The fourth estate = the fifth column

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

alexjrgreen
Posts: 805
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Postby alexjrgreen » Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:28 pm

ravingdave wrote:If you look at history, the left has a habit of piling up bodies by the millions.

And the right doesn't? How about Genghis Khan?
Ars artis est celare artem.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Postby Helius » Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm

ravingdave wrote:Your statement reminds me of what obama said about the Russian invasion of Georgia. " Both sides need to excersize equal restraint. "
David


Dave, I think that is a great quote. He wasn't casting equal blame; The actions of Russia speak for itself. The quote even has a very understated comedic nuance.

I voted for the other guy, but, I'm becoming ever more impressed with this dude.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Postby ravingdave » Thu Jan 15, 2009 6:59 pm

alexjrgreen wrote:
ravingdave wrote:If you look at history, the left has a habit of piling up bodies by the millions.

And the right doesn't? How about Genghis Khan?


Genghis Khan is right wing ? Hmmm... there might be a basis to putting Genghis into the right wing, though he predates the right wing\left wing concept. Of course the people he killed were his enemy's, and not his own population the way leftests usually do it.

Seriously, what am I supposed to make of this ?


David

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Postby IntLibber » Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:04 pm

alexjrgreen wrote:
ravingdave wrote:If you look at history, the left has a habit of piling up bodies by the millions.

And the right doesn't? How about Genghis Khan?


Between the Chinese, Russian, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Cuban and German National Socialist parties, in the 20th century, are responsible for over 100 million deaths, far more than lived on Earth when Khan was alive.

Besides, what makes you think Ghengis Khan was right-wing? He was a peasant revolting against Chinese Imperialism. He is obviously the Che Guevera of his century.

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:09 pm

Helius wrote:
ravingdave wrote:Your statement reminds me of what obama said about the Russian invasion of Georgia. " Both sides need to excersize equal restraint. "
David


Dave, I think that is a great quote. He wasn't casting equal blame; The actions of Russia speak for itself. The quote even has a very understated comedic nuance.

I voted for the other guy, but, I'm becoming ever more impressed with this dude.


And the guys dressed in Polish uniforms in 1939 who attacked Germany should have restrained themselves too.

Look up Michael Totten's report of what really went on in the run up to the Georgian war in the summer of 2008. It has very little to do with the press reports. Russia dominated the press and it had agents on all the major blogs telling "their side" of the story. A classic disinformazia campaign. Worked well too. I had a bunch of them on my blog. They were easy to spot if you were looking. So the Russian "story" predominated.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2 ... bout-1.php

Russian rules of engagement, so to speak, go down harder than communism. And the Soviet era habits of disinformation are alive and well.

“You also have to remember the propaganda campaign that came out,” he said. “Human Rights Watch is accusing the Russian authorities of being indirectly responsible for the massive ethnic cleansing of Georgians that happened in South Ossetia. The Ossetians are claiming that the Georgians killed 2,000 people in Tskhinvali, but when Human Rights Watch got in there a few days ago and talked to the hospital director, he had received 44 bodies. There was nobody left in that town. Plus it's the oldest law of warfare: have your guns in populated areas, and when the enemy responds, show the world your dead women and children.

“Right,” I said. “That goes on a lot where I usually work, in the Middle East.”

“Yes,” he said. “That's exactly what the Russians were doing.”


That is just the end - you have to read the whole thing to get the timeline and the historical background.

Russia in effect attacked Georgia and the Georgia responded. The response was a "provocation". Kind of the way the current Hamas - Israeli dust up is reported. You know 1,000 killed (civilians all). Israel bombs UN School and UN local headquarters without provocation. SOS.

You know - I'm still not impressed by the new guy. But give him time - he is going to get rolled big time. If Blago can roll him what do you think Putin will do? Iran? Syria? China? etc. etc. etc.

If he doesn't do some hard stomping within his 1st 6 mos or a year he could get us into a world war.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Postby ravingdave » Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:18 pm

Helius wrote:
ravingdave wrote:Your statement reminds me of what obama said about the Russian invasion of Georgia. " Both sides need to excersize equal restraint. "
David


Dave, I think that is a great quote. He wasn't casting equal blame; The actions of Russia speak for itself. The quote even has a very understated comedic nuance.




George Will's point is that it is unreasonable to expect a country which has been invaded to show restraint. An analogy would be telling a woman who is being forcibly penetrated to quit hitting the attacker. The correct response is that the "Attacker should pull out!" The whole statement smacks of Rodney King's famous "Can't we all just get along ? " And demonstrates an incredible naivety.


John McCain of course said immediately that Russia needs to get out of Georgia, a position which Obama finally agreed with two days later.

Helius wrote: I voted for the other guy, but, I'm becoming ever more impressed with this dude.



I'm impressed with Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Mussilini, Pol Pot and Fidel Castro , but I wouldn't want any of them running my country. :)

Of course Obama does not resemble any of these people except in his ideology and chutzpah. I gotta say the guy has got to be incredibly ballsy (or incredibly naive) to run for president with HIS baggage. Any thinking person would have never believed they could have gotten away with having so many skeletons in the closet.

If the Media had treated him like Sarah Palin, he would now be a political greasy spot. I guess he figured he could count on them to spike all the bad information about him.


David

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Postby IntLibber » Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:39 pm

ravingdave wrote:
George Will's point is that it is unreasonable to expect a country which has been invaded to show restraint. An analogy would be telling a woman who is being forcibly penetrated to quit hitting the attacker. The correct response is that the "Attacker should pull out!" The whole statement smacks of Rodney King's famous "Can't we all just get along ? " And demonstrates an incredible naivety.


Well yes, thats how the bleeding hearts are used to dealing with bullies. When a kidnapper shoots a hostage, the first thing he says to the authorities or the person they are trying to get ransom from is, "See what you made me do?" As if it isnt the criminals fault.

Russia and Hamas are the same here.

I'll note that Obama comes from the most violent city in the US, which bans its citizens from being armed, whose police forces sell guns to gang bangers to ensure job security, and consequently has the highest homicide rate in the country.

Since when is a Chicago politician the right person to handle dealing with bullies?

alexjrgreen
Posts: 805
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Postby alexjrgreen » Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:11 pm

IntLibber wrote:Between the Chinese, Russian, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Cuban and German National Socialist parties, in the 20th century, are responsible for over 100 million deaths, far more than lived on Earth when Khan was alive.

Estimates of world population through history can be found here http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm. The population of China before Genghis Khan is estimated at 120 million (for example here http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1217590/genghis_khan_and_the_mongolian_horde.html?cat=37 and his campaign halved the population to 60 million.

The terms "left wing" and "right wing" have evolved since their first use in France in 1789, and there is a strong tendency for people to have personal definitions. In considering the Nazis to be left wing you are definitely in a minority. The most common meaning of "right wing" in current use describes political groups who stress the importance of nationalism, tradition and religion.

IntLibber wrote:Besides, what makes you think Ghengis Khan was right-wing? He was a peasant revolting against Chinese Imperialism. He is obviously the Che Guevera of his century.

The Mongols weren't part of the Chinese empire. Genghis Khan created the Mongol Empire first and then expanded it into China.

He gave strong importance to Mongol nationalism and Mongol tradition, practised his own religion and respected other people's. By the definition above, that makes him right wing.
Ars artis est celare artem.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Postby ravingdave » Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:29 pm

alexjrgreen wrote:

Estimates of world population through history can be found here http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm. The population of China before Genghis Khan is estimated at 120 million (for example here http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1217590/genghis_khan_and_the_mongolian_horde.html?cat=37 and his campaign halved the population to 60 million..





Even if you classify Genghis as "right wing", his body count still doesn't equal that of the leftists. I've seen estimates over 100 million dead. I really think the idea of Genghis as an ideologue is quite silly.

alexjrgreen wrote:The terms "left wing" and "right wing" have evolved since their first use in France in 1789, and there is a strong tendency for people to have personal definitions. In considering the Nazis to be left wing you are definitely in a minority. The most common meaning of "right wing" in current use describes political groups who stress the importance of nationalism, tradition and religion..


Yes, I am in a minority, but it's not because the broader population understands better than I do, it is for the converse reason. The Nazi's have been labeled "Right Wing" for decades, though their policies are completely leftist.

I suppose the Nazi's got labeled as "Right wing" as a result of their fervent hatred for the communists. People must have assumed that the opposite of the communists, (the ultimate left wingers.) must be right wingers.

It is my understanding that at least the American right is evolved from Edmund Burke and John Locke. The Founders of America were the quintesssential Rightests, especially the Anti-Federalists.

alexjrgreen wrote:
IntLibber wrote:Besides, what makes you think Ghengis Khan was right-wing? He was a peasant revolting against Chinese Imperialism. He is obviously the Che Guevera of his century.


The Mongols weren't part of the Chinese empire. Genghis Khan created the Mongol Empire first and then expanded it into China.

He gave strong importance to Mongol nationalism and Mongol tradition, practised his own religion and respected other people's. By the definition above, that makes him right wing.


You leave out the most important characteristics of "Right Wing."

Freedom and Free markets. Inalienable rights of man. Rule of Law. Enterprise and exceptionalism. The concept of Private ownership.

And others not enumerated. :)


David

alexjrgreen
Posts: 805
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Postby alexjrgreen » Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:07 am

ravingdave wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:He gave strong importance to Mongol nationalism and Mongol tradition, practised his own religion and respected other people's. By the definition above, that makes him right wing.


You leave out the most important characteristics of "Right Wing."

Freedom and Free markets. Inalienable rights of man. Rule of Law. Enterprise and exceptionalism. The concept of Private ownership.

And others not enumerated. :)

Check here http://www.museum.upenn.edu/Mongolia/section4b.shtml for modern Mongolian perceptions of Genghis Khan and see what you think...
Ars artis est celare artem.

joedead
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Manhattan, NY

Postby joedead » Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:24 am

I am not trying to be insulting, but do you know the difference ?

Your statement reminds me of what obama said about the Russian invasion of Georgia. " Both sides need to excersize equal restraint. "

George Will pointed out that one side is the INVADER, and the other side is being INVADED. The two are not morally equivilant.


How can the two sides be equal when 80%-90% of Journalists vote Democrat ? It's like asking NAZI's to report on Israel. (That's closer to the truth than most people would admit. )


If you look at history, the left has a habit of piling up bodies by the millions.


Not insulting at all. Let me help you understand my point of view: I find talk of "Right" Vs the "Left" to be far too similiar to talk of Protestants Vs Catholics. Yes, there are significant differences between the two, despite being cut from the same bread. Being an atheist, however, I see both as equally stupid. And honestly, you're pretty far off if you think that someone from the "Left" can't find as many stats and data to support their side as you can.

Does this help?


Check here http://www.museum.upenn.edu/Mongolia/section4b.shtml for modern Mongolian perceptions of Genghis Khan and see what you think...


FYI, I've spent some time in Mongolia, both in UB and in the countryside. I think it's poor journalism and investigation to say the Khan was responsible for political culture in Mongolia.

THIS man did much more for Democracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjaas%C3%BCrengiin_Zorig

I've visited the Zorig Foundation several times and met his sister. Claiming that modern Mongolian politics is based off the governing politics of a warlord's regime 800 years ago is just sloppy thinking.

The Zorig Foundation:
http://www.zorigfoundation.org.mn/index.php?lang=mn

Most Mongolians I've met, however, respect Chinggis as the first Mongolian to unify all the different clan and create a sense of national identity. He was not "Right" wing or "Left" wing. He was a despot; don't misconstrue him as anything else.

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:10 am

The Nazis were right wing only in comparison to the Communists.

Reread your Hayek.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

alexjrgreen
Posts: 805
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Postby alexjrgreen » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:32 am

MSimon wrote:The Nazis were right wing only in comparison to the Communists.

Reread your Hayek.

I imagine you're referring to "The Road to Serfdom".

Since Ordway Tead, the economics editor at Harper and Brothers complained "that the volume is labored, is over-written and that he can say all that he has to say in about half the space" I would recommend either:

the cartoon version http://www.mises.org/books/TRTS/ or

the Readers Digest condensed version http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf

before committing more time to the original.

At the time, publishing house Macmillan observed that "Professor Hayek is a little outside the stream of much present-day thought, both here and in England" and Chicago economist Frank Knight commented that "the book is an able piece of work, but limited in scope and somewhat one-sided in treatment".

Hayek sees (continental) socialism as anti-liberal and groups it with communism and nazism. He views Hitler as the natural consequence of Bismarck.
Ars artis est celare artem.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 805
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Postby alexjrgreen » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:53 am

joedead wrote:
Check here http://www.museum.upenn.edu/Mongolia/section4b.shtml for modern Mongolian perceptions of Genghis Khan and see what you think...


FYI, I've spent some time in Mongolia, both in UB and in the countryside. I think it's poor journalism and investigation to say the Khan was responsible for political culture in Mongolia.

Not wholly responsible, but he set the tone. As did Alexander the Great, further South, one and a half millennia before.

In England, Alfred the Great (847-899) laid the foundations that would lead to the Magna Carta.
Ars artis est celare artem.

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:13 pm

"that the volume is labored, is over-written and that he can say all that he has to say in about half the space"


I don't disagree. However, it is worth a read because Hayek was close to the events and gives a lot of detail that is missing from current assessments.

I haven't read the condensed version so I can't comment on how well it reflects the original.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests