That sort of confirms what I usually note, that liberals come to their conclusions based on emotional assumptions...facts be damned. It's not only prevalent in this thread, but just about any thread down here they participate in. I wished I had erotic dreams, but most seem focused around previous events in my life when I do have them. Returning to former military units, etc. Nothing like those described above (perhaps mundane). I could only imagine the kind of dreams yo! has. With the fantasy world he lives in when awake, I bet he has some of the strangest dreams known to man in his sleep
Just because I refer to conservatives as "they" doesn't mean I can't be a conservative myself. I know I'd bend the truth in any study asking how wild my dreams are.
How do people come to their beliefs? Good question. I don't have answers but I read something recently that touched upon the topic for one person. I read the book Motorcycle Diaries, which was written by Ernesto Guevara, (Che Guevara- the Communist revolutionary). The book recently became a movie. Guevara wrote about a huge motorcycle trip taken in South America with a buddy while he was a young (21-23) person. At the time he was a medical student in his native land Argentina. The period was 1951-1952. He simply wrote about his travels through South America. He was apparantly not a communist at the time and never once mentioned the phrase. The book does not mention a single overt political statement of any kind. Regardless it was patently obvious through his writings about the people he saw and he liked and didn't like that the guy was going to be a leftist, liberal, socialist--something to the Left. Nothing identified how political or radical the guy was going to become but his writings showed leanings in that direction.....long before he became a political person. So that guy evolved politically through some sort of inborn leanings. There is nothing in the book about his parents so there is no way to know from the book if those leanings were influenced by his parents or his upbringing.
I think there is some hardwiring in people to define how they'll trend politically, or even in life. Just as people are born leaders and others are born followers, some will trend right, others will trend left. When I was starting college, I was probably pretty left (I never thought about it until later on though) until I started attending some of my political science classes. I woke up at some point; I realized how wrong what they were teaching (my american history teacher spent 2 weeks on how wonderful socialism and communism were, blaming america for everything; the usual shpeel). Took me a few years to wake up and get my bearings. It's funny, though, whenever I think about an issue on the news or in the papers, my mind trends back to that same place - not so much as it used to - but its weird how ingrown things are and how they make you think. I actually remember reading my first thomas sowell column in college one day (those long library hours of studying - death) and eventually it clicked. Too bad, it all led me to drop out of college (LOL! eternally, 8 credit hours short of graduating. Guess I'll never make the big bucks) and start working - where I was much happier.
Earl, respectfully, I cannot agree with your logical derivations. Without having read the book or seen the movie, I cannot know more, but isn't it quite possible it was his journey, and its concomitant revelations, that led to his political creed? Across the globe, and decades earlier, another example: Gandhi - being thrown off the train for sitting in the "white" section - this, and countless other injustices; did this not frame his ideology? There have been forays into certain "types" of political minds. Perhaps the most famous being the work of Theodor Adorno and the "Authoritarian Personality". But all, in my book, have failed. Unless I've missed it, nothing yet written proves that a "mind" will tend to one way or the other on the political spectrum. The one thing that does intrigue me along this line is the notion of a kind of political entrepreneur - the most machiavellian of animals, who can sniff opportunity and meld coalitions to make for a successful rise to power. Hitler was one. So was his pal, Benito - at one time, a staunch socialist and member of the International, prior to becoming the exemplar of modern fascism.
Yes, this was the name (actually, national socialist German worker's party), but I fail to see your point. Hitler, to his dying breath, declared himself the enemy of "internationalist" bolshevism. No more than "Christian Identity" has anything to do with christian theology, Hitler's "socialism" was in name only.
North: The way I read it....it just seemed he was reporting things as he traveled. Itd didn't appear that the trip changed his leanings. the book was totally travel oriented with a little bit of other stuff thrown in. It just seemed to me that some of the little stuff....like apparant political leanings....could be gleaned from what he wrote. Now that is just the way I interpret it....55 years after he wrote it...and probably 50 years or so since he became a communist. You'd have to read it yourself and see how you interpret his writings. The way I interpret it.....he had leanings that way.
No, it wasn't. If anything, it was a Keynesian (before such a principle was adopted elsewhere), state-led, "corporatist" economic structure, that should not be confused with socialism. Saying so makes no more sense than ascribing Bismarck's adoption of social welfare programs, or universal suffrage, to a leftist mindset. Roosevelt would later follow a similar model in pulling the U.S. out of depression. The middle class, under Nazi hegemony, enjoyed undeniable ascendancy, while any native, organized, working class movement was utterly destroyed. In addition, with its emphasis on race and nationalism, it stands in contrast to the internationalist agenda of the Socialist International. Decidedly not socialist.
I don't know much about hitlers socialistic or non-socialistic views but thank you for the clarifying of his "christian identity" beliefs, many have no clue. Now I am curious to the political structure of Germany during that time - off to read up on it.
It was " the nationalist socialist party" which is a bit different from national socialist party and refering to the race issues from the very beginning.
Sorry, Arnie, that's wrong. The name in German is: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, not Nationalischesozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. In other words, National Socialist German Worker's Party. Yes, racialism was there from the beginning. Also, if anything, Hitler vanquished whatever socialist strain might have been extant in early nazism when he obliterated the Strasserite faction and the S.A. From there, he actively sought the favor of big industry and the large landed families - again, not a socialist agenda.
Has me curious as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_German_Workers_Party North, can you shed some light on how the party(s) of years gone by are different from current parties? Are the objectives similar? In reading another wiki entry from the US Socialist Workers Party:
Gtech, not sure if you're asking about modern nationalist parties, or modern socialist parties, or both? I think historically, the crossover (and, I think, the confusion) between the two came, for example, as both the KPD and the NASDAP argued for a corporatist structure - in other words, not "one man, one vote," but the organization of individuals into relatively homogenous, easily coopted groups -say, the Junkers into a National Partei, or workers into a state-led "trade union" movement; and both sought the destruction of the existing order. I think most simply, Hitler's was a revolution of the middle class against the existing order of privilege (for example, look at the wartime mortality rates among the landed gentry, titled officer class), while the KPD sought the ascendancy of organized workers. The SPD and KPD were fools - so tied to ideology that they could not go to bed with each other, while Hitler gamely played the KPD in destroying the SPD and its electoral base. Brilliant political entrepreneurship. I should mention that I have a rare afternoon off, and am setting down to watch Episode 10 of Band of Brothers, so may not be back for a bit. If any are interested, I found John Toland's bio of Hitler an incredible read. I have returned to it many times over the years. In my opinion, another great book (plug for my former professor, the late Greg Luebbert), is Liberalism, Fascism or Social Democracy. Looks at the class alignments prior to WWI, leading up to electoral options during the interwar period.
nationalsozialistische are two words written together and can be rather translated into - Germans nationalistic social(istic) worker's party - nazi - focusing on nationalism rather than socialism.
To be honest, I'm not sure myself. You've sparked my interest on a topic I'd like to explore and have a better understanding of. Since some seem to use both national and social in their party titles, I'm not entirely sure what separates them. For example, there are national socialist parties, nationalist parties, socialist parties and probably some others. I'm trying to better understand commonalities between then. Synergies, if you will, of commonalities, but also differences. I may not be asking the right questions though.
. We are saying the same thing - socialism with a nationalist bent. But technically: yes, the two words are together in one word, as German often is (marktwirtschaft; gemeinschaft; gesellschaft, or, good god, Rechtsschutzversicherungsgesellschaften, "rights"/"legal" protection insurance companies). But the two words are "national" and "socialist," not "nationalist" and "socialist." This is the only usage I've ever seen. Doing a search for NSDAP will confirm. Nowhere have I seen "nationalist socialists," for instance, when referring to members. From V. 2, Mein Kampf itself, the term used is "National Socialist" movement, not "Nationalist Socialist" movement. Gtech, agree, this is a fascinating subject. To me, so much of the world was cast into a new paradigm with industrialization. The associated rise of class saliency, and of mass politics itself, is really fascinating to me. It's why I spend so much time reading history from the late 1700's through the interwar period. When I'm not brewing beer, or pan-searing a moulard duck breast. Let me know what you find.
I'm a lucent dreamer (ie I can control my dreams), but I actually don't dream that often....wonder what that means?