Drago Musevini
-
Posts
60 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Drago Musevini
-
-
While we wait for an update...
-Join The Verein-
-
Join!
-
b u m p
b u m p
b u m p
-
-
b
u
m
p
!
-
The eliminationist anti-semitism and anti-communist tones of National Socialism imply that the way to remove the "threat" of Jews and leftists was by killing them all. So yes, it was designed with the deaths of millions in mind.
That reasoning of yours is an example of over-simplification without any historical or scientific foundation really. Nowhere in the nazi literature of the time will you find that the goals of the movement was to kill all Jews or Communists.
You could just as easily argue that Communism was intentionally designed to kill millions of bourgeoisie scum or that Christianity was designed to persecute Jews and Pagans.
What struck me as naive in GenPinochets conclusion was that National Socialism somehow is unique compared with other ideologies in that it was conceived and created with the defined purpose mass-murdering millions.
That conclusion does not stand up to historical evidence.
edit: typoz
-
Yes it is, you asked where he arrived at an conclusion to say that National Socialism is hateful, and I showed where there was hate in the ideological purpose of it.
No you really did not answer my question.
The conclusion he arrived at was not that nazism was hateful. The conclusion was that nazism was created with the purpose of killing millions.
edit: correction
-
"Nazism or National Socialism refers primarily to the ideology and practices of the Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler; and the policies adopted by the government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 [...] Nazism was not a monolithic movement, but rather a (mainly German) combination of various ideologies and groups, sparked by anger at the Treaty of Versailles and what was considered to have been a Jewish/Communist conspiracy to humiliate Germany at the end of the First World War." Taken from Wikipedia's opening to National Socialism.
There's no hate in that at all.
This is not an answer to my question.
-
That doesn't apply to him. As for me, yes it does, but you can't say an ideology has killed millions upon millions, unless they were created with that purpose (like WN and Nazism). It's only the people who take certain ideologies and use them to achieve their personal gains that kill people.
National Socialism was created with the defined purpose of killing millions?
Please explain the reasoning you conducted to arrive at this conclusion, because it seems rather peculiar.
-
Indeed it was a tribal system. As such it did have a governmental system, where as classical anarchism is against all forms of governmental systems. As there was a government it would be more accurate to call it tribalism, which is the correct term.
Tribalism does not equal anarcho-tribalism as there has to be several factors fulfilled for the anarcho-prefix to suit that terminology.
As for the citation you should cite the work itself and not wikipedia. I do not have access to that book currently but I will look it up to see if there are any errors in the wikipedia rendition...and there probably are.The reason I linked to wikipedia was that it provided a short summary of the arguments presented in the sited sources. Please do not jump to any conclusion about probability before reading the sources for yourself.
Also, you seem to misinterpret the lack of the state under anarchist rule with lack of organization and governmental functions. The latter does not cease to excist in a anarchist society, but it is no longer under the control of any governing State. Do you imagine that Spain under anarchist rule could function at all if there were not organization and governmental functions?
Instead of understanding anarchism through the goggles of marxist-leninism I suggest you read anarchist theory written by anarchists themselves.
As for Marxism. No it is neither utopian nor idealism. The very basis of Marxist thought, let alone Leninist thought, is Dialectical Materialism (and also Historical Materialism--which was a contribution of Frederich Engels, despite Riga's false claims to the contrary--but my point is to not debate irrational persons like him). Dialectical Materialism in and of itself is concerned with the contradictions that arise in situations that can be observed empiricly and as such is a Scientific Form of Socialism. Furthermore, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Enver Hoxha never claimed that their theories and ideology would lead to the establishment of a perfect world order, rather, only a better one than exists now.The flaw is that the process of history and its causes are far to complex to be rendered understandable by imposing on it some marxist superstructure that time and time again have proven itself to be far from any empirical science. The predictions made on the basis of this dialectical model has not turned out to be in correlation with reality, in fact, in praxis this self-proclaimed science is rather opposed to reality and thereby can be reduced to just another rationalistic idealism that failed to yield the results it claimed beforehand would manifest.
I partially agree with you on these comments. But only partially. It is my view that a stateless and advanced society is only achievable in the future. However distant it may be.That said the only alliance on CN that has a real chance of becoming a bastion of the Left is the Socialistic Empire. While we are not Stalinist and our IC ideology is not expressly Marxist-Leninist our principles of centralism and yes there is some democracy (for example we discuss all matters prior to implementation--its not a formal procedure; more like comrades discussing the events of the day over tea than a full vote in a parliament or council) in the Empire...we just are not obsessed with elections like other alliances. Has proved to be a great strength. However there is one major weakness and that is the almost total dependence on the Supreme Commissar to make any act by any subordinate Commissar (such as myself) official through public statement.
It is my hope that in the future as we grow, or as need dictates that we might consider a slight revision of our Memorandum to include a new office of Deputy Supreme Commissar who would have power to make official decisions in the absence of the Supreme Commissar. This will become necessary as we grow because Comrade Silent cannot, for various reasons, from time to time cannot devote his full attention to the People's Empire, and while the People's Vanguard (which is in no way an official organ of government) has filled his shoes successfully in the past that is no indication that that will continue to do so in the future.
Also I have examined many alliances Past, and Present on CN and have come to the conclusion that Democracy has serious flaws that cannot be rectified as pertains to the very nature of what a CN alliance is--a military organization. (Of course any can feel free to argue that point...but I doubt they will really get anywhere.) As such Merit-ocratic Autocracies, such as the Socialistic Empire and NoV, and Representative Democratic Republics, such as ODN, being the most stable. With the least stable alliances being alliances with over 20 members who practice Direct Democracy, it is the failure of some CN leftists (and I'm using that term loosely) to recognize the flaws of that system in large groups, and to effectively control the asshattery of some of their members that have lead to serious defeats on the left end of the CN political spectrum.
It shall be interesting to follow SE and its developments.
What I would like to see though is a study that explains the rationale behind marxist theory applied to the cyberverse, something along the line of Vladimir's The Meaning of Freedom. Then we perhaps could see a development of marxist thought relevant to planet Bob and not planet Earth.
-
And yet you still drift off to the children at SF. Your worries should be much greater than SF. Anyone who recognized
my last post should know exactly who and what I am. Believe me when I tell you most who you hunt and accuse are nothing more than over fascinated wannabes who would piss themselves amongst the kindred.
Read my posts. I am not worried about SF. In fact, I am stressing the point that most of this nazi-fuzz is nothing more than herd-hysteria.
-
You guys crack me up. The AB is strong here, right under your noses yet you run around sniveling about SF and WS. Believe me when I say if recruitment was the goal you would never recognize it happening, they would sit back, watch and pick their subjects with great talent. To think that all who believe in a pure Aryan race are mindless drools is foolish, look how close they came 65 years ago.
Well, judged by their online activity on Stormfront the majority of the white nationalist movement should enlist themselves as volunteers for euthanasia if their goal is to purify the Aryan race.
-
-
I'm alot of things, but hysterical is not one of them.
Everything I do is calculated.
I agree that you do not appear hysterical.
Furnacing the oven of hysteria then?
-
let's pretend heaven forbid, that's exactly what they did and they didrecruit at least 5 members i know of who were normal members before they came into my alliance and turned them into one of these nazi/wn/ws/w/e.
Seriously, if one go join the no-brainers at stormfront because one found out about it thru CN one probably is inclined to general no-brain activity in the first place.
As for recruitment and invasion those WNs are completely uncapable. I doubt they could invade their own bedrooms without causing something to fail.
The crux of the matter is this, as Emperor ß put it:
The only way possible they could do so was if they did not ever mention, or have someone find out, that they were Stormfronters or racists. Highly improbable, knowing the idiocity of Stormfronters. So, they have taken over the alliance successfully. Hooray? I don't think that them having control over an established alliance would do them any good, what are they going to do, send out recruitment PM's to people? As soon as they tried to pull something like that, they would be destroyed. Just sit and wait until they are strong enough to dominate the rest of CN? Hah, it no chance, the longer they wait the more likely they will be found out. It wouldn't even be possible anyways.From a pragmatical point of view much of this nazi-hysteria seem to be exactly that: hysteria.
edit: typos
-
thump!
-
Spoken like someone who obviously has not read the writings of a true genius. Its hardly dry...In fact his rough draft which I happen to have a copy of....Yes Moscow Foreign Languages Publishing House actually published that too. (Under Comrade Stalin's Direction I might add.)
Seriously, stating that Joe wrote as a genius falls in the category of admitting to possess no knowledge at all of what constitues genius in the fields of literature.
The simple adding of the prefix of anarcho- does not make something anarchist. Anarchism is an ideology all its own. If that were the case I could have anarco-Stalinism....which is and of itself an oxymoron. Also Anarcofascism is an oxymoron.I'm just pointing out that Joe doesn't really argue against anarchism as a method to organize society. What Joe does is to argue against a mere strawman constructed through marxist theorizing gone berserk to prove his own argument. It is an example of rude rhetorics, not genius. If you want rhetoric genius I would suggest starting with the true masters, e.g. the Romans.
Wow you found a wikipedia source that may or may not be accurate. Personally I do not consider wikipedia a citable source, and it certainly is not considered appropriate in academia for research papers.Wikipedia isn't a machine that writes history. By paying close attention to the sources listed you will find the following:
Joseph R. Pedea, “Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law,†Journal of Libertarian Studies I (Spring 1977), p. 83; see also pp. 81–95. For a summary, see Peden, “Stateless Societies: Ancient Ireland,†The Libertarian Forum (April 1971), pp. 3–4.
^ Peden, “Stateless Societies,†p. 4.
Furthermore the society you described was tribalist..not anarchist. The organization of the whole society was based around the clan. Much like my native Seminole culture. Anarchism is not form of organization, it is a utopian idealism like I said and has never been carried out in the real world. And frankly I am not interested in idealism.Anarcho-tribalism is the correct term, according to anarchist thought. And anarchism has been carried out in the real world, for example by the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain.
That beeing said I agree that most anarchism is utopian idealism but the same argument is valid regarding Marxism as well.
Anyways, all this chatting about RL politicians and events leads nowhere if one does not narrow it down IC. In order do to that it was necessary to take an OOC digression into the practical functionality of anarchism. I apologise for the pollution and now I may proceed:
The end-goal of marxist revolution (a planet-wide class-less society) is a mere mind mirage that never will see the light of day. This is not a question about the efficiency of leftist democracy, nor a question about the competence of the leftist democrats themselves, it is a question about realism, pragmatism and realpolitik. These three areas tends to work as pesticides for any marxist mind-game trying to achieve its supposed results.
Therefore, if I was a communist I would support the Socialistic Empire on their authoritarian and autocratic stance as I believe democracy to be utterly flawed and non-functional unless we're talking about a small elite of like-minded peers. The Stalinists have a better chance at achieving power due to their centralism and thus at least some results.
But the marxist goal still will remain a phantom of theory.
edit: typos
-
An excellent critique of Anarchism is Anarchism or Socialism? and was written by a very nice man....from Georgia....Named Joe.
Oh, Joe.
Personally I would never use the word excellence on such a dry piece of rhetorics.
Concerning anarchism I would classify it according to which word is paired with the anarcho- prefix. There is too many to mention really. Not all turn out very lefty I admit.
Anarchosyndicalism
Anarchocommunism
Anarchoprimitivism
Anarchofascism
etc ad infinitum
Now to this little piece:
Anarchism is basicly nothing-ism. All groups have a form of government, that government might be very simple or very complex and bureaucratic...but there is a government none the less. Anarchism claims that all forms of government and all forms of the state are wrong. And yet they have no solution to the problem of leadership. Most humans are not leaders...rather they are followers. As such they are utopianists and idealists and not rational socialists...and thus should not be considered leftists at all.I agree that not all humans are born leaders. That is not really the issue. Successful anarchism, however, does not mean lack of organization.
Describing anarchism as nothing-ism is far too simplistic. There have exsisted various anarchic communities through history that have functioned quite well. Many have been shortlived experiments, but some have lasted longer, the most notable example perhaps beeing Celtic Ireland (650-1650 era vulgaris):
In Celtic Irish society of the Middle Ages and Early Modern period, courts and the law were largely anarchist, and operated in a purely stateless manner. This society persisted in this manner for roughly a thousand years until its conquest by England in the seventeenth century. In contrast to many similarly functioning tribal societies, preconquest Ireland was not in any sense "primitive": it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. A leading authority on ancient Irish law wrote, "There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice... There was no trace of State-administered justice.
All "freemen" who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a tuath. Each tuath's members formed an annual assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their "kings." In contrast to primitive tribes, no one was stuck or bound to a given tuath, either because of kinship or of geographical location. Individual members were free to, and often did, secede from a tuath and join a competing tuath. Professor Peden states, "the tuath is thus a body of persons voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes and the sum total of the landed properties of its members constituted its territorial dimension. The "king" had no political power; he could not decree or administer justice or declare war. Basically he was a priest and militia leader, and presided over the tuath assemblies.
-
Anarchism isn't leftism in reality mind you.
What is it then?
-
Yo
Join NoV!
-
I hope that someday soon, this scourge is wiped off of our fine planet. None of us is perfect, but most of us don't hate just because we feel like it.
Well, to evoke the nazi ghost when the word "heil" is used in a norse reference can be compared to accusing any jew who says mazal tov for beeing a bigoted Kahanist.
-
The problem is that if you really want to have a norse themed alliance saying "Heil" is just plain wrong since that's german.
No. No. No.
To quote myself:
The term is norse to the bone; varieties include old norse hagl, old english hægl, old german hagal (there is a rune with the same name), old saxon hagal, old frisian heil etc. A common norse expression was heil ok sæl! (health and happiness!) - even today heard in some rural districts in Scandinavia.
If you ever learn to speak norse (or icelandic) you will notice that the word HEIL is quite common.
And of course norse is a germanic language:
The North Germanic languages or Scandinavian languages make up one of the three branches of the Germanic languages, a sub-family of the Indo-European languages, along with the West Germanic languages and the East Germanic languages. The language group is sometimes called Nordic languages, a direct translation of the term "nordiske sprog/nordiska språk", the most commonly used term by scholars and laymen in the Nordic countries.
The term "North Germanic languages" is used in genetic linguistics, while the term "Scandinavian languages" appears in studies of the modern standard languages and the dialect continuum of Scandinavia.
After the Proto-Norse and Old Norse periods, the North Germanic languages developed into an East Scandinavian branch, consisting of Danish and Swedish; and a West Scandinavian branch, consisting of Norwegian, Faroese and Icelandic. An additional language, known as Norn, developed on Orkney and Shetland after Vikings had settled there around 800 CE, but this language became extinct around 1700.
As for the dutch language, it is of course germanic too:
The history of the Dutch language begins around AD 450-500, after Old Frankish, one of the many West Germanic tribal languages, was split by the Second Germanic consonant shift while at more or less the same time the Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law led to the development of the direct ancestors of modern Dutch Low Saxon, Frisian and English.
The northern dialects of Old Frankish generally did not participate in either of these two shifts, except for a small amount of phonetic changes, and are hence known now as Old Low Franconian; the "Low" refers to dialects not influenced by the consonant shift. The most south-eastern dialects of the Franconian languages became part of High, though not Upper, German even though a dialect continuum remained. The fact that Dutch did not undergo the sound changes may be the reason why some people say that Dutch is like a bridge between English and German.
edit: corrections
-
only if your read them in german
Not at all, the wording is HEIL in old norse (the original manuscripts), icelandic and norwegian too.
-
Its just that this was the final drop, too many keep claiming norse and not nazi with the obvious symbolism of norse + heil being nazi.
its just mocking the mythology over and over again
Have you read any of the norse myths or sagas? I would think not because almost every character depicted therein uses HEIL as a greeting.
Norden Verein
in Player Created Alliances
Posted
HEIA NORDLAND!