Re: Re: My own DOF confusion
> Fra: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > They really opposed overthrowing Marxists like Aristide and Saddam Hussein, et al. Saddam Hussein a Marxist? Wow, you really know a lot about political ideologies. Everybody else: Sorry! DagT
Re: Re: My own DOF confusion
> Fra: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > DagT: > Yes, he is a Marxist. An avid follower of Hitler & Stalin. Interisting view. In our part of the world Hitler is put on the extreme right, even though he used the term socialist in the name of his national socialist party. He was never a Marxist, he even killed a lot of marxists, and for your information: there are lots of differenses between socialists and marxists. Stalin is more difficult, you may say that Stalin misused an ideology to make a totalitarian system, but there are people on this list who knows a lot more about that. To me is seems that you have the rather simplistic solution to put anything you dont like on the other side of the scale, but this is too OT for this list. So I stop here. DagT
Re: Re: My own DOF confusion
>Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:27:31 +0100 >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Fra: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> DagT: >> Yes, he is a Marxist. An avid follower of Hitler & Stalin. > >Interisting view. In our part of the world Hitler is put on the >extreme right, even >though he used the term socialist in the name of >his national socialist party. He >was never a Marxist, he even killed > a lot of marxists, and for your information: there are lots of >differenses between > socialists and marxists. > >Stalin is more difficult, you may say that Stalin misused an ideology >to make a >totalitarian system, but there are people on this list who >knows a lot more about >that. > >To me is seems that you have the rather simplistic solution to put >anything you dont >like on the other side of the scale, but this is too >OT for this list. So I stop >here. > >DagT That S.H. was a follower of Hitler and Stalin is a fact. It won't take much research for you to find that information. It is an unfortunate western idealism that makes Marxism into some warm-fuzzy system to meet all needs and make everyone equal. Or roughly so. But Marx called for violent revolution and a totalitarian state. That what Stalin, Lenin, and Mao established. Hitler created a different form of socialism, opposed to the "communism" of the USSR. He killed Communists as he hated the system established in the USSR. To say that Hitler was not a Marxist is to not have studied him. He opposed religion in general, using Christians to oppose Jews and then secularizing the state, having the later goal of destroying the church that he (unfortunately) manipulated so well. He went so far as to remove SS marriages from being social/church events to being only civil events. This redefinition and secularization is common in all socialist & Marxist system.s To say that Stalin misused an ideology is only idicative of being too idealistic to face the reality of what Marx was asking for -- control. The association of "far right" (whatever that means) with Nazism is a thought perpetrated by the Left. You probably heard it in college. Most did. Because the dialectic indoctrination is pervasive. The simplistic categorization of my statements as merely black & white (see, we can be on-topic here!) only shows that you've not made inquiry as to my world view and it's development. These few statements are not at all sufficient to lead you to such a conclusion. CRB -- Not all Liberals are Leftists. But the Left has done an excellent job of mixing up the rhetoric and creating confusion on what Liberal and Left really mean. You can see the difference in the behavior. President Kennedy was still anti-Communist (not as much as we would have liked yet still he was), but count the Marxists that the Clintons supported or put into power. -- just me --
RE: Re: My own DOF confusion
not trying to offend here, and I love many of the OT conversations that we enjoy on list, however, IIRC, one of the most enforced rules is that of "no religion, no politics and no something else" (can't remember the "something else" part! lol). I really don't think that this conversation is doing anyone any good and it is way past any entertainment value that it may have once possessed. tan. -Original Message- From: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 24 March 2004 1:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: My own DOF confusion >Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:27:31 +0100 >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Fra: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> DagT: >> Yes, he is a Marxist. An avid follower of Hitler & Stalin. > >Interisting view. In our part of the world Hitler is put on the >extreme right, even though he used the term socialist in the name of >his national socialist party. He was never a Marxist, he even killed > a lot of marxists, and for your information: there are lots of >differenses between socialists and marxists. > >Stalin is more difficult, you may say that Stalin misused an ideology >to make a totalitarian system, but there are people on this list who >knows a lot more about that. > >To me is seems that you have the rather simplistic solution to put >anything you dont like on the other side of the scale, but this is too >OT for this list. So I stop here. > >DagT That S.H. was a follower of Hitler and Stalin is a fact. It won't take much research for you to find that information. It is an unfortunate western idealism that makes Marxism into some warm-fuzzy system to meet all needs and make everyone equal. Or roughly so. But Marx called for violent revolution and a totalitarian state. That what Stalin, Lenin, and Mao established. Hitler created a different form of socialism, opposed to the "communism" of the USSR. He killed Communists as he hated the system established in the USSR. To say that Hitler was not a Marxist is to not have studied him. He opposed religion in general, using Christians to oppose Jews and then secularizing the state, having the later goal of destroying the church that he (unfortunately) manipulated so well. He went so far as to remove SS marriages from being social/church events to being only civil events. This redefinition and secularization is common in all socialist & Marxist system.s To say that Stalin misused an ideology is only idicative of being too idealistic to face the reality of what Marx was asking for -- control. The association of "far right" (whatever that means) with Nazism is a thought perpetrated by the Left. You probably heard it in college. Most did. Because the dialectic indoctrination is pervasive. The simplistic categorization of my statements as merely black & white (see, we can be on-topic here!) only shows that you've not made inquiry as to my world view and it's development. These few statements are not at all sufficient to lead you to such a conclusion. CRB -- Not all Liberals are Leftists. But the Left has done an excellent job of mixing up the rhetoric and creating confusion on what Liberal and Left really mean. You can see the difference in the behavior. President Kennedy was still anti-Communist (not as much as we would have liked yet still he was), but count the Marxists that the Clintons supported or put into power. -- just me --
Re: Re: My own DOF confusion
- Original Message - From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" Subject: RE: Re: My own DOF confusion > not trying to offend here, and I love many of the OT conversations that we > enjoy on list, however, IIRC, one of the most enforced rules is that of "no > religion, no politics and no something else" (can't remember the "something > else" part! lol). I really don't think that this conversation is doing > anyone any good and it is way past any entertainment value that it may have > once possessed. It is appropriate though that what has become a political discussion takes place under the subject of depth of field, which is renowned for it's shallowness unless carefully controlled. William Robb
