Empty Hands
Senior Master
Then quit saying Ph.D. like it means anything to you. You are quoting him because he agrees with you, not because he has a Ph.D.
"Real Thanksgiving," a "poem" by billcihak
- Thread starter elder999
- Start date
Then quit saying Ph.D. like it means anything to you. You are quoting him because he agrees with you, not because he has a Ph.D.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Actually, I am posting their articles because one, I came to my conclusions about hitler and socialism on my own, however, I am just someone on the internet. People on the left here on the study say I don't know what I am talking about, they say "everyone knows Hitler was a facist, hitler was on the right," well, apparently at least 4 PH.D's think that hitler was on the left and was a socialist. It isn't just me who thinks that and you can disagree with me all you want, it is a free country, but the idea that Hitler was a socialist is not out of bounds.
read the two articles, and you will see that the questions about Hitler and socialism are addressed.
read the two articles, and you will see that the questions about Hitler and socialism are addressed.
Nomad
Master Black Belt
I'm willing to bet we can find more than 4 Ph.D.'s here on MartialTalk that will tell you that those other 4 Ph.D.'s are full of crap.
Empty Hands is one, I'll happily volunteer to go second. Any other takers?
OP
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
- Thread Starter
- #25
Been telling him that since Thanksgiving, but my PhD. is in physics, and Empty's is in biology,so they don't really count.
Of course, I don't know that a PhD. in eceonomics counts anymore for this issue, either.
Dr. Ray's PhD. is in behavioral psychology, so I don't know how that is relevant.
Couldn't find the other two that billi was talking about, so I guess that puts us up one completely irrelevant PhD. to his two completely irrelevant ones....:lol:
A few PH.D's from a variety of fields who say that the Nazis were socialists:
Thomas Sowell, PH.D. Economics university of chicago
Friedrich von Hayek PH.D. Economics and nobel prize winner
Leonard Peikoff PH.D. Philosophy, heir to Ayn Rands estate
Rudy J Rummel PH.D. Political science Author, Death by Government
Walter E. Williams Ph.D. economics former chair of the economics department of George mason university
Ludwig von Mises PH.D. in economics
John Ray Ph.D in behavioral psychology
Jacques Ellul, proffesor of law, leader of the french resistance
I have article by each of these men that discusses Nazis, national socialism, as both lefty's and socialists. the point that should be noticed is that the theory of nazis being socialists is not something that I came up with off the top of my head or made up. You can disagree with me or them, but their is obviously a case to be made when I say the nazis were leftists and socialists.
Thomas Sowell, PH.D. Economics university of chicago
Friedrich von Hayek PH.D. Economics and nobel prize winner
Leonard Peikoff PH.D. Philosophy, heir to Ayn Rands estate
Rudy J Rummel PH.D. Political science Author, Death by Government
Walter E. Williams Ph.D. economics former chair of the economics department of George mason university
Ludwig von Mises PH.D. in economics
John Ray Ph.D in behavioral psychology
Jacques Ellul, proffesor of law, leader of the french resistance
I have article by each of these men that discusses Nazis, national socialism, as both lefty's and socialists. the point that should be noticed is that the theory of nazis being socialists is not something that I came up with off the top of my head or made up. You can disagree with me or them, but their is obviously a case to be made when I say the nazis were leftists and socialists.
Last edited:
Of course, John Ray, Ph.D. in behavioral Psychology, states that the push back from the left about the nazis and their claims that the nazis were not lefties or socialists is probably due to the fact that they do not want people to realize that the biggest mass murderers in the 20th century were all lefties and socialists.
another article about nazis and socialism:
http://thepathtotyranny.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/the-socialist-promises-of-the-nazis/
From the author Michael E. Newton from his book " The Path to Tryanny"
Many today believe that the Nazis were capitalists, despite the evidence of Nazism’s socialist roots and agenda. Jacques Ellul, a leader of the French Resistance in World War II, philosopher, and law professor, writes, “The dogmatic and elementary interpretation of Nazism as having been conceived by capitalists to counter communism, and a bourgeois tool in the class struggle, has gained incredibly broad acceptance as a self-evident fact, despite its contradiction of fact. Even after his alliance with certain capitalists, Hitler controlled them as much as they did him.”[769] In 1927, Hitler said, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”[770]
As the name implies, the National Socialist German Workers Party was founded primarily to promote socialism in Germany. National Socialism originally stood for partial collectivism aimed primarily at large industrial corporations, leading financial institutions, and wealthy landowners, as detailed in the party’s Twenty-Five Points of 1920.[767] The Twenty-Five Points included the following socialist demands:[768]
“Every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood.”
“All unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.”
“Total confiscation of all war profits.”
“Nationalization of all trusts.”
“Profit-sharing in large industries.”
“Increase in old-age pensions.”
“Communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople.”
“A law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose.”
“The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.”
“Usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.”
“The State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people.”
“Specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.”
“COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD.”
another article about nazis and socialism:
http://thepathtotyranny.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/the-socialist-promises-of-the-nazis/
From the author Michael E. Newton from his book " The Path to Tryanny"
Many today believe that the Nazis were capitalists, despite the evidence of Nazism’s socialist roots and agenda. Jacques Ellul, a leader of the French Resistance in World War II, philosopher, and law professor, writes, “The dogmatic and elementary interpretation of Nazism as having been conceived by capitalists to counter communism, and a bourgeois tool in the class struggle, has gained incredibly broad acceptance as a self-evident fact, despite its contradiction of fact. Even after his alliance with certain capitalists, Hitler controlled them as much as they did him.”[769] In 1927, Hitler said, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”[770]
As the name implies, the National Socialist German Workers Party was founded primarily to promote socialism in Germany. National Socialism originally stood for partial collectivism aimed primarily at large industrial corporations, leading financial institutions, and wealthy landowners, as detailed in the party’s Twenty-Five Points of 1920.[767] The Twenty-Five Points included the following socialist demands:[768]
“Every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood.”
“All unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.”
“Total confiscation of all war profits.”
“Nationalization of all trusts.”
“Profit-sharing in large industries.”
“Increase in old-age pensions.”
“Communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople.”
“A law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose.”
“The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.”
“Usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.”
“The State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people.”
“Specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.”
“COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD.”
Last edited:
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Every single one of them is a conservative political activist. You wouldn't accept the words of a handful of activist liberal academics, like say Zinn or Chomsky. So again, you are quoting them because they agree with you, not because you respect their scholarship.
However many political activists you manage to dig up, it can never stack up against the thousands upon thousands of non-political activist academics, authors and educators that have properly described Naziism and fascism as reactionary for the past 80 or so years.
Of course, this has all been explained to you before. You have somehow convinced yourself that small republican government, low taxes and other parochial Republican positions in the 21st century are the very definition of conservatism, which leads us to the absurd position that a monarchist in 17th century France or a theocrat in modern Saudi Arabia are not in fact conservatives. You have no understanding what the term actually means, so any conclusions you would care to draw based on that understanding are necessarily flawed from conception.
However many political activists you manage to dig up, it can never stack up against the thousands upon thousands of non-political activist academics, authors and educators that have properly described Naziism and fascism as reactionary for the past 80 or so years.
Of course, this has all been explained to you before. You have somehow convinced yourself that small republican government, low taxes and other parochial Republican positions in the 21st century are the very definition of conservatism, which leads us to the absurd position that a monarchist in 17th century France or a theocrat in modern Saudi Arabia are not in fact conservatives. You have no understanding what the term actually means, so any conclusions you would care to draw based on that understanding are necessarily flawed from conception.
Nomad
Master Black Belt
Mine's in Organic chemistry. Completely relevant to the topic at hand.
But that's kind of the point. Stating that the author has a Ph.D. is somehow supposed to lend weight to his or her words in spite of the fact that said Ph.D. may be completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and the undeniable fact that possession of a Ph.D. does not in any way mean you're not a crackpot.
A small correction on Friedrich hayek:
from wikipedia--Education and career
At the University of Vienna, he earned doctorates in law and political science in 1921 and 1923 respectively, and he also studied philosophy, psychology, and economics. For a short time, when the University of Vienna closed, Hayek studied in Constantin von Monakow's Institute of Brain Anatomy, where Hayek spent much of his time staining brain cells. Hayek's time in Monakow's lab, and his deep interest in the work of Ernst Mach, inspired Hayek's first intellectual project, eventually published as The Sensory Order (1952). It located connective learning at the physical and neurological levels, rejecting the "sense data" associationism[clarification needed] of the empiricists and logical positivists. Hayek presented his work to the private seminar he had created with Herbert Furth called the Geistkreis.[7]
In 1974 Hayek shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics (with Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal) for his "pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and [his] penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena."[3] He also received the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991 from president George H. W. Bush.[4]
from wikipedia--Education and career
At the University of Vienna, he earned doctorates in law and political science in 1921 and 1923 respectively, and he also studied philosophy, psychology, and economics. For a short time, when the University of Vienna closed, Hayek studied in Constantin von Monakow's Institute of Brain Anatomy, where Hayek spent much of his time staining brain cells. Hayek's time in Monakow's lab, and his deep interest in the work of Ernst Mach, inspired Hayek's first intellectual project, eventually published as The Sensory Order (1952). It located connective learning at the physical and neurological levels, rejecting the "sense data" associationism[clarification needed] of the empiricists and logical positivists. Hayek presented his work to the private seminar he had created with Herbert Furth called the Geistkreis.[7]
In 1974 Hayek shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics (with Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal) for his "pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and [his] penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena."[3] He also received the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991 from president George H. W. Bush.[4]
I think I have answered the point that although I am just a guy on the internet, there are serious thinkers, men of great education and wisdom who also believe that the nazis (national socialists) were actually socialists. Now, you can disagree with that, you can debate that but to say I don't know what I am talking about with nazis and socialism is silly.
From widipedia:
Socialism is an economic system...
From wikidpedia we learn that socialism is an economic system so the people who may have studied economic systems in depth would be....PH.D's in economics.
Walter E. williams PH.D. economics
Thomas Sowell PH.D. in economics
Ludwig von Mises Ph.D. in economics
In the least these guys might know something about socialism, what it is and what it isn't. Thomas Sowell started out his career as a marxist communist who eventually saw how silly it was. Apparently, some on the study think that Ph.D. in economics from the Universtiy of Chicago is little better than getting an associates degree from a local junior college. You guys will believe your guys I will believe mine. What isn't up for debate is that some really smart people also think that the nazis are socialists. Debate it, hate it, but don't doubt that there is an argument to be made.
Thomas Sowell:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell
Friedrich von Hayek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_von_Hayek
Walter E. williams: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams
Ludwig von mises: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises
Leonard Peikoff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peikoff
Yes, aren't they all just a bunch of crack pots.
An article by Rudy Rummel, author "Death by Government."
http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/ **A PH.D in political Science, of course that wouldn't have any bearing on socialism as a system of government.**
Hitlers National Socialism was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.
Socialism is an economic system...
From wikidpedia we learn that socialism is an economic system so the people who may have studied economic systems in depth would be....PH.D's in economics.
Walter E. williams PH.D. economics
Thomas Sowell PH.D. in economics
Ludwig von Mises Ph.D. in economics
In the least these guys might know something about socialism, what it is and what it isn't. Thomas Sowell started out his career as a marxist communist who eventually saw how silly it was. Apparently, some on the study think that Ph.D. in economics from the Universtiy of Chicago is little better than getting an associates degree from a local junior college. You guys will believe your guys I will believe mine. What isn't up for debate is that some really smart people also think that the nazis are socialists. Debate it, hate it, but don't doubt that there is an argument to be made.
Thomas Sowell:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell
Friedrich von Hayek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_von_Hayek
Walter E. williams: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams
Ludwig von mises: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises
Leonard Peikoff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peikoff
Yes, aren't they all just a bunch of crack pots.
An article by Rudy Rummel, author "Death by Government."
http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/ **A PH.D in political Science, of course that wouldn't have any bearing on socialism as a system of government.**
Hitlers National Socialism was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.
Last edited:
Bill you are still just quoting other people. Endless quotes from people who's politics as far as I can see are the polar opposite of socialism and they seem to feel the need like yourself to paint everything bad in the world as the fault of the socialists. Of course your lot are going to paint Hitler and the Nazis as socialists, you want to portray socialism as the Great Satan of political systems. It's sad, pointless and just wrong.
There are so many things you touch on but have no idea about, I think you may need to look up the French Resistance before you start quoting any of their leaders as experts on socialism.
What's your take on the Spainish fascists under Franco then? More socialists? perhaps you could explain then why the communists were fighting him? On second thoughts no don't bother, I really don't need more fairy stories.
You know I could agree with you but I'd be wrong too then.
There are so many things you touch on but have no idea about, I think you may need to look up the French Resistance before you start quoting any of their leaders as experts on socialism.
What's your take on the Spainish fascists under Franco then? More socialists? perhaps you could explain then why the communists were fighting him? On second thoughts no don't bother, I really don't need more fairy stories.
You know I could agree with you but I'd be wrong too then.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
It's sad that knowledge comes down to such for you. True scholarship assesses the evidence, and then draws a conclusion based on the preponderance of the evidence. True scholarship is not choosing what to believe, and then finding evidence to support your position while ignoring the rest. Nor is it selective appeals to authority.
I don't need "my guys" to tell me about the politics of fascism. I've read dozens of histories of Nazi Germany from multiple authors and viewpoints, none of which made political conclusions. From that knowledge it isn't hard to figure out what they were, especially if you actually know what "reactionary" means or that the sum total of conservatism is not defined by a particular subset of views of the Republican party in the United States in 2011.
Ask "your guys" to explain the Night of the Long Knives if the Nazis were leftists. Ask them to explain why the land redistribution and other socialist planks of the early party platform were never, ever acted upon. Ask them to explain the critical alliance between Hitler and entrenched business interests and the entrenched aristocratic military elite. Ask them to explain how the yearning for a return to a mythic past and the rejection of modernism could ever be considered leftism, when that yearning and that rejection is the sine qua non of conservatism.
Ask them when their politics became more important to them than the truth.
Yeah, I'm sure none of those PH.D types did any of that research stuff you talk about. Probably just made it all up in their heads. Wow, and I thought that the University of Chicago was a good school. They must just give PH.D's away. Guess I was wrong. And that Nobel prize stuff, they can't fool us anymore. Thanks, you have really opened my eyes.
OP
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
- Thread Starter
- #36
OP
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
- Thread Starter
- #37
I am just a guy on the internet.
There are serious thinkers,
probably just made it all up in their heads.
Men of great education and wisdom
didn't kill all those people
the socialist Hitler did.
Debate it, hate it,
You guys will believe your guys
I will believe mine.
There are serious thinkers,
probably just made it all up in their heads.
Men of great education and wisdom
didn't kill all those people
the socialist Hitler did.
Debate it, hate it,
You guys will believe your guys
I will believe mine.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
They didn't have to make it up, all they had to do was ignore countervailing evidence. It can happen to PhD's, especially ones with a political agenda. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that they are overwhelmingly outnumbered in the academy in their conclusions?
Oh yeah, it's all those OTHER thousands of PhDs who are politically biased, and the brave handful of truth-tellers that just so happen to have come to a conclusion that flatters your political views are the unbiased ones.
See also: global warming.
Having a Phd. only proves that the person has studied and has expertise in their subject, it doesn't mean they are necessarily deep thinkers or have any expertise at all outside their field. One could argue that often it doesn't mean they have any intellectual reasoning at all depending on the subject they take. Someone amazingly good at mathematics could be a complete dunce with anything else. You simply can't say that because this person has a Phd. that they are intellectually correct when everyone else is wrong.
Is 'research' better then that people's living memories? Of living through and seeing everyday the horrors or is it better just to read a book and draw conclusions based on your own political viewpoint?
As for Hitler being a communist/socialist as had been said before ...'Reichstag', from that you can see how much the Nazis loved the communists, in fact just about as much as they loved the Jews, the gays, the handicapped etc etc.
Is 'research' better then that people's living memories? Of living through and seeing everyday the horrors or is it better just to read a book and draw conclusions based on your own political viewpoint?
As for Hitler being a communist/socialist as had been said before ...'Reichstag', from that you can see how much the Nazis loved the communists, in fact just about as much as they loved the Jews, the gays, the handicapped etc etc.
eh, met some of the academia...ain't impressed much.
I know of a professor....his subject was addiction. He did a lot of research - his wine cellar was well stocked. He made an interesting discovery: Asians can't become alcoholics.
Other than that...he was a jerk and in some aspects oblivious to worse...
In any case, of all the things that can be reinterpreted, Hitler and his goons are NOT one of them. And not the least reason being that they documented everything in detail.
Hitler is probably the only politician in history who said what he was going to do in his campaign and actually kept his word....too bad the people thought he was lying like the rest of them....
He spend much of his early years - when he was supposed to study - in the theater watching Wagner operas. Hardly anything progressive...he studied how to bamboozle people, and he did that well. He spend hours in front of his mirror to practice his speeches, gestic and all. He told the people what they wanted to hear.
