How do you explain Nazism, Fascism or even the Communist Terror ?

Yazata said:
How does one explain Nazism, Fascism or Communist Terror?

The French Revolution, today's spread of ISIS and probably the original eruption of Islam in the 7th century are more examples of the same dynamic. There are more historical examples, many on a smaller scale.

What they all have in common is that they are all grand utopian social change schemes, promising some wonderful desirable result if they are put into effect. So anyone who stands in the way - Jews, class-enemies, or unbelievers - is an enemy to be killed or subjected without sympathy or compassion, all in the name of fighting for Good. So heads start rolling and mass-graves proliferate.
Click to expand...

This entire effect, behind all these, has to do with one thing, which is placing feelings above common sense and reason. For example, the abused wife will stay in a relationship with her abusive husband, because she still feels love based an image of a time, when he is nice. She puts aside reason and can't weight all the data as to how his overall pattern of behavior, will end in disaster. Feelings add a blur filter to the details of reality.

Feeling is useful in personal relationships, because feeling can blur the rough edges of reality, so the details won't get in the way of the ambiance needed for cooperation. This can make the abused wife or husband not sweat the details and stay in love.

But in large scale social movements, these details need to remain clear because reality is not governed by emotion but reason. Those who follow trends like Fascism, tend to use feelings first, connected to an induced vision. Once their reason is fuzzy with utopian emotion, they ill no longer be able to reason how it will turn out in the end. They are the future abused wife on her first date, bedazzled by her future abusive husband. Hitler made people feel hatred for the jews and feel a pride in the Arian race. These feelings were induced at the expense of extended reason.

As a modern example, the Democrat party have made themselves the beloved of the blacks; feeling first, yet the blacks never seem to rise to a point of contentment where they feel free at last. This paradox is due to a nostalgic feelings in the black about good times with an abusive husband.

The black lives matter movement is strongest in liberal and democratic party controlled cities like Chicago, New York, Baltimore, San Francisco. This is because there the blacks have the most abuse based observations. However, the blacks can't reason the cause and effect of why blacks under the control of democratic politics, are the ones that perceive the most abuse. They are like the abused wife, remembering with love the march with Martin Luther King and not that fact that after 50 years of the war on poverty being controlled by the Democrats, who have spent trillions, there is more poverty and discontent today than ever before, especially for the blacks in the democratic cities.

Alternately, the propaganda to the blacks is they should feel hate and fear when it comes to the republicans. This is to blur the details and the facts, like very few blacks groups have organized black lives matter movements in republican cities. I have fought against liberalism because it is based on emotions first, so common sense is made void. How do you reason with those who can only feel. You can't but you can make sure their feelings are more consistent with the facts and not nostalgia from the past.
 
Last edited:
sideshowbob said:
I've always preferred politicians who break their promises to those who keep promises that they never should have made.
Click to expand...
Well, life for the German people improved initially under his leadership. People were working and eating again. The value of German currency also took a turn for the better. He restored their national pride and gave them back hope for the future. It's unfortunate that war became the focus of their later years.
 
I deliberately do not comment each point of your answer as everyone can have his/her own opinion on the matter without being too much influenced. But I would just point out a contradiction that epitomizes mine about what you wrote.
Bowser said:
- Why some people do it ?
Desperation. If you are starving and suffering under some other failed system, you too might opt for any possible solution.

- Have you heard of the "Milgram Experiment" which was run in the middle of the "Allied Territory" ?
Yes. It was first conducted at Yale University. They wanted to understand why some people were willing to follow the directives of authority when those orders conflicted with the individuals own sense of morality.
Click to expand...

If I paraphrase it means that the Milgram Experiment didn't put people in "Desperation mode" and therefore proved you first statement as wrong from you own words...
 
Last edited:
wellwisher said:
This entire effect, behind all these, has to do with one thing, which is placing feelings above common sense and reason. For example, the abused wife will stay in a relationship with her abusive husband, because she still feels love based an image of a time, when he is nice. She puts aside reason and can't weight all the data as to how his overall pattern of behavior, will end in disaster. Feelings add a blur filter to the details of reality.

Feeling is useful in personal relationships, because feeling can blur the rough edges of reality, so the details won't get in the way of the ambiance needed for cooperation. This can make the abused wife or husband not sweat the details and stay in love.

But in large scale social movements, these details need to remain clear because reality is not governed by emotion but reason. Those who follow trends like Fascism, tend to use feelings first, connected to an induced vision. Once their reason is fuzzy with utopian emotion, they ill no longer be able to reason how it will turn out in the end. They are the future abused wife on her first date, bedazzled by her future abusive husband. Hitler made people feel hatred for the jews and feel a pride in the Arian race. These feelings were induced at the expense of extended reason.

As a modern example, the Democrat party have made themselves the beloved of the blacks; feeling first, yet the blacks never seem to rise to a point of contentment where they feel free at last. This paradox is due to a nostalgic feelings in the black about good times with an abusive husband.

The black lives matter movement is strongest in liberal and democratic party controlled cities like Chicago, New York, Baltimore, San Francisco. This is because there the blacks have the most abuse based observations. However, the blacks can't reason the cause and effect of why blacks under the control of democratic politics, are the ones that perceive the most abuse. They are like the abused wife, remembering with love the march with Martin Luther King and not that fact that after 50 years of the war on poverty being controlled by the Democrats, who have spent trillions, there is more poverty and discontent today than ever before, especially for the blacks in the democratic cities.

Alternately, the propaganda to the blacks is they should feel hate and fear when it comes to the republicans. This is to blur the details and the facts, like very few blacks groups have organized black lives matter movements in republican cities. I have fought against liberalism because it is based on emotions first, so common sense is made void. How do you reason with those who can only feel. You can't but you can make sure their feelings are more consistent with the facts and not nostalgia from the past.
Click to expand...

It seems that the politician way contaminated some samples of the engineers population. I guess you forgot to upload your Least Square Solution to this problem. I found 0.9040...
 
sideshowbob said:
I've always preferred politicians who break their promises to those who keep promises that they never should have made.
Click to expand...

My favourite politicians are the one who started politics really believing they could achieve anything good...

On a more serious note, I would say that we don't really need politics. It's a useless profession directly drawing its strength from the ego of all the people who think that being an authority is more important than anything else.

A.E. Said : "As punishment for my contempt for authority, Fate has made me an authority myself."
 
Last edited:
IIIIIIIIII said:
I deliberately do not comment each point of your answer as everyone can have his/her own opinion on the matter without being too much influenced. But I would just point out a contradiction that epitomizes mine about what you wrote.


If I paraphrase it means that the Milgram Experiment didn't put people in "Desperation mode" and therefore proved you first statement as wrong from you own words...
Click to expand...

Not all Germans were guards in the concentration camps. Where some simply found hope in the Nazi program, others became part of its more evil aspects. The OP's initial post seemed to center on the more horrific side of the time. I simply wanted to show that there was more to the situation than what we generally think. The German people were contending with crisis both economic and social. The Nazis offered stability.

The Milgram Experiment showed that people can commit monstrous acts when prodded by assumed authority.
 
wellwisher said:
As a modern example, the Democrat party have made themselves the beloved of the blacks
Click to expand...
That's because the Democratic Party doesn't actively work to prevent blacks from voting. The Democratic Party has supported the civil rights movement since the 1960s. Democratic initiatives like the New Deal have made such a huge difference to the quality of life and reduction in poverty in this country that few Republicans have tried to eliminate them.
 
spidergoat said:
That's because the Democratic Party doesn't actively work to prevent blacks from voting. The Democratic Party has supported the civil rights movement since the 1960s. Democratic initiatives like the New Deal have made such a huge difference to the quality of life and reduction in poverty in this country that few Republicans have tried to eliminate them.
Click to expand...
New Deal(s), there were two - neither worked well (which is why there was two). Many of the problems we are dealing with today, arise from systemic changes in the way Americans behave due to the legacy of the "New Deals" and the "Great Society" (Americas Great Leap Backwards).

Lets see:
- the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) changes the way Americans view bank risk (most don't even think of it at all). This leads to risky behavior on the part of the banks (see the Depression we're living through). Ultimately led to the Tax Payer and working poor bailing out the rich BANKS.
- the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) - I suppose if you like eating HFCS and having the Tax Payer bail out Big Agro, then you'll love programs like the FCIC. And of course, once Big Government steps in we see Big Stagnation and no transition over to private insurance that would soundly insure farmers against natural disaster. Just another big fat Government stagnating bureaucracy working to bailout the BANKS that underwrite the insurance claims..... again (this is pretty much the theme of the New Deals).
- the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) - American is now a Nation of SlumLords and Renters, the FHA of course bailed out the banks when they make poor loans on houses. It's totally destroyed the American Dream for most Americans. At least the rich banks got bailed out.
- Social Security System.... hahaha, over 80% of the Baby Generation have nearly ZERO saving (of course the Central Bank inflated away the purchasing power of what little they could have saved) because they believe SSI is going to take care of them and maintain their current life style when they 'retire'. In the end, SSI will not keep up with CPI and the payouts will be reduced (pissing off the Magic Thinkers). If we're lucky, SSI may even bankrupt the nation (slowly). Again, Big Government steps in waving its gun around, alters everyone's behavior resulting in generational (unknown) downstream effects. How this plays out - no one has a clue.
- Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), yeah, a revolving door with the richest Banks, who AGAIN, get bailed out. How nice.
- The Great Society? More like The Welfare Ghettoization of America. Again, Big Government steps in, waves it's gun, and we end up with shithole Ghettos of Government Schooled functional illiterates.

What happens with Magic Thinking - Progressive Statists see something they want to fix, and then they think by using the State's special right to initiate violence against innocent humans, this is going to fix it. As if State violence isn't going to greatly alter the behavior of everyone in the relationship.

It'd be like seeing a loving family relationship with a few problems, and instead of trying to solve those problems by talking and working together, instead just pointing a gun the face of the weaker party, getting the expected result (change in behavior) and then through the magic of Magic Thinking, thinking this hasn't altered the relationship. As if everything else is going to go on as normal. Sorry, pointing a gun in someone's face is going to alter just about everything about your relationship. Good people simply say F-it and evil people work hard at getting to control the gun. Which, for the most part, they now do. Thus, we'll continue on for decades becoming a poorer nation.

Next Stop: Democratic Communism, the Progressive choice.
 
Last edited:
There are some threads of truth there, but the overall thrust is nonsense. The New Deal was wildly successful in ending the most egregious forms of poverty.
 
spidergoat said:
There are some threads of truth there, but the overall thrust is nonsense. The New Deal was wildly successful in ending the most egregious forms of poverty.
Click to expand...
That's simply not true. Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deals made the Great Depression longer and deeper and Roosevelt did NOT "get us out of the Depression". He certainly did not save capitalism from itself.

The Journal of Political Economy is arguably the top academic economics journal in the world.
JPE (2004): "New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis" by Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian (UCLA economists) clearly show that the New Deals made the Depression worse.

[PDF here]
There are two striking aspects of the recovery from the Great Depression in the United States: the recovery was very weak, and real wages in several sectors rose significantly above trend. These data contrast sharply with neoclassical theory, which predicts a strong recovery with low real wages. We evaluate the contribution to the persistence of the Depression of New Deal cartelization policies designed to limit competition and increase labor bargaining power. We develop a model of the bargaining process between labor and firms that occurred with these policies and embed that model within a multisector dynamic general equilibrium model. We find that New Deal cartelization policies are an important factor in accounting for the failure of the economy to recover back to trend.
Click to expand...

If you have evidence to rebut their paper, then write to JPE and do so. If not, then you are only arguing from emotion. You want the real world to conform to your ideals regarding Statism. But this isn't the way it works if you want to think reasonably.

The best way to think reasonably using the scientific method is to alter your beliefs to align them with the empirical evidence. And, as more evidence is accumulated, you continue to alter your thinking. Anything else is not rational and is instead emotional thinking. Also, once terms are defined, you must apply the logic universally. Gravity isn't something that only occurs on Earth. It also happens at the sun. Initiation of violence is immoral, regardless if a bunch of people 'vote' to make it legal. It may be legal, it will remain immoral. The State's government ONLY delineates itself from other groups of humans in that it has the legal right to initiate violence against morally innocent humans within its geographical delineated landmass.

It's that simple.
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
Initiation of violence is not immoral if it is used fairly to enforce moral laws.
Click to expand...
Initiation of violence against innocent people is immoral - by definition. As for morality laws, if they involve initiation of violence against innocent people, they are immoral.

KSA has morality Laws against women walking around without covering their heads - those laws are immoral.
 
Michael said:
Initiation of violence against innocent people is immoral - by definition. As for morality laws, if they involve initiation of violence against innocent people, they are immoral.

KSA has morality Laws against women walking around without covering their heads - those laws are immoral.
Click to expand...
You are saying the right not to be grabbed or apprehended prior to a trial transcends all other rights? The right of a society to enforce a few simple laws to maintain order?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top