Was Hitler as bad as some make him out to be?

[promethean75]

"Armageddon's a terror for the haters of God."

For haters of Ben Affleck and Bruce Willis, too. Especially the part where Bruce is chasin Ben all around the oil rig with a shotgun. It's difficult to watch.

[Harbal]

I had no idea you were Stalin's psychiatrist. You think you know why he did what he did? Excellent. Publish the report, so we can see your expertise.

Why is it reasonable for you to offer an opinion on Stalin's motives, but not for me to do the same?

I'm just believing exactly what he said,

You are taking Stalin at his word?

what he did, and what the Soviet peoples thought he did. You're proposing they were all wrong.

Wrong to trust him, you mean? Perhaps a teeny weeny bit of scepticism might have been called for.

I haven't read Das Kapital, or the Communist Manifesto,

I'll let you do that, so we can talk about evidence. Let me know when you're done. My copy's right here, on my desk. I've got both.

Although I couldn't say what is particularly funny about that, it made me laugh.

[Immanuel Can]

Why is it reasonable for you to offer an opinion on Stalin's motives, but not for me to do the same?

I'm just believing exactly what he said,

You are taking Stalin at his word?

His word, his deeds, and what all the Soviets believed. What's your basis?

what he did, and what the Soviet peoples thought he did. You're proposing they were all wrong.

Wrong to trust him, you mean?

You know that's not what I meant. I mean how did they get to be so 'wrong' about Stalin, and you got to be so 'right'?

I haven't read Das Kapital, or the Communist Manifesto,

I'll let you do that, so we can talk about evidence. Let me know when you're done. My copy's right here, on my desk. I've got both.

Although I couldn't say what is particularly funny about that, it made me laugh.

Well, let's see who knows what he's talking about, then: the guy who admits he's never read either document, or the guy who has.

[Harbal]

I'm just believing exactly what he said,

You are taking Stalin at his word?

His word, his deeds, and what all the Soviets believed. What's your basis?

No more than gut feeling. Maybe I'm just a naturally suspicious type, but I can't help feeling there was something not quite right about those show trials of his, as well.

You know that's not what I meant. I mean how did they get to be so 'wrong' about Stalin, and you got to be so 'right'?

Perhaps being able to look at it from a position of hindsight helps.

Although I couldn't say what is particularly funny about that, it made me laugh.

Well, let's see who knows what he's talking about, then: the guy who admits he's never read either document, or the guy who has.

We will probably never know, as those reading our comments won't bother to give a verdict.

[Immanuel Can]

You are taking Stalin at his word?

His word, his deeds, and what all the Soviets believed. What's your basis?

No more than gut feeling.

Yeah. Well, I'll stick with the data, not somebody's "guts." Especially somebody who won't even read the relevant documents.

[Harbal]

His word, his deeds, and what all the Soviets believed. What's your basis?

No more than gut feeling.

Yeah. Well, I'll stick with the data, not somebody's "guts." Especially somebody who won't even read the relevant documents.

And I'll stick with playing a small part in trying to make sure nobody is taken in by your dishonest manipulation of the "facts".

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm not. But I am curious to know what you think Armageddon is all about, since you make a very basic suppositional error -- namely, that God would do anything so unjust as to, as the Bible puts it, "slay the righteous with the wicked."

Armageddon's a terror for the haters of God. It's not for God's people. Clear enough?

Interesting. My view of a terrestrial war is that all suffer. But you understand Armageddon (apparently) as having no effect on the environment (as all wars do) and as not affecting innocent people in surrounding areas.

I am sure in your (as you say) theological picture of Armageddon it is likely different from anything I’d imagined. In any case, it is highly mythological and therefore open to extremely varied interpretations.

[Harbal]

I'm not. But I am curious to know what you think Armageddon is all about, since you make a very basic suppositional error -- namely, that God would do anything so unjust as to, as the Bible puts it, "slay the righteous with the wicked."

Armageddon's a terror for the haters of God. It's not for God's people. Clear enough?

Interesting. My view of a terrestrial war is that all suffer. But you understand Armageddon (apparently) as having no effect on the environment (as all wars do) and as not affecting innocent people in surrounding areas.

I am sure in your (as you say) theological picture of Armageddon it is likely different from anything I’d imagined. In any case, it is highly mythological and therefore open to extremely varied interpretations.

I asked ChatGPT about Armageddon:

Me: Give me a brief account of Armageddon, if you would be so kind.

ChatGPT: Certainly! Armageddon is a term derived from the Bible, specifically from the Book of Revelation in the New Testament. It is often associated with the end times and the final battle between good and evil. It is all a load of bollocks, of course.

[Iwannaplato]

You are taking Stalin at his word?

what he did, and what the Soviet peoples thought he did. You're proposing they were all wrong.

Wrong to trust him, you mean? Perhaps a teeny weeny bit of scepticism might have been called for.

If someone engages in some activity IC doesn't like, whether leader or joe blow, and that person says they they are Christian, he'll say they are lying. Anyone who claims to be Marxist, on the other hand, they must be believed, even if they do things that Marx never suggested and even go against his ideas.

I admire and am aghast at the patience you show dealing with such a toxic, faux-humble hypocrite.

[iambiguous]

Next up: Was Hitler as good as others make him out to be?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Next up: Was Hitler as good as others make him out to be?

Ron Unz says: "Why Everything You Know About World War II Is Wrong."

[Alexis Jacobi]

I was thinking about Immanuel Can today and I realized that he is, in his way, rather incredible. I mean that he takes his Christian belief in the most absolute terms. This is "Bible literalism" taken to the farthest point. To be a modern man, and one with his academic background (I assume in ethics?) and yet to hold to an absolutist version of Christian realism is a tremendous feat.

[Age]

What were, or are, some of the insane, deranged, and/desperate portions of 'you' in regards to, exactly?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you rephrase the question?

What parts/portions of 'you', exactly, are insane, deranged, and/or desperate?

And, where did they come from, exactly?

I tend to think of these as portions of me that were not integrated well with the rest of me because I had suppressed, pushed away, denied what were reactions to abuse or toxic facets of society or people around me going back to birth and beyond. Once suppressed, denied, pushed away (and I'll add 'judged') they themselves can take on toxic forms. They were me but also to a significant degree not integrated with me. A bit like one hand stopping the other hand from doing something: hitting someone, grabbing a sweet, etc.
[/quote]

Thank you for the clarification. It is refreshing.

This explains more why 'you' view things, and respond the way that you do.

Do 'you' think or believe that 'you' know the 'real me', from those portions of 'me' that did not integrate with 'me', regarding 'you', better now?

And, if yes, then how far away do 'you' think or believe 'you' are away from fully understanding the 'real me', from the perspective of 'you'?

[iambiguous]

Next up: Was Hitler as good as others make him out to be?

Ron Unz says: "Why Everything You Know About World War II Is Wrong."

More to point [mine], I'm still waiting for AJ to actually connect the dots existentially between his philosophical assumptions about race and gender and sexual preference and Jews etc., and how those views would play out in a community in which he had the political power to enact legislation able to enforce his theoretical assumptions.

What did Hitler get right? What did he get wrong? Can a "serious philosopher" like AJ provide us with the most reasonable assessment?

My own exasperation [here] revolves by and large around the fact that even in regard to things like Hitler and fascism and racism and gender roles and sexuality and Jews, etc., I'm still no less fractured and fragmented. I recognize that my own value judgments "here and now" seem little more [to me] than moral and political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein and predicated on the assumption [and that's all it can be...a leap of faith] that a God, the God does not exist.

As if I -- or anyone else here -- can possibly pin that down.

[promethean75]

"I'm still no less fractured and fragmented"

Hey u ain't alone, pal. It's like i don't like gay people but i do like gay people. Or it is okay to have an abortion but it isn't okay. Or Hitler was a total boss but he wasn't he was a madman. Or black people are cool but they aren't cool. Or the free market is wonderful but it sux. Or letting henry buy a bazooka but not letting him buy one.

I don't even try to have a rational opinion anymore, Biggs, becuz I've been drawn and quartered by philosophy. I don't know what i believe anymore goddamit.