Quote: Your characterization of the context in which I was writing is entirely wrong. I asked you, "Would you have condemned Hitler after he wrote "Mein Kampf", but before he acted out his sick manifesto? ". This was an attempt to see if YOU had the capacity to understand the consequences of fiery rhetoric, not an idiotic tit-for-tat comparison of Wright to Hitler.
My challenge was whether Wright incited violence either by calling for it or by people commiting it in his name. Let's see how hard it is to pass that challenge with Mein Kampf, by either method.
Quote: The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others.
Or maybe...
Quote:Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.
There are only about a million more, in Mein Kampf and elsewhere. (Try here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf ) Hitler, to nobody's surprise, passes the challenge with flying colours. He thinks greatness comes from fanaticism, intolerance and violence. If that's not an obvious incitement to violence, I have no idea what is, but I'm sure it wouldn't be tough to find, seeing as he's Adolf freaking Hitler.
Do I really have to put Hitler through the paces? It's the easiest case in the world. If you'd rather deeds than words, that's also not really difficult. The Beer Hall Putsch was in 1921, prior to Mein Kampf. He tried to overthrow the governemnt at gunpoint. Do I need to go on?
Now, where's your case for Wright? Where's his "Mein Kampf" where he condones, and not condems, racism? Where he writes that violence is the answer, or that fanaticism and intolerance are the keys to greatness? Where is Wright's Beer Hall Putsch? Or anything even remotely, in the most distant possible way, analogous?
Quote:I could also draw parallels between Nietzsche as a moral compass for the social movement of the oppressed and defeated Germans, versus Cone, Wright, or Hopkins as moral compass for the oppressed and enslaved blacks. But then again, I ask myself why I bother to even attempt to discuss these things, since you are either that obtuse that you miss my points, or you are being intentionally intellectually dishonest or perhaps merely seeking to "win points" by trying to be clever.
Speaking of obtuse vs. intellectually dishonest, why on earth did you even bother with this? Asking me to prove that Hitler was a violent crazy racist even as early as 1921, let alone by 1926, is almost painfully easy. Did you honestly expect me to fail that challenge? And if you knew it was painfully easy (and you must) were you just unable to read what I originally asked you for, some feeble measure of evidence for your claims? Because that's all I've done here.
This comparison is bogus. It makes no sense no matter how far you stretch it. It is a Godwin in the classic tradition of killing threads through ridiculous exaggeration.
-Jester
(Edit: Link fix.)