Skronk wrote:

big_dave wrote:Kristalnacht, anti-semetic propaganda and the Reichstag fire were as much products of a group of men as one individual. In truth, hatred for the Jews in Germany had been boiling for over a decade.

Hitler knew how to warp and manipulate public opinion. After all, he was voted into power. Without Hitler, you had a powder keg without a match. He was the spark.

WWSD?

(What would Springsteen do?)

it's pronounced Springstein!

kerble wrote:

It's pronounced Weeeenberg.

-A

It's a jewspiracy is what it is.









































also, jews piracy.

clocker bob wrote:

clocker bob wrote:You thought that 'individual' and 'conspiracy' are anthithetical. They are not. You are dumb, and also a troll.

Aneurhythmia wrote:No, I thought you were using a narrow definition of "individual" appropriate to the discussion of individualism, not a broader definition.

There is no definition of 'individual', either narrow or broad, that defines it in a way that makes it antithetical to a conspiracy, because a conspiracy involves individuals. I thought you only misunderstood the word 'antithetical', but it's obvious that you also don't know how to use 'individual' or 'conspiracy' in a sentence either.

If you are trying to say that an 'individualist' would never be part of a conspiracy, that is also wrong. Individualism does not demand that individuals live completely apart from society. Individualists are opposed to state interference with their lives- they are not opposed to working with others. John Galt left what he felt was a collectivist society and recruited like- minded others to assist him in building an alternate society. He did so in secret, also, so Galt was both an individualist and a conspirator.

Aneurhythmia wrote:Errr, aren't the individual and "conspiracy" explicitly antithetical?

Come up with some new bullshit, Troll.

Yes, I'm obviously trolling your attempts to insult people with my concerns about apparent incongruity. I can see there's no place for discussion here.

It's a shame the military-industrial-pharma complex has already gotten to answers.com, or else I might post this as a point of reference for conflicting notions of the individual and conspiracy.

answers.com wrote:conspiracy theory
n.

A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

I should probably also disregard any address of individualism to the social contract.

Hitler was the one that instigated the assault in the first place. None of it would have happened without his expressed permission. The orders came from him first, then whatever an over zealous commander did, was after. That's why you had two different faces on the same army.

Hardly. Part of Hitler's rise of power and seizure of the control was to do with his manipulation of the mob. It seems absurd to think that it was all the work of one man. After all, in the years immediately preceeding his rise to power, Hitler's personal role in the party was very different.

While he definitely had express control over some elements of the military, this was certainly not universely endorsed by the state or military. What is more, by that time the secret police had become seperate to the point of autonomy. Perhaps they were trying to please the mythical, absent Fuhrer but it would have been impossible for him to be present for every policy making decision even if it was their wish to have him as executive.

Hitler knew how to warp and manipulate public opinion. After all, he was voted into power. Without Hitler, you had a powder keg without a match. He was the spark.

Again, I find it hard to credit that to one man considering the tensions involved in both the party and the nation as a whole. The party was in constant power-struggles within itself as it transformed into what we know as the Nazi party.

I can back it up.

Where on Earth have you seen a Communist nation where the people were in control? Nowhere. It's a farce. There's always been a ruling elite, even if on the outside they call themselves"Communist", or "Democratic". It's never "for the people".

A classless society does not exist. "Marxism" is a new mask on an old, ugly face (ideology).

There is no "ideal government", power would not be power if there were nothing to enforce it upon, such as the working class. Hence, they will never get power, even if propaganda makes them believe they have it.

There is no inherent difference between Marxism and Communism, if there is, you haven't pointed it out.

Mostly irrelevant generalisations. Going by the original uses of the word "communism" is the dominating force the ideal society, incurred by he dictatorship of the proletariat. Many parties worldwide have claimed to wish to bring about this society, but it has never happened.

Marxism describes the ideas, influences and elements that come directly from Karl Marx. Hence we get Marxist influence in other areas such as social realist cultural movements, Lacanist psychology and anthropology. It is not the same as communism, and it is not the same as the desire for communism either.

On a broad strokes though, I'd be as suspicious as you towards a dictator who called himself a Communist and/or a Marxist, because at that point the words will have lost their meaning, and the question is why it benefits someone in that position to use them.

You do realize that in the scheme of Marxism, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" is only a transitory state between our Capitalist Society and a "classless" Communist one?

I said "incurred".

Also, I wouldn't put much faith into the whole business, I don't believe you do, but it's worth noting that Marx was one of the Bourgeoisie.

Of course he was, he wouldn't be able to have a career as a thinker, otherwise. If you are under the impression that my interest in leftwing theories makes me believe that Marx was a saint, you are mistaken.

Haven't you ever thought that "The People's Republic Of China" as a name, is a crock of shit?

Of course it is. But public ownership and the illusion of public ownership are centuries older than Karl Marx.

I don't know if anyone's brought it up yet, but Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer is a good look inside the micromanagement/mismanagement of Adolf Hitler.

Skronk wrote:[Hitler was the one that instigated the assault in the first place. None of it would have happened without his expressed permission. The orders came from him first, then whatever an over zealous commander did, was after. That's why you had two different faces on the same army.

You might want to read up on the Beer Hall Putsch. First of all, it's really interesting, second, I think you may find that Hitler was part of a team.

As far as orders coming directly from the Fuhrer, late in the War all operations on the Cotentin Penninsula had to come from his desk, which allowed for a successful Allied Invasion of France, because the fella slept until 10 while the beaches were hit. Until then, there was a wide network of decision makers and order givers.

-A