Ben No.3

I'm sure it also teaches that murder is wrong. If they found a way to rationalize around that I doubt they will lose any sleep over pork. of course it is wrong, as long as the victim is another muslim man. if the victim is an infidel or a woman who is in violation of religious rules there is nothing wrong and is even encouraged by the holy texts... which by the way are filled with excuses to kill people. redneckdevil as i said, christians did their fair share of evil but they did it because of corruption and greed among the priests and against the teachings of their religion (and most of the followers didn't even know what the religion was about except: "pay the priest - do as the priest says - go to heaven" - and most still don't know to this day). the doctrine and purpose of the christian religion was to act as a tranquilizer for a population on the brink of revolt within a multinational empire. islam has no need for corruption and greed among its priests because the religion was made from the ground up by Muhammad as a tool to raise fanatical-warmongering followers who would do anything for his ambitions. in today's terms, it was a successful attempt at creating a hive mind like human society where every single individual was thinking and acting the same way and would mindlessly follow the orders of their prophet-king. no questions, no doubts, no fear, no mercy, no remorse - all is as the prophet commands and as allah wills. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Leviticus 20 13 “You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish, any defect whatever, for that is an abomination to the Lord your God. “If there is found among you, within any of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abomination has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones. .." Deuteronomy 17 1-20 "But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me." Luke 19 27 “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death." Exodus 22:19 "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." Leviticus 25 44-46 "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." Exodus 21 7-11 (and yes, this is saying its okay to sell your DAUGHTER as SEX SLAVE) "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." Exodus 21 20-21 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." Ephesians 6 5 "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." 1 Timothy 2 11-15 "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." 1 Corinthians 14 34-35 "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands" Ephesias 5 22-24 Christianity! Not evil you say. **** you.

"Globalism" is not an ideology. If anything, communism, socialism and social democracy may be described as classically international (and in more recent times also maybe liberals, libertarians, neo liberals). But those are (to a lesser or greater extent) opposed to religion. If you're any of the previously mentioned but especially if you are one of the lefties; you likely also believe in the idea that history develops a certain way, to a lesser or greater extent. So you'll naturally assume that religion will die out, as it becomes more and more outdated and incapable to handle the changing world around it

How true is this?

"If a politician or celebrity stands up and denounces Marxism as a hateful, murderous ideology that is at least as evil as Nazism, he is often shot down."Besides Marxism being more of a form of analysis rather than an ideology, is this actually true in the US? Furthermore, I like how the article mentions Marx' popularity amongst intellectuals but fails to acknowledge any actual reasons for this. Though I suppose that would include giving Marx credit. As for the Che shirt being compared to a Hitler shirt: If people are idealised, we idealise them not because of who they were, but what they stood for. For example, you don't have Washington on your bank notes because he owned slaves, he's there due to his crucial role in the US' early history. Similarly, Che stands not for the person Ernesto Guevara, but for third world socialist revolution, and considering the state of the third world, it is easy to see why he remains a popular symbol. His main archivement was his role in the Cuban revolution, and as I said that is what he represents now. Hitler's main archivement on the other hand was starting an unnecessary war that cost millions of lives and the holocaust. Now did the Third Reich heighten living standards for Germans in the first few years? Yes, but that's not what the Nazi movement and Hitler stand for. Did Che torture the living hell out of people. Yes, but again, not what he stands for. This is not to say that we should forget the history surrounding these figures. But we should accept symbols as symbols.

No, you're agreeing. I meant I should've said "fascist", but because I was responding to a specific quote I used the other word.Sorry, my mistake. "Fascist" makes your argument more interesting. But even then, I'd say it's more of an authoritarian thing in general, seeing how there are and were many non fascist countries who acted that way. As for every right extremist being called a Nazi, that seems perhaps incorrect but an understandable mistake. What is not justifiable however and I agree with you on that is to call every far right or right leaning person a Nazi; and it is indeed something that is happening far to often. On both sides in thus far as left wingers often end up being communists in the sense of stalinists. Now, tbh, the only feasible solution I see is if we try to free ourselves from emotional attachment to politics. And perhaps also of we accept our own little knowledge on certain issues, and accordingly admit mistakes. And this is true for anyone. Democracy is dying, less and less people vote every year in the entire western world. If we want to preserve it we'll have to act like we want to.

"Technically you're right. "Fascist" would be more appropriate." I'd disagree. The holocaust is a specifically German Nazi thing. Fascism is more diverse.

"I understand it's annoying that your favorite political spectrum hosted such barbarism" I don't think there's any political ideology that didn't to be honest. Even anarchists managed to build labour camps in Catalonia, we are all aware of communist mass starvings and fascist holocaust, western wealth is build on colonialism and slavery, the major western/middle east religions all include passages about killing those who disagree... and every major revolution ended in bloodshed: the Americans had an uprising in Pensilvania which had to be crushed by the army in 1794 as well as a three year war against an group of several unites tribes, the French was one big bloody show and the Russian begun with civil war and ended in totalitarian dictatorship. Same goes for Chinese, Cuban and Vietnamese; with varying degrees of authoritarianism. If you don't want to support an ideology that ended in bloodshed you won't have an ideology left to support. So, what to do? I really like the following quote from Tolstoy's War and Peace " 'The Revolution was a grand thing!' continued Monsieur Pierre, betraying by his desperate and provocative proposition his extreme youth. 'What? Revolution and regicide a grand thing?' 'I am not speaking of regicide, I am speaking about ideas.' 'Yes; ideas of robbery, murder, and regicide', again interjected an ironical voice. 'Those were extremes, no doubt, but they are not what is most important. What is important are the rights of man, emancipation from prejudice, and equality of citizenship.' "

The true nazis are the ones who call their political opponents nazis because they disagree with them.A true nazi is someone who:-Genuinely believes Hitler was a good guy -Denies that the holocaust happened -But secretly wishes it did

Sorry but that's nonsense. Every schoolbook, every decent history book has explanations on why Germans voted for Hitler, no one who has spend some time with the topic genuinely thinks that every German who voted for them or even was a member of the party was a full blown nazi. So so. It's more the way history is remembered, not always in the details but with that easy overview that sets in the public consensus. Oh, but you have to remember that there is no topic anywhere near to the amount of detail in which we handle that topic in school. The details are part of the public consensus.

This new attack may be a problem, since we have elections in a few weeks. I hope it doesn't shift public opinion drastically. On a side note: if the terrorists are smart they plan attacks according to elections. That'll heighten the chance to strengthen nationalists and thereby severely destabilise Europe.

Difficult to say as many use fake identities.

Sorry but that's nonsense. Every schoolbook, every decent history book has explanations on why Germans voted for Hitler, no one who has spend some time with the topic genuinely thinks that every German who voted for them or even was a member of the party was a full blown nazi.

Of course there are such reports. I'll wait for police confirmation UPDATE: Police says they have arrested one, don't say who; also reports that someone is hiding in a bar are false.

Bannon? He didn't strike me as being communist or leninist or <pick your variant of socialism>. I think it's more about method rather than ideals

Smart people discuss substance, dumb people discuss sources. Ever had a history class?

Aaaand Trump is back to "both sides".

You're wife should join these forums. I don't know how that could ever possibly go wrong.

So a guy gave his friend 10 puns hoping that one of them would make him laugh. Sadly, no pun in ten did.

I don't care about your theories, what I care about is actual historical fact. We are discussing Terminology WoD. Terminology is nothing BUT theory. You said the the TERM "dictatorship of the proletariat" MEANT a fascist-style dictatorship, and I pointed out what I believed to be a mistake.

Ok WoD, lets go there. The term dictatorship of the proletariat refers to the working class as a whole gaining vast political powers. One does not expropriate anyoe without stomping over certain rights, hence the term "dictatorship". But it was a term frequently used by socialists who were democratic in the sense that they were opposed to the idea of Autocracy. And even anarchists like Bakunin used the term "dictatorship" to describe certain anarchist methods. The truth is simply that the meaning of "dictatorship of the proletariat" was heavilychanged by actual communist dictatorships. But that doesn't mean that the term originally was intended to mean an actual dictatorship as we tend to think of it.

He did, he later purged the social democratic and socialist elements to cater to industrialists. Frankly Hitler quotes are often contradictory with other quotes the best way to gauge him is by his actions which was privitization and union busting. thats not completely true, there still was 'planned economy' state still decided what will be manufactured, where, when and whom, they just let those industries in hands of those loyal to regime. Don't get fooled, same was for communists. they can't care about 'workers' less I'd say it's debatable wether every communist leader ever truly was putting on a show. But lets assume so. Then wouldn't taht be the same thing? At some point, either "communist" will only be the name they give themselves, or "communist" means a state controlled industry; that is according to you. It is true that Nazi Germany had vast power over the german economy, but in pre war times, it was a long shot away from a soviet-style command economy. During war times, I don't knw of any country that doesn't become a command economy at least partially. I mean, following your definition of "communist", the US was a communist nation during the wolrd wars.

The point is that Hitler liked to paint himself as a champoin of the working class in order to gain their support, and in order tomsteal their votes from the communists. Somewhat similarily to how during the 50s the communist party was very strong in France, but by now almost their entire base supports the nationalists. But that makes neither Le Pen nor Hitler communist, and it would be wrong to assume so. Later, Hilter ensured his popular support through large amounts of government spending. But that was more of a pragmatic rather than an ideological move.

Great find @KP It says: The Name [of the party] In front of the proletariat ("prolet" is colloquial for proletarian, though today it can also mean someone with bad temper): national SOCIALIST german WORKERS PARTY In front of the [potential donors]: NATIONAL socialist GERMAN workers PARTY

By Stalin also. Remember Trotsky? But it takes fascism to get there. Charlottesville is what the left wanted all along, just like the Berkeley riots: https://www.city-journal.org/html/avoidable-mayhem-15394.html I remember Trotsky, and I remember Stalin. Under Stalin and in communist dictatorships in general, people whom the state dislikes will be persecuted, regardless of wether they were communists or not. Nazi Germany perseczed communists for being communists. Difference. I'm quite interested what you mean when you say that "it takes fascism to get there" though. Are you referring to the term "dictatorship of the proletariat"? We can have that discussion... As for Berkley, that was wrong. As for Charlottesville, wouldn't have happened without the right. Did the left want it? Maybe in the sense that many left leaning people wanted violent right wingers to expose themselves. But I doubt that the number of scoialists who were wishing to get run over by a car is particularily high.