We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.
– Attributed to Adolf Hitler, 1935
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I’m glad this is only “attributed” to Hitler, because I’ve seen the quote many times before, with variations, and there is some doubt about its provenance. It’s true that one of the first things the Third Reich did was to further tighten gun laws that had already been tightened considerably under the Weimar regime – the rationale being that the State should have a monopoly of control over firearms – but the quote itself I’m dubious about. I’m happy to be proved wrong if someone can supply a solid reference.
Bzzzzt! Urban legend.
One of those RKBA Bogus Quotes that Wouldn’t Die.
“…the world will follow our lead into the future.”
And it has, it has.
pretty spurious quote, even if it was true….
How ’bout finding a quote from him about how autobahns were really good, & would allow people to get around the country quickly?
Or maybe Volkswagens, & how they were gonna provide cheap cars for the masses (oh sh**… I drive a golf! am i secretly under fascist influence?)
Argue the case for gun posession all you want, but please leave Hitler out of it. There have been totalitarian states with armed populaces, & there are plenty of non-totalitarian democracies where gun ownership is highly restricted.
This is exactly the kind of point that makes people believe gun-ownership advocates are off on some extreme, crazy, irrelevant tip (tho’ i realise you’re mainly preaching to the converted here)
You can check out this and other bogus pro-gun control quotes at the Guncite web site. You might also want to check out their essay on the myth of Nazi gun control.
Still, if anyone has an inexplicable hankering for Nazis today…Leni Riefenstahl is finally dead, I see.
Hmm – is there a corollary to Godwin’s law for threads that start with Hitler quote aimed at your political opponents? It seems like partial-birth abortion for a discussion thread.
Thanks for the links to the debunking info. I always suspected the quote was too good to be true, and now I know it is!
Hmm. And Hitler was an amateur watercolourist, dog-lover and vegetarian, so we must assume all amateur watercolourists, dog-lovers and vegetarians are Nazis.
Question is: what would Indiana Jones do?
Pitiful.
One of the reasons Hitler’s gun control is brought up is because the resulting diarmed nation was easier to dominate and, for certain citizens, easier to exterminate.
Your weak attempts at counterexamples purposefully miss the point. Why the disingenuousness?
Autobahns did not help Hitler emininate internal resistance in Germany and exterminate Jews without opposition.
Volkswagens did not help Hitler emininate internal resistance in Germany and exterminate Jews without opposition.
Neither amateur watercolouring, dog-loving, nor vegetarianism helped Hitler emininate internal resistance in Germany and exterminate Jews without opposition.
However, gun registration arguably did.
Your counter-examples, presented in sneering tones, are utter garbage. Find ones that are actually applicable, or shoo.
Forget spurious quotation, and Godwin’s Law as a rule of thumb for discussion off the rails, there’s something deeper here.
As presented we have effectively an argument from authority compounded with false implication. “Hitler bad. He say thing. Bad thing.”
Rational libertarian perspective?
Hitler bad. He say thing. Bad thing.
Is a unserious characterization of the debate.
One of the reasons Hitler’s gun control is brought up is because the resulting diarmed nation was easier to dominate and, for certain citizens, easier to exterminate.
Is a much better one, posted nearly 2 hours ago, so I must assume you ignored it on purpose.
I wonder why?
interesting point, but…. does anyone have any figures on how armed the population of Germany was beforehand? Would the Jews all have been packing pieces were it not for Hitler? (am suspecting not, but then you never know) & furthermore, would a shotgun or whatever really have helped at the end of the day, against thugs who were doubtless armed themselves?
Furthermore, i was bringing up the other examples as a way of refuting the implication that gun control is basically a step on the way to fascism. There’s gun control in many countries which have taken *very* few steps towards fascism… equally there have been relatively freely available guns in some countries that exhibited very fascist tendencies (Taliban-era Afganistan, anyone? Also sounds like the Iraqi populace at large were quite well armed, judging by the number of weapons our brave troops have confiscated.).
Also, Autobahns may well also have helped Hitler with all his Final Solutions etc, by making it easier to transport thugs from a to b.
And further, if the German populace had been armed to the teeth, given the level of popular antisemitic hysteria there, do you not think that some of the privately owned guns might have been used to further perpetuate anti-Jewish violence? You have to remember, Hitler didn’t steal power; he was handed it on a plate by a sizeable chunk of the German population.
Why? Because I was responding to the original quote, and its presentation, not a debate on whether putative disarmament of Germans might have made Hitler’s job easier.
Tightening of gun-laws would have been used to deny weapons to identified political opponents and Jews (though on a piecemeal basis as a result of the satrapy structure of the Nazi state). Disarming the general population while re-militarising could hardly have been part of the plan.
Who has weapons does matter. The world is full of examples to demonstrate all you need for bloody chaos is to make sure a large number of teenage boys have automatic weapons.
No Guy, you were not responding to the author’s origional quote.
You were inserting your own interpetation, a fallacious one.
He simply provided the quote. Any interpetation was entirely on your part. He did not even say that Hitler was evil.
So where did you get that? Because if you know anything about Hitler, that’s what you know about him. In a similar vein, if you know anything about the ‘Hitler disarmed Germany’ argument, you also know WHY gun supporters point to it.
You knew, and you chose to mischaracterize anyway.
Now to reply to A_t (who, by the way, is actually debating):
Perhaps Germany was already partially disarmed by previous governments. And they therefore share in the blame. So what? The Germans were just as disarmed. That made fascism easier. It didn’t make facism inevitable.
If you look at the history of the Warsaw uprising, you will see that the Germans had a hell of a time killing those Jews, as compared to the disarmed sheep who marched onto the trains to death. Would an armed population have guaranteed more Warsaw ghettos? Not precisely, but it would have made them both possible, and far more likely.
Gun confiscation does not invariably lead to facism, but facists invariably prefer a disarmed populace.
If you’re thinking of e.g. the Congo and Cambodia, the large numbers of teenage boys with automatic weapons were/are not counterbalanced by large numbers of regular adult citizens similarly armed – the bloodthirsty teens were pressed into service as scary cannon fodder by cynical paymasters.
Presumably your unstated point is that uncontrolled access to arms (Gasp! Blench!) is to be deprecated, and that (as others seem to be suggesting) A.Hitler’s tight grasp on his citizens’ right to own weapons was not all that naughty, and not very important in terms of totalitarianism. I don’t necessarily want to see completely unfettered access to guns myself, just a huge liberalisation of the present oppressive controls; but any study of history suggests that on the whole, forbidding the people to own weapons has been the hallmark of repressive regimes. Seems pretty simple to me – but I know a lot of people, especially in UK, exhibit an almost neurotic dread of guns and those who wish to own them. Successful brainwashing by the last century’s worth of governments?
No, Mr Waxx, my point was precisely that any idiot can be relied upon to know that Hitler is a by-word for evil, if not necessarily why; hence that a purported statement of Hitler’s in approbation of gun control reads as an attempt falaciously to discredit gun control by association with Hitler.
I was hinting that such an argument is only likely to work with idiots and doesn’t sit well in such an intelligently argued blog.
Tony H:
Yes, and I’m thinking of Sierra Leone, Uganda, Zimbabwe, parts of South Africa and South LA, the Taliban (boys behind the beards), Jamaica, Colombia, Nepal… most anyplace that has ongoing gang warfare, vendetta or civil war these days.
My point is not necessarily that I’m frightened of guns (though I am); but that gangs of teenagers are much more frightening than guns, and modern technology tips the balance to their part. Formerly the grown-ups had the advantages of strength, skill, and organisation. Thanks to messrs Kalshnikov and Uzi and their light, easy, reliable guns, illiterate kids of the world have killing power as never before. The order of civil society is weaker, therefore.
I do think private individuals should be permitted to own guns for their own defence (or any other non-aggressive purpose). I don’t think wholesale arming of society counts as progress, however. And I’m bewildered, and rather disturbed, by the enthusiasm of a number of regular commentators here for armaments.
Why yes, Guy. Your straw man is indeed unworthy of an intelligently argued blog like this one.
Thank you for noticing.
Ryan, saying “He did not even say that Hitler was evil” is extremely disingenuous; as Guy pointed out, you’d have to be an idiot (or a fascist) not to recognise Hitler as a by-word for evil in this day & age.
I still feel that the initial use of the quote was pretty dubious in terms of intelligent reasoning.
No, it was not disingenuous, it was my point.
Why don’t you go look at what I wrote. Do the reading thing, you know, that thing with your eyes.
You might discover this quote:
Now lets review what YOU said.
Ah, so I am being disingenous for WHAT, EXACTLY?? For not saying that everyone understood that Hitler was evil? So how do you square that with what I said?
Do you think it honest to simply play pretendy-tend that I said other than what I did? Or does your brain simply filter out context in an effort to keep your ideology in one piece?
I will repeat what I said, in different words. Hopefully they won’t broach sixth-grade reading comprehension level, and you and Guy can understand what it is I mean.
The poster simply posted the quote. THEREFORE you had to fill in context from your brains, the wet quishy thing between your ears. PROOF of this is that he never mentioned that Hitler was evil. THEREFORE you are expected to fill in ‘Hitler was an evil man’ and ‘Hilter was a fascist’ from your vast storehouse of knowledge.
With me so far? I don’t have a bouncing ball to punctuate each word like on Reading Rainbow.
LIKEWISE, you are ALSO expected to fill in ‘Hitler killed the Jews, without much resistance’ when turning your brain towards the question of disarming Germany. You don’t have to agree weather this is bad or good, but you DO have to know this happened. This is not esoteric knowledge, to be gained by sacrificing eye of newt and tincture of frog at the local witches’ union meeting.
Still with me?
SO, given that you ARE EXPECTED to know that the argument exists that disarming the Jews made their extermination easier, THAT THEREFORE characterizing the quote like this:
Is a gross oversimplification, is a purposeful ignoring of the salient point in favor of playing dumb, and the quintessential straw man.
I could have summarized the entire post above by simply saying Guy’s quote was a straw man, but apparently that causes brain farts in this oh-so-enlightened forum. I already tried it.
Let me borrow a page from Guy’s book to explain why you would do this: “Guy on my side. Guy say thing. Must be true. Must be logical. Cannot be straw man. Me close ears, not hear wicked person who say I wrong”.
Ugh.
ok… i’m not sure what you’re on about now, but all i meant was:
My impression of the initial post was that it implied a connection between a desire to ban gun ownership & being a fascist. I would refute this implication.
I also understand that it *may* just have meant that disarming Germany made it easier for Hitler to round up & kill off Jews, but again… taken in a modern context, the implication is that disarming a population will make such things more likely. Most of Western Europe has not seen such activities since then, & is generally quite firearm-free, similarly, some places in the world which are heavily tooled up have experienced ethnic cleansing & authoritarian government… so for me anyway, that’s that inference somewhat debunked.
If we disagree, so be it, but there’s no need to resort to insulting another person’s intelligence just because they don’t see the wisdom of your ways & agree immediately.
Call me naive, but a key reason – perhaps the principal one – for my being, broadly speaking, a libertarian, is that I think most people in sophisticated, highly developed over a long period, “civilised” societies such as the UK (I really can’t speak for other societies), are pretty much OK. That is, they are tolerant, care for their fellows, and are not inclined to casual murder or irresponsible behaviour of lesser import. So I’m confident that the great majority of people can perfectly well be trusted to own weapons, and indeed if they did it would be a severe disincentive for the criminal element, many of whom would not survive long. Our rulers, of course, think we are all incipient psychopaths – or that we might use our arms to resist their impertinent fiats, which in their minds amounts to much the same thing.
To adapt Guy Herbert somewhat, “the order of civil society” would be strengthened in the face of the tiny minority disposed to criminal violence, if the peaceable majority were armed.
Gun nut? Me? I just don’t like being treated as a potential nutter, despise & distrust the State for treating me thus, think we deserve better (and fewer) rulers,and happen to like guns because they’re interesting bits of kit…
I’m insulting your intelligence because when I pointed out a straw man of Guy’s, you directly accused me of being disingenuous.
Further, as I subsequently proved, your accusation was nonsensical on its face had you bothered to read what I said before opening your mouth.
Perhaps your error is laziness or carelessness rather than malice or lack of intelligence, but I expect better of you, because I know you CAN form a reasoned argument when you want to.
Just don’t make the error of assuming people who agree with you will always be correct.
LOL, I went and wrote all this before I looked at any of the posting dates, so probably no one will ever read it, but it took me too much time to write to just delete it…
I think it’s a fallacious argument to compare the United States’ gun control issue/desire to remain armed with European countries’ general lack of an armed citizenry. Most “Western” European nations have a centuries-old history of a disarmed public (and the public being used to it, and never having the wherewithal to arm) due to the ruling classes not allowing the poverty-stricken, helpless peasants to own anything more dangerous than a pitchfork. They were prevented from arming precisely to keep the oppressive ruling classes in power. They’ve been disarmed for 900 years, and are used to it, and are comfortable enough these days to see no need to arm. The United States on the other hand (or even the original colonies for that matter), would never have been able to survive, much less flourish, without the majority of the populace being armed. This nation was settled by independent-thinkind individualists in search of a home, free from exactly the kind of goverments that demand an unarmed populace and a static class system, where a man could make of himself whatever his ambition and ability allowed. When being under British rule became too much like the “old country”, we kicked them out. Unarmed peasants would not have been able to do that. We’ve been armed since day one, and our national self-image is based to a large extent on that history. So to compare the Europeans’ lack of perceived need or desire for weapons, when they never had them to begin with, with our desire or perceived need to keep what we’ve always had (or our suspicion of government’s attempts to limit our ownership of weapons), is comparing apples to oranges.
The History Channel spends millions of dollors making edited documentaries on Hitler and they almost never quote his direct words or if they do they usually mis-represent them or use them in the wrong context. If the History Channel made real historical documentaries on Jesus as well as Hitler people would not beileive their eyes and ears . Imagine….a whole hour of untamppered philosophical quotes from Hitler’s never ending monologues from “Table Talk”…”Memoies of a Confident”…”Hitler’s Secret Conversations” along with Eva Brauns home movies…there’s no doubt the masses would view this mysterious figure differently. Is this bad? Is truth bad? Is information bad? Never. I’m in no way saying that the History Channel or any other documentary channel should only propogandize Hitler’s strenghth, vision and genious that would be monsterous for he clearly had many weaknesses which cost him everything and eventualy his vision. There is also no justification for the crimes commited by the Third Riech and extermination of an entire people is never forgivable since not all of any race, people or movement are bad. So there is so much contraversy over whether Hitler was a vegetarian, a homosexual, a right wing hippie, a New Ager , a self-hateing Jew or whatever else will make money and spark un-intlectually based contraversy and argument; but if the whole story was told unsensored and unbiased people would see the truth and learn from it. Most importantly we could learn how not to repeat the same mistakes and would stop attacking one thing at a time and look at the whole picture. All races, especialy Jews should study Hitler and if they did they would discover that they agree with him on many aspects of his visoin for a new future while still recognizing where they clearly disagree with him and where he was clearly wrong..I know I have. Especially Jews will see that he developed his opinions and prejudices in the same way they would and do when they see unrighteousness in Gentiles and other Jews. The enigma of Hitler will never clear, people will never shake off their blind hate derived from lack of knowlege, and most importantly no one will ever understand how one of the most enlightened nations in the world went for a prophetic madman like Hitler in times of trouble, uncertainty, and international abandonment untill they see the real man behind the insanity. Hitler will remain a figure above and behond us untill we confront him in all totality.
It also might amuse you that I personaly know Ryan Berry and while he acknowleges that vegetarianism was just one of many so-called anomolies in the nazi movement he still insists on writing all out smear campaigns on Hitler, it’s okay, I forgive him, I know that he like so many others are just so frightened by Hitler, and would be even more frightened if they agreed with him on anything. Furthur more no one has the intelectual power to without promoting; and while clearly denounceing the crimes of the Third Riech, also have the courge to see that the nazi’s weren’t wrong about everything and neither was Hitler. Ryan Berry is a great zealot for the peacefull compassionate vegetarian future which is to come and I still love him inspite of his fear drivin smear campiagn on Hitler perhaps as a repayment for all the trouble and embarrassment that the shadow of Hitler has caused him in his life of vegetarian activism. Still I strongly oppose the way in which he wrote his book debunking Hitler’s vegetarianism.
I myself am a vegetarian and historical commentator and when one studies the Third Riech one finds countless anomolies almost like there were two Riech’s or two Hitler’s. On one hand the Nazi’s had a “zero tolerance position” when regarding people of Jewish decent while on the other hand Hitler over his twelve years as Furur personaly exempted not one two or three but THOUSANDS of Germans of Jewish decent, {mostly quarter-and half-Jews} and most were soldjers many of which gained high positions of command over thousands of Germans while other were made for Jewish freinds of high ranking nazi’s, Himmler, Rudolf Hess, many others protected at least one Jew during the Third Riech and the imfamous Adolf Eichman exempted many Jews whom he favoured. When he liked a jew he would usually send them a one way ticket to Israel because he has huge Zionist connections. He always told them ‘it’s a beautifull country, you’ll love it there”. As far as Hitler he even exempted a Jew named Otto Warburg who was conducting ground breaking cancer reserch in Berlin and many others.There were an estimated 200 “protected Jews” in Berlin alone. These are just one of the many contraditary actions which would take place in Nazi Germany giving the world the false assumsion that the nazi’s as a whole were capable of practicing “tolerance”. Confronting the unsensored truth about the nazi experience will help us understand it’s significane in our century and those to come. I hope you will gain some insight from reading this small essay.
Anyway let me stop dragging my feet; here is my interpertation of the many anomolies in the nazi movement and my new political vision of “Libertarian Socialism” which I think is the only way to peace for the many “tribes of humanity”:
So-Called Anomolies in the Nazi Movement
It’s not like Hitler just happened to go vegetarian, or that he just happened to love art, or that he just happened to use the anceint symbol of the swastika. I’m so sick and tired of seeing people make excuses for Hitler’s behaviour and that of the nazi’s as a whole. New Agers make excuses for his use of the swastika, vegans try to excuse his vegetarianism, hippies exuse his love for art. It’s not that he just happened to use the swastika because it looked tyranical, many upper ranking nazi’s including himself were well versed on the Vedas, Himmler carried the Bagavagita with him during the WWII and was well versed in all things occult as was Hitler. It’s not that out of all the meat-loving Germans Hitler for some reason-“probably medical” went vegetarian, many of the high ranking nazi’s were vegetarians–Himmler, Rudolf Hess, and others. It’s also said that the nazi’s persecuted vegetarian groups, but they did not persecute them simply because they were vegetarian {although vegetarinism went against german nationalistic ideals because most German dishes were meat based} but because many of them practiced the vegetarianism of Gandih and they were therefor targeted by the nazi’s as pasifist or pro-communist. Hitler said much about how pasifism was a great idea but that the only way to arrive at a world which could be romanticly pasifist was if Germans conqured it first. So Hitler understood why people saw a light in pasifism he just felt they were dreamers who left reality behind as they pondered thoughts of a “better future”. Hitler said “If war consumed the earth the last pasifist would die out with the last German”–asserting that Germans are often impressed by romantic ides and that the world would use that to their destructive interest. When Hitler said “the world of the future will be vegetarian” he probably also thought that the ideal compassionate vegetarian world of the future would be pasifist. There was another strange figure who has been aptly named “Hitler’s Preistess” That woman went by the name of Savitri Devi. No one ever talks about her and I doubt that Ryan Berry would ever takle her situation. She was a European gone Hindu, she worshiped Adolf Hitler as a God–preferably Lord Vishnu, she went vegetarian by chioce at age 7 and all through her life she campaigned for animal rights, she promoted militant vegetarianism, and she was extremly environmentalist. To her the beauties of nature and the divinity of animals were worth preserving more than humanity if it did not wish to respect nature and all it’s beautifull creations. If you take away her racist veiws she would have gotten along terribly well in a hippy commune! Even a New age circle! If it was just one or two anomolies in the right wing nazi movement to exuse everyone would understand. But these supposedly “left-wing” anomolies seem to be everywere you look when researching the nazi’s and it only leaves us with the conclusion that Hitler, the founder of the movement had many views that today would be seen as “left wing”, even “Libertarian” and “progressive” and this not only forces us to question the nature of ideas that people claim can cure the world of it’s ills but also helps us realize that the misuse of any idea no matter how great can lead to the most mosterous evil. Reserch into the dark and light sides of nazism can also show us that sometimes the greatest ideas can produce the worst evil when applied wrong. We must realize that most of us have rightwing tendencies as well as leftwing ones. But I think the most important lesson is not to be an extemist, no matter who you are even if you happen to right. Right now we face an environmental crisis and we must wisen up, become undependent on foriegn oil and use smarter alternatives. If we wish to be treated like human beings “when” and or “if” the superior aliens arive we should treat animals with the same respect that any evolving being with feelings deserves. For one thing is certain, if the extraterrestrials treated us the way we treat animals we would not be too happy about it.
we must also understand that some people choose to “live in accordance with the nature of this {crule} world”. And in this world of opprotunity the smarter and stronger animals usually kill and eat those less developed instead of cherishing and helping them. Evolution isn’t equal for everyone. People must come to things on their own. Revolutions are organic, when they take place no one can stop them, but it’s impossible to start a revolution without being some kind of mind-manipulating dictator. Vegetarianism seems like it will take awhile to catch on. Most people are still mentaly in that concrete jungle of “eat or get eaten” and they won’t change as quik as some of us might like. When I eat among meat eaters, I don’t say–how you enjoyin that pigs ass? If they don’t ask me most of the time I won’t even mention my vegetarianism. Most of my freinds and family know my veiws and they respect them at a distance. For one thing when vegans or vegetarians bring up their philosophy in front of meat eaters they should remember that their freinds deep down in their heart know that we’re right and it hurts them to know what they are doing and we are seen as the “bearers of bad news” and “bearers of bad news” are always regreted. Many meateaters are loving, careing, moral people and it hurts them to know that they’ve been enjoying something that requirs evil every day of their life. Everything comes of age, and eventually everyone must eat from that horrible tree of knowlege that ruins everybodies “innocence” no matter how much they might rebel against the knowlege of the truth. As vegetarians we must enlighten people on the dark side of their lifestyle but we should never preach. “Young vegetarians” like young Christians and young hippies feel a need to preach the good news on a loud speaker. With age comes wisdom and loss of imaturity. I think the lesson of the twentieth century is that you can’t wipe others out. The communists can’t wipe out the “middle class”, hippies can’t wipe out the “human piggies”, and the Nazi’s couldn’t get rid of the Jews—–thank God!—-we got Abbie Hoffman, Bob Dylan {well back in the day anyway} Albert Einstine, and Carl Sagan and many other’s thank’s to pure providence. Since no one is gonna win–and {mabey to many shouldn’t} I think the best thing to do is aquier tolerance. The different tribes must learn to live–side by side if need be–in tolerance–meateaters included–otherwise we would have to rehabilitate all the carnivours beings on earth, and that is a great idea! Libertarian Socialism is where we are headed at this moment if my calulations are right and it dosen’t mean we have agree on everything and it dosen’t mean we intergrate idea’s or ways of life, but if we don’t aknowlege each others right to exist we will die fighting wars of idealism and everyone could end up losing; if anything no one as {Gandih would say} would have an “honerable victory” because every action in the physical universe has it’s reaction and the evil that was destroyed would reincarnate. Mabey we should not try to “change the world” instead we should change our home and acept the world for what it is while still improving it. Southerners won’t change the north any quicker than the liberal north will change the south so we must stop attacking each other, but if your a southerner and your idea of a good time is hanging black people from trees that is not an expression of the enlightened Libertarian idea of “states rights” and the Socialist system of federalism should intervene and you will lose your right. We all must remember that the south has just gotten over their overt racism and their not givin up their quears! We’re takin away evrathing they held dear! Everything in due time. The north has no right {unless you favour forced enlightenment} to take away the south’s Christianity “which it clings to” but the south has no right to infiltrate our science classroom with their Christian Bible. Christians like Jimmy Carter are calling for another refromation from within the Church and in the practice of Christianity and hopefully they will win the battle and Christians can become a member of the Libertaian Socialist New World of the “third path” and we will be able to live with them in peace. If the reformers focus on the “message of Christ” as Jimmy Carter does they could become tolerant and we might be able to tolerate them and vis-versa. If they are tolerant we should be too. The problem is that each side want to “change” the other and both the extreme left and the extreme right are gonna end up boomeranging each other for they are the same in the sense that they both want absolute power, absolute control, and “They want the world and they want it NOW!” when compared with the slogan -“Today Germany Tommorrow the world” the message is identicle–dominion. Vegetarians must be polite when spreading the message and more people might listen to us. And each group should learn to learn to clean their own Church. Because each group has it’s dark charachters, and each movement has it’s fannatics that are willing to spill innocent blood if nessacary to make shure that their wishes come true too quick. Vegetarianism ,pacifism, animal rights, and peacefull environmental evolution will be realities of the future when humanity get’s over it’s lower natures–which are inherint in all human beings-{vegetarian or not}. We must like Gandih, Buddha and many others simply wait for our way is fourtunately in the natrual order of things. If we look to have our way and law through ruthless execution and not “natural order” {like Bush is doing in Iraq} we will lose one more time. At the same time we should do everything we can in our daily lives through words and deeds to show people the light, compassion, truth, and justice which is to sweap the world into a re-created model of “Noah’s Ark”. Okay, I went to far, slap me please, if I become a fundemetalist. Luckily I never will, I’m quite sure.
My first temptation was just to delete this bizarre screed but hey, any article gonzo enough to think there can be such a thing as libertarian socialism (rather like meat-eating vegetarianism) is just to wierd to nuke. And I just loved the bit where the Nazis were not as bad as some say bacause they spared some jews. Yeah, what great guys. Sheesh.
And what is it about the more bonkers coments that they tend to be vast unreadable blocks of text with hardly any paragraph breaks? Go figure.