To many Nazi movies pouring out these days. I guess Hitler will never be anything like Nepolean. He will be left out as a Bad Man for centuries too come.

By the way, have you watched Downfall?
It is about Hitler in his last days on his bunker. Ultimate piece. Should watch it.

As soon as Sophie hits the nearest BlockbusterI will get it my friend. And based on your review seems like I will enjoy it too.

and also, if you are that interested in such Females Changing World and Shit watch North Country. Very good movie.

I have three comments:

1)The Great Hope of Society is an Individual Character.

2)What man has done,man can do.

3)History repeats because man make mistakes.

Happy Reading!! Amen

>>Nothing is so unworthy of a civilized nation as allowing itself to be governed without opposition by an irresponsible clique that has yielded to base instinct.

Define ‘base instinct’.

>>Do not forget that every people deserves the regime it is willing to endure!

Very broad statement, even Hitler’s own regime endured its people to an extent and vice-versa. What’s the limit of such endurance?

>>Every individual human being has a claim to a useful and just state, which secures freedom of the individual as well as the good of the whole.

Motherload of assumptions there. Some societies could care less about individuals operating outside the bounds of its structure — traditionalists you call them. What if the people practice their ‘freedom’ do remain a traditional society?

>>We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience. Ok??!!

“Very broad statement, even Hitler’s own regime endured its people to an extent and vice-versa.”

I don’t think endurance (or the overall extent of endurance) can be measured at a pin point. Hitler’s regime was unmasking itself while “endurance” was in place, during the process of which resistance increased, and endurance evaded. When resistance allows a regime to topple, that itself is evidence of the lack of endurance, or that the lack of it has outdone the extent of it.

“What if the people practice their ‘freedom’ do remain a traditional society?”

That would be a choice. They have a claim to this choice as much as they do to choose otherwise. The claim is rightly theirs regardless of how they choose to use it. Some societies may not care at one point, but they might at another. There isn’t a single society whose taste on such matters has remained the same over time, hence it’s nobody’s business to claim the claim citing lack of use.

>>When resistance allows a regime to topple, that itself is evidence of the lack of endurance, or that the lack of it has outdone the extent of it.

Again, very general observation. That could provide no consolation for the subsequent ‘claims’ as the one we see below. Who are the resistant versus the endured is my question? They do not remain same all the time. Today’s resistance is tomorrow’s endured or vice-versa.

>>There isn’t a single society whose taste on such matters has remained the same over time, hence it’s nobody’s business to claim the claim citing lack of use.

If most arguments are based on relative assumptions — that they change over time, if anything such claims can always be questioned and remains a ‘business’ of those who wish to. What’r you saying, that certain claims are absolute??!!

“They do not remain same all the time. Today’s resistance is tomorrow’s endured or vice-versa.”

Yes, that is also a general observation that sounds about right, it’s not possible to cleanly separate who is who. But can one endure unwillingly? Between transformations the strength of resistance reflects the overall endurance of the society: is the society itself marked by a quality of resistance during a particular period or not? Before Hitler came down, it was. After, it wasn’t. So the transformation relevant to willful endurance should be visible.

Have a claim to = the right is theirs

Yes, I think this right is absolute. Such rights can’t be “given,” it can only be taken. In a setting uncontaminated by abuse or exploitation, the existence of the right (whether used or not) is the natural, native; and the taking of it unnatural, a disturbance of balance, initiating a process (long or short) of reaction, the return to balance.

yuck yuck yuck

Hi everyone,
I have a short coment.
History can be changed.Every democratic and developed nations have revolutionary histry.We all can make a joint effort.talents can be collected among us, to create, develop,construct, civilize, a better society, reduce the distance between humankind, and expect a better Nepal..,somehow I am trying to get connected to you all sharp minded Nepalese around the world,Please write me back, let’s try to change the figure of Nepal,I am inspired for a breakthrough, no matter how long it takes, but I am sure it’s possible somedays!. Thanks for your suggestion and support.
Padma Aryal, New York

I think we all appreciate your comments and that you want to make a difference. But who are we kidding? Until we shoot Girija, King Gyanendra and Prachanda in the head I don’t think we are going to be able to do all that much with posting in a blog.

Fine, you say rights are absolute in specific cases. However, rights that are granted versus that are taken have quite different magnitude of effects. Further, from what you say, your dichotomy of given versus taken can also be translated into ‘rights’ being a zero-sum game—you claim your right to certain expression, but those are usually at some others expense. If central thesis of ‘change’ is to be accepted, then your effort to preserve ‘balance’ will have to find new ‘centers of gravity’ all the time, which means you (or anyone else) is constantly in this paradoxical limbo of trying to preserve or find absolute in a relative world. But then, we all have to keep ourselves busy somehow.

i think we need a big question mark on the phrase “Another nepal is possible”.

yes, another nepal is possible..maybe not tomorrow,dayafter or a year later but if we persistently strive for it..why not? .

no comment