Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Pinochet and Paul Schaefer
#1
Augusto finally departed, hasta la vista tu atrasado mental. Do you guys remember his buddy, Paul Schaefer? A summary, ex-nazi, escaped to Chile, turned Christian cult leader. Established the so called 'Colonia Dignidad', a torture and killing center under Pinochet. Schaefer himself is finally in prison for the rape of countless children. Religious bigots, fascist, right wing, pedophile, murderous, psychopatic, can you tell me why those traits are so noticably often combined in one and the same people, the ones that are ill with hunger for power?
http://www.rickross.com/groups/schafer.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Sch%C3%A4fer
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#2
I don't know Quad,was Karl Marx any of these? His ideology led to more deaths than even Hitler,so I don't think your point is valid personally.

I think atheists have done more harm than all the evil religionists of the globe's history,just add up all the deaths since 1917. Not to say that men like Paul or Hitler are not extremely evil,they are,but your theory that men of religion cause more problems than men of atheism is not proveable based on quantities of deaths measurements and I bet the gulag was as bad as Paul Schaefer's gulag as well.

Incidentally,it is interesting to note here how you seem to give Islam and various pagan religions a pass in your scenarios. I am not familiar with Paul's cult,but he was as much a believer in Christ as you are is my guess,Paul was a believer in Paul as you are a believer in Quad. You just don't demand I worship you,you are satisfied to worship yourself whereas Paul had the compulsion to coerce worship of himself.
Reply
#3
Palladin Wrote:I don't know Quad,was Karl Marx any of these? His ideology led to more deaths than even Hitler,so I don't think your point is valid personally.

Actually, Marx was not nearly the nemesis, or saviour, that most believe. He was actually a little "d" democrat, and he had no problem with Free Enterprise(something he called Capitalism). It is the followers of Marx, who are guilty of such crimes. I whole hearedly recomment you take the time and read Jude Wanniski's critique of Marx on Karl Marx Revisited: A Fluid Society. I also suggest that "Q" do same here as well. Everyone may be surprised to learn that this person was not what they envision. Wink1

Palladin Wrote:I think atheists have done more harm than all the evil religionists of the globe's history,just add up all the deaths since 1917. Not to say that men like Paul or Hitler are not extremely evil,they are,but your theory that men of religion cause more problems than men of atheism is not proveable based on quantities of deaths measurements and I bet the gulag was as bad as Paul Schaefer's gulag as well.

To "Q" there is a big difference here. With religious persecution, that is evil, and with the history of Communism, that was an attempt to further society. Things just did not work out correctly, and we must keep trying until we finally get it correct. Wink1

Palladin Wrote:Incidentally,it is interesting to note here how you seem to give Islam and various pagan religions a pass in your scenarios. I am not familiar with Paul's cult,but he was as much a believer in Christ as you are is my guess,Paul was a believer in Paul as you are a believer in Quad. You just don't demand I worship you,you are satisfied to worship yourself whereas Paul had the compulsion to coerce worship of himself.

That is because they(Islam and paganism) offer no aparant threat to his world view,............ at this time. Christianity is highly dangerous, because it is guilty of making moral value judgements: somethin he eschews. And we can't be passing judgement now, can we? Why do you think he has found his heaven in Thailand. where he can satisfy his libertine tastes, rather than back in the 'worker's paradise'? Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#4
John,

It sure says a lot that Quad nor Stroll chose not to live in Marxist societies. Of course they are fewer each year,but Cuba was available to both when East Germany collapsed.

Karl may not be the fount of all Marxist action,but what has become known as Marxism most certainly has destroyed more freedom and lives than all religious tyranny in human history and it did so in a very short era.

This is no defense of religion as I view it as evil as Quad does(and do not consider Biblical Christianity as religion obviously),but religion of all sorts failed to create the destruction in 7500 years atheism did in 100 years as expressed in the religion of man,Marxism. It might make Quad feel good that it meant well in theory,but how on earth that helped the multi millions of victims is beyond me.
Reply
#5
Palladin Wrote:John,

It sure says a lot that Quad nor Stroll chose not to live in Marxist societies. Of course they are fewer each year,but Cuba was available to both when East Germany collapsed.

Karl may not be the fount of all Marxist action,but what has become known as Marxism most certainly has destroyed more freedom and lives than all religious tyranny in human history and it did so in a very short era.

This is no defense of religion as I view it as evil as Quad does(and do not consider Biblical Christianity as religion obviously),but religion of all sorts failed to create the destruction in 7500 years atheism did in 100 years as expressed in the religion of man,Marxism. It might make Quad feel good that it meant well in theory,but how on earth that helped the multi millions of victims is beyond me.

It is like Keynesian economics. Late in his life, John Maynard Keynes actually refutted may of the things that others put out in his name, and he also had a change of opion with some of his earlier thinking. In other words, he mellowed out, but others carried on with zeal. Same thing with Marx. Anyway, I KNOW that you have not read the article, since it is very long, but highly informative. Give it a 'go', why don't you. After all you are not doing anything important, correct? Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#6
Other than watching UT beat Western Kentucky in BB,not really!

Incidentally,Senor Darwin also had severe doubts about his own theories,but hurried up and published his manuscript to raise cash for his wife's medical care. He did not have the level of confidence his acolytes do today in his theory.
Reply
#7
Palladin Wrote:Other than watching UT beat Western Kentucky in BB,not really!

Incidentally,Senor Darwin also had severe doubts about his own theories,but hurried up and published his manuscript to raise cash for his wife's medical care. He did not have the level of confidence his acolytes do today in his theory.

I watched the game also. Pearle is a great coach IMO, and will take the program far. Now, all he needs are some tall timbers to round out the team. I understand that he is an excellent recruiter, so he should be able to come up with what he needs.

As for Darwin, I am comfortable with his basic theory of Natural Selection. The problem is that there are those who forget that we humans are made up of TWO entities. One is the soul, and the other is just the vehicle we move around with. As for the vehicle, I have no problem with science, and for the life of me, I can't understand why the Fundamentalists can't differentiate one from the other, and see logic.

Amazes me to no end. And you can't even begin to talk to them. It's like trying to reason with "Q", only in reverse order. Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#8
John,

I'm not educated on what natural selection means. I am educated on the difference between mankind and animals. Among other things,it is the soul which never dies.

So,explain to me what I need to know.I thought Darwin's theory was that we evolved from animals?
Reply
#9
Here is a University of Michigan lecture on Natural Selection. The theory is basically simple to understand. First think genes(genotypic) instead of physical(phenotypic)traits. In a population variables are going to occur naturally. If you take humans, we have all sorts of differences that affect our ability to live in given environments.

For example, we have the sickling trait as a means of keeping humans safe from malaria. There are others, who are immune to certain other diseases as well. These are variations, and place them at a "select" advantage to pass their genes on to the next generation, because they live long enough to do so. Any good trait tends to have a 'select' advantage, and those bad traits have a 'select' disadvantage.

That is how the hominids(mankind's ancestors) managed to develop, some continuing, and some at a dead end. Humans increased brain size, body size, etc, as a means of successfully dealing with the environment. That is why many have dark skin, and some have light skin. That is also why people indigenous to arctic climes are almost always short and squatty, thus having less surface area where heat can be lost. By the same token, in hot climes, taller individuals, with more skin surface can dump heat more readily. It is all due to genetic variation, ie natural selection.

Anyway, read the lesson. Further, this has nothing to do with religion, as I have stated to G-d knows how many people of the years. Again, our physical bodies are completely different from what will accompany us latter, after life, so why do some folks make such a problem over it?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#10
John,

Genesis is probably why. It states in very rich detail how God made the first human. It's really surprising as there are 3 seperate words for "created" in those verses for specific details. I used to know all 3 in transliterated form,but forgot some now.

Anyway,any suggestion that man came from animals OR that man just up and happened will be resisted by all Bible believers such as myself.

Other ideas concerning slow changes to the human body over time for various reasoning(environment,food,etc)make imminent sense,in fact,it is rather obvious. When you and I were youngsters,there were no 300 LB tackles. Now,there aren't any smaller. I agree with that,but not that we evolved from animals or just happened,because I do believe The Bible is literal in this respect.
Reply
#11
Palladin Wrote:John,

Genesis is probably why. It states in very rich detail how God made the first human. It's really surprising as there are 3 seperate words for "created" in those verses for specific details. I used to know all 3 in transliterated form,but forgot some now.

Anyway,any suggestion that man came from animals OR that man just up and happened will be resisted by all Bible believers such as myself.

Other ideas concerning slow changes to the human body over time for various reasoning(environment,food,etc)make imminent sense,in fact,it is rather obvious. When you and I were youngsters,there were no 300 LB tackles. Now,there aren't any smaller. I agree with that,but not that we evolved from animals or just happened,because I do believe The Bible is literal in this respect.

Unfortunately, Genesis was written to explain the unknown, but also as a story that was easily understood. Taking it totally literal is a mistake that many make. In principle, almost all of the bible has a basis of historical fact. But it is embellished in surrounding layers, that are meant to add to the basic theme. For instance, the flight from Egypt, for years considered to be fiction, is being proven to be correct, because the New Chronology is showing that the experts have been about 200 years off on the time scale. It was not Ramases II, who confronted Moses, because he lived at a later date. Anyway, there are a lot of variables, and litteral interpretation is not accurate. The Bible was written by men, who were Inspired by G-d, not directed by G-d. If G-d had wanted to get this out correctly, the Creator would have done the writing instead of letting some human get it wrong.

Anyway, who is to say what one day in the life of the creator is not millions of years to us. Time is relative.

And as for evolution from more primative animals, physically, we had to start out somewher. I am convinced that somewhere along the evolutionary line some early humans reached that intellectual "critical mass", that the spark of the inner self began to burn. It is akin to a huge celestial body, that is in the process of becoming a star. It reaches a certain mass, and begins to burn, first as a brown dwarf, and then eventually as a hot star, as the fusion process begins. Why would others have such a hard time comparing this to the physical bodies we humans inhabit?

Again, there is a huge difference between our physical and spiritual beings. And we should take that into consideration.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#12
John,

That's a disagreement we will always have. You won't win converts on this,you can only have those who already see it your way. Same with my side,I won't win converts to the infallibility of the Bible.


Here's an example of where I think God animated Americans to do something and it was a perfect finished product. Enter WWII and properly use our destructive force until Japanese and German people are no longer into the fight. I think He did and I think He made it where we had the capacity of industrial might and human potential to bring it to fruition,along with the other allies.

But,We humans did the warring, the outcome was always within His sovereign will and it was His decision who prevailed,not FDR's or Hitler's. I see the human authorship and Scripture the same way. We wrote it,but He may as well have. Truthfully,with freewill options,He could have written it and I think the same objections would stand. "Prove He wrote it" and of course I couldn't. Or,if He used some wild method that was beyond man's ability and say the letters sparkled or something,there would be no decisions to make it seems to me.


Incidentally,why would a new chronology prove the story of the parting of the Red Sea? Not that I doubted it,but impirical proof of it? I always thought that was one of the least believed stories by those who don't share my view of Scriptural inerrancy.
Reply
#13
I sincerely apologize for disrupting the dialogue of you two lovebirds. Palladin, there were a few definitions of fascism in different topics previously, I add the best one ever right here.
Quote:Fascism is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialistic elements of finance capitalism.
Quote:The historic function of fascism is to smash the working class, destroy its organizations, and stifle political liberties when the capitalists find themselves unable to govern and dominate with the help of democratic machinery.
As you see, Fascism is very prominent on your ideologic family tree. To the victims of communism... 1989, a whole lot of communist countries collapsed with hardly any resistance of the governments, their military or intelligence services. They just gave in, transfered the power. A few victims in Romania, a few more in Russia, wild nations anyway. For me, the ultimate proof communism was an economic failure, but fundamentally benevolent.
Your turn, give me a single example where capitalists just gave in when there was a communist revolution or when they were elected. None whatswhoever. I suggest you subtract the victims of capitalists from your lists of 'communist victims', that's a great number. Communists had every right to defend their revolutions and nations against an utmost brutal enemy. Capitalism, colonialism, fascism, imperialism, counter-revolutions, name it, had combined way more victims, way more, than communism. Just save the bullsh*t.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#14
quadrat Wrote:I sincerely apologize for disrupting the dialogue of you two lovebirds. Palladin, there were a few definitions of fascism in different topics previously, I add the best one ever right here.
Quote:Fascism is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialistic elements of finance capitalism.
Quote:The historic function of fascism is to smash the working class, destroy its organizations, and stifle political liberties when the capitalists find themselves unable to govern and dominate with the help of democratic machinery.
As you see, Fascism is very prominent on your ideologic family tree. To the victims of communism... 1989, a whole lot of communist countries collapsed with hardly any resistance of the governments, their military or intelligence services. They just gave in, transfered the power. A few victims in Romania, a few more in Russia, wild nations anyway. For me, the ultimate proof communism was an economic failure, but fundamentally benevolent.
Your turn, give me a single example where capitalists just gave in when there was a communist revolution or when they were elected. None whatswhoever. I suggest you subtract the victims of capitalists from your lists of 'communist victims', that's a great number. Communists had every right to defend their revolutions and nations against an utmost brutal enemy. Capitalism, colonialism, fascism, imperialism, counter-revolutions, name it, had combined way more victims, way more, than communism. Just save the bullsh*t.

Odd, but that certainly does not sound anything like the Fascist regimes of Franco's Spain, or Peron's Argentina, or even Italy of hte 1930s. You need to go back and reevaluate your defination.

Again, I stand by my definition, because it fits ALL fascits regimes. Yours does not, and therefore can't possibly be an accurate definition of Fascism.

Try again "Q". You KNOW that I am correct here, but will not admit it.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#15
You sure? See, though Bush's regime and Hitler's have amazing similarities, my definition -still- excludes the USA. You are working on it. Your sidekick, besides, would argue that's because you are not anti-semitic.
Fine, Peron's government was not fascist, though there were some isolated parallels. Say, like the Bush administration shows. Where Franco and the Duce are concerned, I refer to
Quote:Fascism is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialistic elements of finance capitalism.
and
Quote:The historic function of fascism is to smash the working class, destroy its organizations, and stifle political liberties when the capitalists find themselves unable to govern and dominate with the help of democratic machinery.
Why would anybody say that's not precisely what's happened under Franco and Mussolini?
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#16
quadrat Wrote:You sure? See, though Bush's regime and Hitler's have amazing similarities, my definition -still- excludes the USA. You are working on it. Your sidekick, besides, would argue that's because you are not anti-semitic.
Fine, Peron's government was not fascist, though there were some isolated parallels. Say, like the Bush administration shows. Where Franco and the Duce are concerned, I refer to
Quote:Fascism is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialistic elements of finance capitalism.
and
Quote:The historic function of fascism is to smash the working class, destroy its organizations, and stifle political liberties when the capitalists find themselves unable to govern and dominate with the help of democratic machinery.
Why would anybody say that's not precisely what's happened under Franco and Mussolini?

Hey, I can see similarities between you and me "Q". We are both male, have two arms, two legs, and one neck with a head attached. Brains? that may be a different story?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#17
I am extremely short of time lately, but simply cannot pass the following without a short comment:
Quote:For me, the ultimate proof communism was an economic failure, but fundamentally benevolent.
What a hogwash. :roll: The whole communism ideology was/is built on the primacy of economic control over anything else. If they failed (and continue to fail) in their primary endeavor, what diff. does the color of their eyes, the length of their nails, their hairdo, or their presumed "fundamental benevolence" make? Besides, even bacteria and viruses lose their letality after a few generations. But they are still bacteria and viruses that can as easily increase their letality again under the right circumstances.
Reply
#18
ag Wrote:I am extremely short of time lately, but simply cannot pass the following without a short comment:
Quote:For me, the ultimate proof communism was an economic failure, but fundamentally benevolent.
What a hogwash. :roll: The whole communism ideology was/is built on the primacy of economic control over anything else. If they failed (and continue to fail) in their primary endeavor, what diff. does the color of their eyes, the length of their nails, their hairdo, or their presumed "fundamental benevolence" make? Besides, even bacteria and viruses lose their letality after a few generations. But they are still bacteria and viruses that can as easily increase their letality again under the right circumstances.

You are committing herasy here, attacking "Q's" religious beliefs. Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#19
ag,
Quote:The whole communism ideology was/is built on the primacy of economic control over anything else
If you feel an urge to contribute more platitudes, I'm all ears. Why not start with an explanation, which ideology does not seek (economic) control? There is more about life than consumption and money, I recall I argued along this line already.
Work back then was a fun place to be, no one had sorrows to be sacked for 'economic' reasons. They were, other than you claim in your ignorance, obviously not that important. No problem to find an apprenticeship, guaranteed for everybody. I went to the doctor when there was a problem, afterwards to the pharmacy, and all this didn't cost me a single Pfennig. Never had to pay anything for education. We were an average of six weeks/year ill. Previously I read, non-productive time in Germany is down from 16 days/year in 1995 to four days/year in 2005. People are scared to be fired and reckless to themselves. No wonder they burn out early, and are thrown away. 17,000 Americans murdered last year according to official statistics, the dark figure is three times higher. That makes a million Americans in 20 years. Millions of robberies a year. Millions of burglaries. Criminality was a thing we could read about in books, but were never touched by it. The same goes for drugs. If you want to compare any society to a disease, it's yours. Especially America's. Speaking about religion, you convince yourself to live in a fine society. You are hanging on the dream to get rich on money and thus finally to lose your sorrows and to end the struggle for survival. Seems, every American gets the illusion implanted he can make it big. Too few do. And if you make it, you realise the more money, the bigger the troubles. :lol: You are having a delusion, kid.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#20
Communism is benevolent? Why are so many millions dead due to it's reign?

Here's what Quad can't see. Since Marxism was dreamed up to improve the lot of mankind,he credits that initial motivation without subtracting the exceution of the ideology in time.

It is the religion of man. It's intent is to make this world better in all respects for man. However,it cannot succeed. So,it chose to denigrate human rights unlike anything seen in human history so far to coerce recalcitrant mankind to follow the program so we all could have nirvana.

The more coercion,the less compliance, men acted like men always act,with selfish flawed natures. Marxism does not understand human nature and kills men to coerce compliance in lieu of voluntary acceptance of Marxist nonsense.

Man's basic nature is severely flawed and selfishness is part of all humans to one extent or another. The Bible teaches this,capitalists take advantage of the reality of it,Marxists murder those who manifest it,which means about everyone. Except themselves of course and we always find out the Marxist leader has himself been greedy and power mad.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Augusto Pinochet legacy mv 174 63,459 01-03-2007, 06:40 PM
Last Post: drgonzaga

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)