Clean up your act online, church tells Latter-day Saints

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

Amen. It's very disturbing. A friend of mine discovered his granddaughter was taken to Urgent Care and that guy took her vital signs. My friend was livid. 

And he is not vaccinated and yet working as a First Responder. I wonder how often he tests. And how many he could infect before testing positive. 
 

If I knew I got infected by Covid from a medical First Responder treating me when I was under physical stress and therefore more likely to get infected, I would so want to sue someone and I usually am not prolawsuits. 
 

I also wish there was a tougher sex offender  standard for sensitive jobs. Anything that requires physical contact.  Iirc this guy won’t show up on background checks for sex offenders?

Edited December 16, 2021 by Calm

[why me]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

In our heart of hearts are we not all Nazis? Let us embrace our inner Nazi and externally embrace all the Nazis around us.

Or we could look up the perfectly serviceable definitions of these terms that are in common use. I wonder why so many are embracing ambiguity on this issue to cloud everything so we can’t identify fascists. Who would benefit from such tactics? Hmmmmm……

I believe that those who follow Lincoln Rockwell are Nazis. Those who admire Benito are fascists. I suppose the world was less complicated in the past. Now, the terms have been blurred by people like yourself. I would assume that people who are members of the American Nazi Party are Nazis. However they may refer to themselves as National Socialists. Was FDR a fascist admirer?

In the North American Review in 1934, the progressive writer Roger Shaw described the New Deal as “Fascist means to gain liberal ends.” He wasn’t hallucinating. FDR’s adviser Rexford Tugwell wrote in his diary that Mussolini had done “many of the things which seem to me necessary.” Lorena Hickok, a close confidante of Eleanor Roosevelt who lived in the White House for a spell, wrote approvingly of a local official who had said, “If [President] Roosevelt were actually a dictator, we might get somewhere.” She added that if she were younger, she’d like to lead “the Fascist Movement in the United States.” At the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the cartel‐creating agency at the heart of the early New Deal, one report declared forthrightly, “The Fascist Principles are very similar to those we have been evolving here in America.”

Roosevelt himself called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.… Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state” based on the “demand that collective good be put before individual self‐interest.”

https://www.cato.org/commentary/hitler-mussolini-roosevelt#

And here is more from the link:

In 1973 one of the most distinguished American historians, John A. Garraty of Columbia University, created a stir with his article “The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression.” Garraty was an admirer of Roosevelt but couldn’t help noticing, for instance, the parallels between the Civilian Conservation Corps and similar programs in Germany. Both, he wrote, “were essentially designed to keep young men out of the labor market. Roosevelt described work camps as a means for getting youth ‘off the city street corners,’ Hitler as a way of keeping them from ‘rotting helplessly in the streets.’ In both countries much was made of the beneficial social results of mixing thousands of young people from different walks of life in the camps. Furthermore, both were organized on semimilitary lines with the subsidiary purposes of improving the physical fitness of potential soldiers and stimulating public commitment to national service in an emergency.”

Amazing isn't it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[why me]

18 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The official name for North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Since you are using the official name of the Nazi party to claim that Nazis are socialists, would you then also argue that North Korea is a democratic republic, based on its official name?

(or maybe... dictators like to misuse words for their own purposes? just a thought)

This is the problem with the word Democratic or Democracy. The word is up to interpretation. For example, the US has two main parties and both have capitalism has their foundation. So, is it a democracy to have two main parties that are capitalist?

Here is wiki about the socialism in national socialism:

The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of socialism, as an alternative to both Marxist international socialism and free-market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concepts of class conflict and universal equality, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good", accepting political interests as the main priority of economic organisation,^[9] which tended to match the general outlook of collectivism or communitarianism rather than economic socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, why me said:

This is the problem with the word Democratic or Democracy. The word is up to interpretation. For example, the US has two main parties and both have capitalism has their foundation. So, is it a democracy to have two main parties that are capitalist?

 

 

What does democracy have to do with capitalism?  One is a type of government and the other is an economic system.

 

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, why me said:

Now, the terms have been blurred by people like yourself.

People blurred terms plenty in the past for political ends as well as others. Joseph McCarthy was famous for that. 

Edited December 16, 2021 by Calm

[why me]

23 hours ago, ttribe said:

I suggest reading Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.  It should take you no time, whatsoever, to understand that 'Socialism' is primarily an economic system that was never actually used by Hitler.  He was perfectly happy to exploit an existing capitalist system for his own benefit.  The 'Socialist' in the party name was always a red herring designed to get certain parts of the population on his side in his effort to seize power.  Once he got that power, he dropped the veil in short order and any pretense of 'socialism' was swept away, as were the brown shirts who were murdered. 

Fascism is, and always has been - "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."  (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism).

Nazism was, and is, an exploitation of extreme patriotism for whatever country it is being organized in, coupled with the creation of enmity to 'foreigners' and 'lesser' races.  It places loyalty to the state (i.e. the country) above all other things.  Period, end of story.  It has nothing to do with socialism or communism.

https://www.econlib.org/how-socialist-was-national-socialism/

Hayek is mentioned as a writer who “saw National Socialism as part of a broader collectivist movement in many parts of Europe”. Gellately points out that The Road to Serfdom “looked only briefly and selectively at the intellectual roots of national socialism” and that “Hayek used the charge of ‘socialism’ as a kind of libertarian indictment against Nazism”. Yet Gellatelly’s book explores the matter thoroughly and points out that “Germany on the eve of Hitler’s appointment as chancellor in January 1933 continued to have a socialist-oriented political culture”. “Almost without exception, the Nazis emphasized all kinds of socialist attitudes, to be sure a socialism ‘cleansed’ of international Marxism and communism”. The book explores the ideological roots of Nazism, which of course are not confined to socialist sentiments but include them.

 Stressing the socialism bit in national socialism is ironically considered in the Anglo-Saxon world as an “ultra-right wing attitude”

 

I think that it was more complicated than what you wrote. Hayek saw socialism in Nazism. And he wrote about it in The Road to Serfdom.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, why me said:

https://www.econlib.org/how-socialist-was-national-socialism/

Hayek is mentioned as a writer who “saw National Socialism as part of a broader collectivist movement in many parts of Europe”. Gellately points out that The Road to Serfdom “looked only briefly and selectively at the intellectual roots of national socialism” and that “Hayek used the charge of ‘socialism’ as a kind of libertarian indictment against Nazism”. Yet Gellatelly’s book explores the matter thoroughly and points out that “Germany on the eve of Hitler’s appointment as chancellor in January 1933 continued to have a socialist-oriented political culture”. “Almost without exception, the Nazis emphasized all kinds of socialist attitudes, to be sure a socialism ‘cleansed’ of international Marxism and communism”. The book explores the ideological roots of Nazism, which of course are not confined to socialist sentiments but include them.

 Stressing the socialism bit in national socialism is ironically considered in the Anglo-Saxon world as an “ultra-right wing attitude”

 

I think that it was more complicated than what you wrote. Hayek saw socialism in Nazism. And he wrote about it in The Road to Serfdom.

Of course it's more complicated than I wrote; mine was a high-level summary on an Internet message board.  It is nevertheless undeniable that the Nazi Party continued to allow and work with privately owned business during their time of power.  Simply look at the sordid histories of Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Volkswagen, for example.

[why me]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

People blurred terms plenty in the past for political ends as well as others. Joseph McCarthy was famous for that. 

McCarthy was obsessed with communism in the USA as was the FBI with Hoover. They both fed each other. Back then the question was Who is the communist? Now it is who is the fascist or Nazi? There are very few Nazis in the USA or fascists. During Trump, books were published, profits were made by calling Trump a fascist or equate him with the rise of fascism. Those books can now be bought for a dollar in second hand bookshops. Total worthless. The same can be said about books about GW Bush and his presidency. Remember the books about his presidency when he was president? Democrats referred to John McCain when he ran for president in 2008 as they did to Trump: rascist. People fall for the game all the time.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/John_Lewis_invoking_George_Wallace_says_McCain_and_Palin_playing_with_fire.html

[why me]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Of course it's more complicated than I wrote; mine was a high-level summary on an Internet message board.  It is nevertheless undeniable that the Nazi Party continued to allow and work with privately owned business during their time of power.  Simply look at the sordid histories of Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Volkswagen, for example.

So did the socialists during the welfare states in Europe. For communists the welfare state was just another means for capitalist control over the working class through the use of benefits. I had a good laugh when the democrats were promising more benefits to the poor etc. No better way to control the poor than by giving them a benefit. Likewise for any benefit. And for the system itself, it takes away the critical voice of people by bribing them with a benefit. And big business loves it.

[why me]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What does democracy have to do with capitalism?  One is a type of government and the other is an economic system.

 

Capitalism is an ideology. Socialism is also an economic system as is communism. And both are ideologies. And all are systems of government. And all claim to be democratic.

An ideology is a set of beliefs, especially the political beliefs on which people, parties, or countries base their actions.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, why me said:

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

McCarthy was obsessed with communism in the USA as was the FBI with Hoover. They both fed each other. Back then the question was Who is the communist? Now it is who is the fascist or Nazi?

Which does not address your claim blurring of political terms is a new thing. 

[provoman]

For me, it is very presumptive of myself to say “well Jesus called ‘whitedwalls’ etc” to justify my name calling of others…..I am not Christ, I do not have the insight Christ has, so even if I find name calling by Jesus, who am I to think His conduct justifies me.

Edited December 16, 2021 by provoman

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, why me said:

Capitalism is an ideology. Socialism is also an economic system as is communism. And both are ideologies. And all are systems of government. And all claim to be democratic.

An ideology is a set of beliefs, especially the political beliefs on which people, parties, or countries base their actions.

Capitalism isn’t a system of government though. It’s an economic system. 

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, provoman said:

For me, it is very presumptive of myself to say “well Jesus called ‘whitedwalls’ etc” to justify my name calling of others…..I am not Christ, I do not have the insight Christ has, so even if I find name calling by Jesus, who am I to think His conduct justifies me.

Exactly. 

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Capitalism isn’t a system of government though. It’s an economic system. 

For some, it's a religion, too.

[LoudmouthMormon]

My two cents:

My father was in World War II, where he literally fought literal Nazis.  He's been dead a while now, but I'm able to state with confidence:  When it comes to the social unrest of 2020 (and leaking in to 2021 a bit), he would have denounced with ridicule and contempt, 99% of the accusations made in the US that this or that group of people are nazis.   Back in the '70's and '80's, we had actual nazis who would dress up with their swastikas and uniforms and goosestep around (I think they may have been gathered mostly in Illinois), using the protections of the 1st amendment right to peaceably assemble.  He spoke out against those nazis often.  

My father was an old school Union Democrat, and I can say without fear of being wrong, if he were alive in 2020, he'd figure the antifa thugs burning down their own towns were useless hippies, and the magahat wearing proud boys and boogaloos were good ol' boys acting too patriotic sometimes.  There is nothing happening in the last 2 years he would have identified as nazism or fascism - he saw those up close and personal.  He died in the mid 1990's, and had zero problems with police using surplus military equipment.  I remember his union's strikes and protests, he never voiced so much as a harsh word about cops.

That's cent number one.  Here's cent number two: He actually befriended a former member of the hitler youth, who immigrated to America.  They had a lifelong friendship.  The young hitler youth kid remembers when the allies crossed the bridge into his town, and my father remembers crossing that bridge.  They met and formed a friendship years later in the US.  That former member of the hitler youth, went on to become branch president, and picked the spot where my ward building currently stands.  I remember him from my youth, and in later written correspondence when my father died - he was a profoundly spiritual and good man.

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by LoudmouthMormon

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, why me said:

So did the socialists during the welfare states in Europe. For communists the welfare state was just another means for capitalist control over the working class through the use of benefits. I had a good laugh when the democrats were promising more benefits to the poor etc. No better way to control the poor than by giving them a benefit. Likewise for any benefit. And for the system itself, it takes away the critical voice of people by bribing them with a benefit. And big business loves it.

I think this is a pretty good rebuttal to Hayek and the common refrain from modern self-proclaimed conservatives on this issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-needs-stop-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/

From the editorial:

Quote

Unlike much of the European left, many conservatives proved willing to work with Nazis — something they later regretted — an association that tainted postwar European conservatism. When it came time to rebuild European politics after the war, therefore, it fell to center-left parties such as Labour in Britain, the Socialists in France and the SPD in Germany, which abandoned rigid Marxist doctrines, alongside the new center-right movement of Christian Democracy, which rejected traditional nationalism, to take up the challenge. This was the hour of the welfare state, supported by social and Christian Democrats, which encouraged social solidarity within a democratic and capitalist framework.

Despite this reality, linking socialism and Nazism to critique leftist ideas became a political weapon in the post-World War II period, perhaps unsurprisingly given that the Cold War followed directly on the heels of World War II. Scholars as diverse as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Hannah Arendt used the larger concept of “totalitarianism” to fuse the two. This formula made it easier for Americans to slip comfortably from considering the Soviet Union a wartime ally to recognizing it as an existential threat. Totalitarianism emphasized the structural similarities and violent practices of Nazi and Stalinist regimes.

This concept, however, proved controversial as an explanation of the origins or subsequent appeal of either communism or Nazism/fascism. Although Hitler and Stalin had cooperated in an effort to conquer Eastern Europe in 1939 to 1941, this was more a marriage of convenience than a byproduct of ideological synergy. Indeed, the two sides eventually fought a genocidal war against each other.

Austrian economist and future Nobel laureate Friedrich von Hayek added an extra layer to the conversation about socialism and Nazism with his 1943 bestseller, “The Road to Serfdom.” As a staunch free marketeer, Hayek was appalled by the rise of economic planning in democratic states, embodied by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Hayek warned that any government intervention in the market eroded freedom, eventually leading to some form of dictatorship.

Hayek was enormously influential across the globe within the rising conservative movement during the second half of the 20th century. He advised future leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, and his book became foundational for the right. Hayek’s assertion that all government interventions in the economy led to totalitarianism continues to animate popular works such as D’Souza’s “The Big Lie,” reinforcing the idea that the welfare state is a gateway drug to genocide.But while these ideas may make sense to free market purists, the history shows that it was the parties that arose in reaction to the Nazi horrors that built such welfare states. Denouncing their programs as “socialism” or warning of a tie between the two is nothing less than historical and political sophistry that attempts to turn effect into cause and victim into victimizer.

Historical analogies have a useful purpose to simplify and clarify, but they work best when used carefully. As manifest problems with global capitalism, as well as political gridlock, encourage a new hunger for fundamental political transformation, it is especially important that we understand the tragic decisions of the 1930s and their consequences in their full context, rather than simply transposing words from the past onto the debates of the present.

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by ttribe

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I think this is a pretty good rebuttal to Hayek and the common refrain from modern self-proclaimed conservatives on this issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-needs-stop-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/

 

Trump's version of conservatism closely approached national socialism.  Market protectionism, cosying up to the unions, attacks on free speech -- all the same.

Only Trump conservatives compare Nazism to socialism.

 

Edited December 17, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[ttribe]

8 hours ago, BRMC said:

That's not a fair question without examples.   

Rhetorical. Clearly, rhetorical.

[The Nehor]

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Violence is seldom the answer.  Just because something is in print doesn't mean it deserves to be read.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Not one of your funnier posts.