Hitler and Social Nationalism

It's surprising that there are still people who advocate nazi rhetoric:

Elijah:
what makesyou tyhink htiler was such a monster? because history books tell you so? look at all the unpunished war crimes the allies commited and then try to waffle about hitler being a monster. did you know he was the ONLy world war 2 era l...eader whop offered to step down on not one occaison. but sic occaisons. if it would mean peace tlaks with Britian and britian refused, the fact remains there is no evidence for homicidal gas chambers or that the nazis wiped out ninety percet of european jewry. did you know that the number six million gets it's origins from kabbalah sources? did you know there were several claims in the years p-rior to world war 2 that six million jews had been wiped out? or were at risk for being wiuped out?
http://www.debatingtheholocaust.com/

Hitler massively advocated Social Nationalism, at the core of which is Heinrich von Treitschke's Nationalism based on Social Darwinism - a false idea, suggesting that because all individuals and nations continuously struggle for life, keeping the blood and the race pure is the nations noblest task, because race is the center of life. Clearly one has NOTHING to do with the other. In your struggle for life you need food and certain conditions to survive, race and it's purity have nothing to do with it. One must be either a dumb illiterate prick or an evil ambitious nut to build a political ideology based on those theories. The result? In the world that was already full of problems instead of solving them he created perfect conditions for a world war along with a stupid ideology that keeps bringing mess even today, after so many decades, and we still don't seem to be able to get rid of it. Also, the fact that someone else committed more crimes doesn't justify Hitler's actions, c'mon, what kind of argument is that? Whoever commits or committed any crime should be stopped and prevented from doing so. It is okay to explore the history, but you should really be careful and clear about what side you advocate and why, it is your duty as a conscious entity to be responsible for the consequences of your actions. Use Hitler as an example of the consequences of being careless or just stupid.

Jeff:
Social darwinism is pretty accurate to an extent. To survive socially and economically one must the socially and economically fit to do so. The inherant rich are more likely to succeed and survive economically than what a poverse citizen will. I am not applying any of this to race, just basic social economics.

No, it isn't accurate and what you've said is terribly catastrophically wrong.

You don't have to fit in socially or economically (or any other way) in order to survive socially or economically. All you need is a functional government and social care + a good attitude of your own and people around you. You can survive even with just the last 2 conditions and I am the perfect example of it along with many others.

According to Social Darwinism I should have been socially dead and on the streets a while ago, but with my own effort and help of others not only have I been able to survive, but I've also improved the quality of my life and I continue moving towards the better opportunities. Which means that with your own effort, skills, talents and some help of others not only can you survive, being the most misfit element, but even become a fully functional member of society and even start contributing to it. If I am not a good example (as you don't know anything about me) I'll offer you Mikhail Lomonosov who, being absolutely socially and economically misfit, with just his own effort had become one of the greatest scientists and writers of his time.

All of the above disproves Social Darwinism on so many levels and means that in a semi-functional society a misfit member can become a great contributor, in a fully functional society a misfit member could become a super great contributor and the fittest member could become a mega super great contributor.

And finally answer this question - does fitting_in_socially_and_economically guarantee that you will survive? - No, right? Then how the fuck (excuse the language) is it accurate to any extent? Poor or rich your social and economic well-being depends upon your own will, effort, abilities, the attitude of others and functionality of the state you live in.

Social Darwinism was an attempt to formulate social laws similar to natural laws which was very stupid to begin with, but also proved to be wrong. To survive under water you have to be able to breath under water. To survive socially you need your own will and help of society. Not only Social Darwinism doesn't help to address social problems it breeds racism and fascism, suggesting that if you are misfit and poor instead of helping you to become fit and wealthy we want you to get out of here to join your kind. Continue so and you will have the entire world of poor misfits with 1000 of wealthy intelligent elite. And then?

True Stories

Rose.

During the period of pitch-black melancholy and in pursuance of emotional distress, I had settled upon acquiring a rose for a few days friendship. I picked one in a flower shop. For the next few days she had become the first thing I woke up to, she accompanied me everywhere, sitting in my purse; she witnessed my meals and bath times. The morning she started to die I had an affair that forced me to leave for a few days. It tore my heart apart thus leading out of melancholy. I decided that the only way I could worthily express my gratitude for her friendhsip and participation in my mental matters was to let her die by an open window, so that the last things she wintnessed were the true life dynamics of outter world and not the monumentality of my delirious in-door routine.

The first image is what I made of her. The second -what she has actually been

Dialectic and Rhetoric, but not Debate

"Dialectic is based on a dialogue between two or more people who may hold differing views, yet wish to seek the truth of the matter through the exchange of their viewpoints while applying reason. This differs from a debate, in which both sides are committed to their viewpoint and only wish to win the debate by persuading or proving themselves right (or the other side wrong) – and thus a jury or judge is often needed to decide the matter. It also differs from rhetoric, which is oratory that appeals to logos, pathos, or ethos." wiki

logos, pathos and ethos are greek words and mean reason, experience (emotions) and ethics, respectively. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. Using it to prove a point in an argument regarding Art is relevant and makes argument itself be an act of Art.

Dialectic as a method of cognition of reality and discovering 'The Truth' proved to be very effective. It is based on the principle of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. If a person from south and a person from north talk about the best weather, they most likely will end up in an argument. If we apply dialectic to this situation and say that the southern person's opinion is a thesis and the northern person's opinion is the antithesis, then a synthesis of their opinions would take each of them and anyone who witnessed their argument to a high level of understanding of what the best weather is. Using their experience, each of them will add to the knowledge about the best weather and refute each other's prejudice about it as well. Their new opinion is now a new thesis, a western person's opinion or an eastern person's opinion (or a synthesis of both) will be the antithesis to it and the new opportunity to improve. It was a simplified example, you know that topics are often more complex and opinions are multiple, as well as it is still arguable whether there is the final instance of truth or just a better understanding of it, nevereinding process of imrpovement. (<- this was me using rhetoric in order to persuade you)

Debate implies that the arguing parties nolonger look for improvement and/or for some reason are interested in proving their point. Debates are usually held by conscious enitties for a third party in order to win its support or to show it a better way to go. It often occurs in politics and justice which are srs business for srs people.

Art and creativity

Debates are held on the subject of how to define art, so I'll offer you my opinion based on common knowledge.

Etymology- art derives from latin and greek and means - skill, craft, complete. At first it was a figurative expression of cognition and comprehension of reality. Meaning: humans first tried to draw on the walls in their caves, trying to represent what they saw around them, developing skills and creating new forms of art. Later on art evolved and became a source of aesthetic pleasure, a way to capture great moments and forms in order to contemplate them or make them 'eternal/immortal', thus art started to resemble human love to the great and beautiful, as well as it connected with religion, science, history and the mother of all- philosophy: reflecting the devine, scientific researches, historical events. So the main point seemed to be a result, not just a process of creating. A lot of people can be creative and end up with creating something worthful, but to precisely convert reality or your imagination into a piece of art you need skills. So, to me it is obvious that throughout history there were such things involved : cognition, comprehension, skills and creativity on their highest level, the thing is that all those evolve, develop or just change if you will, as time goes by.

So, my definition of art would be something like this: art is a form of creativity, based on the highest level of cognitive thinking (: abstract thinking, ability to conceptualize on a large scale) and well developed skills, resulting in an unprecedented flawless piece of work.

Art doesn't necessarily have to be beautiful. And there aren't really any lines to cross. I think I've just found that quality, that was escaping me all this time: the difference between art and just creativity is art improves your culture. Being the highest form of creaitvity, a piece of art bears such concept or connotation, that when exposed to it, you immediately level up and make a step forward in your conscious, intellectual, mental, social, spiritual, emotional etc development.

Art institutions in a non-profit highly developed society would be perhaps the most important ones, as their goal would be a constant exploration of the products and results of mankind's creativity to collect the best out of it in order to spread and exhibit it around the world with the purpose of cultural improvement. Art spots would be the places of high mental and emotional stimulation. (perhaps even physical - imagine some sort of a futuristic cosmology museum where you are exposed to the images, sculptures, video installations or items from outter space, while experiencing lack of gravity ). If art was that developed, available and free- in our society would be no drug abuse or depression problems, because there would be always something people could occupy themselves with, something that is always one step ahead, can blow your mind and highly motivate you to find out more or get involved into. Unfortunately this isn't the case in our society. Even if an art institution is non-profit, it is still sponsored by someone, thus it is under the influence of their policies and politics, the main aspect of which within our current socio-economic system is profit.

What we basically have since after the WWI and II is Reactionary Creativity (some call it reactionary art, but I prefer creativity, based upon everything I've said about art).  People express anger, unsatisfaction, depression or just lack of motivation and interest through creativity, their reaction to the miserable state in which world society is. People respond to that kind of 'art' because nearly everyone can relate to it. Everything else with little exception seems to be either nonsensical and absurd or pathetic escapism or repetition of what has been already done before.

a group in Wales aims to farm for food not for profit. Share the land, share the work, share the produce, expand.

Description

Collective, Stockless, Organic Farming aims to farm for food not for profit. Share the land, share the work, share the produce, expand.
***
Farmers are going out to work to support their farms because wholesale prices are low whilst retail prices are high and rising.
***
Supermarkets are doing okay but no-one else is. We aim to change this by doing more for ourselves, (and others) collectively.
***
This is not a political or religious organisation, it is a practical response to a situation that religion and politics has failed. We aim to use the economics as they are and gradually bring about changes to an economic system that allows millions to starve amidst plenty.
***
We aim to reduce waste and recycle almost everything in numerous businesses based on improved land practices. We will look at the various cutting edge techniques and adopt the most practicable.
***
Members will benefit in a variety of ways. To start with from good information and later on from full time, well paid lifestyles, not just jobs. Pay will be more than just money, but sufficient money included.
***
We all start as volunteers and all benefit from what we create. That's fair and just.

wow, that's pretty much communism
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/csofarming/

A Low-Impact Wood Land Home

You are looking at pictures of a house I built for our family in Wales. It was built by myself and my father in law with help from passers by and visiting friends. 4 months after starting we were moved in and cosy. I estimate 1000-1500 man hours and £3000 put in to this point. Not really so much in house buying terms (roughly £60/sq m excluding labour).
The house was built with maximum regard for the environment and by reciprocation gives us a unique opportunity to live close to nature. Being your own (have a go) architect is a lot of fun and allows you to create and enjoy something which is part of yourself and the land rather than, at worst, a mass produced box designed for maximum profit and convenience of the construction industry. Building from natural materials does away with producers profits and the cocktail of carcinogenic poisons that fill most modern buildings.

Some key points of the design and construction:

• Dug into hillside for low visual impact and shelter
• Stone and mud from diggings used for retaining walls, foundations etc.
• Frame of oak thinnings (spare wood) from surrounding woodland
• Reciprocal roof rafters are structurally and aesthaetically fantastic and very easy to do
• Straw bales in floor, walls and roof for super-insulation and easy building
• Plastic sheet and mud/turf roof for low impact and ease
• Lime plaster on walls is breathable and low energy to manufacture (compared to cement)
• Reclaimed (scrap) wood for floors and fittings
• Anything you could possibly want is in a rubbish pile somewhere (windows, burner, plumbing, wiring...)
• Woodburner for heating - renewable and locally plentiful
• Flue goes through big stone/plaster lump to retain and slowly release heat
• Fridge is cooled by air coming underground through foundations
• Skylight in roof lets in natural feeling light
• Solar panels for lighting, music and computing
• Water by gravity from nearby spring
• Compost toilet
• Roof water collects in pond for garden etc.

Main tools used: chainsaw, hammer and 1 inch chisel, little else really. Oh and by the way I am not a builder or carpenter, my experience is only having a go at one similar house 2yrs before and a bit of mucking around inbetween. This kind of building is accessible to anyone. My main relevant skills were being able bodied, having self belief and perseverence and a mate or two to give a lift now and again.

This building is one part of a low-impact or permaculture approach to life. This sort of life is about living in harmony with both the natural world and ourselves, doing things simply and using appropriate levels of technology. These sort of low cost, natural buildings have a place not only in their own sustainability, but also in their potential to provide affordable housing which allows people access to land and the opportunity to lead more simple, sustainable lives. For example this house was made to house our family whilst we worked in the woodland surrounding the house doing ecological woodland management and setting up a forest garden, things that would have been impossible had we had to pay a regular rent or mortgage. To read more about why we did it and why this is an important option to meet the challenges of climate change and peak oil, click here.
Would you like to learn more about this sort of building and gain practical experience? Why not join us on another exciting building project. There will be opportunities for everyone of all abilities and areas of interest. Click here for more details.