![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
User:WHEELER made a particularly fine edit just now, and his citations and insight do a great service to us all. Edits like his are the light at the end of the wiki-tunnel ;) Sam Spade 23:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It is so hard to see that some people cannot see the truth. Mussoline defines himself on the Left. Hitler did to. Yet people want to claim that "there is a valid perspective in seeing fascism as a form of right-wing conservatism". As I said below, to say "Far-right neo-nazi" is an oxymoron. Let us extrapolate, "Far-right neo-national socialist workers party". This is completely nonsensical! Martihjn also has a bias of protecting his ideology. Communism sought purity of thought!!!. It killed many Christians because of that. Purity is also sought in the Truth logic. Every premise must be true for the conclusion to be true. Same in Mathematics. Every number and formula in a mathematical equation must be right, done right and executed right. Purityis a necessity in food production. Purity is NOT the definition of what is right/left. WHEELER 23 Mar 04
Spelling edits don't need to be reverted, and my politics are both a non-issue (or should be here) and likely quite dissimilar from what you would expect. Feel free to discuss them with me elsewhere, maybe you can help me figure out who to vote for ;) I reverted because I disagree strongly with removing valid content, which is what you did. He cited what he placed here, presented a view point entirely lacking, and all in all made a tremendous improvement on an otherwise poor article. If you dislike the POV he cited, I reccomend you cite sources which agree with you, rather than reverting his "biased" (and cited) edits, nor attempting to trivialize my quality control standards or judge my politics. Sam Spade 01:15, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
To call something the Far-right neo-nazi is an oxymoron. It goes against the principle of Paramenides; the principle of non-contradiction. One can not be Far right and a socialist and a workers Party. That is non-sensical. It is a contradiction of terms. Socialists are anti-monarchical and anti-clerical. Read the Book, Liberty or Equality by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. The text is 284 pages long and has over 900 footnotes.WHEELER 22 Mar 2004
Furthermore, in Aristotlean logic there is always genus/species. The genus is Socialism and one species of the genus Socialism is Communism and the other species of the genus Socialism is Fascism. They are brothers. One was nationalistic and the other International. One was a synthesis and the other was the antithesis. Need to check out the Truth paradigm of logic. T=T+T+T if one false is there i.e. F+T+T+T=F; the whole become false. It doesn't happen the other way around. Capitalism exists in its purity; any mix of socialism and the whole thing is socialistic.
Hitler said, "We are the executors of Marxism stripped of its Judaic Talmudic influences." I am sorry I do not have the reference for this, most of my books are in storage but it is found in Leftism Revisited by von Kuehnhelt-Leddhin with 1044 footnotes.WHEELER 22 Mar 04
"He was particularly proud of the extent to which he had learned from the political methods of the Social Democrats” "National socialism is socialism in evolution," Hitler insisted, "socialism in everlasting change." And, he went on to admit, "There is more that unites us with than divides us from bolshevism... above all the genuine revolutionary mentality. I was aware of this and I have given the order that former Communists should be admitted to the party immediately". (All of the above quotes come from the book Leftism Revisited, Erik von Kuenhelt-Leddihn, l990 pg158)WHEELER 23 Mar o4
I think its clear that we are making progress, but I have to tell you this is a debate not contained within this one page. Actually every political page I have delt with has had the nazi/socialist debate, often matched by the anarchist/communist debate. The debate in the preceeding being if it is appropriate to view the paired concepts as compatable or no. Editorial opinions here seen to be a condenced version of the extremes on both sides, and interest in NPOV on these subjects appears to be minimal ;). I think it would be great if we could provide our readers with a reasonable enough definion of terms that they could intellegently discuss and comprhend these concepts, but IMO we have clearly failed thus far. The main reason why we have failed (IMO) is because of a excessive focus on our own editorial biases, and not enough (or often no) focus on NPOV and making the article choherant and useful to our fearless readers. Keep up the good work, but we have got alot more digging to do if were going to get to China ;) Sam Spade 17:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
" to accustom the working-class to real and effectual leadership" Socialism "considers and observes the future and the development of humanity" which is dawnist and hence socialist
"Absolute monarchy has been and can never return" which is anti-monarchical which is socialist "any more than blind acceptance of ecclesiastical authority" which is anti-clericalism which is socialist "the priveleges of the feudal system 'have been', and the division of society into castes impenetrable form the outside." which is "leveler" anti-heirarchiacal, anti-aristocracy which is socialism.
Mussolini hated "scientific Marxism". Marxism preaches world unity. If Mussolini and Adolf Hitler opposed this marxist ideology does not make them rightist in the least sense of the word.
In the site's definition, I set out clearly that the economics of Fascism was also a synthesis. Both ideologically and economically, Fascism is socialist. WHEELER 23 Mar 04
"Thus in Italy the rupture between the dictatorship of the Fascist party and the monarchy had to come sooner or later--when Mussoline established his "Repubblica Sociale Italiana"... Liberty or Equality, pg 124
there is only T and F T=T+T+T F=F+F+F if one single F appears in the T program, the whole becomes F. T+T+T+F+T=F. The whole is converted to F.
The same with R and L. R=R+R+R+R L=L+L+L if one single L appears in the R the whole thing is L. R+R+R+L+R=L. Rightism is only in its purity right. Graduations in Socialism still remains socialist. Rightist elements in Socialism does not convert Socialism to accomplish rightist culture. Socialism still advances. Socialism is about destroying and replacing classical culture WHEELER 2:40pm 23 Mar 04
"Loving" ones own people is not an ideology. Rightism is not ideology. We "conserve" the "ancien regime". Only Socialists are ideologists. Rightists seek nothing but to do the same thing we have been doing for 4000 years. Remain the same. There is no "Rightist" ideology because we do not seek to change culture or people. We accept the status quo. Love of country and people is natural to all. God seperated the people at the Tower of Babel and placed within man a feeling not to cooperate with each other.
Socrates and Aristotle and the Scriptures say Birds of a Feather Flock together. Socialists want to undermine what God has done. They want to change reality. Rightists seek to obey reality. That is all. Wheeler
Almost correctly. Not only based on religion but also philosophy. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle did not like the leftists of their time. Neither did Cicero. I fall under these gentlemen.
In the book Elements of Socialism; a Textbook by Fargo (1925) he writes that "All Socialists by nature are idealists".
I on the other hand am like Socrates, Aristotle and Plato, realists and rationalists not idealists. Wheeler 3:00 pm 23 Mar 04
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
User:WHEELER made a particularly fine edit just now, and his citations and insight do a great service to us all. Edits like his are the light at the end of the wiki-tunnel ;) Sam Spade 23:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It is so hard to see that some people cannot see the truth. Mussoline defines himself on the Left. Hitler did to. Yet people want to claim that "there is a valid perspective in seeing fascism as a form of right-wing conservatism". As I said below, to say "Far-right neo-nazi" is an oxymoron. Let us extrapolate, "Far-right neo-national socialist workers party". This is completely nonsensical! Martihjn also has a bias of protecting his ideology. Communism sought purity of thought!!!. It killed many Christians because of that. Purity is also sought in the Truth logic. Every premise must be true for the conclusion to be true. Same in Mathematics. Every number and formula in a mathematical equation must be right, done right and executed right. Purityis a necessity in food production. Purity is NOT the definition of what is right/left. WHEELER 23 Mar 04
Spelling edits don't need to be reverted, and my politics are both a non-issue (or should be here) and likely quite dissimilar from what you would expect. Feel free to discuss them with me elsewhere, maybe you can help me figure out who to vote for ;) I reverted because I disagree strongly with removing valid content, which is what you did. He cited what he placed here, presented a view point entirely lacking, and all in all made a tremendous improvement on an otherwise poor article. If you dislike the POV he cited, I reccomend you cite sources which agree with you, rather than reverting his "biased" (and cited) edits, nor attempting to trivialize my quality control standards or judge my politics. Sam Spade 01:15, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
To call something the Far-right neo-nazi is an oxymoron. It goes against the principle of Paramenides; the principle of non-contradiction. One can not be Far right and a socialist and a workers Party. That is non-sensical. It is a contradiction of terms. Socialists are anti-monarchical and anti-clerical. Read the Book, Liberty or Equality by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. The text is 284 pages long and has over 900 footnotes.WHEELER 22 Mar 2004
Furthermore, in Aristotlean logic there is always genus/species. The genus is Socialism and one species of the genus Socialism is Communism and the other species of the genus Socialism is Fascism. They are brothers. One was nationalistic and the other International. One was a synthesis and the other was the antithesis. Need to check out the Truth paradigm of logic. T=T+T+T if one false is there i.e. F+T+T+T=F; the whole become false. It doesn't happen the other way around. Capitalism exists in its purity; any mix of socialism and the whole thing is socialistic.
Hitler said, "We are the executors of Marxism stripped of its Judaic Talmudic influences." I am sorry I do not have the reference for this, most of my books are in storage but it is found in Leftism Revisited by von Kuehnhelt-Leddhin with 1044 footnotes.WHEELER 22 Mar 04
"He was particularly proud of the extent to which he had learned from the political methods of the Social Democrats” "National socialism is socialism in evolution," Hitler insisted, "socialism in everlasting change." And, he went on to admit, "There is more that unites us with than divides us from bolshevism... above all the genuine revolutionary mentality. I was aware of this and I have given the order that former Communists should be admitted to the party immediately". (All of the above quotes come from the book Leftism Revisited, Erik von Kuenhelt-Leddihn, l990 pg158)WHEELER 23 Mar o4
I think its clear that we are making progress, but I have to tell you this is a debate not contained within this one page. Actually every political page I have delt with has had the nazi/socialist debate, often matched by the anarchist/communist debate. The debate in the preceeding being if it is appropriate to view the paired concepts as compatable or no. Editorial opinions here seen to be a condenced version of the extremes on both sides, and interest in NPOV on these subjects appears to be minimal ;). I think it would be great if we could provide our readers with a reasonable enough definion of terms that they could intellegently discuss and comprhend these concepts, but IMO we have clearly failed thus far. The main reason why we have failed (IMO) is because of a excessive focus on our own editorial biases, and not enough (or often no) focus on NPOV and making the article choherant and useful to our fearless readers. Keep up the good work, but we have got alot more digging to do if were going to get to China ;) Sam Spade 17:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
" to accustom the working-class to real and effectual leadership" Socialism "considers and observes the future and the development of humanity" which is dawnist and hence socialist
"Absolute monarchy has been and can never return" which is anti-monarchical which is socialist "any more than blind acceptance of ecclesiastical authority" which is anti-clericalism which is socialist "the priveleges of the feudal system 'have been', and the division of society into castes impenetrable form the outside." which is "leveler" anti-heirarchiacal, anti-aristocracy which is socialism.
Mussolini hated "scientific Marxism". Marxism preaches world unity. If Mussolini and Adolf Hitler opposed this marxist ideology does not make them rightist in the least sense of the word.
In the site's definition, I set out clearly that the economics of Fascism was also a synthesis. Both ideologically and economically, Fascism is socialist. WHEELER 23 Mar 04
"Thus in Italy the rupture between the dictatorship of the Fascist party and the monarchy had to come sooner or later--when Mussoline established his "Repubblica Sociale Italiana"... Liberty or Equality, pg 124
there is only T and F T=T+T+T F=F+F+F if one single F appears in the T program, the whole becomes F. T+T+T+F+T=F. The whole is converted to F.
The same with R and L. R=R+R+R+R L=L+L+L if one single L appears in the R the whole thing is L. R+R+R+L+R=L. Rightism is only in its purity right. Graduations in Socialism still remains socialist. Rightist elements in Socialism does not convert Socialism to accomplish rightist culture. Socialism still advances. Socialism is about destroying and replacing classical culture WHEELER 2:40pm 23 Mar 04
"Loving" ones own people is not an ideology. Rightism is not ideology. We "conserve" the "ancien regime". Only Socialists are ideologists. Rightists seek nothing but to do the same thing we have been doing for 4000 years. Remain the same. There is no "Rightist" ideology because we do not seek to change culture or people. We accept the status quo. Love of country and people is natural to all. God seperated the people at the Tower of Babel and placed within man a feeling not to cooperate with each other.
Socrates and Aristotle and the Scriptures say Birds of a Feather Flock together. Socialists want to undermine what God has done. They want to change reality. Rightists seek to obey reality. That is all. Wheeler
Almost correctly. Not only based on religion but also philosophy. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle did not like the leftists of their time. Neither did Cicero. I fall under these gentlemen.
In the book Elements of Socialism; a Textbook by Fargo (1925) he writes that "All Socialists by nature are idealists".
I on the other hand am like Socrates, Aristotle and Plato, realists and rationalists not idealists. Wheeler 3:00 pm 23 Mar 04