I'd just like to say that I absolutely love the graphic Cognoscente posted. I'm going to save it, and next time somebody accuses Obama of being communist and then a Nazi in consecutive weeks I'm going to use it to mock them mercilessly, because that's what they deserve.
Thank you, Cognoscente.
#55632, politically charged questions
Moderator: Marduk
-
Cognoscente
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:50 pm
- Location: Salt Lake Sizzle
- Contact:
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Why not all four?
It is a fun poster, Cognoscente.
Please do let us know how it goes, dzhonatan, when you mercilessly mock the deserving dunce.
However, I can see a few problems you might run into. So, in order that you might be better prepared, you might want to think about, if you haven’t already, some arguments to counter the spatial, temporal, and composite-being arguments you might encounter.
1. Spatial. I’m not sure exactly what is meant by one of the symbols, but the other three appear to be Soviet communism, Nazism, and peaceniks(?) The statement seems to imply that the four types have no overlap. Actually, while we tend to think of Communists and Nazis as poles apart, they do seem to share many tactics, methods, political ideas, rhetoric, and behavior. I don’t see a lot of difference between the two. Why can’t a person do something that might have been done by either a communist or a Nazi with equal likelihood?
2. Temporal. There is nothing that says a person has to be consistent. Why can’t a person act like a communist one week and act like a Nazi the next week? For some politicians you do whatever it takes to get the job done. I think for both Nazis and communists the belief was that the ends justified the means.
3. Composite-being. You know the old story about the blind men and the elephant? http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/bli ... phant.html One blind man thought an elephant was like a wall, because he came in contact with the elephant’s broad and sturdy side. Another blind man thought an elephant was like a snake after touching the elephant’s trunk. And so forth. A person can be many things at the same time, or seemingly be the composite of many things. At times we may see the communist element, at other times the Nazi element, or the peacenik element. One person, just different facets to his personality.
Just some thoughts to help you prepare for the future.
Please do let us know how it goes, dzhonatan, when you mercilessly mock the deserving dunce.
However, I can see a few problems you might run into. So, in order that you might be better prepared, you might want to think about, if you haven’t already, some arguments to counter the spatial, temporal, and composite-being arguments you might encounter.
1. Spatial. I’m not sure exactly what is meant by one of the symbols, but the other three appear to be Soviet communism, Nazism, and peaceniks(?) The statement seems to imply that the four types have no overlap. Actually, while we tend to think of Communists and Nazis as poles apart, they do seem to share many tactics, methods, political ideas, rhetoric, and behavior. I don’t see a lot of difference between the two. Why can’t a person do something that might have been done by either a communist or a Nazi with equal likelihood?
2. Temporal. There is nothing that says a person has to be consistent. Why can’t a person act like a communist one week and act like a Nazi the next week? For some politicians you do whatever it takes to get the job done. I think for both Nazis and communists the belief was that the ends justified the means.
3. Composite-being. You know the old story about the blind men and the elephant? http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/bli ... phant.html One blind man thought an elephant was like a wall, because he came in contact with the elephant’s broad and sturdy side. Another blind man thought an elephant was like a snake after touching the elephant’s trunk. And so forth. A person can be many things at the same time, or seemingly be the composite of many things. At times we may see the communist element, at other times the Nazi element, or the peacenik element. One person, just different facets to his personality.
Just some thoughts to help you prepare for the future.
-
Cognoscente
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:50 pm
- Location: Salt Lake Sizzle
- Contact:
I don't think I can believe you aren't familiar with the crescent and star as a common Islamic symbol.
http://www.fotw.net/flags/islam.html#cre
I'm especially offended as someone who can proudly boast Turkish heritage, teşekkür ederim. We've rocked the crescent for centuries.
http://www.fotw.net/flags/islam.html#cre
I'm especially offended as someone who can proudly boast Turkish heritage, teşekkür ederim. We've rocked the crescent for centuries.
Early to bed and early to rise
Precludes you from seeing the most brilliant starry nights
Precludes you from seeing the most brilliant starry nights
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
-
Cognoscente
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:50 pm
- Location: Salt Lake Sizzle
- Contact:
Oh, VB, I'm not really offended, I'm just grillin' your chops.
Seriously, though, you are typically phenomenally well informed in science, politics, culture, history, doctrine, etc. You didn't know the crescent was an islamic symbol? Seriously? You've never seen the flags of Turkey and Pakistan? Ottoman Empire? Suleiman the Magnificent? Constantinople? You're kidding me! That's some awesome history, dude.
Seriously, though, you are typically phenomenally well informed in science, politics, culture, history, doctrine, etc. You didn't know the crescent was an islamic symbol? Seriously? You've never seen the flags of Turkey and Pakistan? Ottoman Empire? Suleiman the Magnificent? Constantinople? You're kidding me! That's some awesome history, dude.
Early to bed and early to rise
Precludes you from seeing the most brilliant starry nights
Precludes you from seeing the most brilliant starry nights
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
I thought it looked a little like the flag of communist China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_th ... c_of_China But that didn't make much sense to me. Why a symbol for Soviet communism and a symbol for Chinese communism?
I was aware that the crescent is used in place of the cross on flags representing the Red Cross in Islamic nations, and I knew that the crescent was somehow associated with Islam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_ ... escent.svg I've seen the crescent used in architecture in Egypt, Jordan, and Israel, but not with the big red star. I think the star threw me off, but then I might not have gotten it anyway.
Nope, I've never paid much attention to the flags of Islamic nations. I don't know a lot of things.
I'm glad you aren't offended.
I was aware that the crescent is used in place of the cross on flags representing the Red Cross in Islamic nations, and I knew that the crescent was somehow associated with Islam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_ ... escent.svg I've seen the crescent used in architecture in Egypt, Jordan, and Israel, but not with the big red star. I think the star threw me off, but then I might not have gotten it anyway.
Nope, I've never paid much attention to the flags of Islamic nations. I don't know a lot of things.
I'm glad you aren't offended.
During 11th and 12th grades I had a two year history course, which was geographically focused on European History, temporally focused on the 20th century, and thematically focused on single-party states, particularly the USSR under Stalin, and decolonization and the problems facing new states.
All but the last focus, obviously, are directly tied to Nazi Germany. We spent more time discussing Hitler et al. than any other topic except for Stalinist Russia, which was our special focus.
So, I think I can authoritatively say that Nazism and Communism are incompatible. Anti-communism was one of the key aspects of Nazism, and one of the primary reasons the Nazi party was able to take control--they were literally battling it out with the communists in the streets, while the center parties stood by and did nothing (the Weimar government, which is considered by historians to be one of the most democratic governments ever created, was, unfortunately, ineffective).
You're absolutely right that there are a lot of similarities between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, but that has more to do with the need to keep power in the Party than with communist ideology.
I submit that the other two groups symbolized are also incompatible with Nazism--"peaceniks" for the obvious reason that, well, the Nazis were extremely violent, and Islam because two of the publically accepted tenets of Nazism were the superiority of their race and Christianity.
All but the last focus, obviously, are directly tied to Nazi Germany. We spent more time discussing Hitler et al. than any other topic except for Stalinist Russia, which was our special focus.
So, I think I can authoritatively say that Nazism and Communism are incompatible. Anti-communism was one of the key aspects of Nazism, and one of the primary reasons the Nazi party was able to take control--they were literally battling it out with the communists in the streets, while the center parties stood by and did nothing (the Weimar government, which is considered by historians to be one of the most democratic governments ever created, was, unfortunately, ineffective).
You're absolutely right that there are a lot of similarities between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, but that has more to do with the need to keep power in the Party than with communist ideology.
I submit that the other two groups symbolized are also incompatible with Nazism--"peaceniks" for the obvious reason that, well, the Nazis were extremely violent, and Islam because two of the publically accepted tenets of Nazism were the superiority of their race and Christianity.
Pacifism and Bolshevik communism are also fundamentally incompatible. Since the communist leader to whom Obama is most consistently compared is Stalin (as opposed to say, Guevara or Poulantzas) I would assume that they are accusing him of this style of communism. Central to this ideology is an aggressive takeover of the means of production by the state, it cannot correlate even a little bit with Pacifism.
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
dzhonatan,
This is only an intellectual exercise for me. I wouldn’t call Obama an Islamist, communist, Nazi, or peacenik. Now, suppose someone argues that Nazism and Communism have a lot in common. Let’s examine your arguments in the order you have given them.
Being an authority is good. Probably few people have had the educational background you have had of the 20th century. I would question the political leanings of the teachers you had, but I certainly haven’t had as much formal education in this area as you have had. Of course, I lived through more than half of the 20th century. More than a third of it had not yet occurred when I was in the 11th and 12th grade. But the unwitting person who tries to argue with you probably hasn’t lived as long as I have.
So, the person you talk to might not be able to argue against you unless he has read Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism. The book takes a good look at what Nazism was all about, and finds a number of compatible beliefs with Communism. If you are a liberal you probably hate this book without even reading it. I read it and found it to be an informative and interesting book.
Just because two parties battle it out doesn’t mean that they are greatly different from one another. There have been lethal divisions in the communist party over what seem to me to be minor points, but no doubt important to them. Stalin was not above eliminating any opposition, or possibility of opposition, to his rule. Russia and China are both communistic, but they came close to fighting. Nazis were more nationalist than international communism, but in the end it makes little difference to me whether the state directly runs the businesses in the country (communism), or just dictates to the businesses “owners†exactly in detail how they are to run their businesses (Nazism).
Now, if the person you are arguing with agrees with you that communism and Nazism are fundamentally incompatible, but when he says that a certain politician is a communist and a Nazi it is because of the way the politician keeps power within the party or nation, then I guess you lose the argument.
You don’t think peaceniks are violent? Well, logically it would seem so. However, I remember being tear-gassed by the police at a Bob Hope concert on the grounds of the Washington Monument. I was there when some peaceniks overturned a police van and threw rocks and bottles at the police. People can get awfully violent in the name of fostering peace. It is another case of the ends justifying the means. The Nazis also wanted world peace, and they set about to conquer the world to achieve it. Same thing with Communism. And radical Islamism.
I believe that during World War II many people in Islamic nations were generally on the side of Hitler. Perhaps not a marriage made in heaven, but they certainly saw mutual benefit in fighting on the same side. Hitler used Christianity. He co-opted it to help solidify his power. Then he controlled the churches by putting the Christian leaders on the government payroll, among other tactics. But he had no love for Christianity. I think you might find someone to argue that Hitler ruled in a way similar to the way Islamic leaders ruled in the middle ages.
One thing in common with Islamic extremists (let me make the extremist part explicit), Communists, Nazis, and Peaceniks is that they are convinced that their way of life is superior to all other ways of thinking and acting, and they are willing to use force, bullying tactics, the power of the state, or other coercion to deprive you of your opportunities to choose something different. They have the vision of the anointed, and they know what is best for you better than you know for yourself. Hmm…now where have we seen that kind of thinking in politicians?
This is only an intellectual exercise for me. I wouldn’t call Obama an Islamist, communist, Nazi, or peacenik. Now, suppose someone argues that Nazism and Communism have a lot in common. Let’s examine your arguments in the order you have given them.
Being an authority is good. Probably few people have had the educational background you have had of the 20th century. I would question the political leanings of the teachers you had, but I certainly haven’t had as much formal education in this area as you have had. Of course, I lived through more than half of the 20th century. More than a third of it had not yet occurred when I was in the 11th and 12th grade. But the unwitting person who tries to argue with you probably hasn’t lived as long as I have.
So, the person you talk to might not be able to argue against you unless he has read Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism. The book takes a good look at what Nazism was all about, and finds a number of compatible beliefs with Communism. If you are a liberal you probably hate this book without even reading it. I read it and found it to be an informative and interesting book.
Just because two parties battle it out doesn’t mean that they are greatly different from one another. There have been lethal divisions in the communist party over what seem to me to be minor points, but no doubt important to them. Stalin was not above eliminating any opposition, or possibility of opposition, to his rule. Russia and China are both communistic, but they came close to fighting. Nazis were more nationalist than international communism, but in the end it makes little difference to me whether the state directly runs the businesses in the country (communism), or just dictates to the businesses “owners†exactly in detail how they are to run their businesses (Nazism).
Now, if the person you are arguing with agrees with you that communism and Nazism are fundamentally incompatible, but when he says that a certain politician is a communist and a Nazi it is because of the way the politician keeps power within the party or nation, then I guess you lose the argument.
You don’t think peaceniks are violent? Well, logically it would seem so. However, I remember being tear-gassed by the police at a Bob Hope concert on the grounds of the Washington Monument. I was there when some peaceniks overturned a police van and threw rocks and bottles at the police. People can get awfully violent in the name of fostering peace. It is another case of the ends justifying the means. The Nazis also wanted world peace, and they set about to conquer the world to achieve it. Same thing with Communism. And radical Islamism.
I believe that during World War II many people in Islamic nations were generally on the side of Hitler. Perhaps not a marriage made in heaven, but they certainly saw mutual benefit in fighting on the same side. Hitler used Christianity. He co-opted it to help solidify his power. Then he controlled the churches by putting the Christian leaders on the government payroll, among other tactics. But he had no love for Christianity. I think you might find someone to argue that Hitler ruled in a way similar to the way Islamic leaders ruled in the middle ages.
One thing in common with Islamic extremists (let me make the extremist part explicit), Communists, Nazis, and Peaceniks is that they are convinced that their way of life is superior to all other ways of thinking and acting, and they are willing to use force, bullying tactics, the power of the state, or other coercion to deprive you of your opportunities to choose something different. They have the vision of the anointed, and they know what is best for you better than you know for yourself. Hmm…now where have we seen that kind of thinking in politicians?
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
You know, of course, that most of the Pacifism movements in the United States have been Bolshevik communist front organizations?Marduk wrote:Pacifism and Bolshevik communism are also fundamentally incompatible. Since the communist leader to whom Obama is most consistently compared is Stalin (as opposed to say, Guevara or Poulantzas) I would assume that they are accusing him of this style of communism. Central to this ideology is an aggressive takeover of the means of production by the state, it cannot correlate even a little bit with Pacifism.
You would agree, wouldn't you, that there is no fundamental reason why a Pacifist could not be a good Marxist, and vice versa? Once we reach the stage of cultural evolution, according to Marx, where wealth is evenly distributed and the people control the means of production, there will be no need for war. There will be peace and harmony and brotherhood. The true Marxist is a true believer in Pacifism, wouldn't you agree? And, according to Marx, it is the economic system we suffer with that breeds the kind of men we have. The solution is to reorder the economic situation and then we can have a superior human being, according to Marxist theory.
Not all Marxists would agree, but millions of them believe that as a stepping stone to that blissful state of pure communism it is necessary to first give the state the power to take over the means of production. Once that has been accomplished, internationally, and capitalism has been destroyed throughout the world, then gradually the means of production can be handed over to the individuals in the state, exercising purely democratic means.
Seen this way to many pacifists the necessary intermediate step in achieving true and lasting peace is through the aggressive take over of the means of production by the state. These millions see no lack of correlation of Bolshevik communism and Pacifism, in the long view. And the communists have no compunction against using the pacifists for their own purposes. In the end the goal is the same, peace forced on us.
Those are fundamentally two different types of communism. One advocates an aggressive state takeover as you are suggesting. The other is a more anarcho-pacifist movement. I do agree there are movements that have been violent, and movements that have been less violent. But this president has been accused of the former. I was simply pointing out that this accusation is inconsistent.
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Quiz.
Question One. Which political leader believed in and tried to implement the following political program?
1. A strong central government to meet all the needs of the people.
2. Nationalization of major industries, when deemed necessary.
3. Universal health care.
4. Old age pensions or social security for the elderly.
5. It is the duty of the state to provide opportunities for employment for all its citizens.
6. Redistribution of wealth from those who didn’t labor for it, or don’t deserve it as determined by the government, and given to support the poor.
7. Control of the economy by central planners and implemented either directly through government bureaucrats, or indirectly by government bureaucratic “oversight.â€
8. An expanding sphere of influence throughout the world; implemented by force, undercover agents, diplomatic measures, and economic pressure.
9. Internal control through an expanded police force and encouragement of individuals to report enemies of the leader.
10. Control of the media to fight against deliberate political lies and their dissemination by the press (or talk radio).
11. The election of a charismatic leader who uses populist rhetoric, demagoguery, and class warfare in his speeches.
12. Bullying tactics to suppress opposition.
13. Government support for education through the university level.
14. Pardon for political allies, and punishment for political enemies.
15. Laws for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes.
16. Ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities, as determined by the government.
17. Banning of juvenile labor.
18. Freedom for all religious denominations provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of those in power.
(a) Stalin
(b) Hitler
(c) Barack Obama
(d) all of the above.
The correct answer for question one is “(d) all of the above.â€
Question two. Which elements of that political program does Vorpal Blade believe in or wish to implement?
The correct answer for question two is “none of the above.â€
Question One. Which political leader believed in and tried to implement the following political program?
1. A strong central government to meet all the needs of the people.
2. Nationalization of major industries, when deemed necessary.
3. Universal health care.
4. Old age pensions or social security for the elderly.
5. It is the duty of the state to provide opportunities for employment for all its citizens.
6. Redistribution of wealth from those who didn’t labor for it, or don’t deserve it as determined by the government, and given to support the poor.
7. Control of the economy by central planners and implemented either directly through government bureaucrats, or indirectly by government bureaucratic “oversight.â€
8. An expanding sphere of influence throughout the world; implemented by force, undercover agents, diplomatic measures, and economic pressure.
9. Internal control through an expanded police force and encouragement of individuals to report enemies of the leader.
10. Control of the media to fight against deliberate political lies and their dissemination by the press (or talk radio).
11. The election of a charismatic leader who uses populist rhetoric, demagoguery, and class warfare in his speeches.
12. Bullying tactics to suppress opposition.
13. Government support for education through the university level.
14. Pardon for political allies, and punishment for political enemies.
15. Laws for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes.
16. Ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities, as determined by the government.
17. Banning of juvenile labor.
18. Freedom for all religious denominations provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of those in power.
(a) Stalin
(b) Hitler
(c) Barack Obama
(d) all of the above.
The correct answer for question one is “(d) all of the above.â€
Question two. Which elements of that political program does Vorpal Blade believe in or wish to implement?
The correct answer for question two is “none of the above.â€
-
Cuddlefish
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:53 am
-
Cognoscente
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:50 pm
- Location: Salt Lake Sizzle
- Contact:
I recall Hitler having a fondness for Norse mythology and Nordic imagery. Christian in name, maybe, but a lot of the art from 1930's Germany I was lucky enough to see in museums there drew on the nobility of Norse stories. Part of it was racial (blond haired blue-eyed supermen!) and part of it was philosophical (noble warriors, etc).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_race#Nazi_Nordicism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_race#Nazi_Nordicism
Early to bed and early to rise
Precludes you from seeing the most brilliant starry nights
Precludes you from seeing the most brilliant starry nights
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Fair question. In part it is philosophical. I think an individual should be responsible for himself and not be forced by the government to contribute to a retirement plan. I don't believe it is the business of government to be so involved in the personal lives of the individuals. I don't think Social Security is constitutional, but I believe the Supreme Court disagreed with me on that one. It has also become another means to redistribute wealth in the way it is implemented lately, which I find immoral, considering its mandatory nature.Cuddlefish wrote:You don't like Social Security or programs like it? Why not?
Part of it is practical. Programs like Social Security are often sold to the public as costing very little and being of limited scope. As time goes on the programs are gradually expanded and enlarged, breaking promises made in the beginning.
Soical Security was supposed to pay for itself. The government was supposed to put the money away or invest it for the individuals. Instead the government just took the money and spent it. It relies on the contributions of people employed today to pay for those retired. It has become a legal ponzi scheme.
Another practical objection is that if an individual paid into a private account what he pays into Social Security he would end up with more money in retirement than he gets from Social Security. Or so I have heard. And he would have more freedom to do with his money what he wants to do than he can with Social Security doled out to him.
Today we have become dependent on Social Security, and politically it can't be touched. So the situation and obligations just gets worse and worse.
I certainly hope that this exercise has remained academic, because it would seem that either you've written a polemic, or at the very least have grown hyperbolic.
The problem, whether you agree with a given political figure or disagree with him, is that speaking of specific issues so platitudinally lends itself quite generously to overgeneralization. To illustrate, the list of administrative woes you gave as belonging to our current president could, with just as much stretch, be attributed to, I don't know, say, Jesus Christ.
1. Certainly millennial government will be centralized, since all power will be centralized in Christ.
2. All major industries will be nationalized, since everyone will report directly or indirectly to Christ.
3. 3 Nephi 17:7.
4. Numbers 8:25.
5. Matthew 6:25 (by my own admission, this takes a bit of creative thinking.)
6. Proverbs 28:8.
7. No brainer. See one and two.
8. Again.
9. Luke 19:45.
10. Many times we hear about the plain and precious things that were removed from the bible, and that we should look the Book of Mormon?
11. Demagoguery: "a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times."
12. Luke 19:45.
13. D&C 88: 118.
14. Luke 23:43, D&C 103:2.
15. Numbers 21:25.
16. Alma 33:10.
17. 1 Nephi 17:25.
18. Article of faith 11, 1 Nephi 14:9.
Now I don't do this to say that Christ is in any way like any of the men you have listed, and I'm sure you could create a list showing how Christ disagreed with all these things. My point is only that these generalizations are so broad as to be rendered meaningless. I'm reminded of the satires of Glenn Beck: "oh yes, Obama is speaking in public. You know who else spoke in public? Hitler."
The problem, whether you agree with a given political figure or disagree with him, is that speaking of specific issues so platitudinally lends itself quite generously to overgeneralization. To illustrate, the list of administrative woes you gave as belonging to our current president could, with just as much stretch, be attributed to, I don't know, say, Jesus Christ.
1. Certainly millennial government will be centralized, since all power will be centralized in Christ.
2. All major industries will be nationalized, since everyone will report directly or indirectly to Christ.
3. 3 Nephi 17:7.
4. Numbers 8:25.
5. Matthew 6:25 (by my own admission, this takes a bit of creative thinking.)
6. Proverbs 28:8.
7. No brainer. See one and two.
8. Again.
9. Luke 19:45.
10. Many times we hear about the plain and precious things that were removed from the bible, and that we should look the Book of Mormon?
11. Demagoguery: "a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times."
12. Luke 19:45.
13. D&C 88: 118.
14. Luke 23:43, D&C 103:2.
15. Numbers 21:25.
16. Alma 33:10.
17. 1 Nephi 17:25.
18. Article of faith 11, 1 Nephi 14:9.
Now I don't do this to say that Christ is in any way like any of the men you have listed, and I'm sure you could create a list showing how Christ disagreed with all these things. My point is only that these generalizations are so broad as to be rendered meaningless. I'm reminded of the satires of Glenn Beck: "oh yes, Obama is speaking in public. You know who else spoke in public? Hitler."
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Marduk,
My main point in offering the quiz was to show that Nazism and Communism are not incompatible, but actually have many elements in common. So, thank you for agreeing with me. There are many more elements in common that I could have listed, but I selected only those things which people like me have seen in President Obama’s methods and ideology, without stretching the comparison. Most of the statements come directly from the 1920 Nazi political platform. Hitler had much more in common with the Left than the Right.
Obviously Barack Obama is not as bad a person as Hitler or Stalin. That would be hyperbolic, or perhaps I would have written a polemic if I had tried to make that case. It is annoying to hear some on the Left say that Bush is a mass murderer and that he is as bad as Hitler, but I am not doing that with Obama. I’m just pointing out common elements between Stalin, Hitler, and Obama, many of which don’t look particularly evil on the surface of it.
At the same time I avoided overgeneralizations by only choosing things which are also distinctly different from what I believe. I don’t doubt that to you my list appears to be platitude--trite or obvious remarks--and could apply to almost anyone. But to millions of intelligent and well-informed individuals these are clearly specific and meaningful elements of a type of leader who greatly damages the people and the country he leads. Unlike your satire of Glenn Beck, which is completely unlike Glenn Beck to those who actually listen to him, the phrase “is speaking in public†could apply to anyone, but none of the 18 things I listed actually apply to leaders we admire. They can’t seriously be applied to Jesus Christ.
I shared my little quiz with my boss, and he completely agreed with me. My boss is a local leader in his non-Mormon Christian congregation. When I told him that a Mormon student thought that the things in my list could equally apply to Jesus Christ, my boss was shocked. I’m glad that you don’t believe that Christ is in any way like the men I have listed, but I still think my boss had a point when he said, “That young man needs to have a talk with his bishop.â€
My main point in offering the quiz was to show that Nazism and Communism are not incompatible, but actually have many elements in common. So, thank you for agreeing with me. There are many more elements in common that I could have listed, but I selected only those things which people like me have seen in President Obama’s methods and ideology, without stretching the comparison. Most of the statements come directly from the 1920 Nazi political platform. Hitler had much more in common with the Left than the Right.
Obviously Barack Obama is not as bad a person as Hitler or Stalin. That would be hyperbolic, or perhaps I would have written a polemic if I had tried to make that case. It is annoying to hear some on the Left say that Bush is a mass murderer and that he is as bad as Hitler, but I am not doing that with Obama. I’m just pointing out common elements between Stalin, Hitler, and Obama, many of which don’t look particularly evil on the surface of it.
At the same time I avoided overgeneralizations by only choosing things which are also distinctly different from what I believe. I don’t doubt that to you my list appears to be platitude--trite or obvious remarks--and could apply to almost anyone. But to millions of intelligent and well-informed individuals these are clearly specific and meaningful elements of a type of leader who greatly damages the people and the country he leads. Unlike your satire of Glenn Beck, which is completely unlike Glenn Beck to those who actually listen to him, the phrase “is speaking in public†could apply to anyone, but none of the 18 things I listed actually apply to leaders we admire. They can’t seriously be applied to Jesus Christ.
I shared my little quiz with my boss, and he completely agreed with me. My boss is a local leader in his non-Mormon Christian congregation. When I told him that a Mormon student thought that the things in my list could equally apply to Jesus Christ, my boss was shocked. I’m glad that you don’t believe that Christ is in any way like the men I have listed, but I still think my boss had a point when he said, “That young man needs to have a talk with his bishop.â€
Ok, lets get one thing straight. Almost all of the issues that you have discussed are ones on which the church has remained silent, and for good reason. Let us not be guilty of assuming that our own position has moral superiority, because neither side, on most of these issues, does.
Second, you've engaged in outright lies in what you've suggested Barack Obama is for, hence I've used my own hyperbole to refute it. You've added in many talking points that he has frequently been accused of by opponents, but are just not supported factually. For the record, I do frequently listen to Glenn Beck. I find him to be an antagonistic fear-monger, and hear few if any Christian principles in his show. Not to pick on him, but it would be interesting to hear just how many of these supposed atrocities he would be found guilty of.
Third, let's keep this professional, shall we? It seems all to frequently when I disagree with how you represent ideologies that I find to be in line with what my church teaches, based both on my personal study of those topics as well as what I've read by prophets and apostles, you turn those into a personal attack on me. For the record, I am active in the church, I teach gospel doctrine, and I actively study writings of the church, both past and present. Let me emphasis again, there is no conflict between my personal beliefs and what the church preaches from the pulpit. Certain authors and apostles, or even on occasion prophets, have disagreed with my beliefs, but never authoritatively. It is interesting to note, on this vein, that they have also disagreed with each other on occasion.
If you would like, I can go point by point of your little list and describe why you have misrepresented or at least overstated our current president's goals. However, I think my efforts would go entirely ignored, so I won't, at least not at this time.
Second, you've engaged in outright lies in what you've suggested Barack Obama is for, hence I've used my own hyperbole to refute it. You've added in many talking points that he has frequently been accused of by opponents, but are just not supported factually. For the record, I do frequently listen to Glenn Beck. I find him to be an antagonistic fear-monger, and hear few if any Christian principles in his show. Not to pick on him, but it would be interesting to hear just how many of these supposed atrocities he would be found guilty of.
Third, let's keep this professional, shall we? It seems all to frequently when I disagree with how you represent ideologies that I find to be in line with what my church teaches, based both on my personal study of those topics as well as what I've read by prophets and apostles, you turn those into a personal attack on me. For the record, I am active in the church, I teach gospel doctrine, and I actively study writings of the church, both past and present. Let me emphasis again, there is no conflict between my personal beliefs and what the church preaches from the pulpit. Certain authors and apostles, or even on occasion prophets, have disagreed with my beliefs, but never authoritatively. It is interesting to note, on this vein, that they have also disagreed with each other on occasion.
If you would like, I can go point by point of your little list and describe why you have misrepresented or at least overstated our current president's goals. However, I think my efforts would go entirely ignored, so I won't, at least not at this time.