Revisionist Trotskyite!JimC wrote: The point about true believers, of any political stripe, has been made by multitudes of clear headed commentators, because it can be observed in history over and over again. When allegiance to a political philosophy becomes absolute, many of the features of religious excess are found. This certainly includes viciously turning on members of your group that have dared to deviate a little (ice picks, anyone?)
Is National Socialism really so bad??
- laklak
- Posts: 21022
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
- About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
- Location: Tannhauser Gate
- Contact:
Re: Is National Socialism really so bad??
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.
- sandinista
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
- About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media? - Contact:
Re: Is National Socialism really so bad??
Yes, i agree to a certain extent, the book just sounds like BS. I see that absolute political allegiance all the time with proponents of neo liberalism.JimC wrote:The point about true believers, of any political stripe, has been made by multitudes of clear headed commentators, because it can be observed in history over and over again. When allegiance to a political philosophy becomes absolute, many of the features of religious excess are found. This certainly includes viciously turning on members of your group that have dared to deviate a little (ice picks, anyone?)sandinista wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believerlaklak wrote:One of the Brownshirt's prime recruitment pools was the Communist party. Fanatics can change their stripes like most people change underwear. Read Hoffer's "True Believer".Lincoln and Ghandi good, commies bad...Hoffer does not take an exclusively negative view of "true believers" and the mass movements they begin. Examples he gives of positive true believers are Abraham Lincoln and Gandhi.Sounds like a good non-biased book...think I'll pass.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 74225
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Is National Socialism really so bad??
You won't see it to the point where those with a different take on neo liberalism (I prefer centrist, anyway...) are sent to Siberia, or a concentration camp, or visited by people handy with an ice pick...sandinista wrote:Yes, i agree to a certain extent, the book just sounds like BS. I see that absolute political allegiance all the time with proponents of neo liberalism.JimC wrote:The point about true believers, of any political stripe, has been made by multitudes of clear headed commentators, because it can be observed in history over and over again. When allegiance to a political philosophy becomes absolute, many of the features of religious excess are found. This certainly includes viciously turning on members of your group that have dared to deviate a little (ice picks, anyone?)sandinista wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believerlaklak wrote:One of the Brownshirt's prime recruitment pools was the Communist party. Fanatics can change their stripes like most people change underwear. Read Hoffer's "True Believer".Lincoln and Ghandi good, commies bad...Hoffer does not take an exclusively negative view of "true believers" and the mass movements they begin. Examples he gives of positive true believers are Abraham Lincoln and Gandhi.Sounds like a good non-biased book...think I'll pass.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
- sandinista
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
- About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media? - Contact:
Re: Is National Socialism really so bad??
guess it depends on what the "different take" is.JimC wrote:You won't see it to the point where those with a different take on neo liberalism (I prefer centrist, anyway...) are sent to Siberia, or a concentration camp, or visited by people handy with an ice pick...sandinista wrote:Yes, i agree to a certain extent, the book just sounds like BS. I see that absolute political allegiance all the time with proponents of neo liberalism.JimC wrote:The point about true believers, of any political stripe, has been made by multitudes of clear headed commentators, because it can be observed in history over and over again. When allegiance to a political philosophy becomes absolute, many of the features of religious excess are found. This certainly includes viciously turning on members of your group that have dared to deviate a little (ice picks, anyone?)sandinista wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believerlaklak wrote:One of the Brownshirt's prime recruitment pools was the Communist party. Fanatics can change their stripes like most people change underwear. Read Hoffer's "True Believer".Lincoln and Ghandi good, commies bad...Hoffer does not take an exclusively negative view of "true believers" and the mass movements they begin. Examples he gives of positive true believers are Abraham Lincoln and Gandhi.Sounds like a good non-biased book...think I'll pass.

Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Woodbutcher and 23 guests