Hitlers, piemēram, bija ģimenisks, mīlēja bērnus un dzīvniekus, nepīpēja, nelietoja alkoholu, viņam patika simetrija un kārtība, cienīja klasisko mākslu, bija neslikts gleznotājs, vispār, bija estēts, maksimālists, apveltīts ar lielu gribasspēku, bija savas valsts patriots, no zemākajām padibenēm izrāvās un kļuva par vienu no pasaules ietekmīgākajiem cilvēkiem, nelokāms, nepiekāpīgs, principiāls, ar skaidru vīziju un viedokli par to, kā jābūt lietām, sakarīgs orators un šovmenis, cienīja vēsturi, utt. Šādi jau var turpināt, bet tas ir neauglīgi. Jā, protams, viņš bija arī neiecietīgs, apsēsts ar lielummāniju, augstprātīgs, slims ar lepnības grēku, histērisks, pārlieku impulsīvs un emocionāls, elitists, militārists, utt, tas, ko mēs visi zinām.
Jo es īsti nesaprotu, kas ir domāts ar "plusi, saindēti jau pašā sākumā" . Tas, ka, piemēram, viņa izpratne par kārtību paredzēja slepkavošanu, teroru, utt, nebūt nenozīmē, ka pati ideja par kārtību bija slikta. Zināms, ka Versaļas miera līguma noteikumi bija pārāk smagi, tāpēc nedomāju, ka uzreiz jānosoda Hitlera prasības pēc lielāka taisnīguma attieksmē pret Vāciju, protams, mēs varam nosodīt metodes, bet pati ideja nav slikta. Antisemītisms, imperiālisms, neiecietība, utt ir tikai dažas no blakusidejām visā viņa pasaules uzskata frameworkā, lasi - 'blakus idejas' - tas nesaindē citas idejas, šādi sanāk slippery slope argumentācijas kļūda. Tas ir tāpat kā, teiksim, kādam kungam varbūt ir netikums restorānā skaļi atraugāties. Bet tāpēc, ka viņš mēdz nekaunīgi atraugāties, es nebūt nenosodu to, ka viņš restorānā laipni runā ar viesmīli, atstāj lielu dzeramnaudu, šķīvi atstāj izlaizītu tukšu, utt. Ir jāsaprot, ka arī Hitlers bija cilvēks, nevis ļaunuma iemiesojums, vienkārši notika tā, kā notika. Es nespēju vainot personae, es vainoju tikai idejas.
Bet ja jau sāku rakstīt, šajā sakarā es vienmēr sāku stāstīt šādi - iedomāsimies, ka kādā Partijas sanāksmē Staļins pieceļās kājās un ierosina aizliegt mazo ronēnu slepkavošanu ar naglainām vālēm kažokādu dēļ. Bet daži biedri vai ārzemju opozīcija pēkšņi iebilst un saka "bet paskaties uz sevi, Staļin, kā un kādām metodēm un nolūkiem tu slepkavo vai liec slepkavot citus cilvēkus" , Staļins saskumst, apsēžas, un ronēnu dauzīšana turpinās.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Atbildēšu angliski, tāpēc ka man tagad ļoti maz laika (pieņemu, ka sapratisi) Ja velies atbildēt, vari mierīgi latviski - es sapratīšu. I think the idea can be compromised (or poisoned) by the method, especially if the idea is an order based on the summoning of a certain kind of national identity and pride during a period of economic repression. It meant that the idea of pure German people in a proud Germany necessitated the idea of the other - and if that 'other' can be scapegoated for the economic ills, then all the better. So, in a sense this persecution of the other went hand in hand with the idea of order, and (in my subjective view) poisoned it from the start.

In my opinion, the control of the supply of money is key to a government's ability to do something constructive for its people - so the 'scapegoats' needn't be some minority 'other', but institutions that perform parasitic functions.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Well, ok, but the idea of a national pride doesn't neccesarily have to include this construction of 'the other' and scapegoating, of course, Hitler did that, and I agree that some species of nationalism mostly tends to circulate around this construction of 'the other' , hatred, feeling superior, etc, but on the other hand, I can't help myself in excluding the entire notion of a national pride and all the positive possibilities which could be conveyed through it to somehow enhance or enrichen our life, or mobilize certain groups of people, note that positive mobilization is also possible as a kind of social mobilization, awareness, etc, for example, a positive nationalism would include preservation of some almost extinct ethnic group which, of course, also have their own unique culture, values, system of beliefs, etc. Let's say, maybe it's supersubjective, but I can't brand Canadian inuit nationalism as 'bad' or negative. Nationalism doesn't necessarily have to include some forms of harassment and elitism. Of course, Hitler was far from that, but still, he was concerned about a similar issue, only the methods were quite dubious. And I don't want to fight against 'the concern' as such, I think, that nevertheless it's better to have some concerns than refuse to see problems or doesn't see them at all. Yes, some concerns have costed us quite a dozen of innocent lives. But still, I contend, that ignorance, indifference and apathy is a bigger genocide and possible threat against ourselves, others and the world around us.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Agreed, but I would stress that I wouldn't want that development of national pride to coalesce around the loaded questions of Jim's interviewer. So, kaa jau teicu... uzmaniigi.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Yes, as you already said, the point theoretically was and still is to find some mutual understanding (synthesis, "friendship", etc) between the progressive, liberal, enlightened youth and the ordinary, sturdy, "primordially naive" , common folk, because I think that neither of them have a higher ground in relation to "truth" , they are both almost equally far from it (of course, there is a slight chance, that some are a little bit closer, some are a little bit farther) and they need to make it together.

(Reply to this) (Parent)