".

Some of us use real names with each other. I don't mind when TwinFist uses mine (which is readily available and was known to a few before I got here, anyway) and I don't think he minds when I use his.Same with Ramirez, and a few others. I won't be using Tez's, though I think for now that she was directing that at one person in particular....

hell, though, I thought I was a household name....:lfao:

(and I've been "elder999" just about everywhere electronic since Anthony called me a "junior elder" back in 1996....really more like "elder984" now...:lfao: )