Where did the Liberal Moral/Intellectual Superiority Complex Come From?

Not true.. I never did attend college.. I have been a soldier, tool and die maker, Firefighter, and now a Federal LEO. In my youth I could have been described as a Neo-con and my beliefs would have been cheered on this forum by many.... Then I went off to war and discovered how the government and the media can spin an illegal invasion into fighting for freedom and protecting america.. Spin retaliation for decades of meddling into.. "they hate our freedom".

This tripe is what turned me into a skeptic of authority and a seeker of truth. As I have grown older and more experienced my observations have reinforced my rejetion of the divisive mentality that our government purposefully inflicts on the people of this country.

Most people will defend

A;the the party that they believe defends thier present station in life at the expense of all others.

B; promises to give them the station in life they did not earn.

Both parties promising these things rob both sets of mindless morons as they they set one against the other.

All of you who fall for the division are caged monkeys that scream in misdirected anger at the other poor saps in the cage across the aisle.

 

Apparently you don't. If you really think the Nazis weren't anti-capitalist and pro national socialism then you're ignorant. In English its called the Nazi Party, but in German it was "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" (NSDAP) = National Socialist German Workers' Party.

 

They claimed to be at first, however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

 

Y'know what trips me out is, I know you're a smart guy. Do you really believe that what Hitler meant by sozialistische or national socialism bears any resemblance to what Americans are talking about when they talk about socialism?

Check out that thread happening right now on page one where the suggestion is being made that Hitler would be preferable to Obama. If you were right about the nazis and socialism, wouldn't it be us (relative) socialists saying that, not the diehard capitalists?

At least we all agree that the nazis were a bad thing. There's that, I suppose.

 

Wow! So what HAVE those danm Liberals done to create this "anything goes" society? I mean, I have my own criticisms of them but mine are well, you know, based in reality. Are you talking about letting those danm Hispanics buy houses? Blacks marry whites? Gays exist without being beheaded?

What would you change back to, social-issues wise?

 

From your source:

From Merriam-Webster dictionary on socialism, "a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state" or "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods ".

Yes. Government ownership is exactly what the Nazis wanted and that is socialism.

I'm staying out of that thread because there is nothing intelligent going on there.

That's true.

 

You realize that there are valid concerns (about the same) coming from others who do NOT hold your worldview, don't you?

 

Your dream is beautiful, I would love for that to be possible. Sadly... it is not, and never will be. You want there to be abundance of everything for everyone, and you are forgetting that everything has a cost to it. People actually have to DO something to get something in this life. Someone somewhere has to grow the food for you to eat it. For you to live in a nice house.... someone.... somewhere had to build it. And each of those things that you say that you want to have for everyone cost someone their time, or money, or both.

This is why I speak of utopia not being possible. Because for YOU to get utopia, a LOT of other people have to work really hard to provide that for you. Wishing and hoping never does seem to make things better..... but hard work DOES....

 

Signcutter says it the best:

There is a pattern of denial in all of Silicon Magicians posts. He wants to believe. He is desperate to reinforce his beliefs despite mounting evidence that he is having difficulty ignoring.

This is what he would like to keep believing:


1. The American dream is alive and well and anyone who works hard and diligently to equip themselves for work from an early age will prosper.

- the most important corollary of this is that poor and unfortunate people are responsible for their own predicament. It follows from that deduction that they are unworthy of our support, except as an act of grace through charity.

This is why any thinking person should watch carefully for language terms that embody this idea - the classic is to classify people into "winners" and "losers". Silicon desperately hopes he is a "winner", not realizing that the concept implies that he is competing in some form of fair fight.

Lets face it Silicon, you are never going to be one of "them".



2. Anyone who attempts to point out that belief #1 is flawed must be attacked because such observations, no matter how buttressed by fact, threaten his self image. I can understand that because it must be deeply threatening to have to admit that no matter how hard or diligently he works, that one day he may be thrown on the scrapheap like so many others.

The opening post of this thread is a case in point:

Lets get one thing clear. The American Dream, if it ever existed, is dead.

The dice are loaded against any kid that is not born with a Silver Spoon and a trust fund.

Furthermore, the Rich folk intend it to stay exactly that way.

http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP_American_Dream.pdf

 

Yes, the OLD version of the "American Dream" is dead (or dying). It is indeed time to 'revise' that 'dream'. And as you point out above, some people DO NOT want to think/believe that must be done.

 

it seems this discussion has gone quite far from its initial inquiry. how did hitler get in here?
the reason liberals feel intellectually superior to conservatives is simple. b we don't have as many blatantly moronic spokespeople who deny the obvious in order to politically pander to people who believe that the world is 6 thousand years old and are huddled around the single issue of abortion. we also lack a preponderance of people who routinely vote against their own interests supporting the right of huge corporation to run ragged over us.
the one drawback of democracy, which can't be helped, is that half the population fall on the dumb side of the normal distribution curve for human intelligence and have the same electoral power as those on the bright side. in America today the loudest voices seem to be coming from the lowest quarter of the human intelligence pool. how else can one explain the popularity of a sarah palin?

 

Again, what the some of the Nazis said and what they did were very different things. They seemed to create their own definition of socialism. Private property and socialism are incompatible. They hated communism and Bolshevism and rejected class conflict theories. I'm not sure if they used any element of socialism once they got into power.

 

So, the Democratic Republic of East Germany was, by your logic, Democratic?

 

What about the democratic people's Republic of Korea? By his logic, that must be both democratic and a Republic. Similarly there is the Democratic Republic of Congo. According to him, they must also be both democratic and a republic!!

 

Seems so, I think we should just rename Earth to Utopia. Should solve all our problems.

 

You lock in perfect excuses for your own failures in advance. Thereby relieving yourself of all and any responsibility.

TO claim that NEVER again will ANYONE, not born to wealth, EVER achieve wealth is a blatantly stupid post. 10's of thousands will rise from poverty to wealth on their own in the future. Just as 10's of thousands have in the past. They always have, they always will. They are the people you liberals FEAR and HATE most.

 

Sorry, I have to step in here.

Anyone who claims that there is no social mobility is wrong. However anyone who claims that social mobility is high in America compared to other developed nations is also wrong.

Social mobility in the U.S. has declined. Meaning that one's parents income is becoming an increasingly important determinant in one's income. The American Dream which relies on social mobility and also helps social cohesion is being eroded.

 

More liberal excuses.

The only reasons to not make it is to lack the ability, or to lack the fierce determination. It never was easy, it never will be easy. There are thousands of excuses for failure. There always has been there always will be. If the determination and ability are present, success will come. Excuses are much, much, easier.

 

Absolute rubbish.

Why has social mobility declined? Are abilities or determination falling? And if so why?

Now, you will say "oh it's them guv'mint handouts, ain't it!".

Of course that is also nonsense. If that were the case then the welfare states of Europe would have less social mobility not 2-3 times more.

Now, tell me, what exactly determines ability and determination? Are we to believe the 60's consisted of intelligent brave people that left idiotic timid spawn? Or are we expected to believe that the Nordic races are somehow superior? No, of course not. The massive decline in social mobility can be directly traced to the butchery of Reagan and Thatcher. It is no coincidence that the U.S. and the U.K suffer from low and declining social mobility and a large tail of low-skill labour.

 

Well, thank you for putting words in my mouth and making asses of yourselves.

I also let their actions and words speak for themselves. Nazis are socialists.

 

Nope, try again. The Nazi's true to their Fascist beliefs declared war on socialism

Fascists saw themselves as 'the Third Way', an escape from the twin evils of communism and capitalism. They are best described as corporatist or corporativist and to a large degree Mercantilist. Indeed the path to power for fascists involved anti-communist positions and allegiances with big business and a middle-class terrified of the Reds.

In contrast to socialists, fascists did not ascribe to class warfare theories and instead stressed the unity of the nation. It was beleived that the state could act as a mediator between various groups in order to create a stronger nation/empire. Socialists wanted a destruction of the capitalist class and an abolition of nationalism.

I'm sorry, this "guv'mint is socialism is guv'mint" malarky won't cut it.

 

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to this subject. Nazis were not socialists, just like North Korea is neither Democratic nor a Republic.


Nazis supported private ownership, privatized state owned enterprises, persecuted actual socialists(the first group to be placed in concentration camps in Nazi Germany were not jews, but socialists), outlawed unions, worked to enrich Germany's capitalist class, etc. To call a group who behaved in that manner socialists, is absurd.

 

Why am I not surprised that the liberals would argue this nor would they see the actions of the Nazis as socialist.

 

I'm sorry. The 'Nazi's are socialists!' or the even more erroneous 'Nazi's are left-wing (with left-wing being defined as government)' are a relatively new concoction of the American Right.

Now what we call them is irrelevant. Whether or not something falls into a certain category is just arbitrary definition. That said, the attempt to redefine socialism to include Nazi's and the same attempt to define Nazi's as left-wing is an attempt at a rhetorical coup. An attempt at a massive smear campaign of guilt by association directed at the Democracts in America. Now while I have little respect for the Democrats, I do have respect for political economy. If we are to take the nonsense proposition that 'guv'mint = left-wing' then we also have to conclude that Monarchism is left-wing which would turn political economy on it's head seeing as the initial definition of right-wing was Monarchism.

 

I wrote a fairly extensive post as a reply, and then remembered...you are the guy who pretends he isn't a liberal and we all know you are.

Short version for you. Change isn't progress, and looney left liberals and progressives ideologies are societally destructive because they cannot understand that.