[OFB Cafe] Chris's Politics...

[Derek Broughton]

On July 15, 2008 11:44:28 saki wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
> >> Surely an organisation that holds to a philosophy of single party,
> >> totalitarian rule, together with the Fuhrer principle, cannot, by
> >> definition, be "a party that wants government interference kept to a
> >> minimum"?
> >
> > Naturally not, but they like the idea that _current_ governments not
> > interfere with their right to eventually achieve single party
> > totalitarian rule and kill everybody they don't like.
>
> I can see how that would be an advantage, but are these people united in
> any form(s), or are they mostly individuals with totalitarian leanings?
>
> If the former, then dissociation should be comparatively easy. If the
> latter then not.

I would say definitely the latter.  You're right - it's not that difficult for 
any party to say "we are not associated with [group X] and they're not 
welcome here", but when a White Supremist joins the Libertarian party on the 
assumption that they'll allow him the right to hold whatever views he wants 
(and even support that right against opposition) - he's probably correct!  
After all, we just had a situation here where a "White Power" advocate had 
her children seized by Winnipeg Children's Aid, after she sent the older girl 
to school two days in a row with a swastika drawn on her arm.  Now, I think 
the mother's a piece of shit - yet, I can't support the idea that people's 
children should be taken away from them for their views.  What's next?  Sieze 
the children of atheists, or "Fundamentalist Mormons" (oops, been there, done 
that - unsuccessfully)?

> (I have never understood how "Nazism" should have remained bad
> totalitarianism, whilst "Marxism" is good- or, at least, not bad,
> totalitarianism, so that "Nazi" is the term applied to everyone who
> favours a dictatorial one-party state, and "Communist" carries with it
> little opprobrium, even thought they want the same)

I'm not sure I quite agree that's true, but it's really quite simple - Hitler 
killed 6 million people, many of whom had relatives on this side of the pond.  
Stalin killed (maybe) 10 million (the numbers being really fuzzy), and nobody 
ever really figured out who he was targeting or why - and the victims didn't 
have many relatives here.  It was just never so obvious to us.
-- 
derek