Re: Heinlein And History
D. Spencer Hines
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any
other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their
lives and freedoms."
Robert A. Heinlein
---------------
Exitus Acta Probat
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Pete LaGrange
(Followup set to afh)
> This bears repeating:
>
> "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any
> other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
> Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their
> lives and freedoms."
>
> Robert A. Heinlein
> ---------------
It does bear repeating, although I fear that many will see it as
justification, rather than the warning that I suspect it was meant to be.
Just a sad fact of life, in the end.
--
Pete LaGrange
Howard Berkowitz
<ab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
> news:NEXGc.47$_D5...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
> > I don't claim Heinlein was a Nazi though.
>
> He wasn't.
>
> He was a fascist though
>
> There's very important difference, Nazi ideology is irrecoverably
> fascist,
> Fascism may not be racist in nature.
Heinlein believed in independent judgment and responsibility, even under
a government. This is hardly Fascist "the leader cannot be wrong".
Do not necessarily confuse his characters' ideas with his own. Before
making pronouncements, it's a wise idea to read some of his nonfiction,
such as "Take Back Your Government" -- very much grass-roots politics in
a nonparliamentary republican democracy.
>
> He also has some very odd sexual ideas, try reading a book called 'Glory
> Road'.
If you think the sexual ideas in Glory Road are very odd, you are easily
shocked.
D. Spencer Hines
Black is just throwing around his standard Hard-Left, British Socialist
Rhetoric Again.
Lame Agitprop....
Once a loony Britsoc always a loony Britsoc.
Black reminds me of the flakey Britsoc, a "Useful Fool" of the Soviets,
"Nan Perry" ---- played to perfection by Claire Bloom in _The Spy Who
Came In From The Cold_ [1965].
Just change the gender and you have Willie Black spot-on.
The film is being released on DVD on 13 July, so you can see the Black
act-alike character yourself.
See Below....
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
"William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cchh3q$p6c$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
|
| "Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
| news:NEXGc.47$_D5...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
|
| > I don't claim Heinlein was a Nazi though.
|
| He wasn't.
|
| He was a fascist though
|
| There's very important difference, Nazi ideology is irrecoverably
fascist,
| Fascism may not be racist in nature.
|
| He also has some very odd sexual ideas, try reading a book called
'Glory
| Road'.
|
| --
| William Black
| ------------------
| Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
| is no basis for a system of government
A line Black has stolen from _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_ without
giving it proper citation and credit.
Black has ALSO stupidly and ignorantly MISQUOTED the lines. See page
nine of the screenplay for the accurate version.
Hilarious!
Wee Willie Black falls on his sword yet again.
Deeeeelightful! -- as T.R. would say.
DSH
Dr. Rufo
Howard Berkowitz wrote:
Howard ----- Thank you so much for cross-posting this wonderful treat!
Trust YOU to find a surviving specimen of the genus "homo Victorianus
insipidus"!!
Now then, merely 'for the sake of argument', mon vieux, don't you think
it a *bit* "odd" for Star's auntie to preserve and display her former
husbands in her parlor? I confess I cannot recall any other 'very odd
sexual ideas' contained within Glory Road -- or, is my wetware (once
again) proving faulty? Any other suggestions will be gratefully
welcomed. <wEg>
Pax,
Rufe
Art
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
>
> Robert Heinlein certainly was NOT a "Fascist."
>
> Black is just throwing around his standard Hard-Left, British Socialist
> Rhetoric Again.
>
> Lame Agitprop....
>
> Once a loony Britsoc always a loony Britsoc.
You gotta be from the Clancy group with all the BRITSOCs and HUMINTs and AGITPROPs.
Agreed that IRL, Robert was anything but--though he played around with
the idea of fascism in his fiction. Not just statism, but eugenics too.
The idea of fascism is neither as scary or well defined as you imply.
But it never is. Fascism with a strong judicial branch and regular
elections can /still/ be fascism--and is, in fact, in most the nations
of the world.
Because of associative definitions, the word is meaningless in most
discussions (unless the subject is WWII). It falls in usenet
dictionaries under Godwin's Law.
This thread popped into AFH with a quote from a "History & Moral
Philosophy" class found in the Robert Heinlein novel /Starship Troopers/
(not to be confused with the movie of the same name). Heinlein was
merely pointing out that, while most people seem to delude themselves
into the notion that history is nothing more than a dialogue of
opinions; History is, in reality, a dialogue of opinions /and swords/.
Peace comes only when one side surrenders.
Pointing out a truth does not make you anything but unpopular.
The pen is mightier than the sword, sure. But /only/ because swordsmen
and their leaders read.
Who was it who said "...then go sell your cloak and /procure/ one?"
---
Art
William Black
"Art" <arty_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40EC577A...@yahoo.com...
> This thread popped into AFH with a quote from a "History & Moral
> Philosophy" class found in the Robert Heinlein novel /Starship Troopers/
> (not to be confused with the movie of the same name). Heinlein was
> merely pointing out that, while most people seem to delude themselves
> into the notion that history is nothing more than a dialogue of
> opinions; History is, in reality, a dialogue of opinions /and swords/.
> Peace comes only when one side surrenders.
And of course it's bollocks, like most of Heinlein's philosophy (if you can
dignify his thinking with the term 'philosophy')
Carthage didn't surrender, neither did either side in the Hundred Years War
and the English Civil War had at least four sides...
History is far more complicated than that.
Howard Berkowitz
"Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>
> >
> > If you think the sexual ideas in Glory Road are very odd, you are
> > easily
> > shocked.
>
> Howard ----- Thank you so much for cross-posting this wonderful treat!
> Trust YOU to find a surviving specimen of the genus "homo Victorianus
> insipidus"!!
> Now then, merely 'for the sake of argument', mon vieux, don't you think
> it a *bit* "odd" for Star's auntie to preserve and display her former
> husbands in her parlor? I confess I cannot recall any other 'very odd
> sexual ideas' contained within Glory Road -- or, is my wetware (once
> again) proving faulty? Any other suggestions will be gratefully
> welcomed. <wEg>
>
It is suggested...horror of horrors...that Star and Oscar may have had
Relations before they jumped over a broom. The dress code on French
beaches...and, of course, obtaining the seed of a Hero.
J Harris
Howard Berkowitz wrote:
I just this past weekend re-read Glory Road and was a bit taken with the
physical descriptions and innuendos present in a book published in '63.
But nothing that odd about any of the sexual practices, as practiced
by people of THIS world.
JH
David Dyer-Bennet
> Do not necessarily confuse his characters' ideas with his own. Before
> making pronouncements, it's a wise idea to read some of his nonfiction,
> such as "Take Back Your Government" -- very much grass-roots politics in
> a nonparliamentary republican democracy.
Taking a devil's advocate position here, TBYG is a treatise on working
within the existing political system. I don't see that it must
necessarily describe Heinlein's *preferred* political system.
>> He also has some very odd sexual ideas, try reading a book called
>> 'Glory Road'.
> If you think the sexual ideas in Glory Road are very odd, you are
> easily shocked.
If he thinks Glory Road has "very odd" sexual ideas, he's got pretty
limited experience.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Ogden Johnson III
I wish you had held your tongue on this one Howard. The *last*
thing you really want to happen is for D. Spencer Hines to
discover the existence of this group, and add it to his present
list of groups to which he crossposts every bit of his idiocy.
Previously I was lucky, since his groups list started with
alt.history.british, so through the Agent kludge, I was able to
subscribe to that group to killfile his cross-posts [then totally
ignore the group - however much I like history in general,
discussing and debating british history is very low on my "things
to do before I die" list] to sci.military.naval. Alas, he
discovered alt.books.tom-clancy, added that to his list, and
a.books falls before a.british. So I have to see his posts long
enough to killfile the thread. Now you want to invite him into
a.f.h. Doesn't affect me, I'm killfiling his threads from
a.b.t-c. But a lot of a.f.h-ers that don't subscribe to any of
D. Spencer Hines's victim newsgroups will learn to hate you
thoroughly if he adds this group to his list.
There are times when one's best course is to remain silent, no
matter how severe the provocation. This was one of them.
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]
Bill Reich
"William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Art" <arty_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:40EC577A...@yahoo.com...
>
>> This thread popped into AFH with a quote from a "History & Moral
>> Philosophy" class found in the Robert Heinlein novel /Starship Troopers/
>> (not to be confused with the movie of the same name). Heinlein was
>> merely pointing out that, while most people seem to delude themselves
>> into the notion that history is nothing more than a dialogue of
>> opinions; History is, in reality, a dialogue of opinions /and swords/.
>> Peace comes only when one side surrenders.
>
>And of course it's bollocks, like most of Heinlein's philosophy (if you
can
>dignify his thinking with the term 'philosophy')
>
>Carthage didn't surrender, neither did either side in the Hundred Years
War
>and the English Civil War had at least four sides...
>
>History is far more complicated than that.
>
History is far more complicated than any author can encompass in an aphorism.
It turns out to be more complicated, and far different, than Karl Marx could
encompass in a whole life of dedicated work.
I don't think the part about only ending when one side surrenders is part
of RAH's quote. He merely pointed out the obvious stupidity of "violence
never settles anything."
And it was part of a coming-of-age novel that people endlessly debate as
if it were a treatise on the perfect state.
>--
>William Black
>------------------
>Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
>is no basis for a system of government
>
MUST you maim the work of people so much more talented than you by mis-quoting
Monte Python repeatedly? I won't criticize you for not crediting what you
mutilate.
Whatever you say next, I won't like it either.
Will in New Haven
--
"I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom.
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them
tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break
them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally
responsible for everything I do."
--Professor Bernardo de la Paz
in Robert A. Heinlein's _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Howard Berkowitz
<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Howard Berkowitz <h...@gettcomm.com> writes:
>
> > Do not necessarily confuse his characters' ideas with his own. Before
> > making pronouncements, it's a wise idea to read some of his nonfiction,
> > such as "Take Back Your Government" -- very much grass-roots politics
> > in
> > a nonparliamentary republican democracy.
>
> Taking a devil's advocate position here, TBYG is a treatise on working
> within the existing political system. I don't see that it must
> necessarily describe Heinlein's *preferred* political system.
I would agree it is a guide for an existing system. Since it is
non-fiction, and to a certain extent a call for action, I find it hard
to believe that he'd write as detailed a manual whan he would want
another system. He certainly had many opportunities to do so.
>
> If he thinks Glory Road has "very odd" sexual ideas, he's got pretty
> limited experience.
I could picture exposure to the Missionary, but it is a stretch to
imagine familiarity with the Mother Superior.
DE Wolf
> "Art" <arty_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:40EC577A...@yahoo.com...
>> This thread popped into AFH with a quote from
>> a "History & Moral Philosophy" class found in
>> the Robert Heinlein novel /Starship Troopers/
>> (not to be confused with the movie of the same
>> name). Heinlein was merely pointing out that,
>> while most people seem to delude themselves
>> into the notion that history is nothing more
>> than a dialogue of opinions; History is, in
>> reality, a dialogue of opinions /and swords/.
>> Peace comes only when one side surrenders.
> And of course it's bollocks, like most of
> Heinlein's philosophy (if you can dignify his
> thinking with the term 'philosophy')
If the other side is all dead, then one could
say that it becomes kinda peaceful. At least
until the next opponent appears.
> Carthage didn't surrender,
A point made in the book, as a matter of fact.
In response to one of the students saying that
their mother had said that "Violence never solved
anything", the instructor said, "Tell that to
the Carthaginians(sp)."
> neither did either side in the Hundred Years War
strange I was under the impression that there were
as many sides to the Hundred Years War as there
were to the ECW.
> and the English Civil War had at least four sides...
At least.
> History is far more complicated than that.
Of course it is. And from what I have read, RAH
would choke on people refering to anything he wrote
as "his philosophy(tm)". He was a storyteller,
writing stories to entertain people and pay the bills.
Wolf,
Bard
--
**************************************
Though I may never make master,
Still, and always, a bard.
**************************************
The value of pi(3.141592654...) can
never really be changed, despite the
best efforts of the Indiana state
legislature (House Bill# 246, 1897).
**************************************
http://www.shm-qa.net
D. Spencer Hines
"Tell that to the Confederacy." [1865]
"Tell that to George III." [1783]
"Tell that to Adolf Hitler." [1945]
"Tell that to the Argentines." [1982]
"Tell that to Saddam Hussein." [2003]
Would be equally apposite, and devastating, answers.
Where DO these limp-wristed pacifists, farblondjet wusses, loony
peaceniks and simpering, groveling appeasers get their completely
indefensible ideas?
Feathermerchants All....
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
"DE Wolf" <capta...@monarchy.modusvarious.com> wrote in message
news:cci0b7$rep$1...@blue.rahul.net...
| ...A point made in the book, as a matter of fact.
| In response to one of the students saying that
| their mother had said that "Violence never solved
| anything", the instructor said, "Tell that to
| the Carthaginians(sp)."...
Mac
> news:NEXGc.47$_D5...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
> I don't claim Heinlein was a Nazi though.
>
******************* ****************
No, he was not.
---Mac
Mac
> It is suggested...horror of horrors...that Star and Oscar may have had
> Relations before they jumped over a broom. The dress code on French
> beaches...and, of course, obtaining the seed of a Hero.
>I just this past weekend re-read Glory Road and was a bit taken with the
>physical descriptions and innuendos present in a book published in '63.
> But nothing that odd about any of the sexual practices, as practiced
>by people of THIS world.
>JH
I grew up in Southern California and also spent a lot of time in San
Francisco. There was nothing odd about any of the sexual practices
mentioned in Glory Road...
---Mac
Mac
<oj3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I wish you had held your tongue on this one Howard. The *last*
>thing you really want to happen is for D. Spencer Hines to
>discover the existence of this group, and add it to his present
>list of groups to which he crossposts every bit of his idiocy.
>There are times when one's best course is to remain silent, no
>matter how severe the provocation. This was one of them.
Thanks for the warning.
I will see about kill-filing him.
AGENT sometimes permits me to do that with either Subject OR Author...
---Mac
Don Sample
<jhharris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I felt that it was a little odd that this world was the only one that
practiced the oldest profession. Nothing else struck me as very odd
though.
Howard Berkowitz
wrote:
Didn't Glory Road mention celibacy, at least in passing?
Inger E Johansson
what I can't understand is why the pacifists doesn't seem to understand that
you can't prevent dictators's actions with words and that it takes more
courage to stop men like Hitler and Saddam Hussein then to fight with words
in the way the pacifists are so keen on doing!
Of course most people don't want to have to use guns and other weapons. That
is, almost all but mad dictators and maniacs like the ones you mentioned
don't want to kill other persons.
That said everyone has to realise that when you have such persons as Saddam
who killed not only people in the countries he made war on Iran and Kuweit
but also people inside his own country which he believed not to be to be
equal to him and his,
when you are dealing with that you need other things than words against
those who had the courage to stop Saddam.
God help us all if we don't realise that we have to stop people like Saddam
and the terrorists who threatens people in Europe, Asia, America and the
other continents. They don't even seem to realise that Mohammed himself
recognised same God as we do but called him Allah; nor does they seem to
know that Mohammed recognised Jesus Christ as an Apostel even if he didn't
believe that Jesus was God's son,
nor does they remember that we Christians for all the centuries have been
called 'the Book's people' and why that is? I wonder if terrorists knows or
simply don't care.
Inger E
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:m_%Gc.974$Dz4....@eagle.america.net...
Bruce Sinclair
>DSH,
>what I can't understand is why the pacifists doesn't seem to understand that
>you can't prevent dictators's actions with words and that it takes more
>courage to stop men like Hitler and Saddam Hussein then to fight with words
>in the way the pacifists are so keen on doing!
So you believe the only way to deal with these people is to ill them ?
Always ? ... diplomacy and other options are a waste of time ? ...
always ?
I suggest that if you actually believe this, then you know very little
history. :)
Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
Roger R.
"DE Wolf" <capta...@monarchy.modusvarious.com> wrote in message
news:cci0b7$rep$1...@blue.rahul.net...
You got it in one! Good going!
However, our esteemed graduate of the Annapolis trade school was clearly
infected early on with the ideas of Mahan and other proponents of violence
as the solution to international conflicts.
Tony
some really cool stuff, dude, but I wanna talk about his sig file:
>
< Snip >
>
>D. Spencer Hines
>
>Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
>Vires et Honor
>
>Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
>
OK - I never took Latin, but some google-ing brought me to:
http://lysy2.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe
*Way* cool.
The site only deals with words, not phrases, so the best I could do is:
Lux = day, light
et = and
Veritas = honesty
et = and
Libertas = freedom
so, "I like the light after I get out of jail"
Vires = green or verdant
et = and
Honor = public office
so, "Money gets you elected" (at least in the US where most money is still
green)
Veni = sold
Vidi = look at
Calcitrari = kick
Asinum = donkey
so, "You have just purchased the right to watch me boot Shrek's buddy"
Hmm. I woulda thought a Sig File would be a little less obtuse. (Or is it me?)
Tony
Roger R.
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m_%Gc.974$Dz4....@eagle.america.net...
> Of course....
Let's address these. First, we need to ignore the existence of governments
before and after battles, and instead look at the existance of ideas.
>
> "Tell that to the Confederacy." [1865]
Yeah. Yet the current US Supreme Court is frequently supporting states
rights again. The US Civil War was largely about the right of states to
nullify bad decision of the federal government - Jeffersonian State
Nullification. That has NOT gone away.
>
> "Tell that to George III." [1783]
Oddly enough, the American Revolution was more about the same Rights as
possessed by Englishmen than anything else. George III wanted one set of
Rights for local Englishmen (not much else he could do after the Glorous
Revolution) but another set for colonists. The Americans simply set him
right. No real ideas changed as a result of the American Revolution except
that the powers of the Aristocracy were eliminated here more rapidly than in
Great Britain. The only changes were government and timing of changes, not
any real changes.
>
> "Tell that to Adolf Hitler." [1945]
Hitler and the Nazis were removed. The rather weak Weimer Republic was
strengthened. Racism remains, today, a major problem in Germany. It is
simply no longer enforced by law. What else of importance has changed?
Germany is still the most powerful nation in Europe, as it has been since it
was unified by Bismark and then passed Great Britain industrially.
>
> "Tell that to the Argentines." [1982]
They didn't get control of the Maldives (Falkland Islands.) So??
>
> "Tell that to Saddam Hussein." [2003]
Government changed. Anything else? I doubt it. It is merely moving back to
the nation it was before the abortive Iran/Iraq war and the attempted
takeover of Kuwait. Other than those changes in government, the same
strengths and problems remain.
Frankly, I think you give altogether too much weight to the effects of any
existing government. That is ALL that is changed by success or defeat in
battle. If that.
BPRAL22169
Somehow your post didn't show up in my queue, but I got it through someone who
quoted it.
Look, fascism is intrinsically a totalitarian doctrine -- Heinlein is a radical
individualist; he could not possibly even get into the same world with fascism
without oner or another both annihilating each other (and note that fascism
isn't around much any more). You need to find out something about the subject
you are trying to talk about.
Bill
raymond o'hara
"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
news:wy0Hc.98070$dP1.3...@newsc.telia.net...
> DSH,
> what I can't understand is why the pacifists doesn't seem to understand
that
> you can't prevent dictators's actions with words and that it takes more
> courage to stop men like Hitler and Saddam Hussein then to fight with
words
> in the way the pacifists are so keen on doing!
ghandi and khomeini did okay with words instead of guns.
Bill Reich
Why would he want to do that? And ruin his perfect record.
Inger E Johansson
"raymond o'hara" <re...@comcast.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:hW2Hc.42927$IQ4.34441@attbi_s02...
Have you studied India's history respectively Iran's History under and after
Ghandi resp. Khomeni? Doesn't seem to be your best subjects. Does they?
Inger E
>
>
Bill Reich
a very early point in his career by any colonial power that was at all united
in wanting to keep India. As Ho pointed out, the French in Indo-China killed
potential Ghandis out of hand. Khomeni didn't personally carry a gun but
his followers were not non-violent.
On the other hand, it is clear that non-violent solutions are easier on everyone
and greatly preferable. They just can't always be achieved.
J Harris
Yep - the weirdest.
JH
Art
William Black wrote:
>
> "Art" <arty_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:40EC577A...@yahoo.com...
>
> > This thread popped into AFH with a quote from a "History & Moral
> > Philosophy" class found in the Robert Heinlein novel /Starship Troopers/
> > (not to be confused with the movie of the same name). Heinlein was
> > merely pointing out that, while most people seem to delude themselves
> > into the notion that history is nothing more than a dialogue of
> > opinions; History is, in reality, a dialogue of opinions /and swords/.
> > Peace comes only when one side surrenders.
>
> And of course it's bollocks, like most of Heinlein's philosophy (if you can
> dignify his thinking with the term 'philosophy')
Well, his philosophy is another matter altogether. What we were
discussing was one of the observations he made in one of his novels--not
his philosophy.
>
> Carthage didn't surrender,
Actually, IIRC, Carthage /did/ surrender. This proved not good enough
for the peepuls back home. Hannibal still lived (elsewhere) and this
fact gave Rome no end of grief. Children were scared into doing what
they were told when Mom said "Hannibal's at the gates!!!"
Just like with the USA vs Iraq, they decided years after the surrender
that the job had been left incomplete. Rome maybe wouldn't be able to
get Osama Bin Hannibal, but they'd be able to take away the /very
possibility/ that the South could rise again.
Rome only had one kind of political statement. She spoke it in Tunisia
as she did with all her roads lined with crosses throughout the empire.
>
> History is far more complicated than that.
Ain't it the truth?
"Then said he unto them, 'But now, he that hath a purse, let him take
it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his
garment, and buy one.'" Luke 22:36
(if you can dignify his thinking with the term 'philosophy')
---
Art
Nuclear Waste
"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.s...@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote
in message news:HE0Hc.6870$NA1.6...@news02.tsnz.net...
> In article <wy0Hc.98070$dP1.3...@newsc.telia.net>, "Inger E
Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> was seen to type:
> >DSH,
> >what I can't understand is why the pacifists doesn't seem to
understand that
> >you can't prevent dictators's actions with words and that it
takes more
> >courage to stop men like Hitler and Saddam Hussein then to fight
with words
> >in the way the pacifists are so keen on doing!
>
> So you believe the only way to deal with these people is to ill
them ?
> Always ? ... diplomacy and other options are a waste of time ? ...
> always ?
>
> I suggest that if you actually believe this, then you know very
little
> history. :)
I would suggest that killing is not the only option, but that your
ideas on history are equally simplistic. Yes, in the long run
diplomacy and other options will fail.
NW
Soren Larsen
news:10ep8f3...@corp.supernews.com
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:m_%Gc.974$Dz4....@eagle.america.net...
>> Of course....
>
> Let's address these. First, we need to ignore the existence of
> governments before and after battles, and instead look at the
> existance of ideas.
>
>>
>> "Tell that to the Confederacy." [1865]
>
> Yeah. Yet the current US Supreme Court is frequently supporting states
> rights again. The US Civil War was largely about the right of states
> to nullify bad decision of the federal government - Jeffersonian State
> Nullification. That has NOT gone away.
Right! So that problem is still there, and slavery would have disappeared
even
if there had been no US civilwar.
>
>>
>> "Tell that to George III." [1783]
>
> Oddly enough, the American Revolution was more about the same Rights
> as possessed by Englishmen than anything else. George III wanted one
> set of Rights for local Englishmen (not much else he could do after
> the Glorous Revolution) but another set for colonists. The Americans
> simply set him right. No real ideas changed as a result of the
> American Revolution except that the powers of the Aristocracy were
> eliminated here more rapidly than in Great Britain. The only changes
> were government and timing of changes, not any real changes.
And there was no way that Britain could keep control over the entire
North American continent. Even if the British had pressed on and
"settled" the matter by hanging every signatory to the declaration of
independence. The independence would have come peacefully or
otherwise sooner or later.
>
>>
>> "Tell that to Adolf Hitler." [1945]
>
> Hitler and the Nazis were removed. The rather weak Weimer Republic was
> strengthened. Racism remains, today, a major problem in Germany. It is
> simply no longer enforced by law. What else of importance has changed?
> Germany is still the most powerful nation in Europe, as it has been
> since it was unified by Bismark and then passed Great Britain
> industrially.
Nah! The issues between the modern European powers was settled
once and for all in the Great war 1914-18.
Thay is why the plans for a European Union to promote stability
was abandoned.
>
>>
>> "Tell that to the Argentines." [1982]
>
> They didn't get control of the Maldives (Falkland Islands.) So??
And it might be naive to think that this is a settled matter.
BTW I dont think Argentina wants the Maldives ;-) but rather
the Malvinas.
>
>>
>> "Tell that to Saddam Hussein." [2003]
Tell that to the US troops that died earlier today in Iraq.
Nothing is settled or solved there.
>
> Government changed. Anything else? I doubt it. It is merely moving
> back to the nation it was before the abortive Iran/Iraq war and the
> attempted takeover of Kuwait. Other than those changes in government,
> the same strengths and problems remain.
>
>
> Frankly, I think you give altogether too much weight to the effects
> of any existing government. That is ALL that is changed by success or
> defeat in battle. If that.
Of course violence has consequences but it is hardly ever the tool to
settle a political conflict. It is usually the equivalent of curing your
childs
cough with a bullet.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Paul J Gans
>"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
>>
>> Robert Heinlein certainly was NOT a "Fascist."
>>
>> Black is just throwing around his standard Hard-Left, British Socialist
>> Rhetoric Again.
>>
>> Lame Agitprop....
>>
>> Once a loony Britsoc always a loony Britsoc.
>You gotta be from the Clancy group with all the BRITSOCs and HUMINTs and AGITPROPs.
>Agreed that IRL, Robert was anything but--though he played around with
>the idea of fascism in his fiction. Not just statism, but eugenics too.
>The idea of fascism is neither as scary or well defined as you imply.
>But it never is. Fascism with a strong judicial branch and regular
>elections can /still/ be fascism--and is, in fact, in most the nations
>of the world.
>Because of associative definitions, the word is meaningless in most
>discussions (unless the subject is WWII). It falls in usenet
>dictionaries under Godwin's Law.
>This thread popped into AFH with a quote from a "History & Moral
>Philosophy" class found in the Robert Heinlein novel /Starship Troopers/
>(not to be confused with the movie of the same name). Heinlein was
>merely pointing out that, while most people seem to delude themselves
>into the notion that history is nothing more than a dialogue of
>opinions; History is, in reality, a dialogue of opinions /and swords/.
>Peace comes only when one side surrenders.
Yes. It was a dramatic statement, but wrong.
History is not simply a dialog of opinions. It is also a
record of human actions. Most of the actions that changed
history did NOT involve war.
As one example, we pride ourselves on our classical heritage
taken from Greece and Rome. However, had Charlemagne, back
in the 8th century, not ordered that the monasteries copy
what they had of Greek and Roman works, they'd likely be
mostly gone from the world. The monasteries, which had
focussed on copying religious works, complied and the world
became a different place.
Such examples could be multiplied endlessly.
>Pointing out a truth does not make you anything but unpopular.
Quite wrong. It does, however, often lead to a debate over
the actual veracity of the statement in question.
>The pen is mightier than the sword, sure. But /only/ because swordsmen
>and their leaders read.
Nope. Christianity conquered the Roman Empire without the use
of the sword. That changed the world.
>
>Who was it who said "...then go sell your cloak and /procure/ one?"
----- Paul J. Gans
Art
That's from the cartoon "Two Stupid Dogs," innit?
>
> History is not simply a dialog of opinions. It is also a
> record of human actions. Most of the actions that changed
> history did NOT involve war.
>
> As one example, we pride ourselves on our classical heritage
> taken from Greece and Rome. However, had Charlemagne, back
> in the 8th century, not ordered that the monasteries copy
> what they had of Greek and Roman works, they'd likely be
> mostly gone from the world. The monasteries, which had
> focussed on copying religious works, complied and the world
> became a different place.
The Saracens swept through crumbling antiquity with their swift horses
and mighty swords to eventually bring us Aristotle. Most of Aristotle's
work (about 85%) was already destroyed or lost in the endless wars of
the Diaduci, and, ultimately, the struggles which gave rise to Rome.
>
> Such examples could be multiplied endlessly.
Like rabbits and roaches, no doubt.
>
> >Pointing out a truth does not make you anything but unpopular.
>
> Quite wrong. It does, however, often lead to a debate over
> the actual veracity of the statement in question.
>
> >The pen is mightier than the sword, sure. But /only/ because swordsmen
> >and their leaders read.
>
> Nope. Christianity conquered the Roman Empire without the use
> of the sword. That changed the world.
Excuse me, Sir, I'm afraid you might have gotten the wrong impression;
you see, /this/ was a discussion about history /on earth/.
>
> >
> >Who was it who said "...then go sell your cloak and /procure/ one?"
Oh, Christ.
---
Art
David Dyer-Bennet
Ghandi chose his opponents and picked his time very carefully. I
don't think it takes anything away from his stature to point that
out. But I believe he himself knew perfectly well those tactics
weren't universal.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Art
Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>
> In article <wy0Hc.98070$dP1.3...@newsc.telia.net>, "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> was seen to type:
> >DSH,
> >what I can't understand is why the pacifists doesn't seem to understand that
> >you can't prevent dictators's actions with words and that it takes more
> >courage to stop men like Hitler and Saddam Hussein then to fight with words
> >in the way the pacifists are so keen on doing!
>
> So you believe the only way to deal with these people is to ill them ?
> Always ? ... diplomacy and other options are a waste of time ? ...
> always ?
>
> I suggest that if you actually believe this, then you know very little
> history. :)
>
> Bruce
Often, the best way to deal with "these people" is /not/ to war with
them. This is also an Heinlein observation. You only kill those who take
away your other options--and then only when you're crowded into it by a
lack of time.
However, the ante to sit at the negotiating table /is a sword/. No
swordee, no playee.
This caused history to be filled with people who thought they could get
what they want by the sword. The United States was the first nation on
earth to see that one /doesn't/ get what one wants by the sword--by the
sword is merely how one /keeps/ it.
The UN is a cooperative of swords. In the spirit of /any/ committee, it
basically does what it's told by the biggest swords (You won't catch
Chirac, for instance, offering to give up France's nuclear weapons under
any circumstances). Uncoincidentally, only nuclear powers will head the EU.
"History is nothing but a fable agreed upon."
--Napoleon Bonaparte
---
Art
D. Spencer Hines
Vide infra pro risibus. [See below for laughs]
Gans absolutely FLAUNTS his ignorance -- like a small boy on the
playground at PS 169 in New York City -- Gans pulls down his pants and
displays his arse to the little girls to make them scream.
This is just what Gans does -- repeatedly -- display Massive Ignorance
on matters of all sorts. He's our Left-Wing NYU chemist -- flakey as
they come.
Robert Anson Heinlein certainly DID attend and graduate from the United
States Naval Academy, Annapolis -- Class of 1929.
He graduated well up in his class -- 20th in a class of 240 graduates.
Heinlein left the Navy young, as a Lieutenant [junior grade], on 1
August 1934, and died in Carmel, California in 1988.
We All Know The Rest.
PRATFALL!!! ---- For Gans
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
Flummoxed, Farblondjet Feathermerchant = Gans.
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ccjtdh$ld8$3...@reader2.panix.com...
| In alt.history.british Roger R. <jayray2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
| >"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| >news:F3WGc.960$Dz4....@eagle.america.net...
| >> This bears repeating:
| >>
| >> "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has
any
| >> other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its
worst.
| >> Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with
their
| >> lives and freedoms."
| >>
| >> Robert A. Heinlein
| >> ---------------
| >>
|
| >Hmmm. It surprises you that a graduate of the trade school in
Annapolis who
| >was imbued with Mahan considered violence to be the way to settle
issues?
|
| >I bet a graduate of the Harvard Business School would offer a
different set
| >of options and likely outcomes.
|
| >[Note: not meant to detract from one of the finest Science Fiction
writers
| >ever to place pen to paper - merely to point out the likely basis of
his
| >bias.]
|
| He did not graduate from Annapolis.
|
| ----- Paul J. Gans
cmaj7dmin7
"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:m2658y4...@gw.dd-b.net...
> Ghandi chose his opponents and picked his time very carefully. I
> don't think it takes anything away from his stature to point that
> out. But I believe he himself knew perfectly well those tactics
> weren't universal.
And, because he never wore shoes, the soles of his feet were extremely tough
and thick. Further, he was a vegetarian and during his declining years,
because of this diet, became extremely frail and suffered from foul mouth
odors. Indeed, he was a super-calloused, fragile mystic, vexed with
hallitosis.
Note: no claim is made to the material, above.
LNC
Kurt Ullman
Kurt (A good pun is in the ARGHH!! of the beholder) Ullman
--
"Salary is the only biological variable which peaks
after the age of 25. Somebody once suggested female libido is another
but I completely reject that because female libido and salary are
not independent variables."
Dr. Neil Barnes
D. Spencer Hines
Inger E Johansson
"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:m2658y4...@gw.dd-b.net...
> "raymond o'hara" <re...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
> > news:wy0Hc.98070$dP1.3...@newsc.telia.net...
>
> >> DSH, what I can't understand is why the pacifists doesn't seem to
> >> understand that you can't prevent dictators's actions with words
> >> and that it takes more courage to stop men like Hitler and Saddam
> >> Hussein then to fight with words in the way the pacifists are so
> >> keen on doing!
>
> > ghandi and khomeini did okay with words instead of guns.
>
> Ghandi chose his opponents and picked his time very carefully. I
> don't think it takes anything away from his stature to point that
> out. But I believe he himself knew perfectly well those tactics
> weren't universal.
To that I can agree. Never the less the impact of Ghandi's mission is still
seen today in Indian Politic.
Inger E
D. Spencer Hines
He was born on 7 July 1907 in Butler, Missouri. So he would be 97 were
he living today.
I had a very good friend who knew him quite well at the Naval Academy.
DSH
D. Patterson
"raymond o'hara" <re...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hW2Hc.42927$IQ4.34441@attbi_s02...
Oh boy, is that ever a monumentally stupid myth. Where to even begin...like
the mammoth civil disorders, assasinations, murders, and assorted other
violence and threats of violence by Indian-Pakistani separatists which
accompanied Ghandi's peaceful protests like a bad movie depicting the bad
cop versus the good cop getting the cooperation of their opponent.
Ghandi's success was attributable to the prevailing humanity of his opponent
and the ruthless violence of the people who shared his determination to win
independence. If Ghandi and the violent separatists had faced a truly
unscrupulous opponent like many regimes which exist today and existed in the
20th Century, Ghandi and the Indian separatists would have been quickly
eliminated and their protests quickly forgotten as an ill considered gesture
against an even more ruthless opponent.
DE Wolf
> "David Dyer-Bennet" wrote:
>> Ghandi chose his opponents and picked his time
>> very carefully. I don't think it takes anything
>> away from his stature to point that out. But I
>> believe he himself knew perfectly well those tactics
>> weren't universal.
> And, because he never wore shoes, the soles of his
> feet were extremely tough and thick. Further, he was
> a vegetarian and during his declining years, because
> of this diet, became extremely frail and suffered
> from foul mouth odors. Indeed, he was a super-calloused,
> fragile mystic, vexed with hallitosis.
> Note: no claim is made to the material, above.
To bad. You posted it, you get the "blame".
Bring in the dump truck, boys.
Enjoy your peanuts. That was bad...so bad, in fact
I loved it.
888888888888888888
888888888888888888
888888888888888888
888888888888888888
888888888888888888
88888 LNC 88888888
------------------
Wolf
Bard
--
**************************************
Though I may never make master,
Still, and always, a bard.
**************************************
The value of pi(3.141592654...) can
never really be changed, despite the
best efforts of the Indiana state
legislature (House Bill# 246, 1897).
**************************************
http://www.shm-qa.net
pixelmeow
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 18:50:48 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein, "cmaj7dmin7"
<rei...@sbcglobal.spamlessness.net> scribbled:
GROAN!!!
--
~teresa~
AFH Barwench
^..^ "Never try to outstubborn a cat." Robert A. Heinlein ^..^
http://pixelmeow.com/ http://www.heinleinsociety.org/
http://pixelmeow.com/Book_Exchange/index.htm
http://pixelmeow.com/forum/
aim: pixelmeow msn: pixe...@passport.com
David M. Silver
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
> History is not simply a dialog of opinions. It is also a
> record of human actions. Most of the actions that changed
> history did NOT involve war.
>
> As one example, we pride ourselves on our classical heritage
> taken from Greece and Rome. However, had Charlemagne, back
> in the 8th century, not ordered that the monasteries copy
> what they had of Greek and Roman works, they'd likely be
> mostly gone from the world. The monasteries, which had
> focussed on copying religious works, complied and the world
> became a different place.
Piffle. Had Charlemagne not fought more wars to protect his
empire from invasions and incursions than there were years in his
long reign the monks at those monasteries would not have heeded
his orders because those monasteries would not have existed long
enough to copy those works and the monks would have been dead
before they finished putting pen to parchment.
--
David M. Silver www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29, Lt.(jg), USN, R'td, 1907-88
charles krin
<inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
>
>"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> skrev i meddelandet
>news:m2658y4...@gw.dd-b.net...
snip
>>
>> Ghandi chose his opponents and picked his time very carefully. I
>> don't think it takes anything away from his stature to point that
>> out. But I believe he himself knew perfectly well those tactics
>> weren't universal.
>
>To that I can agree. Never the less the impact of Ghandi's mission is still
>seen today in Indian Politic.
>
would that more folks on that chunk of the subcontinent be willing to
follow his ideal...
ck
--
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)
Don Sample
<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> "raymond o'hara" <re...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
> > news:wy0Hc.98070$dP1.3...@newsc.telia.net...
>
> >> DSH, what I can't understand is why the pacifists doesn't seem to
> >> understand that you can't prevent dictators's actions with words
> >> and that it takes more courage to stop men like Hitler and Saddam
> >> Hussein then to fight with words in the way the pacifists are so
> >> keen on doing!
>
> > ghandi and khomeini did okay with words instead of guns.
>
> Ghandi chose his opponents and picked his time very carefully. I
> don't think it takes anything away from his stature to point that
> out. But I believe he himself knew perfectly well those tactics
> weren't universal.
Gandhi said more than once that his tactics would only work against
someone like the British, a nation which has a high respect for the
rule of law. Here are a few quotes from him on the efficacy of
violence in other situations:
Where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I advise
violence.
I WOULD risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the
emasculation of a whole race.
But I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence,
forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a
soldier...But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to
punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless
creature....
The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some
kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence.
My method of non-violence can never lead to loss of strength, but it
alone will make it possible, if the nation wills it, to offer
disciplined and concerted violence in time of danger.
My non-violence does admit of people, who cannot or will not be
non-violent, holding and making effective use of arms. Let me repeat
for the thousandth time that non-violence is of the strongest, not of
the weak.
To run away from danger, instead of facing it, is to deny one's faith
in man and God, even one's own self. It were better for one to drown
oneself than live to declare such bankruptcy of faith.
I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect
himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently
facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the
oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no
business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or
must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to
crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.
Whilst I may not actually help anyone to retaliate, I must not let a
coward seek shelter behind non-violence so-called. Not knowing the
stuff of which non-violence is made, many have honestly believed that
running away from danger every time was a virtue compared to offering
resistance, especially when it was fraught with danger to one's life.
As a teacher of non-violence I must, so far as it is possible for me,
guard against such an unmanly belief.
D. Spencer Hines
If India had been a French colony it would never have happened that way.
The British did an excellent job, in the main, of letting their colonies
go -- far better than the other European Imperial Powers.
God Bless The British for that.
They deserve our collective thanks for wise policies overall, in the
main, in colonial matters in the 20th Century.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"D. Patterson" <pro...@legypt.net> wrote in message
news:10er8bo...@corp.supernews.com...
D. Spencer Hines
Academy Class of 1929 -- of which Robert Anson Heinlein was a member.
There were 240 graduates in '29 and Heinlein stood a quite respectable
20th in the class -- as I previously noted.
There were also 130 NON-GRADUATES in the Class of 1929.
The Naval Academy of that era was far more of a meritocracy than were
Harvard, Yale and Princeton.
Naval Academy graduates were extraordinarily impressive men -- and they
received an excellent education at Annapolis.
Art
"raymond o'hara" <re...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hW2Hc.42927$IQ4.34441@attbi_s02...
>
> "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
> news:wy0Hc.98070$dP1.3...@newsc.telia.net...
> > DSH,
> > what I can't understand is why the pacifists doesn't seem to understand
> that
> > you can't prevent dictators's actions with words and that it takes more
> > courage to stop men like Hitler and Saddam Hussein then to fight with
> words
> > in the way the pacifists are so keen on doing!
>
>
> ghandi and khomeini did okay with words instead of guns.
As in: Ayatollah Khomeini? What /on earth/ makes you, or anyone believe that
Khomeini overthrew Pahlavi's regime with words? Besides the slaughter and
torture that ensued after the Shah left town, at the very /least/ we know
that Khomeini and al-Asad Sr., were prime suspects in the Lockerbie bombing.
The Sony Boom-Box (which in that particular case was, indeed, a boom box)
was supplied by them. We suspect this because agents connected to them had
been apprehended attempting the same kind of bombing a year or two
earlier--and other intelligence sources also lead to them.
Oh, I know, it's because he was a religious leader. 'Cept this is biased
towards the West where Christian based religious leaders are thought of as
being necessarily pacific. Heh. Good one.
Mohammed was ALSO a religious leader, and with it he carved out an empire.
Ayatollah Khomeini was a follower of Mohammed.
PS:
It is important to note that every "democratic" nation in the world employs
a version of Secret Police. Even America has toyed with the idea.
No man holds power without guns. No man keeps what he's got without guns.
Most "citizens" like to pretend this isn't so--it's such an /ugly/
fact--this is why policemen rarely get invited to their parties.
---
Art
Inger E Johansson
"Art" <arty_...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:2l6a5dF...@uni-berlin.de...
In a world where all humans fore honest and treating each other right, in
such a dreamworld it might be possible that guns never had to be used.
Possible but not likely.
In reality we need men and women with guts to stop terrorists and dictators
no matter if they which political extremist movements the terrorists and the
dictators belong to. Reality and fictive dreamworlds are never the same. It
takes more than words to defend the freedom and democracy against tyrants
like Hitler, Stalin and Khomeini.
Inger E
>
> ---
> Art
>
>
BPRAL22169
I'm going to interject it now.
>> >Agreed that IRL, Robert was anything but--though he played around with
>> >the idea of fascism in his fiction. Not just statism, but eugenics too.
Heinlein did not play around with the idea of fascism in his fiction. Ever.
There are no fascist states (exept where historical analogs are mentioned,
e.g., "Heil!") in his fiction anywhere.
The society of Beyond This Horizon is a utopian socialist "corporated state."
with a social credit accounting system.
Bill
Art
"BPRAL22169" <bpral...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040708224659...@mb-m14.aol.com...
When I said 'played around with' I meant what I said--he explored them.
The juveniles are chuck-full of fascist states (Red Planet, etc). The Moon
is a Harsh Mistress, obviously. Starman Jones. Citizen. The system in Double
Star was approaching it in many ways--though the king had lost his
dictatorial powers--Heinlein reminds us that dictators are where you find
them--and this is not necessarily in the throne room. Scudder was a fascist,
certainly. Many, many more. Why was Snug Harbor hidden so well if not to
protect it and them from a fascist police state (to whatever degree it had
evolved)?
His few endeavors into utopianism were the novels where the protagonist is
NOT attempting to overthrow a fascist regime (Starship Troopers and BTH, et
al).
Fascism is usually defined as a political philosophy, movement, or regime
(as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the
individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by
a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible
suppression of opposition.
However, this also describes communist states as well.
The difference between fascism and communism, as they are practiced, is
found in the fact that in fascism, there is a mixing of free-enterprise and
central control of the economy (ala Speer, Perone, et al). In every other
significant factor, communism and fascism are the same system.
A dictatorial leader is not necessary to the definition, though one is
usually found in fascist states. In order for centralized autocratic rule to
work, there must be A) a loyal, effective and feared internal police force,
B) a weak judiciary; the oligarchy or head of state ( and the police
force)often superceeding judicial authority, C) a weak or ineffective
legislative body; the oligarchy or head of state often superceeding
legislative authority.
Needless to say, otherwise free and 'democratic' parliamentary systems have
many times throughout history produced fascism.
Both in SST and BTH, the systems in question fail of fascism because
authority does not extend over individual freedom of choice. The fledgling
system in 'Moon' makes no certain guarantees of individual rights, though
one is left with hope--since these rights were already part of Lunar
culture.
But there is fascism aplenty in RAH's body of work.
---
Art
Lars Hedbor
message news:HE0Hc.6870$NA1.6...@news02.tsnz.net...
<inger_e....@notelia.com> was seen to type:
> >what I can't understand is why the pacifists doesn't seem to understand
that
> >you can't prevent dictators's actions with words and that it takes more
> >courage to stop men like Hitler and Saddam Hussein then to fight with
words
> >in the way the pacifists are so keen on doing!
>
> Always ? ... diplomacy and other options are a waste of time ? ...
> always ?
>
Indeed (to return this thread to its roots), Heinlein had some observations
on this point in Podkayne of Mars:
"Politics is just a name for how we get things done...without fighting"
Uncle Tom tells Podkayne, chiding for for spitting out the word as though it
were a curse. He continues after a brief history lesson, "politics is good
even when it's bad...because the only alternative is force--and somebody
gets hurt."
Diplomacy and politics are the first place we turn to resolve our conflicts
as civilized humans. Evidently, the radicalized Islamicists believed that
there was no relief for their grievances against the US in that direction
(or, you may take the interpretation that they opted not to behave as
civilized human beings), and commenced violence against this nation.
That we responded by eliminating their safe haven in Afghanistan, and by
reducing the level of succor that other nations in the region can now offer
to the terrorist forces does not represent a breakdown in diplomacy; there
was no diplomatic conversation in progress by that time, but only war. How
anyone can look at the indisputable facts in this conflict and find fault
with our actions to defend ourselves against an implacable foe utterly
astounds me.
The only rational conclusion is that they are, in some measure or another,
cheering for the enemy, hoping that the forces of terror and barbarism carry
the day. Either that, or they're willfully naive. The facts (unless you
subscribe to the wildest theories of the tinfoil hat brigade) are not in
dispute:
- al Qaeda launched a massive and vicious attack on the US in 2001.
- Their base of operations was in the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
- The Taliban acted as willing - even eager - hosts to bin Laden and his
grim band of brothers.
- The gov'ts of several other nations in the region provide(d) aid and
succor to al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
- Among these nations are/were Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
- Of these, only Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have shown even lukewarm interest
in assisting our efforts at self-defense; Iran and Syria at least gave it
some lip service.
- Iraq continued directly supporting terrorist groups, even publicly
boasting of sending payments to "martyr's" families.
- al Qaeda has a deep interest in acquiring the means to inflict ever
greater injuries upon the US and other nations of the 'West.'
- Saddam's Iraq demonstrated its possession of such weapons at several
junctures in recent history.
- When required by UN resolutions to account for their remaining WMDs, Iraq
utterly failed to do so.
- The US acted to enforce those resolutions, exactly as authorized by the
UN, and exactly as we promised the world (and warned Saddam) we would do.
In my opinion, we acted to defend ourselves against the horrifying
possibility of Saddam and bin Laden holding their noses and cooperating
against their common enemy. I believe that those who insist that bin Laden
and Saddam hated each other more than they hated us are being willfully
ignorant, in the service of the enemies of the civilized world.
Okay, I'll take my dunk in the pool now... I just needed to get that off my
chest. It's been bothering me for a while.
- Lars D. H. Hedbor
Oregon City, Oregon
Dr. Rufo
Art wrote:
< a bit of a snip >
> When I said 'played around with' I meant what I said--he explored
> them.
>
> The juveniles are chuck-full of fascist states (Red Planet, etc).The
> Moon is a Harsh Mistress, obviously.
Did you notice, perchance that there is a "revolution" involved in the
plot lines of both Red Planet and TMIAHM?
>Starman Jones.
The social structure described on the Earth where Max Jones lives is
most influenced by a large number of very powerful labor unions --Guilds
-- rather than any nation-state or dictatorial leader.
> Citizen.
In COTG the main social systems described are the Empire of the Sargon,
the association of Free Traders and the Terran Hegemony. Respectively, a
quasi-medieval society, a matrilineal autocracy and a system where
lawyers can and do 'Calcitran asinum' -- "legally."
>The
> system in Double Star was approaching it in many ways--though the
> king had lost his dictatorial powers
One of the outstanding portions of information you've overlooked is
that the Imperial House contained in Double Star is based/descended from
the House of Orange and Nassau. He even includes their motto: "Je
Maintiendrai." In 1572, William the Silent, Prince of Orange and Nassau,
was ELECTED William I, Stadholder of the Netherlands. Damned flimsy
basis for reading a "dictatorial state" into that monarchy.
--Heinlein reminds us that
> dictators are where you find them--and this is not necessarily in the
> throne room. Scudder was a fascist, certainly.
Scudder was also a televangelist -- The first I ever recognized. I
really did lead a very sheltered life was back in the Pre-Cambrian Period.
>Many, many more.
Wanna mention a couple?
>Why
> was Snug Harbor hidden so well if not to protect it and them from a
> fascist police state (to whatever degree it had evolved)?
Jacob wanted a hideaway. Jacob had dinero. Jacob cheated on his taxes
with the explicit collusion of Dr. Deety. The extra bucks had to go
somewhere, no? Surely an alpine hidey-hole is not peculiar to NOTB.
Didn't the Austro-Hungarian Habsburgs have a little place in Marienbad?
> His few endeavors into utopianism were the novels where the
> protagonist is NOT attempting to overthrow a fascist regime (Starship
> Troopers and BTH, et al).
>
Dearie me, THAT dog just WILL NOT hunt. Have you ever read a RAH 'happy
ending"?
> But there is fascism aplenty in RAH's body of work.
Bah, humbug!
Rufe
David M. Silver
<fBpHc.12960$yy1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > But there is fascism aplenty in RAH's body of work.
>
> Bah, humbug!
Er, what about the police state powers, banning of books, etc.,
on Terra in _Between Planets_, Rufo; or would you say it's just
democracy gone a teeny bit totalitarian? As if Joe McCarthy (or
someone whose name mentioned might get me tossed into the pool)
had taken over?
And a "merry Christmas to all" from Tiny Tim to you.
Vaughan Sanders
news:ccjt3a$ld8$2...@reader2.panix.com...snip
> History is not simply a dialog of opinions. It is also a
> record of human actions. Most of the actions that changed
> history did NOT involve war.
>
> As one example, we pride ourselves on our classical heritage
> taken from Greece and Rome. However, had Charlemagne, back
> in the 8th century, not ordered that the monasteries copy
> what they had of Greek and Roman works, they'd likely be
> mostly gone from the world. The monasteries, which had
> focussed on copying religious works, complied and the world
> became a different place.
>
I think this was due primarily to the Moors of Al-Andalus (Spain) who
translated the classical Greek into Arabic.
For example, Greek astronomy had been lost to Christianity, and only
rediscovered through these Muslim middle men.
These people were also the father's of modern medicine, at least where
surgery was concerned.
I think you will find that Charlemagne's monks had a lot of contact with
the scholars of Al-Andalus, as did Anglo-Saxon monks like Bede and
Alcuin.
The date of Easter was a bone of contention to the early Christians, so
the Greek astronomy kept alive by the Moors was of great importance to
the Christian factions. Roman v Celtic church for example.
Charlemagne was criticized by Alcuin for his forced conversion of the
pagan Saxons to the north, and the brutality they suffered. This method
appears to have been used against their earlier pagan Anglo-Saxon
cousins, recent evidence discovered at Sutton Hoo suggests.
> Such examples could be multiplied endlessly.
>
Jamie
snip
Bill Reich
> In article
> <fBpHc.12960$yy1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > But there is fascism aplenty in RAH's body of work.
> >
> > Bah, humbug!
>
> Er, what about the police state powers, banning of books, etc.,
> on Terra in _Between Planets_, Rufo; or would you say it's just
> democracy gone a teeny bit totalitarian? As if Joe McCarthy (or
> someone whose name mentioned might get me tossed into the pool)
> had taken over?
>
> And a "merry Christmas to all" from Tiny Tim to you.
It is quite possible to be an authoritarian, oppressive state and
still not be fascist. It isn't even a matter of degree. No matter how
strongly flavored a caramel object is, it still isn't chocolate. That
is a nit-pick I will continue to make on the subject of fascism but it
isn't my main point.
My main point is that Heinlein never portrayed fascists or
authoritarian states in a favorable light. Sure, he could portray a
government functionary doing his best in a sympathetic manner but he
sided with liberty and so did most of his major characters, even when
they overstepped the bounds of what is right and proper in order to
further liberty.
Will in New Haven
--
Liberty isn't primarily a left/right issue; Barry Goldwater would have
been revolted by some aspects of the Patriot Act. So would Ayn Rand.
President Bush may BE bringing us together
Art
"Dr. Rufo" wrote:
>
> Art wrote:
> < a bit of a snip >
>
> > When I said 'played around with' I meant what I said--he explored
> > them.
> >
> > The juveniles are chuck-full of fascist states (Red Planet, etc).The
> > Moon is a Harsh Mistress, obviously.
>
> Did you notice, perchance that there is a "revolution" involved in the
> plot lines of both Red Planet and TMIAHM?
Heh.
:-)
>
> >Starman Jones.
> The social structure described on the Earth where Max Jones lives is
> most influenced by a large number of very powerful labor unions --Guilds
> -- rather than any nation-state or dictatorial leader.
Guilds are based on many of the principles of fascism, n'est pas?
If you have two kings in a fascist system, it is still fascism--is it
not? What if you have 15 kings? Sure, it is an oligarchy, but it can
/also/ be a fascist oligarchy.
>
> > Citizen.
> In COTG the main social systems described are the Empire of the Sargon,
> the association of Free Traders and the Terran Hegemony. Respectively, a
> quasi-medieval society, a matrilineal autocracy and a system where
> lawyers can and do 'Calcitran asinum' -- "legally."
All states that incorporate slavery are fascist; to the extent of that
slavery. If the state is viewed as superseding the rights of /any/
defined group in that society, it is fascism, at least in the better
defined sense of the term.
> >The
> > system in Double Star was approaching it in many ways--though the
> > king had lost his dictatorial powers
> One of the outstanding portions of information you've overlooked is
> that the Imperial House contained in Double Star is based/descended from
> the House of Orange and Nassau. He even includes their motto: "Je
> Maintiendrai." In 1572, William the Silent, Prince of Orange and Nassau,
> was ELECTED William I, Stadholder of the Netherlands. Damned flimsy
> basis for reading a "dictatorial state" into that monarchy.
The Roman Senate regularly elected dictators, 'till Caesar put a stop to
that particular inefficiency. Parliament elected Schickelgruber
Chancellor, did it not?
Constitutional Monarchies are, well, fascist states checked by strong
legislative and judicial branches. ISTM that in most, if not all CM's,
it is implicitly held that private property only exists by the grace of
the state.
>
> --Heinlein reminds us that
> > dictators are where you find them--and this is not necessarily in the
> > throne room. Scudder was a fascist, certainly.
>
> Scudder was also a televangelist -- The first I ever recognized. I
> really did lead a very sheltered life was back in the Pre-Cambrian Period.
Based on Gantry, but a very real and growing power in this country as I
first read it in the Seventies (during the hey day of Jim Bakker). ISTM
they were dangerous as long as that particular evangelical constituency
perceived they had no voice--which they had definitely lost during the
later 50's through the 70's. They are not so dangerous now since RWR
gave them back that voice.
But priests have /always/ contended for power. They do better in fascist
states, though, in truth, Marty Bormann was convinced that the church
would have to be dismantled after the war. Sometimes they do /too/ well.
> >Many, many more.
>
> Wanna mention a couple?
> >Why
> > was Snug Harbor hidden so well if not to protect it and them from a
> > fascist police state (to whatever degree it had evolved)?
> Jacob wanted a hideaway. Jacob had dinero. Jacob cheated on his taxes
> with the explicit collusion of Dr. Deety. The extra bucks had to go
> somewhere, no? Surely an alpine hidey-hole is not peculiar to NOTB.
> Didn't the Austro-Hungarian Habsburgs have a little place in Marienbad?
Sure. But the point is a state police force existed in an economy that
mixes free enterprise with central control. You needn't have Toothbrush
Mustaches, Pretty Gray Uniforms and a Dachau to have yourself a fascist state.
Statism has two houses: Fascism and Communism. If a government willingly
institutionalizes its ability to negate individual freedom of choice,
then it will fall within the shadow one of those two houses.
Period.
Though the degree varies, of course. But it is understood that once a
government crosses that line, changing conditions can make it more or
less a fascist or communist state.
Understood by Robert, at any rate.
>
> > His few endeavors into utopianism were the novels where the
> > protagonist is NOT attempting to overthrow a fascist regime (Starship
> > Troopers and BTH, et al).
> >
> Dearie me, THAT dog just WILL NOT hunt. Have you ever read a RAH 'happy
> ending"?
Proust points out that "happily ever after" only signifies that /their/
part in the story is over, and now it is the children's turn to fight
the dragon (in the /next/ story).
>
> > But there is fascism aplenty in RAH's body of work.
>
> Bah, humbug!
Yes, Dickens /was/ in favor of fascism--since fascism is usually seen as
the best way of swiftly ending poverty.
---
Art
"No; I have not been charged with that.
In fact, nobody has said that to me yet."
---Lee Oswald
(1963)
BPRAL22169
>When I said 'played around with' I meant what I said--he explored them.
None of the examples you cited are anything close to a fascist state or fascist
ideology in any of the various definitions of the term. I suggest that
research into historical and theoretical fascism might lead you to reconsider.
If you want to say that Heinlein appears to have been concerned about the
relation of the individual to the state -- one of the most thorny problems of
the 20th century -- and portrayed many different levels of subordination of the
individual to the state in his fiction over a 50 year period, ranging from
atomistic individualism to complete subordination (in. e.g., Sixth Column),
then you would be on firm ground. But you would also be making a trivial
statement about Heinlein: it was a big deal in the 20th century and remains a
hot issue now. You have simply grouped Heinlein among those concerned about
the way American society was evolving.
Also, I think I may have to retreat a bit from my categorical statement
earlier. I think one or more of the states described in Friday might qualify
under some definitions of fascism.
Bill
BPRAL22169
>Er, what about the police state powers, banning of books, etc.,
>on Terra in _Between Planets_,
Urk! you're right. I had forgotten that one (had it mentally filed under
"decadent") Another retreat from the categorical for me.
I think the economic definition of a fascist system is private-ownership/state
control; the anthropological definition centers on the fuehrerprinzip. Racism
seems to be an incidental characteristic, though they do seem to need at least
one major "outgroup" for the psychological dynamics to work.
Bill
BPRAL22169
>If you have two kings in a fascist system, it is still fascism--is it
>not? What if you have 15 kings? Sure, it is an oligarchy, but it can
>/also/ be a fascist oligarchy.
You can't have two kings in a fascist system; you can have subordinates you
call kings, but they won't be kings. The leader principle is a core doctrine
of historical fascisms.
>All states that incorporate slavery are fascist; to the extent of that
>slavery. If the state is viewed as superseding the rights of /any/
>defined group in that society, it is fascism, at least in the better
>defined sense of the term.
Art, you are really proving my point that you need to do some research. You
are just defining anything you don't happen to like as "fascism" and destroying
any possible meaning the term might have.
Bill
David M. Silver
bpral...@aol.com (BPRAL22169) wrote:
> >If you have two kings in a fascist system, it is still fascism--is it
> >not? What if you have 15 kings? Sure, it is an oligarchy, but it can
> >/also/ be a fascist oligarchy.
>
> You can't have two kings in a fascist system; you can have subordinates you
> call kings, but they won't be kings. The leader principle is a core doctrine
> of historical fascisms.
Victor Emmanuel might differ, Bill. Figurehead, yes; but he was a
King.
David M. Silver
willre...@yahoo.com (Bill Reich) wrote:
I totally agree, Will (Heinlein never portrayed it favorably,
etc.); and I'd suggest the not fully portrayed government of
_Between Planets_ wasn't fully portrayed because a full-dress
fascism [eine furher, etc.] wasn't necessary to the story -- it
was enough that it exercised tolitarian powers -- "bookleggers"
indeed!
Art
"David M. Silver" wrote:
>
> In article <20040709112012...@mb-m03.aol.com>,
> bpral...@aol.com (BPRAL22169) wrote:
>
> > >If you have two kings in a fascist system, it is still fascism--is it
> > >not? What if you have 15 kings? Sure, it is an oligarchy, but it can
> > >/also/ be a fascist oligarchy.
> >
> > You can't have two kings in a fascist system; you can have subordinates you
> > call kings, but they won't be kings. The leader principle is a core doctrine
> > of historical fascisms.
>
> Victor Emmanuel might differ, Bill. Figurehead, yes; but he was a
> King.
>
Too bad he called on il Duce instead of Bonforte to form a new
government, eh?
---
Art
Howard Berkowitz
> "David M. Silver" <ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:<ag.plusone-55605...@individual.net>...
> > In article
> > <fBpHc.12960$yy1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > "Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > But there is fascism aplenty in RAH's body of work.
> > >
> > > Bah, humbug!
> >
> > Er, what about the police state powers, banning of books, etc.,
> > on Terra in _Between Planets_, Rufo; or would you say it's just
> > democracy gone a teeny bit totalitarian? As if Joe McCarthy (or
> > someone whose name mentioned might get me tossed into the pool)
> > had taken over?
> >
The scary thing of Between Planets, and to some extent ITGO, is that the
baddies are efficient and not necessarily gratuitously violent -- in
contrast, say, with those of Sixth Column.
> It is quite possible to be an authoritarian, oppressive state and
> still not be fascist. It isn't even a matter of degree. No matter how
> strongly flavored a caramel object is, it still isn't chocolate. That
> is a nit-pick I will continue to make on the subject of fascism but it
> isn't my main point.
Absolute agreement -- not all forms of tyranny are fascists.
>
> My main point is that Heinlein never portrayed fascists or
> authoritarian states in a favorable light. Sure, he could portray a
> government functionary doing his best in a sympathetic manner but he
> sided with liberty and so did most of his major characters, even when
> they overstepped the bounds of what is right and proper in order to
> further liberty.
He had a wide range of levels of sympathy. In ITGO, Lyle uncomfortably
observed that the Inquisitors took no sadistic pleasure in their
work--just coldly efficient. In Between Planets, the secret police at
least start without the third degree--and with real interrogations,
that's often not necessary.
I'm not saying, in any way, RAH liked these slime. I am saying he
recognized that the violence might not be gratuitous, and, in the scary
thing, a totalitarian government might be intolerant of individual
sadism.
Howard Berkowitz
> "Dr. Rufo" wrote:
> >
> > Art wrote:
> > < a bit of a snip >
> >
> > > When I said 'played around with' I meant what I said--he explored
> > > them.
> > >
> > > The juveniles are chuck-full of fascist states (Red Planet, etc).The
> > > Moon is a Harsh Mistress, obviously.
> >
> > Did you notice, perchance that there is a "revolution" involved
> > in the
> > plot lines of both Red Planet and TMIAHM?
>
> Heh.
>
> :-)
> >
> > >Starman Jones.
> > The social structure described on the Earth where Max Jones
> > lives is
> > most influenced by a large number of very powerful labor unions
> > --Guilds
> > -- rather than any nation-state or dictatorial leader.
>
> Guilds are based on many of the principles of fascism, n'est pas?
>
> If you have two kings in a fascist system, it is still fascism--is it
> not? What if you have 15 kings? Sure, it is an oligarchy, but it can
> /also/ be a fascist oligarchy.
Could you give your definition of fascism? I generally consider one of
the requisites to be an infallible Leader that claims they rose to power
from popular will. Such a leader can name successors, but they are not
necessarily going to be relatives. Not all absolute monarchy is fascist
and not all fascist states are royalist.
> All states that incorporate slavery are fascist; to the extent of that
> slavery.
Totalitarian, yes. But I'm having trouble folliwing your use of fascist
as an apparent synonym of any kind of authoritarianism.
>If the state is viewed as superseding the rights of /any/
> defined group in that society, it is fascism, at least in the better
> defined sense of the term.
>
>
> The Roman Senate regularly elected dictators, 'till Caesar put a stop to
> that particular inefficiency. Parliament elected Schickelgruber
> Chancellor, did it not?
It did not. Please verify how Hitler was named Reichkanzler.
>
> Based on Gantry, but a very real and growing power in this country as I
> first read it in the Seventies (during the hey day of Jim Bakker). ISTM
> they were dangerous as long as that particular evangelical constituency
> perceived they had no voice--which they had definitely lost during the
> later 50's through the 70's. They are not so dangerous now since RWR
> gave them back that voice.
RWR? Radar warning receiver doesn't quite fit...
>
> But priests have /always/ contended for power. They do better in fascist
> states, though, in truth, Marty Bormann was convinced that the church
> would have to be dismantled after the war. Sometimes they do /too/ well.
Perhaps it would be more historically accurate to note Hitler's and
Bimmler's respect for the Jesuits, and, indeed, a number of SS rituals
were adapted from Jesuit doctrine. Offhand, I don't think of Bormann as
one of the Nazis terribly involved with religion -- quite a number of
others come to mind before him. Have you a cite?
> Sure. But the point is a state police force existed in an economy that
> mixes free enterprise with central control. You needn't have Toothbrush
> Mustaches, Pretty Gray Uniforms and a Dachau to have yourself a fascist
> state.
>
> Statism has two houses: Fascism and Communism. If a government willingly
> institutionalizes its ability to negate individual freedom of choice,
> then it will fall within the shadow one of those two houses.
It's certainly not limited to those two. Try arguing that with a
mutawain.
>
Howard Berkowitz
Silver" <ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> In article <20040709112012...@mb-m03.aol.com>,
> bpral...@aol.com (BPRAL22169) wrote:
>
> > >If you have two kings in a fascist system, it is still fascism--is it
> > >not? What if you have 15 kings? Sure, it is an oligarchy, but it can
> > >/also/ be a fascist oligarchy.
> >
> > You can't have two kings in a fascist system; you can have subordinates
> > you
> > call kings, but they won't be kings. The leader principle is a core
> > doctrine
> > of historical fascisms.
>
> Victor Emmanuel might differ, Bill. Figurehead, yes; but he was a
> King.
Accepting that Nazi Germany was a form of fascism, one might consider
Hindenburg as head of state (president) while Hitler was head of
government (chancellor). Admittedly, this was a short period given
Hindenburg was quite frail at the time of appointment. Hitler was also
not the first Reichkanzler under Hindenburg -- it's interesting to think
about the political positioning of those (some very, very briefly)
before Hitler.
Art
BPRAL22169 wrote:
>
> Art[y_faque]
>
> >If you have two kings in a fascist system, it is still fascism--is it
> >not? What if you have 15 kings? Sure, it is an oligarchy, but it can
> >/also/ be a fascist oligarchy.
>
> You can't have two kings in a fascist system; you can have subordinates you
> call kings, but they won't be kings. The leader principle is a core doctrine
> of historical fascisms.
Whoa, Bill--it seems we're, perhaps, talking to cross purposes here.
Fascism, at its historical roots, was basically a reaction to
international communism. Gentile is at odds with both Franco and Hitler
in many respects. The 'leader principle' is not as important as strong
central authority to the doctrine--the 'leader principle' is only one
way of implementing its principles. If you disagree, well, then you disagree.
But I fail to see how fascism can /never/ be implemented under an
oligarchy, for instance. The Mullahs, as an example, are fascists in
that they exercise strong central authority, limit the powers of the
legislative branch and influence/control the electoral process, seek to
unify the classes, allow capitalism to exist under a dominant
governmental partnership, etc., etc. I would think /how a dictatorship
is implemented/ is the least important component to /what it is/.
Perhaps 'neo-fascist' is more to the point in some respects, but, for
the circumstances of this discussion, I think 'fascism' is an adequate
term; 'neo-fascism' only serves to cloud the prime issues.
>
> >All states that incorporate slavery are fascist; to the extent of that
> >slavery. If the state is viewed as superseding the rights of /any/
> >defined group in that society, it is fascism, at least in the better
> >defined sense of the term.
>
> Art, you are really proving my point that you need to do some research.
Bill, this would /never/ be an untrue statement were it directed to me,
or you, or anyone.
> You are just defining anything you don't happen to like as "fascism" and destroying
> any possible meaning the term might have.
Again, I think this is a failure on my part to communicate, and
seemingly, the pejorative nature of the term--and your anticipation of
that pejorative nature. It is clearly a loaded word.
The meaning of fascism, while being a doctrine, is not so dependent on
method as it is on its goals and results. It has to be looked at in
aggregate--and degrees. Just as there are and have never been any
capitalistic governments in the world, so too never were or are there
any communistic or fascist governments. How closely they resemble the
ideal is how they are defined.
If you disagree, well, then you disagree.
---
Art
Howard Berkowitz
> Perhaps 'neo-fascist' is more to the point in some respects, but, for
> the circumstances of this discussion, I think 'fascism' is an adequate
> term; 'neo-fascism' only serves to cloud the prime issues.
>
Could you live with "totalitarian", which, I believe, gets completely
away from the "how"?
Art
1) Strong central authority [an authoritarian or totalitarian system]
2) Statolatry 3) Unity of or elimination of classes 4) Corporatism 5)
Imperialism 6) Anti-communism 7) Anti-capitalism.
Conceivably, not every element needs be necessarily present for positive
classification as fascist.
Fascism didn't begin in 1915 Italy, nor did it end in 1945 (and not just
because Franco survived). However, few fascist governments would
proclaim themselves to be such today. North Korea, for instance, is
generally considered to be a fascist or a neo-fascist regime.
> I generally consider one of
> the requisites to be an infallible Leader that claims they rose to power
> from popular will. Such a leader can name successors, but they are not
> necessarily going to be relatives. Not all absolute monarchy is fascist
> and not all fascist states are royalist.
An infallible leader is the usual method for strong central authority;
while it is understood that the bureaucracy cannot get /all/ of its
policy mandates from HQ. Hitler, for instance, was famous for /not/
giving directives.
Non-hereditary oligarchies may, under certain circumstances, be more
efficient at implementing fascism's principles than a singular dictator. IMO.
---
Art
Bill Reich
That just isn't true, unless you have defined the term "fascist" to
mean "oppressive." Fascism was devised in the late Nineteenth/early
Twentieth centuries. The Pharoahs were oppressive, the Norman
nobility, the Confederate States of America, the Shogunate and the
rule of almost every village chieftan were ALL oppressive. None of
them were fascistic. The shoguns come the closest, I suppose. Fascism
means something other than "every state i don't like" or even "every
oppressive state that doesn't claim to be socialistic." If you want to
call every oppressive state fascist, you are free to do so but it does
not further discourse to bend words so far.
What links Mussolini, Franco, Perone, Salazare and some other, more
minor, thugs that does NOT link them to Hitler (not closely, anyway)
Stalin or Mao? Fascism, that's what. It does not mean that the latter
three are better, far from it. They are just not fascists. Neither is
Jeff Davis. Or Ramses VII. Why not just call EVERYTHING fascism and
work out the details later.
This is every bit as sloppy as labeling extreme welfare-state
advocates socialists and just as productive of nothing useful.
The place that had Dachau was not a fascist state.
>
> Statism has two houses: Fascism and Communism. If a government willingly
> institutionalizes its ability to negate individual freedom of choice,
> then it will fall within the shadow one of those two houses.
>
> Period.
Garbage. Monarchy pre-exisists both of those "houses." Theocracy
pre-exists both of those houses. Don't over-simplify so damn much.
> Though the degree varies, of course. But it is understood that once a
> government crosses that line, changing conditions can make it more or
> less a fascist or communist state.
>
> Understood by Robert, at any rate.
> >
> > > His few endeavors into utopianism were the novels where the
> > > protagonist is NOT attempting to overthrow a fascist regime (Starship
> > > Troopers and BTH, et al).
> > >
> > Dearie me, THAT dog just WILL NOT hunt. Have you ever read a RAH 'happy
> > ending"?
>
> Proust points out that "happily ever after" only signifies that /their/
> part in the story is over, and now it is the children's turn to fight
> the dragon (in the /next/ story).
> >
> > > But there is fascism aplenty in RAH's body of work.
There are all KINDS of bad states in RAH's body of work. Some even
might meet the proper (narrow) definition of fascism.
> >
> > Bah, humbug!
>
> Yes, Dickens /was/ in favor of fascism--since fascism is usually seen as
> the best way of swiftly ending poverty.
>
> ---
> Art
>
> "No; I have not been charged with that.
> In fact, nobody has said that to me yet."
> ---Lee Oswald
> (1963)
Will in New Haven
--
The people in this film are running TOWARD that little hill. Clearly
this shows there is gunfire coming from that spot.
Howard Berkowitz
> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
> >
>
> > Could you give your definition of fascism?
>
> 1) Strong central authority [an authoritarian or totalitarian system]
> 2) Statolatry 3) Unity of or elimination of classes 4) Corporatism 5)
> Imperialism 6) Anti-communism 7) Anti-capitalism.
It would seem that the Nazis don't thoroughly meet this definition,
which isn't necessarily a problem.
Does the Nazi concept of the SS elite, above and beyond the general
racial theories, conflict with unity of classes?
Krupp, Thyssen, IG Farben, etc., might wonder if they were operating in
an anti-capitalist environment.
>
> Conceivably, not every element needs be necessarily present for positive
> classification as fascist.
Roughly how many do have to be present? Are there some that are
essential?
Do you differentiate between statolatry and the concept of a Leader?
>
> Fascism didn't begin in 1915 Italy, nor did it end in 1945 (and not just
> because Franco survived). However, few fascist governments would
> proclaim themselves to be such today. North Korea, for instance, is
> generally considered to be a fascist or a neo-fascist regime.
In many respects, including the Fuehrerprizip, yes. They do get into
trouble, at least on the surface, with anticommunism. Does their
imperialism extend beyond what could be regarded as civil war?
>
> > I generally consider one of
> > the requisites to be an infallible Leader that claims they rose to
> > power
> > from popular will. Such a leader can name successors, but they are not
> > necessarily going to be relatives. Not all absolute monarchy is fascist
> > and not all fascist states are royalist.
>
> An infallible leader is the usual method for strong central authority;
> while it is understood that the bureaucracy cannot get /all/ of its
> policy mandates from HQ. Hitler, for instance, was famous for /not/
> giving directives.
Right. But when he DID give directives, with exceptions at the end, they
were absolute.
>
> Non-hereditary oligarchies may, under certain circumstances, be more
> efficient at implementing fascism's principles than a singular dictator.
> IMO.
They certainly may be more effective in implementing totalitarianism, as
with the fUSSR. To take a fictional example, in _1984_, Big Brother
appeared to be a symbolic Leader, but actual control was from the Inner
Party. Unfortunately, we know nothing of its structure.
Howard Berkowitz
> Art <arty_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<40EEA53...@yahoo.com>...
> > "Dr. Rufo" wrote:
> That just isn't true, unless you have defined the term "fascist" to
> mean "oppressive." Fascism was devised in the late Nineteenth/early
> Twentieth centuries. The Pharoahs were oppressive, the Norman
> nobility, the Confederate States of America, the Shogunate and the
> rule of almost every village chieftan were ALL oppressive. None of
> them were fascistic. The shoguns come the closest, I suppose.
You make a reasonable point in the case of the Shogunate. Where I start
to have a problem is with the leader-principle from the first shogun,
Yoritomo, in 1182, to the Meiji Restoration. In this situation, what
was the role of the Emperor? He seemed more the infallible leader than
the strong head of government.
Also, Confucianism and State Shinto have significant roles in the
structure here, rather than political ideology.
.
> > Sure. But the point is a state police force existed in an economy that
> > mixes free enterprise with central control. You needn't have Toothbrush
> > Mustaches, Pretty Gray Uniforms and a Dachau to have yourself a fascist
> > state.
>
> The place that had Dachau was not a fascist state.
How do you define that state? Is Naziism not a subset of fascism?
Art
Bill Reich wrote:
[snip]
>
> That just isn't true, unless you have defined the term "fascist" to
> mean "oppressive." Fascism was devised in the late Nineteenth/early
> Twentieth centuries. The Pharoahs were oppressive, the Norman
> nobility, the Confederate States of America, the Shogunate and the
> rule of almost every village chieftan were ALL oppressive. None of
> them were fascistic. The shoguns come the closest, I suppose. Fascism
> means something other than "every state i don't like" or even "every
> oppressive state that doesn't claim to be socialistic." If you want to
> call every oppressive state fascist, you are free to do so but it does
> not further discourse to bend words so far.
>
> What links Mussolini, Franco, Perone, Salazare and some other, more
> minor, thugs that does NOT link them to Hitler (not closely, anyway)
> Stalin or Mao? Fascism, that's what. It does not mean that the latter
> three are better, far from it. They are just not fascists. Neither is
> Jeff Davis. Or Ramses VII. Why not just call EVERYTHING fascism and
> work out the details later.
>
> This is every bit as sloppy as labeling extreme welfare-state
> advocates socialists and just as productive of nothing useful.
[snip]
>
> Garbage. Monarchy pre-exisists both of those "houses." Theocracy
> pre-exists both of those houses. Don't over-simplify so damn much.
Maybe I'm jes' lonely and over-simplifying is the only way I can get a
rise outa ya. However, please see my other posts in this thread.
Or maybe I'm painting in broad strokes to make an even broader point. A
broader point I see in RAH's own broad strokes. The one stroke, perhaps,
that resonates personally with me more than all his others combined.
David M. Silver
Dr. Rufo
David M. Silver wrote:
> In article
> <fBpHc.12960$yy1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>But there is fascism aplenty in RAH's body of work.
>>
>> Bah, humbug!
>
>
> Er, what about the police state powers, banning of books, etc.,
> on Terra in _Between Planets_, Rufo; or would you say it's just
> democracy gone a teeny bit totalitarian? As if Joe McCarthy (or
> someone whose name mentioned might get me tossed into the pool)
> had taken over?
Piffle, 'tis yet one more example of the 'set-up' and the 'revolution'
ain't it? The BAD GUYS are IN and the REVOLUTION is ON! 'Venus and
Freedom!' and 'Free Luna' and 'We won't winter in the high latitudes!'
(cf. my previous of the 8th inst.).
>
> And a "merry Christmas to all" from Tiny Tim to you.
>
The 'Bah, humbug!' Remains -- the existence of a soi-disant fascist
state is ever the rationale for the Revolution: Power to the People!
Pax,
Rufe
David Thornley
Lars Hedbor <lhe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>That we responded by eliminating their safe haven in Afghanistan, and by
>reducing the level of succor that other nations in the region can now offer
>to the terrorist forces does not represent a breakdown in diplomacy; there
>was no diplomatic conversation in progress by that time, but only war. How
>anyone can look at the indisputable facts in this conflict and find fault
>with our actions to defend ourselves against an implacable foe utterly
>astounds me.
>
There are always lawless forces of evil somewhere. Always. The
question is what measures to take. Nor is the right of self-defense
unlimited, when it comes to hurting others.
There are criminals that are quite comparable, morally, to terrorists.
Most people do not consider it warranted to use methods against them
that will make innocent people suffer excessively.
>The only rational conclusion is that they are, in some measure or another,
>cheering for the enemy, hoping that the forces of terror and barbarism carry
>the day. Either that, or they're willfully naive. The facts (unless you
>subscribe to the wildest theories of the tinfoil hat brigade) are not in
>dispute:
>
>- al Qaeda launched a massive and vicious attack on the US in 2001.
True, but don't exaggerate its size.
>- Their base of operations was in the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
True.
>- The Taliban acted as willing - even eager - hosts to bin Laden and his
>grim band of brothers.
Sure did.
>- The gov'ts of several other nations in the region provide(d) aid and
>succor to al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
Lots of governments do.
>- Among these nations are/were Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
While Iraq had a considerable numbers of ties to terrorists, they had
essentially no ties to al-Qaida or to any other sizable anti-US
terrorism. Invading them was *not* an act of self-defense, unlike
the invasion of Afghanistan.
>- Of these, only Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have shown even lukewarm interest
>in assisting our efforts at self-defense; Iran and Syria at least gave it
>some lip service.
So? It's not as if Saudi Arabia has done anything material about
al-Qaida, other than financing it and supplying recruits.
>- Iraq continued directly supporting terrorist groups, even publicly
>boasting of sending payments to "martyr's" families.
Yup. Not a direct US concern.
>- al Qaeda has a deep interest in acquiring the means to inflict ever
>greater injuries upon the US and other nations of the 'West.'
Yup.
>- Saddam's Iraq demonstrated its possession of such weapons at several
>junctures in recent history.
Some of them.
>- When required by UN resolutions to account for their remaining WMDs, Iraq
>utterly failed to do so.
Pretty much yes. He did destroy most of them, and stopped the programs.
Not out of any humanitarian concerns, or anything like that, but because
he was afraid. In other words, the UN actions had already effectively
disarmed him, and he was in reality no immediate threat. Since the UNSC
passed 1441, the UNSC should have been given the opportunity to either
put up or shut up with the next resolution.
>- The US acted to enforce those resolutions, exactly as authorized by the
>UN, and exactly as we promised the world (and warned Saddam) we would do.
>
Wrong. The US was not authorized by the UN, and did not act to enforce
those resolutions except in an incidental sense. The US did not act
to try to secure chemical and biological weapon sites, for example.
>In my opinion, we acted to defend ourselves against the horrifying
>possibility of Saddam and bin Laden holding their noses and cooperating
>against their common enemy.
I'd think Kim Il-Jong more of a threat, and he didn't have any anti-Osama
baggage. I think there was no realistic possibility of Saddam materially
helping Osama in the foreseeable future.
I believe that those who insist that bin Laden
>and Saddam hated each other more than they hated us are being willfully
>ignorant, in the service of the enemies of the civilized world.
>
I believe you are ignorant, possibly willfully so, in seeing the wmotions
of the world as directed against us. Both Osama and Saddam hate the US.
They hate each other. Saddam kept al-Qaida from operating in the parts
of Iraq he controlled for the most part. Nobody's doing that now.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
BPRAL22169
>Victor Emmanuel might differ, Bill. Figurehead, yes; but he was a
>King.
Yes. You have made my point. You can call "king" anything you want.
Bill
BPRAL22169
>Accepting that Nazi Germany was a form of fascism, one might consider
>Hindenburg as head of state (president) while Hitler was head of
>government (chancellor).
You are talking about a transition period from the Weimar democracy to the Nazi
regime, during which there was nominal coalition rule. Fuehrerprinzip only
applied to the Party at the point. The German state became structurally
fascistic a bit later.
Bill
BPRAL22169
>the 'leader principle' is only one
>way of implementing its principles. If you disagree, well, then you disagree.
I don't disagree with your facts -- just your interpretation. We have several
historical models named fascism to draw on. Every single one of them included
the leader principle as an anthropological observation. It's certainly true
that you could implement totalitarianism under other doctrines -- but that
makes them other doctrines and not fascism.
The opposition to communism is, likewise, not a core fascist characteristic;
even though the four major historical fascisms did display it. What is core --
or perhaps a corollary to a core -- is that there must be some Other to focus
attention on; Nazi Germany had two: Jews and Communists; Franco's Spain and
Mussolini's Italy were very perfunctory anti-Semites, though enthusiastic
anti-communists (I think Peron's Argentina was perfunctory on both). What
particular target is chosen is a matter of what particular time it is and who's
available at the moment.
I don't need to>But I fail to see how fascism can /never/ be implemented under
an
>oligarchy, for instance.
Not what I said. You can have a fascist oligarchy -- in fact Nazi Germany was
just that. But you can only have one "racial spirit embodiment." -- that's
what the leader principle means. The oligarchy takes on the form of a satrapy.
The point is, you are stretching the definition of fascism way out of shape in
order to apply it to situations where it just doesn't fit very well, and
coincidentally doing yourself no service. There are many kinds of
authority-states; there are many kinds of terror-states; there are many kinds
of total states. Trying to use an inapposite name for bunches of them cripples
nuanced thinking about them.
Bill
Bill Reich
Howard Berkowitz <h...@gettcomm.com> wrote:
>In article <7ce91b09.04070...@posting.google.com>,
>willre...@yahoo.com (Bill Reich) wrote:
>
>> Art <arty_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:<40EEA53...@yahoo.com>...
>> > "Dr. Rufo" wrote:
>
>
>> That just isn't true, unless you have defined the term "fascist" to
>> mean "oppressive." Fascism was devised in the late Nineteenth/early
>> Twentieth centuries. The Pharoahs were oppressive, the Norman
>> nobility, the Confederate States of America, the Shogunate and the
>> rule of almost every village chieftan were ALL oppressive. None of
>> them were fascistic. The shoguns come the closest, I suppose.
>
>You make a reasonable point in the case of the Shogunate. Where I start
>to have a problem is with the leader-principle from the first shogun,
>Yoritomo, in 1182, to the Meiji Restoration. In this situation, what
>was the role of the Emperor? He seemed more the infallible leader than
>the strong head of government.
>
>Also, Confucianism and State Shinto have significant roles in the
>structure here, rather than political ideology.
>..
>
>> > Sure. But the point is a state police force existed in an economy that
>> > mixes free enterprise with central control. You needn't have Toothbrush
>> > Mustaches, Pretty Gray Uniforms and a Dachau to have yourself a fascist
>> > state.
>>
>> The place that had Dachau was not a fascist state.
>
>How do you define that state? Is Naziism not a subset of fascism?
No. I am certainly not defending nazism from a charge of fascism or fascism
from a charge of including nazism. However, fascism was a finite political
movement that had source material and a history. Nazism originated independant
of that source material and that history.
I studied this stuff so long ago that it will take me days to track down
the source material and I have a movie review to write and poker to play.
I will post material to support this in a few days.
It is amazing how few of the original designers of nazi party were right-wing
as we would use the term.
The state that resulted from the Nazi movement certainly had a resemblance
to the one implemented by the fascist regimes but much of it was parallel
evolution and some of it was imitation that came about after they were allied.
Nationalism and socialism were real bywords in the early days. Cooperation
with big business was not part of the original theory as it was in fascism.
It was born of need. Cooperation with big labor, another tenet of fascism,
never really caught on with the Nazis.
When Mussolini stopped Hitler's first attempts to unite with Austria, there
was little sympathy between them.
Will in New Haven
--
"I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom.
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them
tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break
them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally
responsible for everything I do."
--Professor Bernardo de la Paz
in Robert A. Heinlein's _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
My Name Is Not Simon Jester
> Whoa, Bill--it seems we're, perhaps, talking to cross purposes here.
> Fascism, at its historical roots, was basically a reaction to
> international communism. Gentile is at odds with both Franco and Hitler
> in many respects. The 'leader principle' is not as important as strong
> central authority to the doctrine--the 'leader principle' is only one
> way of implementing its principles. If you disagree, well, then you disagree.
>
> But I fail to see how fascism can /never/ be implemented under an
> oligarchy, for instance. The Mullahs, as an example, are fascists in
> that they exercise strong central authority, limit the powers of the
> legislative branch and influence/control the electoral process, seek to
> unify the classes, allow capitalism to exist under a dominant
> governmental partnership, etc., etc. I would think /how a dictatorship
> is implemented/ is the least important component to /what it is/.
Weren't the early Roman leaders defacto Fascist? I seem to recall cases
of co-rulers...
--
Simon Jester says my name is not real...
LJ - mynameisnotreal
eBay - angahelihoo
redpaper - simonjester
----------------------
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.2
GAT d--- s++:++ a>? C++++ P+ L+ W++
N+ w---@ PS+ PE Y+ t+(*) tv-- b++++>$
DI++ D++ G++ e*>+++++ h---- r+++ y+++(**)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
My Name Is Not Simon Jester
>
> 1) Strong central authority [an authoritarian or totalitarian system]
> 2) Statolatry 3) Unity of or elimination of classes 4) Corporatism 5)
> Imperialism 6) Anti-communism 7) Anti-capitalism.
>
Okay, not disagreeing with you; asking a question. How can you be
pro-corporate but anti capitalism?
Howard Berkowitz
Simon Jester <simonje...@spamzilla.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Weren't the early Roman leaders defacto Fascist? I seem to recall cases
> of co-rulers...
Well, given they invented the fasces as a symbol...
Art
simonje...@spamzilla.hotmail.com
> wrote in message news:84CdnfYwK5I...@wideopenwest.com...
> Art wrote:
>
> >
> > 1) Strong central authority [an authoritarian or totalitarian system]
> > 2) Statolatry 3) Unity of or elimination of classes 4) Corporatism 5)
> > Imperialism 6) Anti-communism 7) Anti-capitalism.
> >
>
>
> Okay, not disagreeing with you; asking a question. How can you be
> pro-corporate but anti capitalism?
>
Corporatism is kinda like Dupont having a representative in congress (which
they do have here in the US, btw, but their representative(s) isn't allowed
on the assembly floor--in corporatism he would have a /seat/). The U.S.
Department of Agriculture is a good example of corporatism, and is one of
the many reasons fascism usually Plays Well in Peoria.
Enron, for example, was not an institution born of capitalism, but one born
of fascism (not technically, but in spirit). The railroads in the US during
the 19th century are also an example of corporatism. I guess it could best
be summed up by saying it is a system where Government is a dominant partner
with otherwise free enterprise entities. Where this occurs in a capitalist
system is never considered doctrinal--in fascism it is.
---
Art
Fred J. McCall
:Of course violence has consequences but it is hardly ever the tool to
:settle a political conflict. It is usually the equivalent of curing your childs
:cough with a bullet.
Something your parents must have tried with you. Pity about the
intellectual side effects of that bullet wound....
--
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed
and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks
that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has
nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more
important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature,
and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Lars Hedbor
"David Thornley" <thor...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:40ef297b$0$233$a186...@newsreader.visi.com...
> In article <vK2dnRqrnus...@comcast.com>,
> Lars Hedbor <lhe...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> The facts (unless you
> >subscribe to the wildest theories of the tinfoil hat brigade) are not in
> >dispute:
> >
> >- al Qaeda launched a massive and vicious attack on the US in 2001.
>
> True, but don't exaggerate its size.
Oh, pardon me -- what does it take to qualify as "massive" in your book?
How many megadeaths? How many square feet (or meters) of destroyed
structural space?
> >- The gov'ts of several other nations in the region provide(d) aid and
> >succor to al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
>
> Lots of governments do.
>
> >- Among these nations are/were Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Saudi
Arabia.
>
> While Iraq had a considerable numbers of ties to terrorists, they had
> essentially no ties to al-Qaida or to any other sizable anti-US
> terrorism. Invading them was *not* an act of self-defense, unlike
> the invasion of Afghanistan.
Again, you argue matters of degree. What level of support do you need to
see before you're willing to concede that there was motive, opportunity and
means for Saddam and al Qaeda to cooperate against their common enemy?
> >- Of these, only Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have shown even lukewarm
interest
> >in assisting our efforts at self-defense; Iran and Syria at least gave it
> >some lip service.
>
> So? It's not as if Saudi Arabia has done anything material about
> al-Qaida, other than financing it and supplying recruits.
Are you attempting sarcasm here?
> >- Iraq continued directly supporting terrorist groups, even publicly
> >boasting of sending payments to "martyr's" families.
>
> Yup. Not a direct US concern.
Ah. We have to wait until Saddam boasts of sending payments to the family
of a suicide bomber who's blown up a mall or a coffee shop somewhere in the
midwest before we ackowlege the threat?
> >- al Qaeda has a deep interest in acquiring the means to inflict ever
> >greater injuries upon the US and other nations of the 'West.'
>
> Yup.
>
> >- Saddam's Iraq demonstrated its possession of such weapons at several
> >junctures in recent history.
>
> Some of them.
>
> >- When required by UN resolutions to account for their remaining WMDs,
Iraq
> >utterly failed to do so.
>
> Pretty much yes. He did destroy most of them, and stopped the programs.
> Not out of any humanitarian concerns, or anything like that, but because
> he was afraid. In other words, the UN actions had already effectively
> disarmed him, and he was in reality no immediate threat. Since the UNSC
> passed 1441, the UNSC should have been given the opportunity to either
> put up or shut up with the next resolution.
The UN demanded that he account for those weapons, whether destroyed,
stored, or given away. He failed to do so. The resolution didn't say, "or
else we shall be forced to taunt you again" -- it (and how many prior
resolutions?) said that Saddam would face the most serious of consequences.
This is diplomaspeak for war.
It's also become clear that the UN (and many of our detractors abroad) were
directly benefitting from the corruption of the "humanitarian" Oil-for-Food
program - their moral authority to decide matters of war and peace in Iraq
are utterly negated by this clear conflict of interests.
> >- The US acted to enforce those resolutions, exactly as authorized by the
> >UN, and exactly as we promised the world (and warned Saddam) we would do.
> >
> Wrong. The US was not authorized by the UN, and did not act to enforce
> those resolutions except in an incidental sense. The US did not act
> to try to secure chemical and biological weapon sites, for example.
What in the hell are you talking about? First, you claim that no such sites
existed at the time of the invasion; now you claim that the US forces didn't
seek to secure them. Make up your mind, man! And please, cite a source for
the amazing claim that we weren't trying to secure sites we believed to be
related to WMDs.
> >In my opinion, we acted to defend ourselves against the horrifying
> >possibility of Saddam and bin Laden holding their noses and cooperating
> >against their common enemy.
>
> I'd think Kim Il-Jong more of a threat, and he didn't have any anti-Osama
> baggage. I think there was no realistic possibility of Saddam materially
> helping Osama in the foreseeable future.
I agree that Kim Jong-Il is a grave threat; his research into long-range
missiles, with a state goal of being able to hit the US West is personally
quite frightening to me (as I live on the West coast...). However, unless
we're willing to sacrifice Seoul or Tokyo, we cannot take military action
there - Kim is unstable enough to launch such an attack against a third
party in retaliation for any moves we might make against him. I do believe
that we could, as a nation, support other means of resolving that situation,
and that we're failing to do so.
> I believe that those who insist that bin Laden
> >and Saddam hated each other more than they hated us are being willfully
> >ignorant, in the service of the enemies of the civilized world.
> >
> I believe you are ignorant, possibly willfully so, in seeing the wmotions
> of the world as directed against us. Both Osama and Saddam hate the US.
> They hate each other. Saddam kept al-Qaida from operating in the parts
> of Iraq he controlled for the most part. Nobody's doing that now.
The fact that they personally disliked each other didn't prevent them from
making overtures to one another. Osama actively sought ties with Saddam
while he was in Sudan, and Saddam was considering his requests seriously
enough to send a senior military official to meet with him there. I
strongly believe that it was just a matter of time before they buried the
hatchet and shared resources to launch an even more horrific attack against
us.
Indeed, I am exceptionally worried that Saddam did not, in fact, destroy his
chemical and bioweapons, and instead transferred them somewhere else (such
as Syria) where al Qaeda may now have access to them. The 3-11 attacks in
Spain established a terrifying precedent, and telegraphed a strong signal of
their intent to attempt to similarly disrupt our elections.
Keep your powder dry, and your eyes open.
- Lars D. H. Hedbor
Oregon City, Oregon
My Name Is Not Simon Jester
Ah, I see, I think. So, Ma Bell, before the breakup, would be corporatism?
Howard Berkowitz
Simon Jester <simonje...@spamzilla.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, I see, I think. So, Ma Bell, before the breakup, would be
> corporatism?
Would there be a difference if a technical monopoly might exist (as it
did in long-distance transmission before widespread use of digital
sytems)?
Art
> Art wrote:
[snip]
> >>Okay, not disagreeing with you; asking a question. How can you be
> >>pro-corporate but anti capitalism?
> >>
> >
> > Corporatism is kinda like Dupont having a representative in congress
(which
> > they do have here in the US, btw, but their representative(s) isn't
allowed
> > on the assembly floor--in corporatism he would have a /seat/). The U.S.
> > Department of Agriculture is a good example of corporatism, and is one
of
> > the many reasons fascism usually Plays Well in Peoria.
> >
> > Enron, for example, was not an institution born of capitalism, but one
born
> > of fascism (not technically, but in spirit). The railroads in the US
during
> > the 19th century are also an example of corporatism. I guess it could
best
> > be summed up by saying it is a system where Government is a dominant
partner
> > with otherwise free enterprise entities. Where this occurs in a
capitalist
> > system is never considered doctrinal--in fascism it is.
>
> Ah, I see, I think. So, Ma Bell, before the breakup, would be
corporatism?
>
history of Bell Telephone to state with certainty that legislation helped it
to become dominant in its market. The Government breakup of that company,
is, on the otherhand, an aspect of corporatism.
Microsoft Corporation was rather infamous in its lack of lobbyists in
Washington prior to its federal lawsuit. Now they have an /army/ of them in
D.C. (pssst: lobbyists pay for political campaigns) So you see, a so-called
monopoly is not necessarily a product of corporatism.
---
Art
David M. Silver
bpral...@aol.com (BPRAL22169) wrote:
Not exactly. Victor Emanuel III, born in 1869, was reigning King
of Italy for a total of 46 years (1900-1946), most of which was
well before the rise of Benito Mussolini, whom he appointed prime
minister. He reigned as lawful King, but also as a figurehead
during that ascendancy -- just as George VI reigned lawfully in
the later years of that ascendancy in Britain, while Churchill
governed. Victor Emanuel was forced to abdicate in 1946 as a
punishment for betrayal of the Statute (Italy's Constitution) by
allowing Mussolini to establish a dictatorship (or at least as
consequence of the Axis losing the War; and he and his family,
the House of Savoy and its descendants, were and continue
banished from Italy (he died in exile in Egypt in 1947), when
Italy abolished its parliamentary monarchy.
Mussolini called himself "Il Duce" and anything else he wanted
during the dictatorship he established once the King allowed him
to do so; but he continued to carefully call the King, "King,"
just as Winston called George, and Victor Emanuel continued as
the King months after Mussoline hanged by his heels.
David M. Silver
<QVEHc.13865$yy1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> wrote:
But the populus have potens, Rufus. It sez so right here on the
label of my old scutum: "S.P.Q.R." How much did you get at the
market for that female slave, Deeica, or whatever her name was?
And why do you have a slave heat the water more in this bath?
Argentus
David M. Silver
<QVEHc.13865$yy1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> wrote:
But the populus have potens, Rufus. It sez so right here on the
label of my old scutum: "S.P.Q.R." How much did you get at the
market for that female slave, Deeica, or whatever her name was?
And why don't you have a slave heat the water more in this bath?
Soren Larsen
news:tknue0tcrj7rj86ac...@4ax.com
> "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote:
>
>> Of course violence has consequences but it is hardly ever the tool to
>> settle a political conflict. It is usually the equivalent of curing
>> your childs cough with a bullet.
>
> Something your parents must have tried with you. Pity about the
> intellectual side effects of that bullet wound....
Dont you worry Fred. It still kicks ass.
That however may have been detrimental to your intellectual capability.
Soren Larsen
Bill Reich
"Art" <arty_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"My Name Is Not Simon Jester" <
>
>simonje...@spamzilla.hotmail.com
>
>> wrote in message news:84CdnfYwK5I...@wideopenwest.com...
>
>> Art wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > 1) Strong central authority [an authoritarian or totalitarian system]
>> > 2) Statolatry 3) Unity of or elimination of classes 4) Corporatism 5)
>> > Imperialism 6) Anti-communism 7) Anti-capitalism.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Okay, not disagreeing with you; asking a question. How can you be
>> pro-corporate but anti capitalism?
>>
>Corporatism is kinda like Dupont having a representative in congress (which
>they do have here in the US, btw, but their representative(s) isn't allowed
>on the assembly floor--in corporatism he would have a /seat/). The U.S.
>Department of Agriculture is a good example of corporatism, and is one of
>the many reasons fascism usually Plays Well in Peoria.
Corporatism IS a defining feature of fascism. This is one of the reasons
why your dictum that all slave-holding societies were fascist falls on its
face. While they were all objectionable, they were very few of them fascistic.
This is an important difference between the Soviets under Stalin and fascists.
Large enterprises were simply part of the state. They didn't really exist
as separate entities with their own agendae. Hitler, for another example,
did not operate under the theory of compelling cooperation with big capital
and big labor. He found it useful as he went along and occasionally used
the rhetoric of his fascist allies to justify it.
>
>Enron, for example, was not an institution born of capitalism, but one born
>of fascism (not technically, but in spirit). The railroads in the US during
>the 19th century are also an example of corporatism. I guess it could best
>be summed up by saying it is a system where Government is a dominant partner
>with otherwise free enterprise entities. Where this occurs in a capitalist
>system is never considered doctrinal--in fascism it is.
>
Yes, corporatism is necessarry for fascism but it is not sufficient. That
is why some aspects of the New Deal, designed by people who had studied Italy's
"economic miracle," were NOT fascist. The state under the New Deal did not
centralize power anywhere NEAR the standard needed to be called a fascist
state. Of course, they were usually called socialists by their foes, which
was just as silly.
The railroads in the nineteenth century are a great example of big business
fostering corporatism. The big railroads used every state legislature in
the country to suppress competition. Which competition had begun to seriously
impact their profits. This was not fascism, although it was objectionable.
>
>Art
My Name Is Not Simon Jester
> And why don't you have a slave heat the water more in this bath?
>
> Argentus
>
Well, you know that the word 'eureka' really means 'this bath is too
hot!'...