Who is your favorite dictator?

[Crvena zvezda]

Originally Posted by Crvena zvezda

Fidel Castro. The fact that of all revolutionaries of the cold war he is the only one in power. The fact that he has opposed America, a superpower so close to his beloved Cuba for over 40 years. The fact that despite the embargo and U.S. blockade of Cuba his countryh is walthier and most people have better education and healthcare then most of the smaller latin american countries that were U.S. stooges. The fact that Cuba is one of the few countries unspoileby U.S. dominated consumerism. He liberated his country from the being a huge whorehouse for Americans.

Oh yes. The fact that he has survived so many American attempts to kill him. A good documentary is 638 Ways to Kill Castro. Seems America has tried to kill him 638 ways and all have failed, they include seeking the help of the mafia, putting poison in his shoes that would kill him and make his beard fall out, poisoned darts, exploding cigars, exploding coral, paying his friends to kill him, encouraging terrorists to kill him and so on.

[Theobald]

Originally Posted by crvena zvezda

Oh yes. The fact that he has survived so many American attempts to kill him. A good documentary is 638 Ways to Kill Castro. Seems America has tried to kill him 638 ways and all have failed, they include seeking the help of the mafia, putting poison in his shoes that would kill him and make his beard fall out, poisoned darts, exploding cigars, exploding coral, paying his friends to kill him, encouraging terrorists to kill him and so on.

Yeah, Castro is the real life version of "Survivor".

Seriously now, the CIA tried to kill just about every leader who opposed America, even just verbally. Mind you, they even tried to assassinate de Gaulle, who was - at least officially - an ally...

Originally Posted by Aprtgangr

To your beloved pre-'91 Saddam Hussein, he was a massmurderer and warmonger and surely not a friend of European nationalists

He was indeed a mass-murderer and committed awful crimes. But what he wanted to do was to lead a divided and unstable country from the Middle Ages to the modern era, which was quite a hard task, and the end justifies the means.
As for his relations with European nationalists, I am not sure for other countries but at least he was a personal friend of Le Pen and a partner of the French National Front. Baathist principles are not that far from our own ideas anyway.

[Lucas Corso]

Originally Posted by Theobald

Yeah, Castro is the real life version of "Survivor".

Seriously now, the CIA tried to kill just about every leader who opposed America, even just verbally. Mind you, they even tried to assassinate de Gaulle, who was - at least officially - an ally...



He was indeed a mass-murderer and committed awful crimes. But what he wanted to do was to lead a divided and unstable country from the Middle Ages to the modern era, which was quite a hard task, and the end justifies the means.
As for his relations with European nationalists, I am not sure for other countries but at least he was a personal friend of Le Pen and a partner of the French National Front. Baathist principles are not that far from our own ideas anyway.

There's also a pic of Gianfranco Fini shaking his hand just before the first gulf war

[Crvena zvezda]

Originally Posted by Lucas Corso

There's also a pic of Gianfranco Fini shaking his hand just before the first gulf war

In Serbia in 2002 B-92 briefly supported Serbia supporting the war in Iraq so on one of their broadcasts they said that Saddam is known to have given financing to the Serbian Radical Party and that he met with Vojislav Seselj several times and that he praised him as a "smart man."

The next day they didn't say anything since George Soros threatened to pull their funding for supporting Iraq war.

Also, a member of the Serbian Radical Party said a statue to Saddam should be built in Serbia. His comment was taken seriosuly.

[Theobald]

Originally Posted by Lucas Corso

There's also a pic of Gianfranco Fini shaking his hand just before the first gulf war

The "funny" thing is that now he is a friend of Sarkozy and Israel...

[Yago]

I don't think that it is right to judge all dictators the same. That's very simplistic.

E.g., General Franco was a Social Patriot, not a Nationalist stricto sensu. So, why recriminate him that he did not act like a Nationalist leader would have done?

He had an interest in Northern Africa? So what? Queen Isabella of Castille had an interest in Northern Africa too. It was the immediate border of Christendom in its SW frontiers in those times, and it is the immediate border of Europe in its SW frontiers in modern times.

When General ben Mizziam returned to Morocco to organize its army, General Franco realized that he could not expect any loyalty from Muslims and he dismissed his personal Moorish Guard. Times were changing.

[Ederico]

I am my favourite dictator.

Seriously, I'm not into dictatorships and that is not because I'm some dogmatic democrat as that would be intellectually reductive. I do, as things stand, favour a form of democratic nationalism or nationalist democracy. That is not the liberal individualistic democracies which now reign dogmatically our political realities.

I do not agree with the notion that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, I believe that power magnifies one's personal virtues and vices. Unfortunately, I wouldn't trust much persons with such a magnification.

I believe one thing for certain, all systems must give way or are subject to true democracy, the popular will. A dictatorship is as much prone to be supported by the masses as it is prone to be removed by them. A true leader knows when it is time to give way. The current malaise of liberal democracy is that gradually they are being considered as not responding to popular aspirations. Take in consideration immigration and multiculturalism for example and you get my meaning. A political system carries the seeds of its own demise when it fails to respond accordingly to the popular will, and those intellectual and political forces that integrate such popular will within themselves will achieve victory.

[hermeticist]

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

First of all, all liberal democracies are dictatorships, today's elections are nothing but ballot card fetishism and have nothing to do with following the peoples' political wishes. So there is no reason not to list Bush, Putin or Merkel in this poll.

A point worth underlining. I don't seen any clear line of demarcation between so-called Western liberal democracies and so-called Western dictatorships. The word "dictator" is used pejoratively, to describe people such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin, who happen to be in disfavor with the transatlantic elite today. Yet Hitler came to power by ballot (what he did after that is another story altogether). Possibly the word "dictator" should be restricted to people like Mobutu, Mugabe, Marcos, the Shah of Iran, Saddam, and so on. This kind of unchallenged, unchallengeable, despotic power has been alien to Europe for centuries (the "divine right of kings").

Another point is that European and North American elites (like elites everywhere) hate genuine democracy with a passion; hence, they provide just enough of the trappings of representative democracy (without the substance) to allay popular resentment and discontent. They rely for power on propaganda, obscure bureaucracy, and -- in the case of the US superstate -- increasingly draconian surveillance and security measures, ostensibly directed against terrorists, but in reality targeted at their domestic population. Hitler, Himmler, and Heydrich on the one hand, and Stalin and Beria on the other, would drool if they could see the US superstate today.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by bombadillo

Possibly the word "dictator" should be restricted to people like Mobutu, Mugabe, Marcos, the Shah of Iran, Saddam, and so on. This kind of unchallenged, unchallengeable, despotic power has been alien to Europe for centuries (the "divine right of kings").

We have to remind ourselves of where the very word and the concept of dictator comes from. It comes from the old Roman Republic and it was a very honourable title. When res publica was in temporary trouble, all executive power was (temporarily!) taken away from the Senate and the consuls (very often through a decision of the Senate itself) and given to one man, who was entrusted with handling the situation with the "firm hand" measures. As soon as imminent danger passed, the republican order was restored again.

Livy recounts the story of the first dictator, Quinctius Cincinnatus, who was ploughing his land (meaning that he was an old-style modest Roman patrician), when envoys of the Senate came to him and informed him that he was asked to become dictator. He gladly accepted it and performed his civic duty for the republic.

The divine right of kings, on the other hand, existed also in Europe and that principle came to special prominence during the so-called age of absolutism.

Originally Posted by bombadillo

Another point is that European and North American elites (like elites everywhere) hate genuine democracy with a passion; hence, they provide just enough of the trappings of representative democracy (without the substance) to allay popular resentment and discontent.

..and the media assist them in providing the ever fresh supply of populists who seem to care for the common man. This is also a channel through which frustrations are being vented.

Originally Posted by bombadillo

They rely for power on propaganda, obscure bureaucracy, and -- in the case of the US superstate -- increasingly draconian surveillance and security measures, ostensibly directed against terrorists, but in reality targeted at their domestic population. Hitler, Himmler, and Heydrich on the one hand, and Stalin and Beria on the other, would drool if they could see the US superstate today.

Poor old Nazis were just naive amateurs.

[Yago]

Originally Posted by bombadillo

Yet Hitler came to power by ballot (what he did after that is another story altogether).

This is, by the way, a too often argument used to make believe that there was a high acceptance of Hitler among Germans, and that there must still be deep in their hearts or that there will be again. Or even that he was some kind of genious.

A terrible mistake in my opinion. I doubt much that under different (more normal) circumstances he would have ever achieved anything worth mentioning.

[hermeticist]

Originally Posted by Plethon

The divine right of kings, on the other hand, existed also in Europe and that principle came to special prominence during the so-called age of absolutism.

I knew Sulla was a Roman dictator, but I was unaware of the provenance of the term.(:o

Yes, the "divine right of kings" was a European notion, possibly aided and abetted by the Church(?).

My "favorite dictators" are Idi Amin and Mobutu. At one time Idi Amin wanted to name the country after himself; he was asked what the people of Cyprus are called; then he was asked what the people of "Idi" would be called, so that notion was shelved (this is no joke). Another time, the cabinet was discussing the absence of hard currency; one cabinet minister asked, "Why don't we invite this fellow, "hard currency," over here?" Mobutu is just as hilarious. The national airline had two jets -- a concorde and 747; one day all international flights were cancelled -- Mobutu had taken one jet and his wife the other. He robbed the country so mercilessly that the foreign ministry lacked operating funds: the Zairean charge d'affairs to Poland was found sleeping rough at the Warsaw central train station; three Zairean diplomats were arrested for vagrancy in Italy; and the Zairean embassy in Britain had its gas and electricity turned off for non-payment of bills.

Typically, these third-world despots - whether Mobutu, the Shah, Pinochet, Somoza, Marcos, whoever -- depend on the US to maintain themselves in power (if not to get to power in the first place). Once they lose this patronage, their days are numbered. But I see I'm digressing from the thrust of the thread.

[hermeticist]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

This is, by the way, a too often argument used to make believe that there was a high acceptance of Hitler among Germans, and that there must still be deep in their hearts or that there will be again. Or even that he was some kind of genius.

A terrible mistake in my opinion. I doubt much that under different (more normal) circumstances he would have ever achieved anything worth mentioning.

I agree. Had it not been for the Depression, and for the support of conservatives such as von Papen, Hitler would probably not have become Reich Chancellor. A whole string of fortuitous circumstances had to occur for him to succeed to high office. After the Depression, people started inclining more and more towards radical parties -- the NSDAP and the Communists.

His impact was singularly destructive towards Europe -- a price we still pay today in our subaltern status towards the US. But I'm reluctant to place him along Marcos and Mobutu: he tried to fulfil what he thought was Germany's national destiny -- I may not agree with it, but his sincerity of purpose I cannot dispute.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by bombadillo

I agree. Had it not been for the Depression, and for the support of conservatives such as von Papen, Hitler would probably not have become Reich Chancellor. A whole string of fortuitous circumstances had to occur for him to succeed to high office. After the Depression, people started inclining more and more towards radical parties -- the NSDAP and the Communists.

His impact was singularly destructive towards Europe -- a price we still pay today in our subaltern status towards the US. But I'm reluctant to place him along Marcos and Mobutu: he tried to fulfil what he thought was Germany's national destiny -- I may not agree with it, but his sincerity of purpose I cannot dispute.

I agree in part but would add that Churchill has to take some of the blame. Europe may be in a far better position if Churchill had chosen a Cold War stance with Nazi Germany after 1940.

[Lucas Corso]

Originally Posted by Breha

Each one has committed great errors.

First of all, all the marxist ones destroyed creativity and working economies, often going into absurd nightmares like Pol Pot, who wanted to eliminate everybody who wasn't a farmer.

As of Hitler, he didn't accept advice from serious people whi might have given him victory in WW2, starting from Von Braun, whose idea of building rockets he kept frozen for three years because of contrary advice received in a dream (Luigi Romersa, italian secret agent in charge of collecting infos on german secret weapons and Von Braun's friend).

This very episode is illuminating, Hitler's method was precisely based on "intuitions" and the refusal of listening to competent advice.

I think the main problem was not the lack of missiles but a two-fronts war...

[Lucas Corso]

Originally Posted by Theobald

The "funny" thing is that now he is a friend of Sarkozy and Israel...

Gianfranco Fini isn't a man, i can hardly find a disgusting animal that can rapresent him...

[Yago]

Un pentito! Sucking son of a b****!

[Lucas Corso]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Un pentito! Sucking son of a b****!

Right!

[Rheinländer]

The only dictator I truly admire is Salazar. He was an honest man - he did a lot for his country and managed to stay out of the second world war. Of course he was an imperialist - but imperialism was inherrent to Portuguese nationalism. It is in my opinion thanks to Salazar that Portugal remains today one of the very few countries in Europe with a distinct national identity. Apart from that, we might also consider that some of the most beautiful parts of Lisbon were built under his rule .

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Rheinländer

Apart from that, we might also consider that some of the most beautiful parts of Lisbon were built under his rule .

Did you maybe mistake Salazar for Marquis de Pombal?

[Rheinländer]

Originally Posted by Plethon

Did you maybe mistake Salazar for Marquis de Pombal?

Definitely not .

I'm talking about the so-called Português Suave architecture style. You can find that Along the Praça de Londres and the Alvalade quarter, if you want to know . Pombal's Baixa isn't all too bad either though