Germany's Greens get ugly with climate skeptics

At 8:52 AM on 11 November, netdr2 had written:

A more constructive approach would be to invite the skeptics to the party.

…
This is not feasible, and has not been feasible for the anthropogenic global warming fraudsters since they began to push this bullpuckey back in the 1980s.
Allowing audience to any genuinely skeptical disputants (as opposed to the “luke-warmers” whose objections to the preposterous CO2 forcing hypothesis have never been in any way substantial or truly skeptical) tends to cut the ground from beneath the AGW charlatans, and strengthens political resistance to government policy purported to impose any sort of “carbon tax,” as we have seen most prominently in the American mid-term elections that hammered the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP) on 2 November.
Congressional incumbents of the NSDAP (formerly called the “Democratic Party”) who had invested their political capital in “cap-and-trade” were slaughtered all over America.
Either “global warming” skeptics are ridiculed, muzzled, and even prosecuted in Germany, what happened to the NSDAP in these United States on 2 November is going to happen to the politicians who had used the “Cargo Cult Science” of man-made global warming to pillage their constituents.
Drawing from H.L. Mencken’s Minority Report (1956):

Government, like any other organism, refuses to acquiesce in its own extinction. This refusal, of course, involves the resistance to any effort to diminish its powers and prerogatives. There has been no organized effort to keep government down since Jefferson’s day. Ever since then the American people have been bolstering up its powers and giving it more and more jurisdiction over their affairs. They pay for that folly in increased taxes and diminished liberties. No government as such is ever in favor of the freedom of the individual. It invariably seeks to limit that freedom, if not by overt denial, then by seeking constantly to widen its own functions. Mankind has failed miserably in its effort to devise a rational system of government. […] The art of government is the exclusive possession of quacks and frauds. It has been so since the earliest days, and it will probably remain so until the end of time.

—

anorak2
Welfare reform has appeared to be one issue certain members of the left have made concessions on (Bill Clinton, Tony Blair) but that only make them center-left as their policies, especially for “green economics” has nothing to do with neo-liberalism. So I will agree they (The Greens) are not as far-left as “The Left” in Germany they would still be considered left-wing in the United States. Due to their low percentage of power in the German government, I still believe their votes are compromises on these issues and not a 100% true representation of their ideology. But if one of your points is to state that they have not ideologically represented as far-left politics as “The Left”, I will accept that.

The problem that I see in the questions being asked from the German government is that perhaps the wrong questions are being asked. If you are going to base your entire EU energy and environmental public policy on hypothetical and worst case future climate warming scenario only ,you better do some serious negative risk analysis of other worst case scenarios as well , some of which may have an equal or better chance of happening rather than just global warming. I would at least ask:
1] What are the areas of major uncertainty and disagreement still in climate science [Honest science is never settled]
2] Are we spending our money on risk mitigation that supports multiple possible climate scenarios or outcomes, both cooling or warming or just global warming [No use urging people to buy “Bermuda shorts” only when they may really need “long johns”?]
3] Are we prematurely spending a lot of money to collect and store carbon dioxide which may be senseless if global cooling develops for the next 10-30 years?
4] Should global warming prediction prove wrong ,will we also be prepared now for possible global cooling and colder temperature and snow like the late 1970’s [ sufficient heating fuel, food stocks in case of serious farm disruptions , transportation disruptions , snow clearing , etc.
5] Are we prematurely spending a lot of money to replace fossil fuel generating plants when we really lack the funds to build the more expensive and riskier nuclear plants [more unnecessary national and global debt?]
6]] How long before large generating plants for alternate or cleaner fuels will be technically viable and available and if these are decades away should we not hold unto our fossil fuel plants despite their risks .
I am sure other bloggers can think of other questions as well.

Recht und Ordnung? That would be nice indeed. Then the answer would be, “Mr. Singer has a right to speak what he wants, and no one may break his glasses” (as they did to another Singer 20 years ago).
I agree that these questions are sounding like Spot the Bad Men. Unfortunately, this is common. Note however they do not ask the government to ban dissent, or to take other measures. As for the public funds, these are public funds.
The Greens may perhaps be best described as “liberal establishment”. You know the type. There’s rich and poor? Well, he is rich (usually he isn’t, he got a nice govt job and spends it all), and he is not concerned about poor Hans, he is concerned that there are not “enough” Mohamads at looniversity. She is all for saving CO2 and thinks we must save even harder, and she told everyone so when she flew overseas to Some Conference of Suits. These are the people that take toy guns from children, and as their first thing they did in power they accepted the Kosovo war.

The problem is the green parties thruout Western democracies. The Soviet Union collapse was a blast of icy realism to the Marxists. Their ideological sponsor could no longer fund their subversive activities to undermine Western democracies to bring social justice to nations suffering from unsanctioned prosperity, or prosperity not delivered by the state. So they burrowed into the feckless tree-hugger parties and taught guerilla warfare to those dreamy irrelevant movements. They learned how to threaten disruptive suits against corporations to force the latter to fund the their movement ambitions and tactics. They learned how to co-opt politicians and parties into passing the green-crafted legislation. Now widespread displeasure with two-party dominated national politics has led to voters choosing them as a way of sending a message to the major parties. That has left the greens with more power than they ever imagined possible. They are incredibly dangerous and tireless activists for destroying prosperity in Western democracies. They still control the agendas of major players in national politics. The media don’t care about climategate or the scientists who try to bring some reason to the green propaganda.

At 7:47 PM, matt v. writes:

Are we prematurely spending a lot of money to replace fossil fuel generating plants when we really lack the funds to build the more expensive and riskier nuclear plants [more unnecessary national and global debt?]

…
Objectively, light water-moderated nuclear fission powerplants (we’re not talking about graphite-moderated piles like the ones constructed at places like Chernobyl in the old Soviet empire) are less risky than any other modality of electric power generation suitable for the support of an industrial civilization, and that includes both earth-surface solar arrays – which we might have had by now if only the “environmentalist” senators from the bankrupt People’s Socialist State of Kalifornia were not putting their considerable seniority behind obstructing planned developments in the otherwise worthless wasteland of the high deserts in their fiefdom – and wind turbines.
In 1976, engineering professor Petr Beckmann published a small but exceedingly pertinent book titled The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear, in which he aggregated information on “the more expensive and riskier nuclear plants” with similar information on all other large-scale power generation methods available (including wind and solar).
Since 1976, technologies have not significantly advanced, and when Dr. Beckmann re-examined his work in the wake of the Three-Mile Island incident (March 1979), he found no reason whatsoever to revise his relative safety assessments. The numbers of deaths per unit of electric power generated (both direct and indirect, as the result – for example – of carcinogen release into the environment) remained lower for nuclear power than for any other means of power generation.
That’s from the beginning of the fission fuel cycle in uranium and thorium mining all the way through to both expended fuel recycling (which has been made politically impossible in these United States) and long-term sequestration in geologically stable underground facilities (which has also been made politically impossible here in God’s country).
I strongly recommend to matt v. that he pick up a copy of The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear, which can be found online quite cheaply as a used book despite being out of print. It represents an appreciation of the state of the art in the risks associated with all industrial-scale electric power generation thirty-five years ago, and those relative risks today still favor nuclear power over all other methods, including hydroelectric dams and especially fossil fuels combustion systems.
Didja know, matt v., that the radiation release per megawatt-hour generated is vastly higher for coal-fired powerplants than it is for any light water-moderated nuke anywhere in these United States?
The radioactive isotopes of Thorium are so common in coal that the ash residue of coal combustion is under investigation as a source of Thorium fuel for the fission power cycle.
A nuke that released as much radiation in a year as the average coal-fired powerplant does in a couple of months would be shut down by the U.S. federal government for violating environmental protection standards.
Every time you read someone who writes about “the more expensive and riskier nuclear plants,” you’ve got yourself a Luddite flaming idiot who has done precisely nothing to study the relative risks of electric power generation.
Unless you want to slap the hell out of him, such a dolt can simply be ignored with contempt.
—

A “right” party in Germany will be often considered “left” in the USA because the US democratic system is superior to most european democratic systems. But the german people too has a stronger tendency to sadism, militarism, racism, arrogance, power and control -i.e.an stronger tendency to SOCIALISM- than many peoples.
Europeans often allowed an arrogant political class to have exorbitant power over themselves, they went from serfdom under a monarchic aristocracy to serfdom under a socialist aristocracy.
The real “class warfare” is between the political class and the people: If the people has lesser power to limit the power of the political class, the political class will increase its power and will turn the people into their serfs. In Europe the political class has been making the people MORE AND MORE DEPENDENT ON THE POLITICAL CLASS: In a tax hell like Germany the government takes more than 40% of your money in taxes. It gives you some of it back. So you must vote for a party that somehow agrees that the political class gives you money back because the political class already took more than 40% of your money (and years ago they took even more than 40%)!. So you will vote for a party that will be “left” according to american standards because the political class made itself so powerful in Europe that people often depend on the political class much more than they depend in the USA. And this is so because in the USA the people is more powerful than in Europe, the US democratic system is, as a rule with exceptions, superior to European democratic systems and never allows the political class to take the exorbitant power it took in Europe.
In my opinion esentially all this is about SADISM, I have researched it somewhat. Socialist (leftist) politicians are often driven by the vice of SADISM which means having power & control & punishment power over people. But they also want more mundane things like $trillions in tax & spend. Stalin communists and national socialists -all of them EXTREME SOCIALISTS- essentially were looking for an excuse for SADISTIC SERIAL MURDER, for theft of (often all) property and for sadistic punishment, often until death. Demonizing the possession of capital is one of their favorite methods: Jews often were owners of capital, Stalin murdered -by HUNGER, an utter SADISTIC form of assasination- 3 – 10 millions ucranians with the excuse that they were a CLASS that had CAPITAL and never allowed their capital to be STOLEN by the sadistic serial murderers and robbers that called themselves “government”. If you read John Maynard Keynes utter economic nonsense pseudoscience you will see that the demonization of capital ownership and the divinization of tax & spend is his central thesis.
They demonize the ownership of capital because in such way they can STEALit and they have an excuse to SADISTICALLY MURDER those that own it. And they can push on the button of “ENVY” to achieve it. And they can do that because, until the great USA came to life, there were very little places where CONTRACTUAL FREEDOM and ENTREPRISE FREEDOM actually existed: As a rule, with exceptions, political classes allowed an elite to freely establish a business while impeding the poor to establish a business and that created hundred millions poor and a few ultra rich and because the poor were never allowed to make money the ENVY button was a rather large button to push that was massively used by SOCIALISTS… But it is government intervention, it is the political class that actually created such huge income differences that created a feeling of what leftists call SOCIAL UNJUSTICE…
Of course the other HUGE button that socialists often push is the COMPASSION BUTTON. I cannot think of a single quality for human convivence that is more important than COMPASSION: The murderer, the sadist, the robber can perprate his crimes because he lacks compassion. For a compassive person it would be very difficult to perpetrate such crimes. So socialists get enormous power over our lives alleging for “compassionate” redistribution of income.
What I am alleging here is that socialists (& germans) have a higher propensity to sadism & militarism than non socialists, probably there are hundreds millions socialists that are socialists because of genuine compassion.
But the Great USA came to life and, with total govenment spending of around (less?) 10% of GDP the american democracy became, in less than a century, the world economic superpower because, among other things, the working class man could establish a business and contractual freedom existed an high taxes never ruined business and the working man actually could have a continuous improvement of his standard of living.
I think the self reliance tradition of the USA is in big part a consequence of the the fact that under a such free system you can sustain yourself without the need of money from the government or charity. Of course, this simple fact is used by socialist europeans to label americans as UNCOMPASSIONATE which is one of the worst labels that you can put on someone. Socialism empoverishes people with taxes and then gives them something back under the COMPASSION banner, for instance poverty in the USA is exagerated and outside the USA they talk about your “poverty” as if in the USA millons were dying of hunger. But if still poor people exists in the world it is mainly because taxes and regulations maintain hundreds millions in poverty, just read Doing Business http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploretopics/paying-taxes by the World Bank and you will see that the poorest and more inequal income countries tend to have the highest tax rates. But the World Bank does not take account of the infamous Value Added Tax (VAT) in his computations so the actual situation is much worse than actually is shown there (you never have the infamous VAT in the USA, another sample of your superior political system). So there is genuine compassion for the poor, but it is the political class that caused such poverty through taxes and regulations established thanks to the exorbitant power that the political class gave to itself.
The USA has always been an utter annoyance to socialist / sadist european politicians, because the USA showed that the US system of FREEDOM and RESPECT of the individual, RESPECT of law that is custom, RESPECT of contractual and enterprise freedom, RESPECT of free thinking, RESPECT of private property “worked” much better than the socialistic / aristocratic system where a bunch of arrogant, overbearing and often sadistic “superior” bullies had exorbitant power to opress the people. The Soviet Union collapsed but one wonders if that collapse would have happened if the USA had never existed. In World War II the Soviet Union fought on the USA side, but the MUTUAL admiration between Stalin and Hitler is well documented… They were both SOCIALIST SADIST SERIAL MASS MURDERERS that sought ultimate power and control.
I do not know the actual reasons why Stalin sided with the USA but Stalin was a total political genius. I SUPPOSE that he saw that the USA was a democracy and the USA would never allow millions of its soldiers to die but the Soviet Union, being a dictatorship, could bring tens million soviet soldiers to death and in such a way Stalin could conquer all the eastern european countries that he actually conquered. If the USA never existed the 3 socialistic industrial superpowers Japan, Germany and the Soviet Union probably would have crushed the rest of Europe (Italy is a very special case). There would have been no democratic Western Europe and no USA -because the USA would never exist, by hypothesis- and serfdom and poverty would be the rule in the world, as it was before the great USA came to life.
In South America and the Caribbean there were lots of dictatorships, but none of them, even the communist ones, where as murderous as the National Socialist or the Stalin dictatorship. Mexico fares bad in Latin America but Mexico is NOT Latin America (and Germany is not Europe, one must state too). Hitler was elected by 33% of votes, if I remember well. In South America no candidate with Hitler’s message of hatred would have won by such margins. So the German tendency to opression is clear. Peoples are not the same, regimes are not the same, there is a stronger tendency in the German people toward socialism / militarism / sadism /power / control and there is a stronger tendency in the US people for RESPECT and freedom, that is an undeniable fact.
Maybe Germany became such a relatively militarist / socialist society because they were permanently at war with neighbors and they had hard winters and you died without food so often you had to kill to survive. Maybe in the latin american rain forest regions we became so easy going and spontaneous because there was always food everywhere and water to drink and to take a bath before and after making love, curbing diseases…

New follow up article from Pierre Gosselin:
D-Day invasion by Climate realists coming.
http://notrickszone.com/2010/11/13/d-day-invasion-by-climate-realists-coming/

@SouthAmericanGirls
Sadism is a personal emotional quality, marxism is an abstract social ideology.
Douglass North, Karl Popper, Hayek and others started as socialists before becoming wise.
Good to read to prevent rubbish: Hugh Trevor-Roper: Was Nazism unique? / Alan Bullock: Hitler and Stalin. Works on the Hundred-Years-War between France and Great Britain, the British battles against Spain.
And: never think in collective terms, there is no thing like a stable national character.

At 11:51 AM on 13 November, matt v. responds to my message of 7:15 AM with a post beginning:

Records of past wars have shown that power plants and energy infrastructure are the first facilities to be targeted for destruction. The more nuclear facilities we have in more countries the greater the risk for massive contamination during conflicts and major wars and the more likely that more nuclear weapons may be developed and used by more nations. Even as we speak some hawks of this world are threatening to bomb nuclear facilities of other nations.

…
…demonstrating that he’s as ignorant of military matters as he is of engineering and industrial processes safety. Damn. I’m just a country GP. Why do I have to find that so many people are so much less competent to speak on so many subjects than I am?
Especially in the era of the World Wide Web, when matt v. can access online sources like Jim Dunnigan and Austin Bay and similar folk. It may be that matt v. reads nothing but sources like the Federation of American Scientists which scaremonger incessantly upon the vulnerabilities of civilian nuclear powerplants to conventional military and unconventional terrorist attack (while, of course, failing to consider the similar susceptibilities of structures like hydroelectric dams), fixating upon risks associated with the release of ionizing radiation.
First, in terms of military vulnerability, there are effectively no civilian-sector targets in these continental United States which are not potentially susceptible to attack with chemical or nuclear explosive weapons launched by a belligerent foreign government. Given, however, the relative hardening of containment structures mandated in existing and planned (but politically obstructed) civilian nuclear powerplants, these are – relatively speaking – not the most likely targets for military attack, particularly when the Northeast power outage of 2003 had demonstrated that the distribution system (the “grid”) is extremely easy to take down. Talk about your “soft targets”….
Ditto for terrorist actions, “suitcase from Allah” scenarios notwithstanding.
Second, matt v. fails of adequate knowledge in his unreasoned and uneducated regard for the potential of civilian light water-moderated power generation – at any stage of the nuclear fuel cycle – to produce bomb-grade fissile materials, particularly were the “nimby” politicians in the various state capitals and in Mordor-on-the-Potomac to get to hellangone out of the way and allow the power industry to implement the recycling of spent fuel components the way the French have been safely doing for decades.
A “dirty bomb” belligerent release of radioactive materials is, of course, possible. But what role has an American civilian nuclear power industry to play in even the most fantastically preposterous reach for a neurotic concern thereupon?
Civilian nuclear power generation in these United States should continue to be suppressed because uninformed people like matt v. sweat and gibber over the pure possibility that somebody might break into one of these powerplants and do…what, precisely?
A guy with a backpack full of Composition C4? Nah, that wouldn’t do much, even if detonated right outside the containment. A truck bomb rolling up to the gate, Beirut-style? Gawd, but those ferroconcrete containment structures are designed to survive – intact – the impact of a crashing commercial jet airliner. I think they picked the Boeing 747 as their standard.
matt v., the Three Mile Island facility suffered a meltdown in 1979, and the result was a radiation release such that – had you been stripped naked and bound to the chain-link fence next to the guard shack at the main entrance throughout that “disaster” with a dosimeter taped to your generative apparatus – that gadget would have recorded a bit less than the ionizing radiation you’d have gotten in a routine 1979 chest x-ray.
Third, in the event of a military attack upon these United States, it is damned peculiar that matt v. fixes his attention upon the prospect of an “infrastructure strike” aimed at breaching the hardened containment vessels of civilian nuclear powerplants when anybody with any appreciation of warfare – even “asymmetric warfare” – understands full well that the first priority of any foreign power seeking to impose such violence upon our polity would be the neutralization of both the conventional and the nuclear weapons capabilities of America’s military and naval forces.
Ever heard the word “deterrence,” matt v.? Consider the foreign government (or governments) who might conceivably seek to breach an American civilian fission powerplant’s containment with bombs or missiles – or even kinetic energy weapons targeted from orbit – and then think of cities in that nation-state (or alliance) turned catastrophically to expanses of trinitite.
By the time any non-suicidal foreign government (even that of North Korea, or the Iranian mullahcracy) gets down to prioritizing the civilian nuclear power stations over which you freak so fixedly, they would have to have first destroyed all American retaliatory capability.
Who – do you think, matt v. – is out there rattling a saber capable in one fell swoop of taking out all those Ohio-class boomers, all those Minuteman missile silos, all those Nimitz-class fleet aircraft carriers, all those cruisers and destroyers armed with Tomahawk SLCMs which – surprise! – can and almost certainly do carry fission-weapon warheads, and that whole U.S. Air Force?
I tell you three times, matt v., that I give not one least little bitty damn for whether or not “the cleanest and latest technology based fossil fuel energy options may still be the best solution especially for smaller developing nations” because my only proximal concern as a citizen of these United States is for those economic and health conditions prevailing in my own polities, state and federal.
These realms are where my responsibilities and authority as a citizen run, and as such I direct and demand – for whatever the individual citizen’s voice counts in our republic – that those who govern in my name cease obstructing the nuclear power generation industry and let those of us in the private sector get along with the construction and operation of these powerplants to serve the demands of our industrial civilization.
Oh, yeah. I am emphatically not advocating any effort to “throw out the fossil fuel baby” in pursuit of nuclear fission power generation. It’s simply that reduction in relative dependence upon coal-fired electricity generation is likely to save a helluva lot of lives.
Now that Senator Byrd is finally dead, perhaps the next Congress will permit public discussion in that forum of the chemical and radioactive carcinogenicity of the residue of coal combustion, too. Wouldn’t that be a novelty?
—

Tucci 78 @ur momisugly 4:56
Here’s one problem with your argument. In your scenario replace that reactor facility with a large financial facility. Or two.
========

At 1:02 PM on 14 November, kim responds to my post of 4:56 PM (13 November) with the following in its entirety:

Here’s one problem with your argument. In your scenario replace that reactor facility with a large financial facility. Or two.

…
To which the proper response seems to be “WTF?” – or perhaps “What the hell are you getting at?”
Any “large financial facility” is today bound to be nothing more than a computerized counting house, with no significant physical operating assets other than computers, with software and data backed up off-site. The buildings and the skilled personnel required to operate any such “large financial facility” are eminently replaceable.
I direct to kim‘s attention the way in which the New York financial services industry recovered so swiftly in the wake of the 9/11/2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the dislocations inflicted thereby on the financial district of lower Manhattan as a whole. Facilities across the Hudson in New Jersey – where there was ample office space going a-begging for tenants even at that time – enabled the finance industry to quickly restore capacity, though in much less geographically concentrated form, and though there were shocks throughout the investment world (investors being flighty and easily panicked as they always are, for their houses of speculation are built upon nothing more solid than hard vacuum irradiated with stupidity, deceit and greed), there was nothing more than a bobble.
The WTC suicide attacks – which were supposed to bring the infidel West to its knees and advance the Caliphate or something – thus became little more than an excuse for the Good Old Boys of the Texas oilpatch to indulge their aspirations in the military conquest of Iraq.
As for the single aircraft that made its way into an impact against General Groves’ less towering office building in northern Virginia…. Hmph. Did that attack on the Pentagon in any way impair our federal government’s military response to those towel-headed schmucks?
Command and control assets in both the government and the private sector have become distributed, and even if somebody found a way to smash every “large financial facility” on the planet in a rain of fiery death, the second- or third-tier people in the finance industry would have a trading system kludged-up and running in a week or so, pulling up data cached in remote (and therefore cheap to operate) back-up sites all over the planet.
Think “bloody war or sickly season.” You think that there aren’t plenty of ex-Business majors and MBA types out there in flyover country who wouldn’t greet such a slaughter of the silver-spoon establishment clowns with great hosannas of rejoicing as they moved up and moved in?
kim, just what the hell do you think might be released to contaminate the environment were a “large financial facility” – or two, or twenty, or three hundred – to be suddenly turned into smoking rubble upon the landscape?
Speaking from my own perspective, the smell of their immolation might possibly be more satisfying to my aesthetic sense than is the stench of their continued operation.
—

Answer to Mr Doleys Part 1
Sorry to wattsupwiththat.com if my comment is long, but I felt the need to spend enormous time refuting Mr Doleys
Mr. Wolf Doleys says:
a) “Sadism is a personal emotional quality, marxism is an abstract social ideology.”
b) “Good to read to prevent rubbish”
c)” there is no thing like a stable national character.”
Thanks for showing facts that agree with my statements Mr Doleys. You show attitudes that one more often will find in Germans. In b) you arrogantly said that I should read MORE. I do read a lot. The thesis that Stalin was a slave of the perversion of
SADISM (and Hitler a slave of the perversion of NECROPHILIA) I read from GERMAN SOCIALIST psychologist Erich Fromm , Fromm explained in “The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness” how such demons as Stalin and Hitler existed.
And I have read a lot on nazism, communism, I usually read the plain facts, avoiding interpretations but I use a few interpretations -like Fromm’s explanation of Hitler & Stalin evil nature- when I see no logical errors in those interpretations.
There used to be little data about communism but now, with the fall of communism, STALIN’S SADISTIC COMPASSIONLESS SERIAL MASS MURDERER NATURE becomes crystal clear. For instance, we had to wait until this decade for the
world to widely accept that the death of millions ucranians in 1932-1933 was SADISTIC MASS MURDER -BY HUNGER- PERPETRATED BY STALIN and NOT death by natural famine. As for evil natures, the “politically correct” thesis says than
some childhood traumas turned Hitler into such a demon. But thousands persons suffered similar “traumas” and they finished as normal compassionate people and not as compassionless cold serial mass murderers. Such fact agrees with the
thesis that says that people are born with passions & perversions in the same way they are born with white or black skin or with a propensity to diabetes or cardiac disease or a stronger musculature, or with heterosexual or homosexual sexual
orientations, etcetera. There are several cases where identical twins were separated at birth and when they meet latter in life it occurs that they do have similar professions, have similar tastes and lead similar lives. And, besides academic data, I
have experimental results because I am myself an human being and I know that the tastes & vices that I have now are essentially the same tastes & vices that I had as a kid and nobody learned me them. And I have close knowledge of other human
beings. And it is clear that there are people who are slaves of one or several vices or passions and there are other people who are not. Myself I am a slave of the boring extremely common unharmful to others vice of eating too much. When I was in
my 20s with MASSIVE exercise I was able to defeat it but now I cannot anymore exercise so much and I may be on a losing battle and so I undestand how one can be a slave of a pleasure. So for me, knowing me and other human beings, it is obvious that both Stalin and Hitler –
as Erich Fromm superbly shows- were depraved perverted persons in perpetual search of satisfying their insatiable SADISM perversion (and NECROPHILIA TOO in Hitlers case).