A challenge for people who still believe in the "TOTALITARIAN LEFT"

The Right will usually acknowledge that the Arab countries are rich because of oil. But when it comes to the Sub-Saharan countries, they usually just blame it on "Socialism." And when it comes to multiracial cities in America, it's always the Democrats' fault. :laugh:

I do think that the reason Eastern Europe is behind the rest of Europe is because of Communism, but even countries that are still recovering from Communism, like Poland and Ukraine, are doing better than any African country.

Dominican Republic scored the lowest on those PISA scores.

They're Mulattoes.

I guess Dominicans are still suffering from Communism, Nazi genocide, and oppression like Poland.

Oh, wait, that didn't happen to Dominican Republic.
 
It maybe partially true, that Communism kept Eastern Europe back.
But,
Eastern Europe was already poorer than Western Europe before Communism.

German & Ottomans kept their vassal states in Eastern Europe underfunded & didn't invest in them.

As for Russia, well they didn't believe in Industrialization, or Compulsory education.

Which kept Russia under the Tsar well below Germanic standards.

That's true, but Southern Europe was also poorer than Northern/Western Europe and has been for most of European history.
My guess is that, while all religion is oppressive, Protestantism is less oppressive than Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Because Protestants are allowed to interpret the Bible for themselves, and aren't supposed to just do whatever their churches told them, Protestant countries had a culture of freedom and philosophy that the other countries didn't have. And because free countries are richer than less free countries, there ya go.
 
Well sexuality as a whole is fluid. I doubt that anyone is 100% straight or gay.
Sexuality is ever changing. Straight or gay are sexual orientations and if they are fluid then you can be converted. I disagree that sexual orientation is fluid.
Gays have all those problems because of homophobia.
If this were true we would be seeing a decrease as homosexuality becomes more accepted and at this point it's largely passé, but such problems seem to be increasing.

Something I've noticed within the gay population is people are being ostracised from the community for being heteronormative (meaning monogamous couples instead of swingers and polyamorous groups.)
For example, schools teach heterocentric sex ed because if they spoke about gay sex, a bunch of angry parents would write letters.
Sex is sex. Oral and anal sex operate the same way regardless of who is involved and vaginal intercourse only works in a heterosexual couple

In driver's ed they don't teach people how to gay drive a car because a gay person would drive a car the same way as a straight person.


The result is that gay teens know very little about sex and end up catching more STDs than the straight teens.
again anal and oral sex are the same regardless of who is involved.

Gay teens know how to protect themselves from STDs. They're not stupid just because they're gay.
 
So you are a totalitarian. People who disagree with you should be ostracized that's exactly the kind of thing that totalitarianism believes. so we should engage in totalitarianism because there is always been totalitarianism. That's an appeal to tradition. It is a logical fallacy. for instance there was always slavery and till there wasn't any more so there should still be because there always was following the exact same logic you presented.

Further it is merely your opinion that views other than yours are extreme. That is also totalitarianism.



present legislation.

I hate to hammer you with logic, but you can claim anything. It doesn't mean your claim is of any value. A claim made without evidence such as legislation showing these laws against gay people can be dismissed without evidence.

So if you claimed there were laws against homosexuality and don't prove it your claim will be forever dismissed.


you are entitled to your opinion but it doesn't make it so.

People who are single are denied marriage benefits are they a second-class citizens? Yes they are by your logic. An adult's marriage to a three year old is not recognized by the states so by your logic and they are also second-class citizens.

People cohabitating without getting married are denied marriage benefits.

The fourth fifth 17 20th spouse of a polygamist cult is tonight mega Rich benefits so they are also second-class citizens.

Your logic is faulty.
that's totalitarianism. During the Holocaust Adolf Hitler believed Jewish views shouldn't be allowed to exist he considered them unacceptable.

During the Civil Rights movement white supremacist believed that the beliefs of people who were against segregation were unacceptable.

You are a totalitarian. Your opinion is supreme all other people should bow to you.
either you disagree or you agree so if it's a lie to say you disagree then you agree with these people. In which case you're even worse than they are.



No I'm not the one saying other people's views are extreme because I have different views than them. You keep correcting me because you keep trying to save face and prove to me that your authority is genuine it's not.

Nobody cares what you think is extreme you're just some random person like anybody else. Nobody cares what arbitrary measure you use to decide whether someone's a second-class citizen or not.

All you have is unsupported claims and you're getting it mad at me because you can't support them and I'm dismissing them without evidence because they were made without evidence.

Totalitarianism isn't necessarily favorable, but it's not the biggest factor of genocide.

Socialism in small doses is favorable, but it's not the biggest factor of genocide.

I've done more than enough research on genocide.

I tend to see 3 traits as the most linked.
1.) Big Military supremacy.
2.) Subservience to the leader.
3.) Dehumanizing a target population.

Which is why it doesn't matter if it's the British Empire mass murdering Hindus & Irish etc. etc.
or
Nazis mass murdering Jews & Poles, etc. etc.
or
Soviets mass murdering Kulaks & Ukrainians. etc. etc.
or
The USA mass murdering Iraqis & Vietnamese etc. etc.


It's not Socialism & Totalitarianism which are common themes here.

It's military supremacy, subservience towards leaders & dehumanizing a target population.
 
Because just because there's no crime, doesn't mean there's no prejudices.
agreed.

but because there are no laws against being black there is no one locked up for being black because there would be no convictions on that.
My best friend is Black, Italian & Puerto Rican & a Lesbian.

She admits Gay people are treated worse than Blacks, Italians, or Puerto Ricans.
Yes absolutely some people are. People certainly aren't disowned because they're black or Puerto Rican.
 
Totalitarianism isn't necessarily favorable, but it's not the biggest factor of genocide.

Socialism in small doses is favorable, but it's not the biggest factor of genocide.

I've done more than enough research on genocide.

I tend to see 3 traits as the most linked.
1.) Big Military supremacy.
2.) Subservience to the leader.
3.) Dehumanizing a target population.

Which is why it doesn't matter if it's the British Empire mass murdering Hindus & Irish etc. etc.
or
Nazis mass murdering Jews & Poles, etc. etc.
or
Soviets mass murdering Kulaks & Ukrainians. etc. etc.
or
The USA mass murdering Iraqis & Vietnamese etc. etc.


It's not Socialism & Totalitarianism which are common themes here.

It's military supremacy, subservience towards leaders & dehumanizing a target population.

Not relevant to the conversation.
 
That's true, but Southern Europe was also poorer than Northern/Western Europe and has been for most of European history.
My guess is that, while all religion is oppressive, Protestantism is less oppressive than Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Because Protestants are allowed to interpret the Bible for themselves, and aren't supposed to just do whatever their churches told them, Protestant countries had a culture of freedom and philosophy that the other countries didn't have. And because free countries are richer than less free countries, there ya go.

Really 3 countries could be charged for as much 90% of mass murder in the past 200 years out of Europe.

1.) British Empire.
2.) Germans (Nazis, WW1 too)
3.) Russian (Soviets)

The British Empire is almost all Protestant Anglicans, Presbyterianism etc. etc.

The German empire until recently was 2/3rd's Protestant Lutheran & 1/3rd Catholic.
Hint.
Nazis put Catholic priests in camps.

Russia is mostly Orthodox Christians.



PS.
The other 10% is mostly French, and Belgians (Also French)

To tell you the truth, the rest of Europe has basically just suffered, and didn't do that much wrong in the past 200 years.
 
Last edited:
That's true, but Southern Europe was also poorer than Northern/Western Europe and has been for most of European history.
My guess is that, while all religion is oppressive, Protestantism is less oppressive than Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Because Protestants are allowed to interpret the Bible for themselves, and aren't supposed to just do whatever their churches told them, Protestant countries had a culture of freedom and philosophy that the other countries didn't have. And because free countries are richer than less free countries, there ya go.

Poland used to be way more free than Protestant countries.

Polish Sejm parliament tradition is older than the Althing of Iceland.

Polish Sejm Parilament during the Renaissance offered twice the voting rights as the English Magna Carta.

Unprecedented rights for freedom of religion, as seen in the Warsaw Confederation, and Statute of Kalisz.

Poland was even so Democratic, the Liberum Veto meant all decisions had to be unanimous to pass.

The May 3rd Constitution on 1791, offered 20% voting rights to Polish people, being Polish Szlachta nobles, as opposed to 6% voting rights to White owning males in the US Constitution.
 
Really 3 countries could be charged for as much 90% of mass murder in the past 200 years out of Europe.

1.) British Empire.
2.) Germans (Nazis, WW1 too)
3.) Russian (Soviets)

The British Empire is almost all Protestant Anglicans, Presbyterianism etc. etc.

The German empire until recently was 2/3rd's Protestant Lutheran & 1/3rd Catholic.
Hint.
Nazis put Catholic priests in camps.

Russia is mostly Orthodox Christians.

Sure, but that's because those countries had the power to do so. If Spain, Italy, Austria, or Hungary were able to build themselves into super powerful empires when they were Fascist, they would have done the same.

It's also worth mentioning that the numbers here aren't really accurate. Most of the murders ascribed to the British Empire are from Native Americans who died from disease, not murder. And even then, the numbers aren't accurate because nomadic tribes were often counted as dying multiple times.
As for WWII, deaths in Eastern Europe were often ascribed to the Nazis, simply as a way to justify the German Genocide that the Allies committed after the war. So if a concentration camp was liberate by Soviet forces, but then everyone in that camp was murdered by the Soviets, the deaths were still counted as Nazi murders.
This isn't to say that the British Empire and Nazi Germany didn't commit mass murder, they absolutely did, but it wasn't to the scale that's commonly thought.
 
Sure, but that's because those countries had the power to do so. If Spain, Italy, Austria, or Hungary were able to build themselves into super powerful empires when they were Fascist, they would have done the same.

It's also worth mentioning that the numbers here aren't really accurate. Most of the murders ascribed to the British Empire are from Native Americans who died from disease, not murder. And even then, the numbers aren't accurate because nomadic tribes were often counted as dying multiple times.
As for WWII, deaths in Eastern Europe were often ascribed to the Nazis, simply as a way to justify the German Genocide that the Allies committed after the war. So if a concentration camp was liberate by Soviet forces, but then everyone in that camp was murdered by the Soviets, the deaths were still counted as Nazi murders.
This isn't to say that the British Empire and Nazi Germany didn't commit mass murder, they absolutely did, but it wasn't to the scale that's commonly thought.

The British Empire killed a ton.

24 famines in India, under British Raj India causing 60 million deaths.

Florence Nightingale bought it to everyone's attention that it was due to British colonial practices.

Same with newer scholars.

We also know the British Empire killed Irish by famine.

British blockade of Germany during WW1.

the Persian famine during WW1 by British colonials.

That doesn't speak of Native Americans, Australoids, Maori, and the Opium wars. etc. etc.

I would definitely put the British Empire kill totals at something like 75 - 100 million. (Basically the same as all the Communist regimes combined)
 
Sure, but that's because those countries had the power to do so. If Spain, Italy, Austria, or Hungary were able to build themselves into super powerful empires when they were Fascist, they would have done the same.

It's also worth mentioning that the numbers here aren't really accurate. Most of the murders ascribed to the British Empire are from Native Americans who died from disease, not murder. And even then, the numbers aren't accurate because nomadic tribes were often counted as dying multiple times.
As for WWII, deaths in Eastern Europe were often ascribed to the Nazis, simply as a way to justify the German Genocide that the Allies committed after the war. So if a concentration camp was liberate by Soviet forces, but then everyone in that camp was murdered by the Soviets, the deaths were still counted as Nazi murders.
This isn't to say that the British Empire and Nazi Germany didn't commit mass murder, they absolutely did, but it wasn't to the scale that's commonly thought.

Poland, and Hungary were pretty powerful in the Medieval Era, into the Renaissance.

Actually from 1410 between the Battle of Grunwald when Poland crushed Teutons & 1610 when Poland conquered Russia.

See the Prussian Homage & Russian Homage.

Poland was actually considered the most superior European power.

With a Sejm Parliament with the best voting rights.

Many Jews, which weren't Holocausted.
But, instead granted equality in the Warsaw Confederation.

Many good scientists like Copernicus, Albert Brudzewski, Michal Sedziwoj, Jozef Strus, Jozef Brozek, Kazimierz Siemienowicz.

Also good philsophers like Goslicki, who argued for the first of checks & balances, between government & the state, Goslicki believed leaders should be part of the system of law, and championed liberty & freedom of religion.
 
Poland used to be way more free than Protestant countries.

Polish Sejm parliament tradition is older than the Althing of Iceland.

Polish Sejm Parilament during the Renaissance offered twice the voting rights as the English Magna Carta.

Unprecedented rights for freedom of religion, as seen in the Warsaw Confederation, and Statute of Kalisz.

Poland was even so Democratic, the Liberum Veto meant all decisions had to be unanimous to pass.

The May 3rd Constitution on 1791, offered 20% voting rights to Polish people, being Polish Szlachta nobles, as opposed to 6% voting rights to White owning males in the US Constitution.

Catholic and Orthodox countries did still have freedom, they just didn't have as much and they didn't have the culture of free thought that the Protestant countries had.
And the freedom they did have mostly came after the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation reshaped the culture of Europe and forced the Catholic countries to allow more freedom to keep up with the Protestant countries. The Reformation led to the Enlightenment which affect all of Europe.
 
Sure, but that's because those countries had the power to do so. If Spain, Italy, Austria, or Hungary were able to build themselves into super powerful empires when they were Fascist, they would have done the same.

It's also worth mentioning that the numbers here aren't really accurate. Most of the murders ascribed to the British Empire are from Native Americans who died from disease, not murder. And even then, the numbers aren't accurate because nomadic tribes were often counted as dying multiple times.
As for WWII, deaths in Eastern Europe were often ascribed to the Nazis, simply as a way to justify the German Genocide that the Allies committed after the war. So if a concentration camp was liberate by Soviet forces, but then everyone in that camp was murdered by the Soviets, the deaths were still counted as Nazi murders.
This isn't to say that the British Empire and Nazi Germany didn't commit mass murder, they absolutely did, but it wasn't to the scale that's commonly thought.

I disagree, on Italy.

Mussolini's rule in Ethiopia wasn't particularly brutal in comparison to Hitler's.

Mussolini didn't go ape shooting every Ethiopian he could find.

He actually apparently improved education & freed slaves in Ethiopia.
 
Catholic and Orthodox countries did still have freedom, they just didn't have as much and they didn't have the culture of free thought that the Protestant countries had.
And the freedom they did have mostly came after the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation reshaped the culture of Europe and forced the Catholic countries to allow more freedom to keep up with the Protestant countries. The Reformation led to the Enlightenment which affect all of Europe.

That's nonsense.

Actually, Polish philosopher Goslicki influenced Britain, not the other way around.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wawrzyniec_Grzymała_Goślicki

Goślicki's Latin book De optimo senatore (published during his stay in Italy in Venice, 1568[2]) and dedicated to King Zygmunt August, subsequently appeared in four English translations: as The Counsellor ( considered inaccurate) in 1598, A commonwealth of good counsaile in 1607, The Accomplished Senator... Done into English... By Mr. Oldisworth in 1733, and most recently as The Accomplished Senator in K. Thompson's translation in 1992. The book proved immensely important in Britain among forces opposed to the Tudor monarchy; it was widely quoted and cited in opposition pamphlets and leaflets during the period leading up to the British Civil Wars of the 1640s.[4]

In this book Goślicki shows the ideal statesman who is well versed in the humanities as well as in economy, politics, and law. He argued that law is above the ruler, who must respect it, and that it is illegitimate to rule over a people against its will. He equated godliness with reason, and reason with law.[1] Many of the book's ideas comprised the foundations of Polish Nobles' Democracy (1505–1795) and were based on 14th-century writings by Stanisław of Skarbimierz. The book was not translated into Polish for 400 years.[1]

The book was influential abroad, exporting the ideas of Poland's Golden Freedom and democratic system. It was a political and social classic, widely read and long popular in England after its 1598 translation;[5] read by Elizabeth I of England, it was also known by Shakespeare, who used his depiction of an incompetent senator as a model for Polonius in Hamlet.[1] Its ideas might be seen in the turmoil that gripped England around the times of Glorious Revolution.[1] Goślicki's ideas were perhaps suggestive for future national constitutions.






Also the Polish Sejm parliament pre-dates the Protestant Icelandic Althing, apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejm_of_the_Kingdom_of_Poland

The General Sejm of the Kingdom of Poland appeared for the first time in the years 1382–1386,[6] when nobility and city representatives began to come to the nationwide official congresses. Public participation in policy making in Poland can be traced to the Slavic assembly known as the wiec.[7] Another form of public decision making was that of royal election, which occurred when there was no clear heir to the throne, or the heir's appointment had to be confirmed.[8] On February 2, 1386, at one of the first general parliamentary sessions in Lublin, Jagiełło was elected the king of Poland.[9] There are legends of a 9th-century election of the legendary founder of the Piast dynasty, Piast the Wheelwright, and a similar election of his son, Siemowit (this would place a Polish ruler's election a century before an Icelandic one's by the Althing)




Poland was way ahead of it's time with Freedom of Religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Confederation

The Warsaw Confederation, signed on 28 January 1573 by the Polish national assembly (sejm konwokacyjny) in Warsaw, was one of the first European acts granting religious freedoms. It was an important development in the history of Poland and of Lithuania that extended religious tolerance to nobility and free persons within the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth[1] and is considered the formal beginning of religious freedom in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Although it did not prevent all conflict based on religion, it did make the Commonwealth a much safer and more tolerant place than most of contemporaneous Europe, especially during the subsequent Thirty Years' War.[2]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Warsaw Confederation" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (January 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Religious tolerance in Poland had had a long tradition (e.g. Statute of Kalisz) and had been de facto policy in the reign of the recently deceased King Sigismund II. However, the articles signed by the Confederation gave official sanction to earlier custom. In that sense, they may be considered either the beginning or the peak of Polish tolerance.

Following the childless death of the last king of the Jagiellonian dynasty, Polish and Lithuanian nobles (szlachta) gathered at Warsaw to prevent any separatists from acting and to maintain the existing legal order. For that the citizens had to unconditionally abide the decisions made by the body; and the confederation was a potent declaration that the two former states are still closely linked.


In January the nobles signed a document in which representatives of all the major religions pledged each other mutual support and tolerance. A new political system was arising, aided by the confederation which contributed to its stability. Religious tolerance was an important factor in a multiethnic and multi-religious state, as the territories of the Commonwealth were inhabited by many generations of people from different ethnic backgrounds (Poles, Lithuanians, Ruthenian, Germans and Jews) and of different denominations (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish and even Muslim). "This country became what Cardinal Hozjusz called “a place of shelter for heretics”. It was a place where the most radical religious sects, trying to escape persecution in other countries of the Christian world, sought refuge.[3]
 
I disagree, on Italy.

Mussolini's rule in Ethiopia wasn't particularly brutal in comparison to Hitler's.

Mussolini didn't go ape shooting every Ethiopian he could find.

He actually apparently improved education & freed slaves in Ethiopia.

The Nazis also controlled a lot more land than the Italian Fascists, so of course their numbers are going to be higher. And that's in addition to their numbers being inflated by the Allies.
 
Poland, and Hungary were pretty powerful in the Medieval Era, into the Renaissance.

Actually from 1410 between the Battle of Grunwald when Poland crushed Teutons & 1610 when Poland conquered Russia.

See the Prussian Homage & Russian Homage.

Poland was actually considered the most superior European power.

With a Sejm Parliament with the best voting rights.

Many Jews, which weren't Holocausted.
But, instead granted equality in the Warsaw Confederation.

Many good scientists like Copernicus, Albert Brudzewski, Michal Sedziwoj, Jozef Strus, Jozef Brozek, Kazimierz Siemienowicz.

Also good philsophers like Goslicki, who argued for the first of checks & balances, between government & the state, Goslicki believed leaders should be part of the system of law, and championed liberty & freedom of religion.

Poland wasn't Fascist, though. And while Poland and Hungary were powerful, Poland was never a superpower, and Hungary was only a superpower when it was part of Austria-Hungary.
 
The Nazis also controlled a lot more land than the Italian Fascists, so of course their numbers are going to be higher. And that's in addition to their numbers being inflated by the Allies.

It's not the same, in Poland alone nearly 6 million were killed about half Polish Jews, and about half Polish Catholics.

In Ethiopia 300,000 - 400,000 civilians were killed by Fascist Italy.

Not a nice man, but basically more like a George W Bush, than a Hitler.
 
It's not the same, in Poland alone nearly 6 million were killed about half Polish Jews, and about half Polish Catholics.

In Ethiopia 300,000 - 400,000 civilians were killed by Fascist Italy.

Not a nice man, but basically more like a George W Bush, than a Hitler.

Remember, that's where the Allies inflated numbers and attributed deaths to Nazi Germany that were really caused by the Allies, especially the Soviets.
 
Remember, that's where the Allies inflated numbers and attributed deaths to Nazi Germany that were really caused by the Allies, especially the Soviets.

Of the roughly 3,000,000 Catholic Poles killed in WW2.
Soviets killed 250,000 Poles during WW2,
Ukrainians killed 100,000 Poles during WW2.

Approx 2.7 million Polish Catholics were killed by Nazi Germany.

Before WW2 is a different story, when in 1937 - 1938, Soviets killed 111,000 ethnic Poles in the Polish Operation of the NKVD.
 
Back
Top