T1B

mvscal wrote:Chirping crickets from our local liberal douchebags? I thought as much.

I'm sure the Nazis are just making all that up to make you look bad, right?

The parallel is poorly drawn and of absolutely no value whatsoever. Comparing the Democrats to Nazis would be like comparing the Republican party to the Nation of Islam because both embrace traditional family values like chastity and self reliance.

mvscal wrote:Nice try, faggot. The NOI is not a political party nor do they embrace the Republican political agenda.

On the other hand, Nazis and you neo-socialist liberals are very clearly on the same page in almost every particular. I'm sure if you put your heads together you could probably hammer out a consolidated platform without too much trouble.

In any event, I guess we won't be hearing about "right-wing" Nazis anymore.

They're all yours, shitstain.

Did you even look at the parts Choads bolded as being in line with the DNC platform?

You're a fucking moron if you think the Democratic party agrees with that crap.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Did you even look at the parts Choads bolded as being in line with the DNC platform?

You're a fucking moron if you think the Democratic party agrees with that crap.

I guess you really aren't paying much attention to the bilge the DNC pumps out then. They aren't much further to the left than you.

You're not paying attention to the crap Choads is posting. He's an example of what he thinks jibes with the DNC platform.

By taking away the economic burden associated with childbirth and replacing it with a structured system of pay raises for those that give birth to healthy babies, thereby returning the blessing associated with children.

You're a flipping moron, a troll or both.

I'm trying to think how this thread could be any more pointless. I can't come up with anything.

Continue your name-calling and finger-pointing. I hope it makes you feel better about yourselves, because that's about the only thing that comes out of these discussions.

Donovan wrote:I'm trying to think how this thread could be any more pointless. I can't come up with anything.

Continue your name-calling and finger-pointing. I hope it makes you feel better about yourselves, because that's about the only thing that comes out of these discussions.

Welcome to American politics.

mvscal wrote:

Donovan wrote:I'm trying to think how this thread could be any more pointless. I can't come up with anything.

That's because you're a fucking moron.

It is accepted as an article of faith among the vast number of uninformed dipshits in the world such as yourself that the Nazis are right wing extremists.

Their own platform makes it very clear that they are, in fact, left wing extremists. The point is to set the record straight.

You realy must have sucked as a history student. Ever seen one of these?



Trying to compare a conservative socialist movement to a liberal and moderately socialist movement is pointless. But keep trying.

mvscal wrote:No, we used actual books not the colorful little pie charts favored by intellectual cripples.

I bet this was one of them.

mvscal wrote:Yes, that would be a pretty good place to start when beginning a serious attempt to understand National Socialism.

So you now understand that National Socialisim is neither national or socialist.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

German National Socialism was not socialist???

DrDetroit wrote:German National Socialism was not socialist???

Nor was it a nationalist party. It was a pan-nationalist party that purported to represent all the "Aryan" peoples of the world.

You're wrong because he says so. He'll prove it by pulling out some ancillary part of their platform that doesn't jibe with the DNC's and say, "a-HA! See?!"

Genuinely curious here. How would Socialism be described in an American junior school history book

Variable wrote:You're wrong because he says so. He'll prove it by pulling out some ancillary part of their platform that doesn't jibe with the DNC's and say, "a-HA! See?!"

It wasn't an ancilary part of the platform, it was part and parcell of what Choads HIMSELF had bolded as being a part of the platform that jibes with Democratic party values.

mvscal wrote:

Donovan wrote:I'm trying to think how this thread could be any more pointless. I can't come up with anything.

That's because you're a fucking moron.

It is accepted as an article of faith among the vast number of uninformed dipshits in the world such as yourself that the Nazis are right wing extremists.

Wrong.

DrDetroit wrote:German National Socialism was not socialist???

Among the first things Hitler did was ban Trade unions (1933) and the Communist Party (1934).

Hardly "socialist"...

Donovan wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Donovan wrote:I'm trying to think how this thread could be any more pointless. I can't come up with anything.

That's because you're a fucking moron.

It is accepted as an article of faith among the vast number of uninformed dipshits in the world such as yourself that the Nazis are right wing extremists.

Wrong.

They most certainly were/are. Ever read anything by the late George Lincoln Rockwell, leader of the American Nazi Party?

Re Hitler - The term "Socialist" was more appealing in that time of mass German unemployment and National "angst"' - besides, how well would "National Fascist Party" have gone over?

When I went to school back in the "Cold War" days, socialism was described in history books in the most basic terms. Think of one paragraph in a 300 page book that incorporates the words trade unionists, anarchists, socialists, Sacco and Venzetti, wobblies, communists and Emma Goldman and you are close to the depth of knowledge that the average American school textbook imparts in regards to socialism.

American history textbooks are not designed to inform or enlighten students about their own history, they are more like civics manuals. If you’re ever bored and want to see just how uninformed your average Detroiter is, check this book out by James Loewen called Lies My Teacher Told Me.

Reactionary neo fascist meltdown in 3…2…1…

88,

My experience was exactly the opposite insofar as my teachers were concerned. With one exception, I would hardly have described my history teachers as anti-American or even anti-Republican. In fact, my 8th grade American History teacher served on our village council as a Trustee and was as rock ribbed a Republican as you will ever find.

No, I don't think there is any great attempt to drive American children into a revolutionary frenzy. You may have had some teachers who "bitched about Nixon", but looking back on it, doncha think they SHOULD have been bitching about Nixon?

The best teacher I ever had started his first class of the year by going into a long-winded anti-American diatribe. He did this for 10 minutes, growing progressively more vitriolic and unreasonable in his anti-American sentiment until once student finally dared to disagree with him.

It was then that he stopped, and told the rest of the class that they should congratulate their fellow student for having the courage of his convictions. He then spent the rest of the class outlining why he thought it important for his students to not only learn the rote material the state required, but to also think for ourselves and to not be afraid of "power figures" like teachers and administrators when offering well reasoned objections. For a ninth grader, that was some heavy shit. It was only later that I discovered how rare a teacher Mike Baynes really was.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote: check this book out by James Loewen called Lies My Teacher Told Me.

Shabby, unprofessional revisionist garbage.

Melting right on que eh?

Re: Loewen's book, "Lies that my Teacher Told Me"

My biggest issue with the book was Loewens so-called self-evident, uncontroversial "truths" wherein he tries to tell us that, economically, the US is not the hope of the world and that the US is no more oppressive or violent than Russia, Burundi, and others.

Sorry, but only pathetic anti-American PC hacks believe that nonsense.

DrDetroit wrote:Re: Loewen's book, "Lies that my Teacher Told Me"

My biggest issue with the book was Loewens so-called self-evident, uncontroversial "truths" wherein he tries to tell us that, economically, the US is not the hope of the world and that the US is no more oppressive or violent than Russia, Burundi, and others.

Sorry, but only pathetic anti-American PC hacks believe that nonsense.

I read the book, and that was not in it. Why must you lie?

Oh, I know that...I was just ridiculing the author more generally is all.

DrDetroit wrote:Oh, I know that...I was just ridiculing the author more generally is all.

So what you're saying is that you can't refute what he says.

Got it.

What a cheap debating tactic. I merely noted that the "truths" this guy uses to forumlate the basis of his assessment are not self-evident and not controversial. Hence, his assessment and ultimately his conclusions that rely on this basis can and should be questioned.

And, no, of course I cannot refute everything in his book. That hardly means that his book cannot be discussed, debated, or that conclusions not drawn about the authors conclusions.

Did you read Molding the Good Citizen? The authors dissected 15 high-school American history textbooks, three each from the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The authors then subjected these texts to both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Their conclusion? Their conclusion was that the texts, regardless of decade, reflect a "liberal-Progressive" view of American history, one that has dominated American education since the 1930s.

Now, Loewen did not refute their conclusions, hence, are you going to argue that Loewens conclusions are incorrect? Are you going to then admit that you're admitting that the two seeming contradictory conclusions are correct? Of course not, because you're being intellectually dishonest.

BTW - Loewen's own website calls the book a "retelling of American history." Hence, it can accurately be characterized as revisionist history. Which then leads to the problem that history is being revised by a single person here. Besides mainstream media journalists, I don't think anyone argues that at best, it id very, very difficult to remove your biases from your writing. Therefore, given that Loewen id's these two fundamental "truths" as the basis for his book and the fact that these two "truths" are necessarily biased, one can reasonable argue that the book probably suffers from some sort of revisionist garbage, to use Mvscal's words.

DrDetroit wrote:BTW - Loewen's own website calls the book a "retelling of American history." Hence, it can accurately be characterized as revisionist history.

Every history book ever written, unless consisting of only first person sources, can be characterized as a "retelling" of history. Your attempt to then turn a "retelling of" into the prejorative "revisionist history" is a weak desperate attempt to cover for you lack of knowledge on the subject.

Which then leads to the problem that history is being revised by a single person here.

Not even close. Lowen's scholarship is what backs him up. He has countless first and second person accounts that he uses to back up his assertions. This is not Fawn Brodie psychoanalitical history. Lowen deals with real facts to debunk myths that have been accepted as fact by far too many people.

Besides mainstream media journalists, I don't think anyone argues that at best, it id very, very difficult to remove your biases from your writing. Therefore, given that Loewen id's these two fundamental "truths" as the basis for his book and the fact that these two "truths" are necessarily biased, one can reasonable argue that the book probably suffers from some sort of revisionist garbage, to use Mvscal's words.

What two truths are you talking about? That American history, as tought today, is nothing more than myth telling with liberal doses of facts thrown in ?

DrDetroit wrote:Did you read Molding the Good Citizen? The authors dissected 15 high-school American history textbooks, three each from the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The authors then subjected these texts to both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Their conclusion? Their conclusion was that the texts, regardless of decade, reflect a "liberal-Progressive" view of American history, one that has dominated American education since the 1930s.

Now, Loewen did not refute their conclusions, hence, are you going to argue that Loewens conclusions are incorrect? Are you going to then admit that you're admitting that the two seeming contradictory conclusions are correct? Of course not, because you're being intellectually dishonest.

Having fun arguing with yourself?

B:

Every history book ever written, unless consisting of only first person sources, can be characterized as a "retelling" of history. Your attempt to then turn a "retelling of" into the prejorative "revisionist history" is a weak desperate attempt to cover for you lack of knowledge on the subject.

I didn't attmpt anything...I simply told you what the author himself characterized the book as.

Not even close. Lowen's scholarship is what backs him up. He has countless first and second person accounts that he uses to back up his assertions. This is not Fawn Brodie psychoanalitical history. Lowen deals with real facts to debunk myths that have been accepted as fact by far too many people.

"Real facts" that debunk what he thinks are "myths" is what you meant.

What two truths are you talking about? That American history, as tought today, is nothing more than myth telling with liberal doses of facts thrown in ?

No you fucking idiot...how did you miss this, "My biggest issue with the book was Loewens so-called self-evident, uncontroversial "truths" wherein he tries to tell us that, economically, the US is not the hope of the world and that the US is no more oppressive or violent than Russia, Burundi, and others."??? You responded to it, dolt.

BSmack wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Did you read Molding the Good Citizen? The authors dissected 15 high-school American history textbooks, three each from the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The authors then subjected these texts to both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Their conclusion? Their conclusion was that the texts, regardless of decade, reflect a "liberal-Progressive" view of American history, one that has dominated American education since the 1930s.

Now, Loewen did not refute their conclusions, hence, are you going to argue that Loewens conclusions are incorrect? Are you going to then admit that you're admitting that the two seeming contradictory conclusions are correct? Of course not, because you're being intellectually dishonest.

Having fun arguing with yourself?

I'm not arguing with myself, but that you chose to run instead of discuss you exposed yourself as a blind sheep of Loewens.

DrDetroit wrote:"Real facts" that debunk what he thinks are "myths" is what you meant.

That is where it is on you to inform yourself. If you think he's wrong, go to the source material and show it.

No you fucking idiot...how did you miss this, "My biggest issue with the book was Loewens so-called self-evident, uncontroversial "truths" wherein he tries to tell us that, economically, the US is not the hope of the world and that the US is no more oppressive or violent than Russia, Burundi, and others."??? You responded to it, dolt.

And I will respond YET AGAIN, that the "truths" you cite are not in the book. You are simply making shit up.

bsmack, about your sig.......

golf is hell w/out being good at it but i see u working

mvscal wrote:

Ten Packs wrote:Among the first things Hitler did was ban Trade unions (1933) and the Communist Party (1934).

Hardly "socialist"...

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. He banned trade unions to clear the way for his union, the DAF. Very "socialist".

Actually, he knows exactly what he's talking about. And Nationalising the linin service does not constitute Socialism. How about studying the actual, concrete relationship between fascism and the big bourgeoisie?

Who controlled the means of production? Certainly not the people in the form of the DAF. All the cash went into the pockets of massive corporations like IG Farben, Krupp et al and they had to go to war to pay it back. The system is the champion of supercorporate economics.

Old school Fascism simly parroted Communist phrases of working class struggle, etc, for populist reasons. They supported the community ideal, but not the power of community democracy as Socialism demands but the unity of the community to the vanguard (in this case Nazi) party. All the while, the Nazi Parties grass roots support was entirely conservative, right wing and reactionary.

Speaking of revisionism :roll: