The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > When idealists give way to ideology > Comments

When idealists give way to ideology : Comments

By Mal Fletcher, published 18/9/2015

Idealists in the population will often project their visions of a better future onto ideologues, whose intransigence on issues is often mistaken for a sign of prescience.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Shot guns are not random just inclusive. I'm against yanks, poms, nazis, politicians, protest groups, Maccas price rise and knighthoods.
Posted by nicknamenick, Wednesday, 23 September 2015 8:48:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course I support General Piniochet, BJelly. He was an anti communist, and socialism failed everywhere it was tried. The USA was right all along. As for the "innocent" housewives and workers, I don't know how "innocent" they were. Just like in this country, there are "Australian" traitors who are more loyal to an internationalist socialist ideology than to their own people, and traitors are not popular figures. That is something that you should think about.

The South Korean government was once so brutal that it was a toss up if the South Koreans were worse than the North Koreans. US soldiers and US journalists at the time of the Korean War were aghast at witnessing summary mass executions of civilians, and many voiced concerns about what kind of government they were fighting for. But free market south Korea evolved into the fourth largest economy in the world today, and it's people are free and happy, while socialist North Korea is a totalitarian pariah state and a threat to world peace.
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 23 September 2015 7:11:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So you are ok with imprisoning people in concentration camps, torturing and even killing thousands of civilians?

There was no civil war in Chile. Pinochet's government had no right to rule - he was a military leader who overthrew a legitimate democratically elected government. And who within days of coming to power went on to purge the country of anyone remotely associated with the left - didn't matter if the worst they did was hand out pamphlets in a leftist student group or someone who they thought might have leftist sympathies - anyone with even the slightest links to the left, even ordinary housewives, could fall victim to his regime.

Mass graves were found near his concentration camps. But this is preferable to leftist democracy?
Posted by BJelly, Thursday, 24 September 2015 8:16:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your question assumes that you do not. If you believe in Socialism, then you must believe in imprisoning people in concentration camps, torturing and even killing civilians, yourself. Since when have Socialists ever held back from repression when it comes to losing power?

Look BJelly. Do you want Australia or Europe to democratically become Muslim countries? Would you live under Islamic rule with Sharia Law, a Jizya tax on infidels, death to homosexuals, absolute gender inequality, death to blasphemers and critics of Islam, the right of Muslim men to beat their wives, and the concept that raped women are responsible for their rape? Or would you fight and do whatever is necessary to prevent that?

I have spoken to stupid socialists who have told me point blank that they are prepared to accept a Muslim Australia "if it is done democratically." However much I believe in democracy, I would oppose such a democratic decision with everything I have. If the Australian military staged a coup against the democratically elected Muslim government, I would support my military against "my" own government. Because I know exactly how Muslims treat minorities and I don't intend to be a victim.

I support General Pinochet for exactly the same reason. Socialists may be arguably better than Muslims when it comes to dealing with social problems and economic management, but when you look at Pol Pot and Mao's "Great leap Forward" (which the Chinese still call today "The Great Leap Backward") that is a toss up.

To summarise, I would prefer to live under a right wing dictatorship which imprisoned people in concentration camps, as well tortured and killed civilians, then live under either a Muslim or Socialist dictatorship, which have always dojne exactly the same thing. I do so because I think that right wing dictatorships are reformable, while left wing and Muslim dictatorships are the most ruthless and efficient forms of dictatorships ever invented. I would prefer to live in Singapore under Le Kuan Yew, than live in a China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot, or North Korea under the Sung dynasty.
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 26 September 2015 6:36:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,
"If you believe in Socialism, then you must believe in imprisoning people in concentration camps, torturing and even killing civilians, yourself."
Under that definition of "socialism", most people who self identify as socialists don't believe in "socialism", and would like to see "socialism" eliminated completely (despite wanting a lot more wealth redistribution and nationalisation).

Socialists have very frequently held back from repression when it comes to losing power. Throughout western Europe, socialists who were democratically elected have always respected democracy. Clement Attlee's government in Britain (just after WW2) famously only lasted a single term as people thought its nationalisation program had gone too far.

The fact that in this very thread you've already mentioned the effects of Labour governments in Britain shows that you know you're DELIBERATELY LYING (not merely mistaken) when you claim "If you believe in Socialism, then you must believe in imprisoning people in concentration camps, torturing and even killing civilians".

BTW you're wrong on the details: although the Attlee government nationalised the coal mines, British Leyland wasn't nationalised until the 1970s.
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 26 September 2015 4:15:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Aiden.

Before you butt in and go off half cocked, could you please scroll back and get up to speed?

BJelly is a socialist loony who was screeching about my support for General Pinochet. This topic is about how idealists become fundamentalists and BJelly fell into my carefully laid trap. I have written previously on this topic how fundamentalists, whatever their cause, have essentially the same mindsets. They take what may be a good idea or a good moral value and take it to it's most absurd extreme. They can only see things in black and white, good verses evil, and moral quandaries and moral priorities are concepts they are unable to comprehend.

Characteristically, they present their arguments in terms of self righteous outrage as they are aghast that anyone could contradict their view. Please note that this is exactly the approach used by BJelly. He is angry and emotional because he can not understand how anyone could support what he has been conditioned by his peers to think is unspeakable evil. My approach to BJelly, is to use General Pinochet to force him to examine his own ideology and force him to see what he most definitely does not want to see.

BJelly has been conditioned to think that General Pinochet was something resembling the devil because of his coup which hurled the socialist idiots who ruined Chile into oblivion. My premise is that he was a hero who is hated by the left for saving his country from socialism. He can hardly complain about General Pinochet using brutal methods when the socialists are renown for using force to get their way.

You are correct in claiming that British socialism was a very mild form which still respected the democratic system and which only sought to purchase failing industries to provide jobs for their electorate. Allende's government however, was a full blown socialist one which nationalised the means of production by expropriating (stealing) private property.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 27 September 2015 4:57:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy