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

[Retribution]

Oh, ffs... alright, then.

The various synopses (most recently in 78) of your major posted errors - of fact and logic both - are of course trivial, and hardly worth anyone's time. I agree.

Are you even aware that most of your responses to me all over this forum have been pretty much exactly that?
Your "major posted errors of fact and logic both".
You really haven't done a damned thing to back them up, though, you seem more committed to following me around telling me I'm wrong. About, well... pretty much everything.
That's rather annoying, but the question arises: What exactly is it you want?

But not compared to your actual responses, about matters so compelling to you as to motivate several responses, but which engage no subject except other people's posting style, supposed character and motive, etc.

With regard to you, for example, yes. You're an annoying little git who really doesn't have much to actually say, but spends a whole lot of time talking.

Your standards for reply are visible.

Yes, I would hope so. I would also hope that it be noticed those standards vary considerably depending on who is addressing me and what they actually have to say.
I've noticed you're fairly consistent, though.

So - - - we were looking, if you recall, for explanations of Nazism etc. The OP. You offered a couple of dubious possibilities backed with confused implied argument from apparently inaccurate accounts of historical event.

Case in point, by way of example in this thread alone.

Such as your attempted dismissal of the role violence played in the rise of Nazism in 1930s Germany by pointing to the supposed relative complacency of "people" at the time, compared with now, to such violence. As if that were even relevant, let alone accurate.

Actually, I didn't dismiss it at all. I did dismiss it as a factor of primary importance in itself, though, which apparently offended you.
If you want to try to introduce it as the most important factor and then go on for pages about who I'm <insert a dozen synonyms for "you're an idiot" here> then yes, I'm going to insult your posting style.
If you're going to do that, at least make it entertaining. And do have an actual supportable point to go along with it.

This is the current claim status: "In short, that these bad governments were not, by and large, brought into power inadvertently via foolishly liberal and sincere voters or naively right-minded and transparent foreign policies of representative democracies. They haven't been primarily a consequence of bad tactics by good people. They are not an unavoidable weakness built into representative democracy, only a matter of time in the ignition."

You know, I've read that twice and I still can't quite figure out whether or not you think this is a worthwhile response. I certainly haven't gone into any real argument as to my opinion on this superiority of one governmental type over another, because, after all, that isn't what this thread is about.

Looks like you're posting "you're wrong, you fucking idiot" with a thesaurus handy so you can use as many synonyms as possible to be insulting without actually saying "fuck" or any real argument as to why you think that.

Result just looks like a mess, to me.

 

[river]

So Retribution let's cut to the bottom line

What is your position on this thread ?

 

[Retribution]

My position on what?

How these things come about, or which one is "better"?

To the first, I've spent a lot of time answering this already. To summarise:
There have been plenty of times where a rapid imposition of alternative forms of government has achieved progress and stability in a far shorter time frame than democracy has, and that is a reason for "how and why" in itself, and also why they still continue to occur.

To the second, I really don't care all that much. That I'm posting this from the security of a nation with a stable democratic government speaks for itself, I suppose, but I could just as easily be posting it from Singapore. I have plenty of things to say about the tyranny of non-democratic governments as apposed to democratic, but they wouldn't be within the context of this thread.

I did say something about Benjamin the Donkey, didn't I?

 

[river]

My position on what?

How these things come about, or which one is "better"?

To the first, I've spent a lot of time answering this already. To summarise:
There have been plenty of times where a rapid imposition of alternative forms of government has achieved progress and stability in a far shorter time frame than democracy has, and that is a reason for "how and why" in itself, and also why they still continue to occur.

To the second, I really don't care all that much. That I'm posting this from the security of a nation with a stable democratic government speaks for itself, I suppose, but I could just as easily be posting it from Singapore. I have plenty of things to say about the tyranny of non-democratic governments as apposed to democratic, but they wouldn't be within the context of this thread.

I did say something about Benjamin the Donkey, didn't I?

To the first statement ; yeah ; dictators .

 

[wellwisher]

Democracy requires a higher degree of self reliance in its citizens, than totalitarian forms of government. In totalitarian states, the leaders think for you, by default, which allows one to get away with a lower sense of self reliance.

People who orientate themselves with feelings, first, are more vulnerable to the seduction of totalitarian forms of government, because a feeling first person is not self reliant enough for the needs of a free and open society. Liberals prefer socialism and communism, over democracy, since big brother gets to play the role of your brain. All you got to do is feel good or complain.

The pioneers, migrating west in 19th century America, had to be self reliant in terms of making a living in a strange land. This can't be done with feelings, first. It requires skills, rational adaptation, and critical thinking . This was about a close to the ideal of an open democratic society. Big brother did not have the resources to think for anyone, even if you wanted it to.

Democracy also benefitted by Christianity, since its morals placed a self imposed limits on unrestrained self reliance, so more people could be self reliant. For example, one could be self reliant by learning how to steal the hard work of others. However, this will make it harder for others to be self reliant; they lose critical resources. The Christian moral ethic code would make people restrain themselves, in ways, where more people can live free. This may also involve barn raising and helping the poor get over hard times; teach them to fish.

The feeling crowd will not take such a journey, westward, since this requires they think for themselves. They tend to wait and come only when things are set up for others to think for them. Those already connected and secure through inheritance, can play the feeling games of social politics without even needed a brain. Others may not mind Boss Hog, who controls the township and sets up his own type of local dictatorship. The alternative is having to face the needs of self reliance, if the shackles are removed.

The panic about Trump is he is a threat to the dependency of the feeling crowd, who prefer a big over bearing government that will do all the thinking for you. Trump appeals to the self reliant crowd who prefers democracy. This means get the government out of the way and let people settle the new lands, while also preparing them for the feeling crowds to come later.

 

[PhysBang]

Says wellwisher, who has not thought for himself in a very, very long time.

 

[billvon]

Says wellwisher, who has not thought for himself in a very, very long time.

Why think when FOX News, Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart are willing to provide predigested opinions and positions for him? Saves an awful lot of hassle.