Stephanè Hessel on Occupy Wallstreet "Find the time for outrage"

Actually, according to Obama's (aka Barry Soetoro) autobiography "Dreams from My Father" , he was born in Honolulu. Then his mother took him to Seattle when he was two weeks old so that she could attend the University of Washington. Then she took him back to Hawaii. His mom, Stanley Ann Dunham-Obama remarried to Lolo Soetoro, her second Muslim husband whom she had met at the University of Hawaii. Actually she was never legally married to Barack Obama, Sr since he was still married to another woman in Kenya. The family moved to Indonesia where Obama attended public school from the age of five or six to the age of ten. Instruction in Islam was mandatory in Indonesian public schools and attendance was only allowed to Indonesian citizens. It is likely that little Barry was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro at the age of five which would have automatically made him an Indonesian citizen and made his attendance in public schools possible. This would also explain why Barry went by the last name of Soetoro for several years. Obama was a dual citizen of Kenya and the US at the time of his birth, regardless of whether that was in Mombasa or Honolulu, since his father was a Kenyan. Obama would have been a dual citizen of the US and Kenya until the age of eighteen, at which time the Kenyan government requires dual citizens to choose between Kenyan citizenship and citizenship in any other country; we don't know if Barry renounced his American citizenship at that time, since he's never been asked.

Obama's mother sent him to live with his communist grandfather Stanley Dunham when he was ten due to the fact that Lolo Soetoro had grown conservative in his politics and she thought he would be a bad influence on young Barry. From the age of ten to the age of eighteen Barry attended an exclusive private school in Hawaii called Punahou. From there he went to Occidental (his roomate was a politically connected Muslim Pakastani who supported Obama financially), then Columbia and finally Harvard law school. No one has ever been interviewed who knew Obama at Columbia and his records have been sealed; we have only his word that he ever attended.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rew-c-mccarthy Originally Posted by joe bloe

I don't have the link, there were apparently a few people who knew obama at both institutions. One was quoted as saying he was quiet to the point no one really noticed he was present.

I don't have the link, there were apparently a few people who knew obama at both institutions. One was quoted as saying he was quiet to the point no one really noticed he was present. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

From what I've read, Occidental and Harvard but not Columbia.

For every example of government winning the “good” fight, there are examples that counter that sentiment. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

No. The government was Hitler and the Nazis. They swapped in an indoctrinated follower, Alfried, for the ambivalent supporter, Gustav. It did support and collude with Nazism once it was borne to power in 1933 by the electorate, but it did not give rise to or create Nazism. It did not "in den Sattle heben" ("lift Hitler into the saddle"). (Henry A. Turner, German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler (Oxford: University Press, 1985) – read Speer’s works as well: Inside the Third Reich, Infiltration: How Heinrich Himmler Schemed to Build an SS Industrial Empire and Spandau: The Secret Diaries).

The financial bailout was a clear victory by industry. They flew in on their private planes; got chastised; got their money and flew back to their ivory towers and resumed business; got their multi-million dollar bonuses for messing things up royally; and avoided prosecution. They live without prosecution, without being dismissed, and not at all like the Krug example because complicated, unethical laws are written solely for and to protect them. In effect, the banking industry is the handlers for the American politicians and therefore American coffers and American laws and policies.

I normally refer to it as the yoking up of industry and government. There are examples of industry winning and examples of government winning, but in the end, it is, in my opinion, a victory by industry is what old-school fascism is. Obamacare, the pharma-industry paying politicians to close down imports of pharmaceuticals from Canada, the automaker bail out, and on and on are examples of industry controlling our elected officials. The tail wags the dog. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Alfried wasn’t prosecuted until after the war. The point of the example was to illustrate how the Nazi’s curried the favor of German industrialist, but they were also quick to replace those who wouldn’t or didn’t play the game.

Alfried wasn’t prosecuted until after the war. The point of the example was to illustrate how the Nazi’s curried the favor of German industrialist, but they were also quick to replace those who wouldn’t or didn’t play the game. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I find it interesting that he was sentenced to 12 years and forfeiture of all property. He only served 3 years in prison and retained all his property. apparently an american banker was instrumental in getting his sentence reversed.

wikipedia doesn't say on the details of his reduction.

I'm assuming that they must've used the "had to play by the rules" Hitler administration set up or get replaced defense to get a reduced sentence.

dunno if that is a valid reasoning. sounds kinda like the stockholm syndrome.

Oh really? I would have thought from your condescending post and your avatar that you are used to telling women what to think and do. Am I wrong? In any event, here are a few of my thoughts.

What makes socialism a failing system? Money. As long as you have enough money and enough people that either can pay, are willing to pay or an earning population in sufficient quantities to pay into the system, it works. If you don't, it will fail.

Willing to Pay - Germany is unwilling to pay for other countries bad fiscal policies and for societies that do not value hard work. It's not the German's fault that the Greeks have virtually no heavy industry, that want to bask in the Grecian sun at the age of 55 after a career chasing tourist dollars and not slaving away deep in some factory creating things of value to sell. There are other examples of those unwilling to pay, but this a readily accessible example.

Can't Pay: some countries just are too poor to sustain a socialist system. Oil Curse countries like Venezuela have the money, but they distribute the money through citizenry directly without passing it through multiple layers of wealth creating industry so that the can money to grow. They don't have wealth creating industry for several reasons, but mainly because it is a dictatorship that either doesn't want his people/ country to be wealthy or he doesn't understand how advanced economies work. Instead, the money is given directly to the people in need with just one turn on the money after the initial earnings and therefore there is not enough money to go around even if originally there was enough wealth creating industry at the beginning of the food chain.

Too Small a Population: in many countries, Italy for example, the population growth isn't substantial enough to support the aging population without immigration because of the declining birth rates. You have to have workers to tax or you have no money in the system.

These are just thoughts off the top of my head; I'm sure there are others and many more examples of the examples I've given. Socialism only works when there is other peoples’ money to spend. In the absence of it, the house of cards comes down. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Each one of your hypotheses has the makings of an interesting dissertation which could provide the building blocks of a good theory, so I have to admit that while I'm not sure I would condemn an entire economic model based on your points, you are probably one of the most articulate and well thought out person in this thread.

I find it interesting that he was sentenced to 12 years and forfeiture of all property. He only served 3 years in prison and retained all his property. apparently an american banker was instrumental in getting his sentence reversed.

wikipedia doesn't say on the details of his reduction.

I'm assuming that they must've used the "had to play by the rules" Hitler administration set up or get replaced defense to get a reduced sentence.

dunno if that is a valid reasoning. sounds kinda like the stockholm syndrome. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Imagine yourself to be a moderately or very rich capitalist. Imagine you endure a decade of economic uncertainty and watch the moderate, democratic institutions of the Wiemar Republic wither and fail to come to grips with the problems. You witness two new, strong and violent factions rise and literally fight pitched battles in the streets of the nation's capital. One espouses the tenets of the Communist revolution that has ravaged Russia leading to the deaths of millions and the state sponsored theft of personal, capitalist property on scale never witnessed before in history. Yet, as thuggish, vile and despicable as they are, there is an alternative: the Nazis - an unknown quantity. Besides, who actually believed the Nazis would or could act on their anti-Semitic mantras? Hence, the Nazis became the "viable" alternative. And, as history now records, once Hitler gained power they were the ONLY option - they couldn't be voted out of office.

Imagine yourself to be a moderately or very rich capitalist. Imagine you endure a decade of economic uncertainty and watch the moderate, democratic institutions of the Wiemar Republic wither and fail to come to grips with the problems. You witness two new, strong and violent factions rise and literally fight pitched battles in the streets of the nation's capital. One espouses the tenets of the Communist revolution that has ravaged Russia leading to the deaths of millions and the theft of personal, capitalist property on scale never witnessed before in history. Yet, as thuggish, vile and despicable as they are, there is an alternative: the Nazis - an unknown quantity. Besides, who actually believed the Nazis would or could act on their anti-Semitic mantras? Hence, the Nazis became the "viable" alternative. And, as history now records, once Hitler gained power they were the ONLY option - they couldn't be voted out of office. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

An Hobson choice if there ever was one!

Isn't that really the problem?

Isn't that what was meant by William F. Buckley, Jr., an iconic figure for American conservatives, said that he occasionally felt the need to cite Austrian ex-communist Willi Schlamm, who said, "The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists."

Imagine yourself to be a moderately or very rich capitalist. Imagine you endure a decade of economic uncertainty and watch the moderate, democratic institutions of the Wiemar Republic wither and fail to come to grips with the problems. You witness two new, strong and violent factions rise and literally fight pitched battles in the streets of the nation's capital. One espouses the tenets of the Communist revolution that has ravaged Russia leading to the deaths of millions and the state sponsored theft of personal, capitalist property on scale never witnessed before in history. Yet, as thuggish, vile and despicable as they are, there is an alternative: the Nazis - an unknown quantity. Besides, who actually believed the Nazis would or could act on their anti-Semitic mantras? Hence, the Nazis became the "viable" alternative. And, as history now records, once Hitler gained power they were the ONLY option - they couldn't be voted out of office. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Since WWII the left has been able to successfully characterize Hitler as a right winger. They've used him as an example of what can happen if you let conservatives get too much power. Of course that's total nonsense. Hitler and Mussolini were both socialists. The real nightmare scenarios are almost always abuses of power by the left. After all the right, wants limited government which maximizes personal freedom; hardly a description of Nazi Germany.

I highly recommend Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism". Goldberg says that Mussolini was a lifelong devout socialist. I think the left has been remarkably successful in creating the misbelief that conservatives are the real threat to freedom, when in fact it is the opposite.

Since WWII the left has been able to successfully characterize Hitler as a right winger. They've used him as an example of what can happen if you let conservatives get too much power. Of course that's total nonsense. Hitler and Mussolini were both socialists. The real nightmare scenarios are almost always abuses of power by the left. After all the right, wants limited government which maximizes personal freedom; hardly a description of Nazi Germany.

I highly recommend Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism". Goldberg says that Mussolini was a lifelong devout socialist. I think the left has been remarkably successful in creating the misbelief that conservatives are the real threat to freedom, when in fact it is the opposite. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Both sides want power over you..albiet in different areas.

They both crush your personal freedoms.

B O T H

Once that premise is understood, it is just a matter of which you prefer giving up.

Some like to give up their social freedom , others their economic. It really just depends on the person but both sides will crush the other if given to much power.

Since WWII the left has been able to successfully characterize Hitler as a right winger. They've used him as an example of what can happen if you let conservatives get too much power. Of course that's total nonsense. Hitler and Mussolini were both socialists. The real nightmare scenarios are almost always abuses of power by the left. After all the right, wants limited government which maximizes personal freedom; hardly a description of Nazi Germany.

I highly recommend Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism". Goldberg says that Mussolini was a lifelong devout socialist. I think the left has been remarkably successful in creating the misbelief that conservatives are the real threat to freedom, when in fact it is the opposite. Originally Posted by joe bloe

I think he was a reactionary statist looking back to a time that never was; hence, on the right. I made this argument in the Diamonds and Tuxedos forum last winter:

The terms “left” and “right” originated during the French Revolution when France’s National Assembly divided itself in a happenstance manner. Those who were for revolution chose to sit on the “left” side of the assembly. Those who were for conserving the Ancien Régime: the old order and the monarchy—Louis XVI—chose to sit on the “right.” The “left” stood for change, while the “right” was against change. Thus, “right” stood for absolute, monarchical (autocratic) rule.

Note: Das Kapital (socialism and communism) was still more than half a century in the future. Aside: The origin of our current idioms “red state” and “blue state” is just as happenstance: a product of the chattering class during one election some ten years ago.

It’s historically established fact that during the French Revolution, Louis XVI—as king of France—was the symbol of the right. Though, the terms “right” and “left”, as we now understand them, did not exist during the Louis XIV’s reign, Louis XVI’s grandfather, it is arguable that Louis XVI and Louis XIV represented exactly the same position on the political spectrum: the right—absolute, monarchical (autocratic) rule.

Louis XIV ranks among the most iconic of absolute monarchs in world history, and he purportedly once stated: L'État, c'est moi (“The state, it is me”). Louis XIV was a stronger, more capable ruler than his grandson; thus, it easier to compare Louis XIV with Hitler. Those who argue that Hitler belongs on the political left, because he employed socialist measures, ignore the fact that nothing Hitler did differs substantially from how Louis XIV ruled France some 250 years earlier.

As Der Führer, Hitler was not unlike Louis XIV’s as king. Hitler was a totalitarian dictator (an autocrat). Both men felt that destiny (a Christian God or Teutonic gods) gave them their place in society and in history. Both men were autocratic rulers who took serious umbrage with others who dared to challenge their authority or deviate from their commands. Hitler went beyond conservative and can be called a “reactionary” when he sought to return to the glory days of the German people by re-establishing a new Germanic Empire: The Third Reich. Both Louis XIV and Hitler managed governments comprised of competing bureaus and/or departments so as to insure no strong rival would challenge their supreme positions. In both situations, industry was allowed to be competitive only so far as it met the goals of the state. Lastly, the will of the common people in both societies, the Ancien Régime and Nazi Germany, was subordinated to that of their respective rulers. The only real difference between Hitler and Louis XIV was the level of technology used to enforce the rule of the state: the autocrat. L'État, c'est moi said Louis XIV.

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1117287&postcou nt=40

Both sides want power over you..albiet in different areas.

They both crush your personal freedoms.

B O T H

Once that premise is understood, it is just a matter of which you prefer giving up.

Some like to give up their social freedom , others their economic. It really just depends on the person but both sides will crush the other if given to much power. Originally Posted by WTF

It's fair to say that conservatives would typically tend to restrict, pornogrpahy, recreational drug use and killing the unborn more than liberals.

But conservatives don't round people up and slaughter them when they don't like their politics. This is what the left has done since the Bolshevik Revolution and even before that if you include the abuses after the French Revolution. Never forget it was FDR that put (Japanese) American citizens in internment camps in WWII. Democrat progressive president, Woodrow Wilson also imprisoned thousands of American citizens that did not agree with his policies in WWI using the Alien and Sedition acts.

Saying that there are abuses of personal freedom on both sides of the political spectrum may be technically true; but to ignore the dramatic disparity in the abuses is intellectually dishonest.

It's fair to say that conservatives would typically tend to restrict, pornogrpahy, recreational drug use and killing the unborn more than liberals.

But conservatives don't round people up and slaughter them when they don't like their politics. This is what the left has done since the Bolshevik Revolution and even before that if you include the abuses after the French Revolution. Never forget it was FDR that put (Japanese) American citizens in internment camps in WWII. Democrat progressive president, Woodrow Wilson also imprisoned thousands of American citizens that did not agree with his policies in WWI using the Alien and Sedition acts.

Saying that there are abuses of personal freedom on both sides of the political spectrum may be technically true; but to ignore the dramatic disparity in the abuses is intellectually dishonest. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Do you understand that nation building is a liberal position? The left used to use it to gain power, now the right is using it. I will argue that Power has no sense of justice on either the right or left. Enslaving people was not a liberal way of thinking. Look , we could go round and round on who the biggest despot was/is. The thing both sides has in common is power.

Do you understand that nation building is a liberal position? The left used to use it to gain power, now the right is using it. I will argue that Power has no sense of justice on either the right or left. Enslaving people was not a liberal way of thinking. Look , we could go round and round on who the biggest despot was/is. The thing both sides has in common is power. Originally Posted by WTF

You say "we can go round and round on who the biggest despot was/is" No actually we can't. The abuses on the left are dramatically worse than the right. You think you can defend your intellectually bankrupt position by assuming that I'm going to concede the point. Wrong.

Communists (the left) have murdered approximately ONE HUNDRED MILLION of their own citizens since the Bolshevik Revolution. So no, I'm not going to just agree that nobody's perfect; let's just call it even.

Another repost from a D & T thread:

Mao’s governmental policies led to famine that killed millions of Chinese. I was betting that if Mao didn’t have this dubious distinction, he would be a close second to Hitler. However, based on what I found, Mao is, in fact, the winner in this infamous contest and the Communist regime in the USSR holds second place. So, Whirlaway is right—but these contenders had the added benefit of time. Hitler was only in power for a little over twelve years. .

These estimates are based on studies published by Rudolph J. Rummel. I used his numbers—neither the highest or the lowest— because of the way he broke down the events, but after I had copied the tables, I read the bibliography where he is noted as a right wing libertarian.

Russian Civil War (1917-22): 9,000,000

Soviet Union: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into:
■Russian Civil War (1917-22)
■War: 1,410,000 (includes 500,000 civilian)
■Famine: 5,000,000 (50% democidal)
■Other democide: 784,000
■Epidemics: 2,300,000
■Total: 9,494,000
■1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
■1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
■1939-45: 18,157,000
■1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
■TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine

WWII European War (military) Dead (1939-45): 28,736,000
■War-related (additional) Democides
■Hitler: 20,946,000 (including Jews: 5,291,000)
■Stalin: 13,053,000

Chinese Civil War (1945-49) Estimate:
■War Dead: 1,201,000
■Democide by Guomindang: 2,645,000
■Democide by Communists: 2,323,000
■Famine: 25,000
■TOTAL: 6,194,000

People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong’s regime (1949-1975) Estimate:
■Democide: 34,361,000 (1949-75)
■The principle episodes being…
■All movements (1949-58): 11,813,000
■incl. Land Reform (1949-53): 4,500,000
■Cult. Rev. (1964-75): 1,613,000
■Forced Labor (1949-75): 15,000,000
■Great Leap Forward (1959-63): 5,680,000 democides
■War: 3,399,000
■Famine: 34,500,000
■Great Leap Forward: 27M famine deaths
■TOTAL: 72,260,000

Under Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge imposed an extreme form of social engineering on Cambodian society — a radical form of agrarian communism where the whole population had to work in collective farms or forced labor projects. In terms of the number of people killed as a proportion of the population (2 million killed out of an estimated 7.1 million people), it was the most lethal regime of the 20th century. (Plus an estimated, additional 35,000 foreign democides)

•Estimates based on books by Rummel, Rudolph J.:
■China's Bloody Century : Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900 (1991), Calculates the lives lost in 20th Century China.
■Lethal Politics : Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917 (1990), Does the same for the Soviet Union.
■Democide : Nazi Genocide and Mass Murder (1992), The German rampage across Europe.
■Death By Government (1994), The full treatment for atrocities committed worldwide during the 20th Century.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm


http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=849122&postcoun t=164

Since WWII the left has been able to successfully characterize Hitler as a right winger. They've used him as an example of what can happen if you let conservatives get too much power. Of course that's total nonsense. Hitler and Mussolini were both socialists. . Originally Posted by joe bloe

Look, we can argue if one is better than the other but if you just go making shit up, it will make it difficult to have a rational discussion.



http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.