Monday 5 December 2016

Ramleh ‎– "Pumping" (Broken Flag ‎– BF 70) 1987

Ramleh's foray into the sub-genre of Ambient Industrial Noise makes for an intriguing listening experience. The usual,(and incredibly boring and overused) themes of Nazi's, pervy Sex, murder, and Nazi's; are ,if not totally absent here, very very subtle. Being desensitized to harsh in yer face bowel scraping Noise, its a welcome relief to listen to the more ambient side of Power Electronics, if that's what this is? The Noise seems thankfully distant, as if the (alleged) gas chambers of Treblinka were chugging away at the end of a twenty kilometer tunnel. 
Holocaust Revisionists insist that the engine used at Treblinka to kill 800,000 Jews, was from a captured Soviet Tank,and wouldn't kill anyone because it ran on Diesel. This has been proven to be crap, especially if pumped into a confined space, check it out here.
So, imagine being in a gas chamber, with  hundreds of Homosexuals, Socialists,Illegal Immigrants and Atheists while Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen,Norbert Hoffer and Nigel Farage pump in the Diesel fumes, This is pretty much the soundtrack to that joyful experience. It'd probably be worth it to get away from that bunch of sickening populist cunts.They might not be the 'Enemies Of The People', as the Judges that ruled against the Govt in the UK recently were branded by the popular press(surprisingly similar to a headline in a German Nazi supporting newspaper from 1933, see that HERE!); but they certainly are Enemies of People.Stop these fuckers before its too late.
Ramleh make the folk music for today's fucked up planet.

Track Listing:

1 - Bite The Bolster (24:18)
2 - Fistfuck 2 (23:02)

DOWNLOAD a pumping classic HERE!


Andy Tithesis said...

You're scaring the children Johnny.

Jonny Zchivago said...

Well I'm scared, or is that scarred, the ones that never heal.So I don't see why the children should get away with it!?

Anonymous said...

Thanks a lot!

badgerstump said...

It's no surprise that there is a "nazi" equivalent to the daily hate headlines ... but, even so ... WOW! The hands move around the dial but times don't change.

The power electronics thing was a later misappropriation (like the first Napalm Death and Extreme Noise Terror are now grindcore apparently), the term didn't exist. Just a pointlessly semantic comment on the pathetic nature of pigeonholes you understand ...

Way back in the day, I avoided the Ramleh / Con-Doms because I conflated the iconography with my inferred intent. Luckily, years later, I realised that I didn't know what I was talking about ... thank fuck that no longer happens :/

Eloquent exposition of the real nature of the music my good man!

GRK. said...


konrad said...

Hmmm...interesting soliloquy on the subject matter.

You do realize the Nazi's were leftists ('s in their moniker after all) and that the left has been responsible for more senseless deaths and destruction than any other political position...yes?

But hey, what do I know. I just learned to ratiocinate in skrewl, and so can tell reality from BS.

Jonny Zchivago said...

Hmmmm Konrad.
They (Nazi's) may have been socialists, but this didn't stop them from killing.beating up, and 'resettling' other so-called,'socialists'...I wouldn't take the wording of the NSDAP acronym too literally. They were for the working man in the same way the new post-capitalist popular revolution is for the working man; as fodder to get power and do what ever the fuck they wanted to do.I don't think left and right comes into it....they were a new way,like trump is a new way.Its gonna end in tears basically.....again.

konrad said...

Heh...if you don't think this is left vs right, with left still desirous to slaughter all unbelievers and rule haven't studied history. :)

Jonny Zchivago said...

Well, obviously you are some kind of esteemed historian?
Often its not knowing History that matters its one's interpretation of it. And your interpretation is obviously from the subjective standpoint of someone who identifies himself with the so-called 'Right'. So your views are biased and irrelevant.
If you think the soft left have ambitions to enslave, an already enslaved planet,and slaughter unbelievers (whatever that means?), then you have a problem interpreting current affairs.
As for History, Stalin could be equally labelled right wing as much as Hitler could be labelled left wing. As for slaughter and rule unopposed, The British Empire could never be described as left wing in any way, the same could be applied to the other european powers of the 19th century. The japanese empire in the 20th century had zero socialist principles ,and we know what happened there.
Right vrs Left is a divisive illusion projected upon us by the elite who already rule unopposed. Trump is the fall guy for the so-called third way; but if anything will pave the way for the so-called christian right to take power,unopposed, for our security, and achieve your dream of slaughtering all socialists.
So you sit in your populist right wing bubble, and start having more of an objective view before you start accusing me of not studying history please. :)

konrad said...

Ack...apologies if I struck a nerve.

Esteemed, no...knowledgeable, yes. :)

And I'm not of the 'right' as you term it, nor am I a Christian.

And at what point did I ever even suggest I had a desire to slaughter all socialists? I would much prefer there were some rational way to pull them from the self-delusion they have that they are so much smarter than everyone else, that they know how everyone should speak, live and behave, or that they have some sort of right to force everyone else into their delusion...for it is madness of the highest order.

I'm sure if we could speak with all those killed by socialist regimes since the dawn of Marxist/socialist thought (numbers approximate): USSR - 58 million, Nazi's - 20 million, PRC - 73 million and counting, DPRK - 3 million, Cambodia - 2.5+ million...

...well, I'm sure they could tell us just how much socialism had done for them. :)

You are correct that the current 'left/right' paradigm is relatively new, historically. The paradigm was different during the fall of other great empires throughout history. And most came down to greed...greed of the ruling powers, over-reach resulting in reaction from those ruled.

And you are correct that Trump is the fall guy this time. It should be obvious by the way the socialists are trying so hard to undermine him, before he even takes office. Socialism needs a fall guy right now to take the onus from their failed policies of the last 60 or so years.

Hey, remember all the riots, looting, bad press that Obama got from the 'right' (your paradigm here, not mine) after he won in 2008? neither. :)

Jonny Zchivago said...

No you didn't touch a 'nerve'(tut), as you would like to think.

As you're not of the right or a christian(not that i called you a christian,I don't insult people), you must be a supporter of the new popular politics of the post-truth phenomenon.
It seems your arguments are largely based on this method of sweeping statement as fact.
You numbers of Socialist murder stats are interesting, especially attributing 20 million to the Nazi's when the USSR lost 50 million defeating them, will the western democracies did their best to avoid bombing Ford plants in Germany, and IBM were more interested in selling them business machines.

It is also tenuous to link Nazi's to the left just because they had a national health care plan and the word socialist in their acronym.The largely dominant consensus is that they were a Right wing organisation.
But you know better of course.....and I happen to slightly agree with you,although also concede that there is a strong possibility that i am wrong.
The untold millions killed by The Colonial imperialists, the millions in the third world killed by the Capitalist financial system, the millions of native Americans slaughtered by the USA, don't appear to affect you at all, because they weren't perpetrated by the socialist bogie man that seems to haunt you.
Obama never experienced Riots because he was elected on a general concensus of widespread support, and didnt spout xenophobic nonsense. If you're alluding that Obama was a 'socialist', you're living in fantasy land.Any democrat, by any stretch of the imagination could not be described as socialist...not even Bernie Sanders. Liberal yes, capitalists yes, imperialists yes,....socialist, don't think so.
The us economy is in a different league now compared to what Obama inherited.It won't take much for a blowhard with zero actual policies to take it back to the stone age......this happens to all great empires from history, including the USSR and NAZI germany......and their leaders actually had policies and ideas! :)

konrad said...

On quote you from above: "Trump is the fall guy for the so-called third way; but if anything will pave the way for the so-called christian right to take power,unopposed, for our security, and achieve your" (emphasis mine) "dream of slaughtering all socialists."

That statement does seem to suggest you calling me a Christian, but I fail to see why that (or calling me a Buddhist or Zoroastrian) would be an insult. Or is that a new four letter word I'm as yet unfamiliar with? I'm actually more insulted you would believe I would 'dream' of or desire the 'slaughtering of all socialists'. Projection? ;)

And what is this "post-truth phenomenon" you mention? Logically, how can anything be "post-truth"? Truth is that which is true, by definition. It can be bent, it can be broken, but then it is no longer truth, is it? So by extrapolation can we say that post-truth means something other than truth, which would no longer be true?

But on to the Nazis, their death tolls, their leanings. If you'd like to add all the millions killed by them - from their rise, solidification, expansion and demise - to their attributed toll, I've no objection. And I agree from that standpoint they've been given short shrift in the annals of death due to socialism.

But socialist they were...the myth that they were hard right is propaganda promulgated by socialists needing to point the finger and say, "See...we're not as bad as them!!!!" As if that is some sort of defense, explanation or exculpation.

Hitler and the party espoused class warfare, agitated the working classes to resist exploitation by capitalists (mainly Jewish of course); they nationalized health care, education, transportation, along with other major industries, instituted strict gun control, and denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics. Are these not all hallmarks of hard left repressive regimes?

They were inspired by Mussolini, a hard-line communist who recognized that conventional socialism wasn't working and saw nationalism as exerting a stronger pull than proletarian brotherhood on the working class, creating Fascism, which he called a 'Third Way' (I suspect this is perhaps where your reference to this 'Third Way' derives, misguidedly though you use it). And Mussolini was the impetus of keeping production in the hands of capitalists, though not Jewish ones once in the Nazi vernacular, and the Italians were not particularly happy about that Axis edict, mind you...

Whether production is expropriated (Communism), taxed and regulated till near comatose (Socialism), or done 'my way or the highway and you disappear if not my way' (Fascism); these are all principles of the left...of the socialistic precepts set forth under Marx & Engels, as put into early practice under Lenin and Stalin.

We can also get into Monarchies...those guys who were all for one and one for the King, Queen, Emperor...that whole Colonial imperialist thing and the deaths attributed to them, vs the democracies that followed...if you really want to. Yes, Monarchies generally bad...democracies less so verging on better...which is why we have democracies now...evolution of thought and deed...yes? And why would you believe I would celebrate the deaths of, woman, child, socialist, communist, capitalist, christian, jew, moslem, indians (feathers not dots), indians (dots not feathers), etc., Have I in some way ever suggested such a thing?

Another question if I may...if Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist who wanted to put a chicken in every pot and a college degree in every child's stocking is not a socialist...then what is a socialist in your definition?

Jonny Zchivago said...

no, it implied that the christian right will help get rid of the socialist bogey man for you, and does not imply that YOU are a christian.
Calling someone a Christian is an insult because that in turn implies stupidity, and/or cognitive dissonace in matters of reality.

Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored.......rather like our Christian friends.

Saying that the Nazi movement being portrayed as Hard Right is communist propaganda to discredit the actual right (Which is what exactly,can you define it for me please?) exactly what you seem to be doing to discredit the left. Ask nearly every major scholar/historian and they virtually ALL (except the odd right wing propagandist) define the Nazi#'s as Hard Right. Cognitive dissonance isn't always the property of Religious cults.

Nazi-ism is different to Fascism by the way. No eugenics in their(mussolini's) philosophy.....yet again you go against the immense tide of scholarly opinion and label the fascists Hard Left, because your right wing democracy is allowing some secret society to spread evil propaganda and lies.....not quite post-truth but close....Paranoid is a word that springs to mind here.
Turned out that Fascism wasn't the third way after all.But it did appeal to the emotions rather than the mind, a bit like Trumpism and the other populist non fact sound byte ideologies that are surfacing among the race hate like a drunken mob.....thats the other riot, seeping down through society to the lowest common denominator of them and us violence.

So capitalists/democrats don't want a chicken in every pot?....they definitely don't want a college degree in anyone's stocking or they may turn into socialists......definition: socialists desire equal opportunities and equal rights for all. Something that doen't exist in all democracies.....but of course you can have a social democracy, and it can work without slaughtering anyone(as you seem to suggest is their ultimate goal)

I think i've answered most of your points, I know you'll disagree, but...hey...that our democratic right isn't it?

Now define what Right Wing is instead of defining what it isn't? :)

konrad said...

Apologies for the delay in replying...couldn't be helped...serious brain hurt from all the illogic you display. Left me wondering if I should even bother to continue.

But, we'll start with your initial assertions about Christians...shall we? You stated:

"Calling someone a Christian is an insult because that in turn implies stupidity, and/or cognitive dissonace in matters of reality."

So, am I to infer you believe such luminaries as Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Rousseau, Francis Bacon, Leibniz, Pascal...that they were all stupid and/or cognitively dissonant in matters of reality, because they were Christians?

Hubris much? Prejudice is a harsh taskmaster.

2nd paragraph you use a second non-sequitur in defense of the first. Truth is axiomatic. Anything less than or post truth is no longer truth, therefore a truth is a non-sequitur. Factual is also axiomatic. Anything pre- or post-factual is by definition, non-factual, also a non-sequitur. These are terms made up by people educated beyond their intelligence to confuse people who are unable to ratiocinate for themselves.

3rd paragraph...classic appeal to authority fallacy. Once upon a time 99% of science believed the world was flat and the sun revolved about the earth. Your appeal does not negate your point, but it also offers no refutation. I gave a number of specific examples of how Nazism was a leftist gave no rebuttal other than an appeal to authority. Very poor sophistry on your part. Tell me you don't also believe globull warmins is caused by man...please?

4th paragraph (and this is as far as I'll go this evening unless you show me some reason it should in valid reasoning):

Yet another appeal to authority to begin...never a solid footing to begin an argument. But really...really? Because eugenics wasn't part of Mussolini's fascism, that makes it significantly different than the Nazi credo? Did they not both help make millions dead, aligned as close partners in the process? Is that not like saying two variations of the Ebola virus are significantly different because one causes less bleeding through the eyes while you die?

Cognitive dissonance cuts hard when you're incapable of discerning logic and reason from propaganda...whether it's from the right or left. The only approach is from a solid grounding in logic and reason, which lets you sift and winnow the wheat from the chaff.

I started this discussion hoping to discover some wheat, but so far all I've found is chaff.

But hey...I still love your blog...I'll still follow it. We'll continue this discussion or not...your call. And I may piss in your wheaties again in the future, should I feel the need. :)

Jonny Zchivago said...

You have brain hurt!???.....
(an appeal to authority perhaps, these ancient celebrities were christians so....?)Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Rousseau, Francis Bacon, Leibniz, Pascal(check Pascals Wager).....all around at a time in history when no-one knew what the fuck was happening; so they have an excuse to believe in a superstitious entity.....unless you refer to Francis Bacon the 20th century painter who was a sensible atheist, and from a time when understanding of how the universe works,effectively removed any need for superstition among the mildly educated. .

Scanned through your other semantic nonsense and still didn't see your definition of what 'Right Wing' actually is.An appeal to authority won't help you on this one.
The Nazi's and other Fascists weren't socialists because they had no adherance to the basic doctrine of equality for all....unless you were,in the NAZI case, genetically superior. If anything Stalinism, had more in common with the right and forgot the basic socialist principles due to the human/darwinistic traits of being corrupted by power.(You probably deny the moutain range of evidence for evolution i guess?)
Your unattractive arrogance and display of esteem damaged ego is very much in line with the Post-Truth that you tried to deny using only linguistic semantics.And An over reliance in your belief that there is only one direction from which propaganda comes from.
You are very much Post-Truth in action.
ps i don't eat wheaties,only available in the USA, but apparently they were resposible for starting the career of one Ronald Reagan. One of your hero's of the 'right' i imagine?

Thanks for loving my blog, I try to appeal to all types.

I'll let your eat my 'pissed on' wheaties now.

konrad said...

Hint...disparaging philosophers you've never studied or understood, just because of their religious views is the height of arrogance...perhaps you should examine Pascal's wager a bit closer before you dismiss it. It is valid on far more levels than just the spiritual.

Semantics is an important part of discourse...a common understanding of terms is essential. But if the terms being used are driven by illogic, then all discourse deriving is also illogical. You do know which philosopher was foremost in the development of semantics...yes?

A philosophical conundrum for old chestnut...

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there, does it make a sound? It went round for over a was it resolved and who did so?

An appeal to authority won't help me on what one? You made the appeal...I just pointed out how many great philosophers were Christian, showing your statement that Christians are inherently stupid is patently false.

Not socialist because they didn't believe in equality? Name a socialist who actually believes in equality. Their equality amounts to what's equal for them and the rest be damned. You can scream 'Stalin - right' all you want...that won't make it so...communist, leftist, all for the state, all for him...that is the final end of all socialism...not much different from Monarchies really. Why? Because one of the baser motives of man is greed. And it pervades all of human can't eradicate it no matter how you try.

Tell me, is Venezuela communist or socialist? How's that whole equality thing working there...great for Maduro and the inner circle, yes? How about the rest...all those the left is supposed to be are they doing?

And I'm gonna guess you're an atheist? Am I good or what? :D

So tell me, what is your scientific proof that there is no God? Genuine, repeatable, replicative science that proves there is no God. You have none. Your belief that there is no God is every bit as much a faith as any religion. You can believe yourself superior because your think your belief is right, but then that makes you no better than those you despise, doesn't it?

The reality is that there is no verifiable scientific proof of God's existence or lack thereof...thus any belief or philosophy that espouses one or the other position is no more than a faith...a belief that one is right and another wrong. And the belief in one (God, or many Gods in a polytheistic past) or the other (atheism, socialistic, lack of deity)...has led to billions of deaths the world over...and will lead to many billions more in our future.

As to evolution, I see no reason why it and an ultimate deity (God) are mutually exclusive. Whether God exists or not, has no bearing on the matter as far as we understand the process at this moment. The two schools of thought (at least among rational thinkers) are: God - part of the plan; No God - part of a physical existence governed by science. Any attempt to equate the evolving science of evolution with God or without, again becomes faith. Until science can prove or disprove the existence of God, a belief in his existence or non-existence should be removed from the discussion.

Right definition? You've used it often enough you must have your own working definition of it...unless of course you're used to bandying about terms you're not familiar with (and this converse has suggested to me that such is often the case)...but, before I give you a definition you would need to tell me which flavor you'd like me to define. Reaganist? Neo-con? Jeffersonian? You yourself have previously used the phrase 'soft left' I'm inferring you also discern there are degrees on the right?

konrad said...

Forgot to mention...that whole post truth thing? Still a non sequitur. Continuing to try to use it as if it was a valid concept borders on...'fake news'...ya know? :)

Jonny Zchivago said...

No-one's disparging any philosopher because of their religious views,everyone in the ancient world was a believer of some deity or another. They were not privy to the facts we now know....or is that propaganda?
Maybe you should study what i actually implied before you think you understand.....that certainly is arrogance.

"Semantics is an important part of discourse...a common understanding of terms is essential. But if the terms being used are driven by illogic, then all discourse deriving is also illogical. You do know which philosopher was foremost in the development of semantics...yes?"......more smart arsed semantics......don't you have anything else to do?
To the same measure , "Appeals to authority" are also part of the discourse in that case?.....i don't have time do lifetimes of research in very areas, so naturally one refers to those who this case all scholarly opinion says that Nazi's are right wing.....and i have no argument to say they aren't....even if i see the similarites with the left in this blurred political rainbow.

We're going round in circles basically.

As for arguments against God, I think you'll find the philosophical arguments are far more damning than any science could possibly be....but science has at least offered an explanation for things rather than just saying a God did it.Science cannot prove Santa Claus doesn't exist any more than a God exists.....all the available evidence points to the fact that they both don't i'm an agnostic, rather than a de facto Atheist. If there's proof i'll be right there licking god's boots.
Christianity has every reason to be depised, that philosophy probably outscores Socialism, well communism, and Nazi-ism put together for death rates.

If a tree falls in a forest it moves a volume of air, but only makes a sound of an ear is there to convert the air movements into a sound in a suitable brain......rather like if there wasn't a god man would invent fact lots of them.

Ok then Nazi's are Hard Right, and reaganites are soft right.Communism played out correctly to the letter is hard left, democratic socialism on the european model is soft left. They all have things in common, but we need a scale to define them as separate entities to explain away why they don't get on with each other. These are my opinions, as are yours that nazi's are socialists, just because they had the word in their party much to do with Gregor Strasser's quasi-socialist ideals before he was expelled, as anything actually socialist; and nothing to do with Hitlerism.

Venezula is just another example of a political philosophy gone wrong due to the human factor again.....they say they are socialists but end up like animal farm.

Still waiting for you to tell me,in all your magnificence, what is your definition of right wing?

Jonny Zchivago said...

Post-truth/fake news is all part of the same phenomenon. Something Trump relied on a lot in his 'campaign'.

konrad said...

Well, one of us is certainly arguing in circles, but I'm guessing you can't identify which. :D

Jonny Zchivago said...

Let me guess, it isn't you, right?

konrad said...

Examine our previous examinations...and tell me.

Jonny Zchivago said...

Ah, you mean I have to keep asking you to define what 'right wing' means over and over again, because you don't know......hardly in circles when i get no response is it? Just empty semantics and hubris.

konrad said...

Apologies...comment above should have said 'examine our previous interactions'...

You appear to have a reasonable working definition of right wing (apart from the Nazi-right paradigm for which you've offered no proof other than a logical fallacy) why do you continue with this straw man argument (another logical fallacy, by the by)?

Explain to me why my definition of what is right wing has any bearing on our conversation, other than that it is a dodge for you?

konrad said...

But, since you seem to believe any definition I might have has a bearing, this will suffice from my point of view, from Urban Dictionary:

'Right Wing refers to conservatives who, by their nature, favor a small limited government with little power and little control over the people, with most of the power residing within the local state governments. Basically anti-federalist. In other words, the politicians who DON'T want more government involved with your everyday life. They don't want the government to get too big have a lot of control over the people.'

Jonny Zchivago said...

Thank you.
Thats a pretty tame right wing,. I'd call that liberal conservatism. Slightly right of center. I think the term Hard Right does not necessarily refer to a direction right of that position, but a way to differentiate between the hard left style socialism, and the standard Nationalist military style totalitarianism stuff, which is different to hardline communism because Stalin etc perverted the original philosophy to resemble something almost similar to Nazi-ism etc.....
Hitler, for example, directly intended an aggressive,elitist, military run state from the outset.Therefore,I do think Left and Right is a bit misleading as a way of gauging political postioning. Maybe if we turned the left and right gauge from a straight line into a circle we may get closer towards the truth, with nazi's and communist right next to each other, and the neo-con/liberal stuff on the opposite side of the circle?
Just a suggestion.....
Happy midwinter festival.

konrad said...

Yes, I've examined the circular vs linear paradigm...most examples place Nazism as you say, where the hard left/right meet, however that is incorrect. Nazism took 90% of marxist ideals as their own and so would be to the opposite side of that meeting place. Something akin to Saddam Hussein's hard right would be closer to that meeting place.

But that still does not explain why my definition of right wing was in any way needed for you to express your view of this paradigm? Nor why you were so adamant that you have it?

As to the definition I gave, it was considered rather radical round about 1776 when it was used as the impetus to kick a king to the curb and form a new republic.

On circular reasoning...using a logical fallacy such as 'appeal to authority' to support an argument, being called on using a logical fallacy to support said argument, you again used the same fallacy to support your argument. You provided no other refutation of my points...ergo, circular...

But truly, you should be of good cheer that Trump won in America. Now there is a populist scapegoat to blame when the entire socialist house of cards built over the last 60+ years comes crashing down and destroys all of what western society has built in the last few centuries. And come down it will, not just in the US, but throughout what is currently termed 'western society'...and that includes England, Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand. But it won't happen because of Trump.

And if you're really interested, I can explain why it will happen, and why at this point in history it is happening...though I won't be able to understand it for you. :)

And to you, a very Merry Christmas.

Jonny Zchivago said...

Hi, yes i would like you to explain why it will happen. I agree with you that it will, but predictably for opposite neo-liberal capitalist greed basically....but always interested in opposite points of view.

Back on our previous discussion, i wrote the following yesterday on left and right....seems a waste of sffort not to paste it for some lite reading?

Your standpoint is very American.
So, by your definition, extreme right would be some version of Anarchy, which is traditionally thought of as the preserve of the hard left. Extreme neo-liberalism is in effect Anarchy.
Part of the problem is that political ideology is not one dimensional - it's at least two dimensional , if not three?
It's too simplistic to stick to left and right, this was my initial point...(that the new wave of non-politics is nothing to do with left and right; something that has got lost in our discussion.
The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution, referring to the seating arrangement in the parliament: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, while those on the right were supportive of the old Regime. The french revolution slogan, equality, brotherhood, and freedom, could equally be applied to socialist and neo liberal ideals......probably not brotherhood for the neo-cons, who like the 'every man for himself policy.
Hitler cannot be described as purely socialist, as his social support network was purely for the right kind of Germans only, which is diametrically opposite to standard socialist doctrines of equality for was also strictly 'National' Socialism, and race based....also not a traditional socialist standpoint.
Equality is something communism and the American declaration of independence have in common, so why is the US constitution not labelled left wing as well?Is Democracy left or right?.....sounds pretty left wing to me too?
Hitler also wanted to establish a 'Free' keynesian style economic market(again only in Germany; but abandoned during the war naturally) as championed by Thatcher in the UK, who like Hitler, had a welfare state and a social healthcare programe, but for everyone, and wanted 'less government'.....that is a real mixture of left and right.
Communism is undoubtedly the opposite of Neo -Liberalism,and to some extent Anarchy.
In the 3D political spectrum, all of these philosophy's are floating in all directions straddling lines, and cannot be defined in simplistic terms.Hitlerism,in eradicating cultures and peoples he considered immoral and a threat to the fabric of society,could be seen as a very extreme exaggeration of the tone deaf policy the right wing seems to support in reference to minorities.

However,what's at play here is neither side wishing to claim Hitler. It's more or less disingenuous name calling. It seems to assume all one has to do to be Hitler and the Nazis is support socialist ideology or say or think something racist.

Merry crimbo.

konrad said...

A moment...before we go any further...

What the flying flock is a neo-liberal capitalist? Apart from obfuscation?

sweethooligan said...

On a lighter note I met Mister Ramleh in Aldershot at the last Magic Band gig. Apparently he lives there? No wonder he's miserable...

Jonny Zchivago said...

Lol!A lighter note...thank christ for that.
I'm miserable even at the mention of the word Aldershot.

Jonny Zchivago said...

A neo-liberal capitalist is simply a supporter of a completely deregulated free market,on a global scale. That's quite right wing on the 3D political scale.

konrad said... you mean, 'Capitalism'!

Why didn't you say so? Why try to obfuscate it with a meaningless term like neo-liberal? (Neocon is equally meaningless as well...)

So your argument now equates to capitalism bad, capitalist greed is why the west is headed for economic chaos and likely destruction. And of course we can just disregard the fact that the west has been run primarily on Keynesian (Marxist) economic principles for the last, nigh on, 100 years?

Apart from the paragraph regarding origin of political terms from the French parliament (historically correct) most of the rest of your response also attempts to equate the policies of the left, with the right...wouldn't you say?

And how, exactly, could a totalitarian hard right regime like Saddam Hussein's be equated with anarchy, in any fashion? Given the two are diametrically opposed...

Jonny Zchivago said...

What I'm writing this crap for on Xmas day for I really don't know!?

Ok.....No, I don't think Anarchy has anything in common with Saddam Hussein;s 'Hard Right' regime.(especially on The 1 dimensional scale that you use.)
I was equating Anarchy with your definition of right wing,,,,,remember...the 'small govt' approach. That taken to its logical ,extreme ,conclusion leads to No govt.....which is a basic principle of Anarchy is it not? Whereas The Baath party was Totalitarian/Big Govt.

However, The Baath and Nazi regimes do, and i'm sure you'll agree, do share quite a lot of programs NOT being one of them.
Yet you have used the Term 'Hard Right' for an aggressively militaristic, genocidal, Totalitarian Dictatorship. Yet Hitler ticks all those boxes, but is Hard Left because he had a social program?
He can't be both in your simplistic categorisation of the political spectrum. There are grey area's.
Equally Stalin, who we both agree is undoubtedly hard left, but in my opinion a perverted version of communism, has the same traits as Saddam, and a similar moustache.The only difference is Saddam had no social program...but like the others had very active pograms.

So using your definition of right wing, as small govt, that flys directly in the face of the Hard Right of Hussein's Very Big Govt ; does it not?

NB...Neo-Liberalism' is a relevant term for the recent Globalisation fad, or is that just 'Capitalism' too? Neo, is a suffix to differentiate it from the previous lot who didn'y press for borderless/tariff free trade. Trump is a big step back from Neo-anything, even spouting economics that echo the soviet closed market .

Now i'm going to xmas dinner with my openly communist brother, who thinks I am a capitalist.
If anything I am a supporter of your definition of right wing...leaning towards Anarchy.
Yep, its certainly a 3D world we live in.

konrad said...

"What I'm writing this crap for on Xmas day for I really don't know!?"

Because I task you...I task you and you think you shall have me. :D

To be continued post holiday...


konrad said...

Sad, really...

You know, it's not so much what you don't know that's troublesome. It's so much of what you think you know that's just plain wrong.

Obviously you've no concept of the Jeffersonian small government model. There is no 'logical, extreme, conclusion of anarchy involved anywhere within said version of gov't. Most control is at the local level, with relegated to a very limited role. With that local control, the sheriff/constabulary can easily put the kibosh on any plans by a corrupt neighboring counterpart to foment trouble, take over. I'm well aware the left very much prefers the Stasi/Gestapo sort of federal control over such matters, but history has proven this method never works. Also, I never said I dismissed the circular paradigm for politics, did I?

I gave you an entire list of Nazi social programs that match perfectly with socialist, leftist principles. There are others I can also roll out, lest you feel the need to reduce that list to the singular again.

And this is where the left fails, again and again and again. Every time there is a complete meltdown/failure of socialist principles (Soviet, Venezuelan, etc.) the excuse is that it's always been done wrong, and the next time the murderous left tries again they'll get it right. And why? Because they continue to demand the world and people behave as they think they should, rather than as they actually do or will. The complete dismissal of human nature and free will acts like a straight jacket they can't Houdini their way out of. And that is why they will always fail.


Pick any of your favorite written ramblings by any imbecile who regularly spouts this term as if it were valid. As you read it, replace each reference to neo-liberal/neo-liberalism with 'capitalist/capitalism'...and see if it doesn't read exactly the same...same meaning, same conclusions.

Oh, and you do realize the original definition of 'liberal government' referred to the Jeffersonian 'small gov't.' model, and that 'liberal' was co-opted by the socialist/marxists, yes?

Ahhhh...those wacky leftist progressives...always co-opting what they can't create, because they're bereft of ideas to begin with.

Or if they can't co-opt the ideas of their betters, they try to blame their failures on them. Like the whole 'fake news' push. Always someone else's fault, can't be because their candidates, organizations and MSM are corrupt to the core and it's now widely recognized by those fly-over little people who should just shut up and be ruled.

Jonny Zchivago said...

Yes, sad, that you keep having bring your ego into the debate.

Didn't really do much American history at school, so I had to read up on Jefferson's theory. It seems to suit the quaint small govt utopia that you seem to be advocating. Of village hall politics,friendly local farmers feeding everyone, baddies ran out of town, like an episode of Bonanza. (“….With that local control, the sheriff/constabulary can easily put the kibosh on any plans by a corrupt neighboring counterpart to foment trouble, take over” ,,,,,!?) It just sounds incredibly naïve.

Another unproven political philosophy that doesn't take into account the human factor, and seemingly one that Jefferson himself struggled to follow himself.
He even pushed through measures to enlarge Federal power, and like a dictator purchased Louisiana...”For national security” reasons (Sound familiar?), without the authority from congress.
And some of his ideas were stolen by the marxists you say?

Anarchy is definitely a danger of increasingly small govt, as is leaving oneself open to a dictator.....and no sheriff's posse is gonna come to your aid.....dagnabitt, the sheriff may even decide to be the dictator himself...then you just might need the Federal forces to bail you out?

konrad said...

So, if I follow this current convoluted reasoning correctly, you're saying that small Jeffersonian style limited government is a recipe for anarchy, even though the one time it's really been tried, things went the exact opposite direction?


Jonny Zchivago said...

so if i follow your convoluted understanding correctly, you think i said that anarchy is a logical progression of the jefferson model?...No, i am merely inferring that Anarchy occupies the same general area on that famous political map we discussed.. Its don't take much to understand that 'no' govt is not far removed from 'small' govt?
Lets see, this model has been tried 'once'(and why did they not carry it on?~) apparently, and you think its the answer to all man's woes?...Brilliant !....where was this? Dodge City? Its a corner shop philosophy with small answers to massive problems.All sounds lovely, but it ignores one major factor...reality.

konrad said...

Can't even remember what you've previously posted eh? I'll quote you:

"I was equating Anarchy with your definition of right wing,,,,,remember...the 'small govt' approach."

Equation...left side and right sides are equal, balanced, or the equation fails.

Let's try another previous quote:

"Anarchy is definitely a danger of increasingly small govt"

Definitely...not 'occupies the same general area', but...Definitely. And you inferred nothing, though you tried to imply something which you most definitely did not say or imply. You might wish to look at the definitions of those two words, infer and imply. To use my best Inigo Montoya voice: "I do not think those words mean what you think they mean!" :)

I understand you think your ranting has actual meaning, I get that. What you need to understand is that ranting does not constitute logical thought or reasoning.

As to why the American experiment in small government has failed, oh interpreter of history who failed to learn much of America's, it is because the federalists eventually won out over the Jeffersonians, and so big government (along with big egos and greed) gradually replaced the small government ideal.

Blimey! If that isn't the same reason socialism has failed, again and again...imagine that! Human nature, the same, again and again...

Jonny Zchivago said...

impeccable research, but those quotes do nothing to back up your argument that i said anarchy is a logical consequence of your quaint jefferson model.
Again,.... it seems to occupy the same general area on the 3d map.....and both are unworkable we seem to agree here...of the human nature to fuck things up due to out of control ego's.

Sorry that i admitted to not learning any american history.Its just not very interesting.

So do we agree that any political philosophy is doomed because of Humanity?
You have convinced me that Hitler was essentially left wing, i'm comfortable with that.

But, capitalism doesn't just come in one style, hence the need for those terms you don't like. Chinese capitalism is very different to american for example....its tempting to think in simple blocks, but the worlds isn't like that; there are grey area's, surely you can accept that?

i'll leave the last word to know you like that.
i've got new rants to write.

happy new year.

Jonny Zchivago said...

ps keep it short!?

konrad said...

Well, we've agreed humans have a tendency to fuck things up due to egos (and I would add seem to eschew that foible). And I will agree there are degrees of both capitalism and socialism...the Chinese coming to capitalism the long way round due to the failures of socialism in general.

American history not very interesting? Why, that's like saying British, Roman or Greek history isn't very interesting, given the incredible impact they've all had on western civilization, or the impact they still have at this moment in time.

Sorry you prefer not to continue. I was still hoping to get into cycles, PI, and why the west is destined to fall at this point in history...the world financial capital to transition to Asia by 2032.

But, perhaps you're not ready. ;)

konrad said...

Forgot to add...

A very Happy New Year to you as well. I'll still be following your blog as music does transcend politics, does it not?


Jonny Zchivago said...

Although my views are in a constant state of Flux politically, i do get bored of hearing my own it was refreshing to hear your all means put forward your theory of the reasons that Western Civilisation is on the brink of imminent collapse.

I do quite enjoy Cold war era american history,there probably isn't an insaner epoch in all human history.....maybe just shorten that to the 'Cold War'. The other empires have a lot more years of existence so are naturally more interesting.

And yes, Music does transcend...well...everything?.....especially bloody Politics....a very poor last place on the respect scale.

konrad said...

1st day of 2017, 1.25 years from the last major turning...seems apropos to start this now. Firstly though, I should state these are not my theories. I ain't that smrt. :)

But a bit of 'what if', if you will indulge me.

What if one of the penultimate directors of humanity and their actions was economic (nothing you haven't heard, I know) but what if it worked far less like Karl Marx and far more like Adam Smith's invisible hand. And what if that hand wasn't quite so hidden any longer...what if it were quantifiable.

What if, there were a short economic cycle of 8.6 years, 3141 turnings of our planet upon its axis (look at that number of days again, in slightly different perspective, 3.141) and think of its relationship to all things circular...and imagine for a moment it could impact things cyclical.

And what if there were a medium cycle, 51.6 years (6 x 8.6 years) and what if there were a long cycle, 309.6 years (6 x 51.6) and what if minor, medium, and major economic and societal changes and eruptions could be plotted among those cycles...and what if we just started the beginning of a new 309.6 year cycle as of 2015.75.

Understand, this turning point does not mean the SHTF immediately, rather it is a turning point where our hubris brings strife to humanity (we bring it upon ourselves by our inability to see beyond our limited time/reality). 2015.75 marks the beginning of the end of what we currently refer to as 'Western Civilization'.

309.6 years ago (from 2015.75...1706.15), mankind began to revolt against monarchies, eventually resulting in such upheavals as the American and French revolutions, reintroducing democracy to our world.

309.6 years before that (1396.55), the Black Death killed nearly 50% of the populace. Suddenly there was no longer enough labor for serfdom to continue and it became necessary for wages to be paid the common man for a fair day's work...reintroduction of capitalism, and ultimately, the Renaissance..

309.6 years before that (1086.95), saw the end of the Viking incursions. Within a year of that, William the conqueror died, and a short 10 years later the first Crusade began.

309.6 years before that (777.35), saw the start of the Saxon invasions, and Charlemagne began to consolidate Europe into nation states.

309.6 years before that (467.75), saw the fall of Rome.

Major upheavals in history, on a timeline, the invisible hand, cycles, PI.

Happy New Year. :)

konrad said...

Forgot to mention...

467.75 (fall of Rome) was six 309.6 year cycles ago...and ushered in the Dark Ages. Are we set for a new Dark Ages? Or can we begin to recognize the cycle and break free of it?

This is where my politics derive from...not right/left, whatever dimensional shift you'd like to assign to that paradigm. That shift is one of humanity reacting to a cyclical, universal dynamic we're currently trapped within, because we can't or refuse to see it.

Time to bust through the walls of the matrix (metaphorically). :D

konrad said...

History repeats. Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do understand are forced to suffer the consequences along with the sheep who assure humanity will repeat it.

Jonny Zchivago said...

Hmmm heard that before somewhere.....according to your very buddhist sounding 'cycles' theory we are doomed to repeat it anyway....but i'm sure you'll point out that i have misunderstood it.
Empires rise,empires fall, species become extinct. There seems to be a cycle there anyway....a hefty bet would go on the 'west' to be the next empire to fall, at 11-8 on....with the Human Race joint favourites to be extinct within 1000 years....the new dark age starts on Jan 20th 2017.....buddah told me.

konrad said...

Well, figured it would fall on deaf ears...cognitive dissonance and all that.

Interesting that you would use the Buddhist analogy though, given that the monks see that there are cycles and endeavor to break out of them, rather than continue to live in the doom and gloom, as you see it. The Hindu ascetics, gurus, etc., also seek to find a way out of said cycles.

The idea at this point is to see the economic cycles for what they are, try to find a way to live in concert with them, rather than constantly fighting a losing battle against them. The left's major failing is that they genuinely believe by controlling everything they can, that they can force reality to their wills...a fool's quest, and one that is about to blow up in the world's face.

Yes, this new cycle heralds the fall of the west, the eventual shift of the financial capital to Asia by 2032. The US will fragment, will no longer be a world power (I know that idea fills you with great glee, or at least it will until the rest of you are all killing each other again). The real question is whether it means the west descends into a new dark age, or recognizes the cycle and uses that knowledge to progress to the next logical stage of evolution, which is to work within the cycle rather than fighting against it.

As to your Trump derangement syndrome, I can do nothing for that. Trump is symptom of this changeover from confidence in public to private institutions. Like Brexit, Le Pen, et. al., they are signs of the populace awakening to the truth that all western governments are corrupt vultures, feeding on the people for their own enrichment. The public thumbing their nose at oligarchs and saying we will not go quietly into that good night.

It is your own cognitive dissonance that will not allow you to countenance such ideas.

Jonny Zchivago said...

I think you should look up the definition of Cognitive dissonance......"a theory of behavioral psychology that asserts that people experience uneasiness after acting in a way that appears to conflict with their beliefs and preferences about themselves or others.....
I haven't acted in a way that conflicts my beliefs(don't really have any) thank you.unlike Buddhists etc....
Its also a denial of facts even when faced with unequivocal evidence.....the evidence for this cycles mumbo jumbo is hardly unequivocal is it.
It like those preachers who keep predicting the 'Rapture' enough research and you can make anything fit your enough random cycles through history and you will find it lands in the general area of most historical events...frankly ludricrous.And you think the person who worked this out is far more intelligent than you? do yourself a grave disservice there my friend.
The financial centre moving east is hardly unexpected, and the trump phenomenon is hardly a revolution either.But it could take us back to the dark ages......which maybe a good thing?

Thumbing their noses at the oligarchs???....isn't that trump and his team of billionaires?....i definitely thumb my nose at them.Its a Plutocracy, simple as thatis

I understand your hopeful interpretation of the Trump shite thanks.

As i applied a few WSB quotes to todays post, i've found one for us:

"The mark of a basic shit is that he has to be right. And right here we must make a diagnostic distinction between the hard-core virus-occupied shit and a plain, ordinary, mean no-good son of a bitch. Some of these sons of bitches don't cause any trouble at all, just want to be left alone."

konrad said...

Your definition is seriously flawed. Here's a better one:

"In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time; performs an action that is contradictory to their beliefs, ideas, or values; or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas or values."

Note the part in bold.

Trump won because he was not a career politician, not joined at the hip with either the RNC or DNC, and was an outsider, not because of his money. The left outspent him 3 to 1 and he still won. Of course they helped by colluding with the media to make him the candidate in the first place. :)

Jonny Zchivago said...

So in fact i should accept every absurd idea that is thrown in my direction or i am cognitively dissonant? long did it take you to find a definition that pleases your narcissistic need to be right?
I'd like to amend the word 'information' for 'evidence',other than just a theory that comes solely from the human need to find patterns in chaos.
Apophenia : the human tendency to perceive meaningful patterns within random data.
I'm Cognitively Skeptical in other words.

Trump's an outsider....nice one.

konrad said...

Define absurd.

As far as ideas that appear to show random events can actually be linked scientifically or mathematically (you would agree that Pi is a mathematical term, yes?) I expect cautious examination until said idea can be debunked rationally, not knee-jerk dismissal because said ideas are radical or unfamiliar.

As to how long? About 2 seconds...Wikipedia baby!

However, I will cease the attempt to educate you on ideas you may not be familiar with, as it is obvious you are unable or unwilling to examine them rationally.

Hope your new year is a great one. :)

Jonny Zchivago said...

can't examine irrational ideas rationally.
Even if some random events can be explained mathematically,some others are just ,i'm afraid random.
I repeat it's Apophenia: which can be linked scientifically to many crackpot attempts to make order out of chaos.
However i too will cease to educate you on your human psychology, as you are unwilling to accept this is a possibility.

and a fine new year to you too.

konrad said...

You are, of course, absolutely right.

The idea that the earth was round, rather than flat...totally was that whole idea of the earth revolving round the sun as opposed to the universe revolving round the earth...fookin' wankers!!!

Absolutely, there are not more things in heaven or earth than are dreamt of in men's philosophies, Horatio. And no kind of skientific data will ever make us believe such heresies, so we shall dismiss them as the fantasies of madmen, and, in our superior knowledge we shall disparage them as the witches they are...burn them at the stake even.

And we shall do so to assure we may be judged as right in our smugness.

Jonny Zchivago said...