Posted on 04/05/2006 12:21:18 AM PDT by goldstategop
There is no contradiction here. Nazi ideology rejected rationality even more stridently than Wahabi Islamism does -- the latter seems positively enlightened when compared to lunacy like the Welteislehre, and while I am less familiar with Japanese fascism what I do know indicates that they shared the same disdain for the notion that reality could possibly trump the will of their superior selves.
As a belief system [Islam] admits no equality with any other. There is no sphere of life beyond its control. That is why predictions of modernizing it are so silly.
Another point of similarity with Naziism and Japanese fascism, both of which were modernized readily enough once the defeat of their sponsor states shattered their pretensions.
And if the state oil monopoly is the source of all wealth
But... but... you just said that socialism never made any inroads there! I'm so confused....
Only by keeping the modern world out can Muslim men in Europe retain that kind of control over Muslim women.
Hokay. It is impossible for the modern world to change Islam. Islamists have to keep the modern world out or else their entire subculture will collapse.
Hint: It's customary to insert more padding than that between mutually exclusive assertions.
Your 'we can transform them' is no less delusional than the leftists 'with education and a Marshall Plan for the Middle East we can transform them'.
And now you've repeated the first mutually exclusive assertion right after the second one, with no padding at all. You'll never maintain the pretense of respect for the reader's intelligence if you keep that up.
Both are based on a common secularist inability to take religion seriously.
When adherents of some "religion" or other act like nut cases, what reaction do you expect?
This silly insinuation of religious bigotry reminds me of the statement Isaac Hayes' handlers wrote for him when they quit South Park on his behalf.
There isn't enough money in the world to buy religious fanatics.
For the hardcore of fanatics, it doesn't take much money -- bullets are cheap. I gather that Wombat101 is discussing the masses, who he (correctly, if history is any guide) perceives as willing to follow the side that can show itself more capable of providing them with a civil order that maintains the peace and avoids bothering them.
Methinks you've distilled the reasons for Sam the Sham's lengthy exercises in humming loudly while plugging his ears (though only the former translates into words that can be seen here).
About a third of the American colonists were loyal to King and Crown. Even if the British commanders couldn't trust their own troops, they could trust the Tory irregulars (who had to win the war or become refugees -- which is precisely what many of them did after their side lost).
The British failed to pursue because they failed to take full advantage of their opportunities, not because it was fundamentally impossible for them to do so as you suggest.
heh.
Again, every credible estimate I've seen indicates that Tories made up a quarter to a third of the population (and a similar percentage just wanted the whole damn thing to go away). The rebels were a minority.
He will not Carry the South, and will not win without it.
Basically, the reason for dropping the second bomb on Japan so soon after the first was to sustain the illusion that we could keep 'em coming if necessary. The reality is that we couldn't -- the estimates I've seen are that the earliest another atomic bomb could have been ready was November 1945, which makes me suspect that it might well have been well into 1946 in reality.
Neither did we, actually -- see previous message.
With all the valid reasons to oppose Guiliani, Joe Farah focuses on a silly picture that Rudy is not the least bit ashamed of (and shouldn't be).
It wasn't "Crying Game" drag, it was Monty Python drag. Done strictly for humor. Talk about mountains out of molehills...
At the Inner Circle Dinner in New York. It's an annual roast. Reporters spoof the politicians, and the politicians spoof the press. Proceeds go to charity (don't ask me to remember which one).
It's a lot like the White House Correspondents Dinner in DC, except that the Inner Circle has a strong Broadway element to it---many of the spoofs are song-and-dance numbers based on Broadway hits, with cast members performing alongside the roastees. That's how Rudy ended up in a dress, singing with Julie Andrews in a suit.
Your basic pro-deviance has rotted your brain so responding to you is often a waste of time, especially since you are so insignificant in the GOP.
The absence of pursuit is why the victories of Frederick the Great were never decisive. He had the same problem the British did, i.e. a barrack slave army created by coercion and held together by the gauntlet, the lash, and the gallows. Like Wombat101, you fancy yourself educated when you know very little.
And if the Tories were so numerous, why couldn't the British secure their overland supply route from New York to Philadelphia ? Why couldn't the New York garrison safely collect firewood in New Jersey ? Why wasn't holding Philadelphia an option when they had to divert shipping to the West Indies in response to the French. Couldn't mid Atlantic Tories hold major cities by themselves ? Were they as pathetically dependent on the redcoats as ARVN was on the American Army ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.