She writes: "I just feel that that resistance in Iraq is our battle too and we have to support it."

Oh brother. Rooting for suicide bombers that kill Iraqi civilians as they line up for jobs at police stations to stablize the country.

Markus R.: ask me again why I feel like I'm being pushed towards the center line?

She writes: "And we can’t be looking for pristine struggles in which to invest our purity."

Somehow, I don't think that's ever been a problem for her.

OT (game)

Presidential Knockout

Beat the hell out of Bush. Or Kerry. Or both.

This is sad but not surprising. As I stated before, in my humble opinion the Left (not liberalism) is dead, as the self-contradictory rants of Roy and those like her clearly demonstrate. Apparently, people like Roy and Chomsky are the best the Left has to offer. The Left is cannibalizing itself out of existence because it is philosophically bankrupt.

Can it be an accident that an intellect like Christopher Hitchens no longer associates himself with such people ? Does anyone on the Left really believe that Hitchens would change his positions for political expediency and/or notoriety ? Hitchens is probably the LAST person on earth who would do such a thing. If anyone in American journalism is his one man, it is Hitchens. And Hitchens is voting for Bush.

All of the HONEST Leftists are no longer Leftists.

Speaking of former Leftists, Roy's comments are the perfect demonstration of the phenomenon David Horowitz has talked about. In fact, Horowitz has just written a book on the subject.

REQUIRED READING ---> Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left, by David Horowitz

This book is just published. You probably will not find it at your local "independent" bookstore, because too many of the people who run these stores are intellecutally dishonest and are part of the clueless modern Left. Barnes and Noble may even try to hide the book, so you may have to ask for it.
But read it, please.

Freeguy: Apparently, people like Roy and Chomsky are the best the Left has to offer.

Well, no. Clearly they are the worst. The best the left has to offer (in my opinion) is Paul Berman and others of his stripe. Unlike Hitchens, he is not ex-left.

And when I said "left" above in this post, I mean people who are to the left of the mainstream liberal Democrats. As far as the mainstream of the Democrats are concerned, I would have to nominate Harold Ford and Barak Obama as the best, the very best, of them all.

One interesting thing those two have in common is that they are both young and both black. It probably means nothing, but there it is. I would vote for either of them for president, and I would do it with enthusiasm.

The Left is not dead, it is unfortunately alive and well. As for the "Civilized Left" they're so dead you have to bury them twice.

I'm more of that "mainstream Liberal Democrat" than a leftist but in my twisted optimism, I hold out some hope for the true leftists, as they will need all the help they can get to defend against the perverse Anti-American left.

MJT writes: I would vote for either of them for president, and I would do it with enthusiasm.

Me too. Like most people, my introduction to Obama was the DNC convention. I liked what I saw then, and he's growing on me:

Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran

I was rooting for Harold Ford to get the minority leader post after Gephardt bailed, realizing that was a longshot because of his age and (lack of) seniority - but it would have been the smart move.

They've been fighting since before Moses got lost in their back yard and they won't stop just because they get to touch a Diebold machine. The killings will go on and on and on and on, either from the ex-leaders (Hussien/Bathists), current leaders (Allwai/Sadr), outside leaders (Hamas/Zarquai) or just each other.

We're soon to be running commercials like:

ANNCR: Its a bloddbath and everyone's invited. Kill your neighbor, (SFX Gunshot)
kill your cousin, (SFX Gunshot)
kill your grandma (SFX Gurgling noise as head is removed)
and kidnap Aunt Whaheem while your at it (SFX Shrill Arabic voice gagged).

Get a job with the Iraqi National Police and you can start taking bribes right away.

Bonus pay for:

Sticking journalists into cars full of terrorists.

And

Looking the other way when terrorists cross the boarder.

(Fast ANNCR Legal Speak)

We do not cover any medical costs associated with getting the crap blown out of you for waiting in line to fill out an application.

ANNCR: Come stand in line for an application today!

Join Now,
Our Motto Is:
Be All That You Can Be And Still Jihad!

This is somewhat tangential to the topic at hand, but I want to clarify what I am saying about the Left. When I speak of the Left being dead, I am refering to the realm of ideas. Note that I said "liberalism" is not dead. To me, a Leftist is basically a statist, someone who sees capitalism as a necessary evil at best, but more likely is a socialist. The Left worships political power because coercive state power is the only way they can implement their "vision". Leftists are by definition social engineers.

The foundation of a civilized existence rests not on democracy, but on the sovereignty of the individual, protected by rule of law. Private property and capitalism are the only models of economic organization which are compatible with justice and individual liberty. Most of what constitutes the fabric of society is organic in nature, not planned. Neighbors, friends, clubs, businesses, entrepreneurs, volunteer organizations, etc, are part of what libertarians call "spontaneous order". All forms of government, even democratic government, will become tyrannical unless state power is limited. Unlimited democracy is nothing but mob rule. America is great PRIMARILY because of the Bill of Rights, not because of the laws passed by Congress and the government, or by the decisions of voters in elections.

To me, a "liberal" is a person who believes that no one should go without food, shelter or medical care, but also understands that dignity, optimism and self-reliance go hand-in-hand, and that people should provide those things for themselves, unless they are literally unable to do so. A "liberal" also understands that capitalism is not only necessary, but is a good thing IN ITSELF, because it is the economic expression of human ingenuity and achievement. Nothing disperses power like the free market.

I believe that SOME people today who call themselves liberals do not sufficiently appreciate these facts. The problem I have with many Democrats and some "liberals" today is that too many of them seem to believe that capitalism can be molded by politicians to effect some desired outcome. It cannot, of course, without other unintended consequences which are frequently negative, which in turn prompt cries from politicans for yet more governmen "action", and on and on.

Maybe I should have said that Leftism is dead, but Leftists are not. "Left" and "liberal" are not interchangeable in my opinion. The modern Left is anything but liberal.

freeguy,

I agree with your assesment and wish we had a choice that was in any way compatible with Libretarian ideals.

Too bad we have only authoritarian options.

"Maybe I should have said that Leftism is dead, but Leftists are not. "Left" and "liberal" are not interchangeable in my opinion. The modern Left is anything but liberal."

That probably makes more sense (and the whole post was very well written)

And I would say that Hitchens would agree with you. From what I've read regarding Hitchens of recent, when people ask about him no longer being of the 'Left' his response is generally based on the lack of an 'international left' and the Left's intellectual well running dry as it pertains to creating a more effective substitute for capitalism. However, lack of a solution doesen't mean that a problem still doesen't exist.

That should probably "Left-wing tyrrany Watch."

Lest we forget, "Left-wing Fascism" is a redundancy.

Historically and intellectually, fascism has always been a left-wing phenomenon, as also National Socialism, which is most often euphemized to fascism or Nazi-ism as a favor to other socialists. Churchill did so to curry favor with Stalin, as he had excellent reason to do. We don't.

This is not to say that horrific tyrrany is a left-wing monopoly. I would have trouble classifying Wahabbism as a left-wing phenomenon, for example--though you notice that all its friends in Europe and America are lefty.

Totalitarian socialism and Stalinism have alot more in common with Fascism and National Socialism than not but I wouldn't call either of them Left wing idealogies. At the very least, the support for extreme nationalism or jingoism and in the Nazi's case, anti-semitism, doesen't seem to be espoused or condoned in any pinko writings I've ever come across.

I may be painting Fascist, Totalitarian and Authoritarian regimes all with a broad brush here, but I wouldn't characterize Portugal under Salazar, Romania under Antonescu, Greece under Metaxas or Papadopoulos, Brazil under Vargas, Argentina under Peron, South Africa under Malan or Verwoerd, Rhodesia under Ian Smith, Spain under de Rivera and Franco and any of the number of puppet rulers supported by Nazis as particularly leftist.

Mussolini explicitly said Fascism is not leftist. And I'd say it's hard to argue with the man who invented it.

Fascism developed in opposition to socialism and communism, although some early Fascists were themselves former Marxists. In 1923, Mussolini declared in The Doctrine of Fascism:

... Fascism [is] the complete opposite of... Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of the history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production....

Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

... "The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature's plans.... If classical liberalism spells individualism," Mussolini continued, "Fascism spells government."

--Benito Mussolini, public domain, from The Internet Modern History Sourcebook (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html)

The Death of the Left: in 10-15 years, there will be no Left left. No concerns about environment, economics, science, law, medecine, none of it. There will only be shari'a.

Mike, there is just no way that can be true. This crap can only go so far, and only so many on the left will actually go there. If what you say is true "the left" will first have to convert to fundamentalist Islam. And that isn't happening.

It can only go so far. The Left has no idea how much it's support for islamofascism and tyranny has cost them. It may be decades before they realize how wrong they were. By then it may be too late. The civilized pro-war left will have to start from scratch, against nearly insurmountable odds.

Arundhati Roy has been an idiotarian for a long time. I've been aware of her screechings about American imperialism since the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11th, long long ago. She lamented the attack on Afghanistan and still does. They're on the verge of a historical election but there's still Burquas and opium and warlords and it hasn't turned into the Switzerland of the Central Asia after 3 years so obviously it's obviously a total disaster.

Actually, it had been a while since she's shown up on my radar. I get the feeling that she's largely irrelevant.

MJT, your Nelson Ascher note is fantastic -- sharing the same demonology.

I recall the Peace Now (and genocide soon) folk who opposed fighting evil in Vietnam; at Stanford I saw Iranian communist protesters calling for "Death to the Shah!"

Today the ABB Bush-haters are joined, only, in demonizing Bush. What to do about Iraq, Iran, Sudan, health care, retirement, education -- there is nothing positive that unites them. Oh, except for punish, er, tax the rich!

See my blog:
http://tomgrey.motime.com/1082148849#258814
where I quote Porphy that "the great switch occurred ... when Liberalism's philosophical basis was re-cast from Natural Law theories onto Utilitarian grounds"

Those utilitarian/ secular philosophical thoughts have pretty significant ramifications.
(That post of mine also quotes your April TCS note on Europe hiding its own weakness)

I've called you a secular fundamentalist, but that's prolly a bit harsh, because such fundamentalists do hate the rich enough to support illiberal systems to punish them, and you don't quite go that far.

However, on wanting to force Bible believers to accept gay marriage, for instance, your secularism is a "fellow traveler" to secular fundamentalists who demonize Bush for his sincere Christian beliefs.

I fear your wife already hates Bush too much; I'd be hear how I'm wrong.

"I'd be glad to hear", oops.

Tom,

My wife doesn't hate Bush. She doesn't hate anybody. She is not that kind of person. She is just a Democrat. When we were married a few years ago she was a lot more "conservative" than I was.

MJT,

Mussolini explicitly said Fascism is not leftist. And I'd say it's hard to argue with the man who invented it.

Coke and Pepsi, my friend. Coke. And. Pepsi.

Here is the key quote that you should focus on:

"If classical liberalism spells individualism," Mussolini continued, "Fascism spells government."

Fascism spells government. Socialism spells government. They are the EXACT same thing, with slightly different packaging and marketing. And both are mortal enemies of liberty.

If you want to increase the likelihood of real fascism in this country, then increase the scope and power of government. If you want to decrease the likelihood of real fascism in this country, then decrease the scope and power of government.

And don't believe for a minute that America is immune to fascism. We aren't. We're no better than the Germans or Italians. We share the exact same human nature that they have. They aren't any more inherently wicked than we are. We can be corrupted just like they were, and we are following their path.

There are two reasons why it might take longer to develop in America than it did in continental Europe. The first is that for the first 150 years of our history, our national creed was based on the concept of individual liberty as our primary value. The second is that our Constitution insures that change happens at a glacial pace. Neither are surmountable barriers and both are crumbling.

Since the New Deal, the first barrier has been crumbling. There has been a sea change in the national creed since then. Increasingly, we are placing the desire for personal economic security ahead of the value of individual liberty. This change in our value system is occuring exactly as Hayek stated in the Road to Serfdom. As the scope of government increases, it triggers a change in the value system of citizens.

This change in our value system has obliterated the First Amendment which is in a complete shambles. Speech codes on campus, McCain-Feingold, the fairness doctrine and political correctness have combined to stifle free speech. And the freedom of association baby was thrown out with the Jim Crow bathwater during Civil Rights era.

If you want to understand why the politcal debate in this country has become so bitter, it is because the political stakes have grown so tremendously. When 40% of the national income is fed through government, is it any wonder that people will fight harder to control government than if that percentage was only 30% or 20%? The polarization and bitterness in this country is the inevitable outcome of the expansion of government. Again, this is happening just as Hayek stated.

Finally, Hayek states that as the scope of government increases, the worst start coming out on top. We can see this in the corruption of the Democratic party. How did the party of FDR, JFK and Truman become the party of Kerry, McAuliffe, Sharpton, Teddy Kennedy, Daschle, Pelosi and Dan Rather? It is because socialism is inherently corrupting, and the Democrats have become a socialist party. And don't bother arguing that they aren't socialist because they don't want government to control the means of production. They may have given up on that tactic, but they still want government to control distribution which has exactly the same result.

Benjamin Franklin stated that those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. Hayek has proven that when you sacrifice liberty for security you get neither. The Democrats are becoming a threat to both liberty and security if they continue down the path they have chosen.

"If classical liberalism spells individualism," Mussolini continued, "Fascism spells government." Fascism spells government. Socialism spells government. They are the EXACT same thing, with slightly different packaging and marketing.

There's a classic logical fallacy for you. "Dogs are animals. Cats are animals. Dogs and cats are EXACTLY the same thing!"

"...fight a pristine, feminist, democratic, secular, non-violent war."

I'm still laughing. Heh. Is she really that stupid?

How many times have I read this argument about whether fascism is a leftist idealogy?

If one accepts that left = statism while right = individualism, then fascism and communism were both leftist idealogies, no matter Il Duce's blathering on about how heroic heroism had banished class struggle in Italy.

That's certainly how Hayek saw it, as both freeguy and HA alluded to. When he wrote "The Road to Serfdom" during WWII, he saw the great idealogical conflict as between liberals (US, Britain, etc.) and socialists (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia).

Of course, I agree with Michael that "right" and "left" have become almost as content-free descriptions as "fascism" has been for 50 years. It all depends on how you define right and left.

Question: If one accepts Hayek's thinking, what is extreme rightism? Anarchism? Monarchism?

And, of course, what is "statism" and what is "individualism"? And where does George W. Bush fall along that spectrum?

As for Roy, she's simply an idiot, thrown up by our prosperous times which allow our intellectuals to become more and more divorced from reality. "Non-violent war"? She fails to see that Gandhi's civil disobediance worked because he went up against Western liberals rather than Islamic fundamentalists.

I do agree that elements of the left when forced to choose between Western bourgeosie democracy and Islamic fundamentalism have chosen the Islamists because they see another ally which hates materialism, democracy, and the pragmatism that dilutes purity.

But I would say that the vast majority of the left just wants to continue its traditional role of softening the harder edges of the most workable economic system the world has ever known, liberal capitalism.

Both the left and right appear to have Authoritarian sub-groups which can be anything but Individualistic.

I find that the groups which seem authoritarian in nature, tend to to be made up of people who have swallowed some dogma(1) or another. The extreme Religious Right promotes a number of what I consider to be Authortarian ideals, while the extreme Left (on a slightly different diet of dogma) tends to presents a slightly different, yet equally authoritarian idealism.

The key, I think, is that dogmatic thinking causes the person to believe that they know some Absolute Truth. This Absolute Truth, they then decide, must be believed by everyone, because it is so obviously absolute and True (not to be pendantic).

The problem is not so much Left versus Right, but more a problem with a minorities desire for majority conformance to some ideology (be that ideology that I shouldn't have sex with guys and smoke pot or that I should help pay for the medical costs of total strangers from 3 States away and work to remove guns from all citizens).

Just my thoughts,

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord

1. For the purposes of this discussion I am defining Dogma as " An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true." - The American Heritage College Dictionary

Michael, her book is in a bookstore down the street from your house because you live near Leftist Lane ... er, Hawthorne. (I'm in NE Portland and agree with you that this is a great place to live, BTW.)

Matt, can you recommend an objective book on the pacifist-beloved Ghandi?

Michael, you throw that "fascism" label around way to easily. You're devaluating the term, IMO.

"If one accepts that left = statism while right = individualism, then fascism and communism were both leftist idealogies, no matter Il Duce's blathering on about how heroic heroism had banished class struggle in Italy."

In the sense that they both espouse some kind of centrally planned economy, perhaps (even though the fascists never nationalized anything and were corporatist) but authoritarian rule in the social sphere and the idolic worship of 'the state' as an entity in an of itself, not to mention the acute nationalism and sometimes racism that occupy major tenets of fascism, do not originate from or are they espoused by any Marxist writing I've ever come across.

Furthermore, I pointed out earlier in this thread, a number of authoritarian/totalitarian rulers and governments that had no root in, and were sometimes diometrically opposed to Leftism.

"Question: If one accepts Hayek's thinking, what is extreme rightism? Anarchism? Monarchism?"

If you go by Hayek's model, I suppose it would be Libertarianism or Anarchism. If you go by the traditional left-right (with right encompassing economic liberty and social regulation) I suppose it would be monarchism.

Roy is simply locating a new Cause to maintain The Critique. The Critique has not changed for nearly 50 years, while the Causes come and go.

The Critique? Well, in simple forms West (or US)=Bad, and being anti-West=Good.

Yup, thousands of words spilt all in the name of a buch of middle-class leftists wanting to feel better about themselves.

Roy is interested in Therapy, not politics. (That would be messy, you see.)

So Cal Justice -- yes, I will ask you again, why are you letting idiots blinded by their anti-Americanism like Arundhati Roy to push you toward the center and reclaim the left for themselves? I too find myself shifting ideologically, but reading her stops that drift, reminds me I do have certain principles, that they are opposed to hers, and that I need to stand and fight for my ground.

Since people here now think I'm a communist, I might as well go along, and proclaim my support for the Iraqi Communist Party. Actually, all I know about them is that they're militantly secular, against the Islamist insurgencies, and opposed to what Arundhati Roy stands for as well.

Matt Ward,

Question: If one accepts Hayek's thinking, what is extreme rightism? Anarchism? Monarchism?

I don't think a single dimension works. I think two dimensions works better. One axis is from individualist to collectivist, and the other axis is from libertine to authoritarian. Here's my take on where the various ideologies fall along these axes:

Individualist
anarchy
libertarianism
liberalism
monarchy
socialism/theocracy (a tie)
fascism
communism
Collectivist

Libertine
anarchy
libertarianism
liberalism
socialism
theocracy/monarchy (tied)
fascism
communism
Authoritarian

I don't have time at the moment to justify these positions. Maybe tonight.

I don't think you can scale those like that HA, but I agree that you need a two dimensional matrix. Things like anarcho-syndicalism are heavy on the collectivist side of the scale, but low on the authoritarian scale. I'd also think that some forms of monarchism would be further down on the authoritarian ladder than fascism, marxist-leninism, or stalinism (after all, I don't think that even Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, or Lenin claimed that they were ordained by God to rule over lesser mortals).

Tosk -

You are half right about your characterization of extremist thought. It's true that they have a dogma that they believe everyone else must believe. The second half, however, is that they believe that people who don't share the dogma are less than fully human and that the dogma must be imposed on those who don't believe it.

Eric Hoffer once observed that religions (including 'secular' dogmas) can exist without a god, but they cannot exist without a devil. One thing all extremist movements have in common is that they portray themselves as an embattled minority being held down by powerful sinister forces. If these forces can just be wiped out, their version of utopia will reign supreme and we will all live in peace and harmony in Eden.

Any thinking person has a dogma of some sort that he believes is correct and that other people should believe. I have a lot of ideas that I would like to see in place, and I fully believe that the world would be a better place with my ideas in full force and effect. That said, there are two factors which remove me from authoritarianism: (1) I have no intention of imposing my ideas on others by force; and (2) I am willing to change my ideas when presented with convincing evidence that they are wrong.

EPITOME,

Whatever the Marxists wrote about being internationalists, the Soviet Union was a hyper-nationalist empire, and if corporatism is not quite ownership of the means of production, it's certainly on its way there. As for racism, that seems to have to peculiar to Nazism rather than all of fascism. My point being: I still don't see a huge difference between fascism and communism when it comes to the individualist-collectivist scale.

I think the idea that these things need to be looked at using two dimensions of measurement is on the right track.

BRAD WILLIAMS

I've never read a biography of Gandhi, but I have read a good bit about the British Empire and British political culture. I probably cribbed my thoughts on Gandhi from George Orwell's essay called (I think), "Thoughts on Gandhi," where he condems Gandhi for not being a humanist and says he was lucky he didn't go up against Hitler.

Matt Ward: If one accepts that left = statism while right = individualism, then fascism and communism were both leftist idealogies, no matter Il Duce's blathering on about how heroic heroism had banished class struggle in Italy.

No, I don't accept his definition of the spectrum. It's one dimensional. We have to graph this in at least two dimensions. There are left-wing statists (socialists) and there are right-wing statists (fascists). There are left-wing individualists (anarchists) and there are right-wing individualists (libertarians).

You can also think of it as a circle, like on a clockface. Noon is classical liberal centrism. Six is Fascism/Communism. The farther you get from the center in either direction the closer you get to Fascism/Communism and the more you have in common with the extremists on the other side.

DPU: Michael, you throw that "fascism" label around way to easily. You're devaluating the term, IMO.

I use it to mean "right-wing totalitarianism," and that's how military historians like Victor Davis Hanson use it. Islamofascist is now the standard and accepted terminology to describe our enemies. So I don't agree that I am devaluing it.

I think anyone would be hard pressed to describe Osama bin Laden as any kind of a leftist. He is obviously very far to the right. He's Pat Robertson and the KKK cubed. And that's one of the many reasons why Arundhati Roy is such a stupid person.

Roy is simply locating a new Cause to maintain The Critique. The Critique has not changed for nearly 50 years, while the Causes come and go.

Lancer,

That in a nutshell is how the Left, and even many Libs, fell into bed with this country's enemies. It's how Iraqi baathists and islamists became Minutemen, it's how the U.S. became Mordor. All it does is show the bankurptcy of their critique. But I mustn't question their patriotism.

Matt (again): I still don't see a huge difference between fascism and communism when it comes to the individualist-collectivist scale.

They aren't. They are both at six o'clock, on opposite sides of the center (which is at noon).

And add this to the political circle: Neoliberalism is at 11:30. Neoconservatism is at 12:30. That's why neoliberals (such as those at The New Republic) can do business so easily with neoconservatives.

What meaningless words.

I am right-wing, like the vast majority of people around the world. My son is left-wing; as a result, he has been the constant victim of oppression foisted on him by rightist penmanship teachers and baseball coaches.

It's this whole clique thing that helps to justify the idiocy and "enemy of my enemy" groupthink of people like Roy.

Michael,

I think that political circle is bunk. Mussolini was born and raised a communist. At the beginning of WWI the socialist movement split between those who supported their country in the war, nationalists if you will, and those who maintained the internationist stance, mostly communists. Mussolini went with the former, not unexpected in an Italy still under the romantic sway of the risorgimento. A good way to get a feel for this is to read some of the fascist stuff: it 'feels' socialist. The racism that the Nazis brought to the table was not new either, the French aristocracy -- the right -- was decended from the germanic Franks, and this was noted. See also Asterix, which has a muted version of the same theme with Romans replacing Germans.

There is an intriquing passage somewhere in Orwell's writing where he comments on the left's reluctance to examine the nature of fascism too closely, as it might reveal too much. Unfortunately, he leaves it at that, but I always suspected that he meant the close relation between fascism and socialism.

MJT: I use it to mean "right-wing totalitarianism," and that's how military historians like Victor Davis Hanson use it. Islamofascist is now the standard and accepted terminology to describe our enemies. So I don't agree that I am devaluing it.

So you really think this woman is a fascist? Which race is she opposed to? And she's into military trappings? Where are her followers?

And I still think that Islamofascist term is bunk. The Ba'athists were more fascists than Bin Laden, and they were secular, so the "Islam-" prefix doesn't fit.

I know this is probably the least and the pettiest criticisms to be made of this interview, but, well, I couldn't let stuff like this pass:

[War] depoliticizes things. It’s undemocratic in so many ways.

You don't say? Boy do I hate it when "things" get depoliticized!

I mean, it's just, wow, these are some deep thoughts here. The eloquence is just breathtaking.

Isn't this dame supposed to be, like, a WRITER? What the heck is she famous for, exactly? This reads like an interview with junior high school student (actually, that's an insult to junior high school students, most of whom aren't pro-fascist...).

DPU: So you really think this woman is a fascist? Which race is she opposed to? And she's into military trappings? Where are her followers?

She doesn't have followers. She is a follower. She said the "resistance" is her battle, too. I am not putting words into her mouth. If she wants to side with Sadr and Zarqawi (who is Al Qaeda, by the way) then she will be labelled appropriately.

double-plus-ungood: the Ba'athists were ostensibly secular but arose from Islamic culture and Arab nationalism and were quite capable of exploiting Islam and pan-Arabism when it suited their purposes. If you define Islamofascism as fascism that originates in the Islamic culture of the ME then the term fits however imperfectly, fascism itself being a word with Western roots.

Mussolini was born and raised a communist.

And Fidel Castro studied at Jesuit school, which explains the Jesuit Republic of Cuba, right?

A good way to get a feel for this is to read some of the fascist stuff: it 'feels' socialist.

No, it 'feels' fascist. Your gut "feelings" about a political system should not be a valid basis for political discourse. It leaves your argument open to attacks using actual facts.

For example, all three fascist European states were killing socialists and communists as fast as they could. If they were the same thing, then they would have used those political groups as support, wouldn't you think?

How about the fact that Mussolini was kicked out of the socialist party that he belonged to. Wouldn't that give a hint that he was at odds with their ideology?

Wouldn't Hitler's references to Marxism as a Jewish creed indicate that he had some problems with the political philosophy?

Man, this stuff is so PoliSci 100.

If you define Islamofascism as fascism that originates in the Islamic culture of the ME then the term fits however imperfectly, fascism itself being a word with Western roots.

So as the Nazis rose from a predominantly Christian culture, you're okay with naming the movement Christofascism?

"Mike, there is just no way that can be true. This crap can only go so far, and only so many on the left will actually go there. If what you say is true "the left" will first have to convert to fundamentalist Islam. And that isn't happening."

The problem is that the day of reckoning isn't until after the Islamists have won, just like in Iran--which is to say hopefully never. The problem is that it is harder to fight the Islamists when so much of the Left is interested in fighting the West.

She said the "resistance" is her battle, too. I am not putting words into her mouth. If she wants to side with Sadr and Zarqawi (who is Al Qaeda, by the way) then she will be labelled appropriately.

Did she say that she's a follower of al-Sadr or Zarqawi? I didn't see that in the interview. Or are you extrapolating that anyone who supports the resistance is a supporter of these guys?

BTW, latest intelligence claims that Zarqawi isn't al-Qaeda, just your run-of-the-mill Islamic fundamentalist terrorist thug.

DPG: I thought you'd raise that argument. Yes, National Socialism originated in Western Christian democratic culture. The Nazis however rejected Christianity (and bourgeoisie democracy) in favor a mythical paganism, based in the Volk. I do not see the Ba'athists have rejected and repressed Islam with the same intensity and alacrity.

The problem is that it is harder to fight the Islamists when so much of the Left is interested in fighting the West.

Stupid pesky political plurality. Makes you want to use the term "fifth columnists", doesn't it? Or wait, is that a strawman I see?

Let's see. The "left" opposes a pointless war because they see it as poorly-planned and naive. They point out that it's practically impossible to impose a democratic system from without, and that this will cause more terrorism and unrest, and will probably destabilize an already shaky region. The "right" condemns this as "anti-West" or "pro-terrorist" or "pro-dictator" or "pro-fascist" , and then cheerleads the invasion until it all goes seriously wrong. Then they start to blame those who said it was pointless to begin with.

Oh wait, that was Vietnam. This is different.

The Nazis however rejected Christianity (and bourgeoisie democracy) in favor a mythical paganism, based in the Volk. I do not see the Ba'athists have rejected and repressed Islam with the same intensity and alacrity.

Well, the Nazis did not repress the church. But even so, what about Franco's Nationalists and Mussolini's Fasciti? Christofascism, I say.

double,

Nazis systematically repressed the christian church, and catholicism. Just do a gooogle search on Nazi Christianity Church and bask in all the hits it gives you.

Hitler hated christianity. He was trying to replace it with his cult of blood and race.

Today, very few groups proclaim themselves as fascist, and the term almost universally is used for groups for whom the speaker has little regard, often with minimal understanding of what the term actually means. The term "fascist" or "Nazi" is often ascribed to individuals or groups who are perceived to behave in an authoritarian manner; by silencing opposition, judging personal behavior, or otherwise attempting to concentrate power. More particularly, "Fascist" is sometimes used by members of the Left to characterize some group or persons of the far-right or neo-far-right, or the far left activists as a description of any political or cultural influences perceived as "non-progressive," or merely not sufficiently progressive. This usage receded much following the 1970s, but has enjoyed a strong resurgence in connection with Anti-globalization activism.

Fascism, in many respects, is an ideology of negativism: anti-liberal, anti-socialist, anti-Communist, anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian, etc. As a political and economic system in Italy, it combined elements of corporatism, totalitarianism, nationalism, and anti-communism.

Hitler hated christianity. He was trying to replace it with his cult of blood and race.

And the Fascisti and Falange?

all three fascist European states were killing socialists and communists as fast as they could

Unlike, say, Lenin and Stalin? What happened to the SRs? What happened to the Trotskyites?

Zacek,

"The Nazis however rejected Christianity..."

Umm, do you really want to go into how closely Hitler and Pope Pius were connected? Do you really want us to pull out all of the lovely pictures of Nazi Brown Shirts in Mass with a huge cross looming over them? Perhaps pictures of Bishops with their palms up and out, standing beside a little man with a funny msutache?

Maybe you could tell us how Gerhard Kittel was not Christian? (Though I would guess he was a gnostic christian or an esoteric christian)

Christianity has had its problems, in fact, Christianity has committed some crimes that equal the terror many are calling Islamofacism. Not the majority of Christians, mind you... but then they aren't the majority of muslims either.

Any group can make mistakes, its the hiding from those mistakes that is dangerous.

Tosk

Unlike, say, Lenin and Stalin? What happened to the SRs? What happened to the Trotskyites?

The main difference, of course, is that Lenin and Stalin were both Marxist-Leninists. Hitler was a devout anti-Marxist. He regarded it as a Jewish political philosophy.

>>>"Do you really want us to pull out all of the lovely pictures of Nazi Brown Shirts in Mass with a huge cross looming over them?"

Tosk,

the Brownshirts were purged by the Nazis. Can you do better than that?

I'm sitting on a 3 disc DVD set on exactly this topic called The Occult History of the Third Reich. Hitler's plan was to replace christianity with his cult of race, blood and land.

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/occult-reich.html

double-plus-ungood:

You seem to think that socialism started with Marx, and that there is no socialism but Marxism. Not so.

You seem to think that socialism started with Marx, and that there is no socialism but Marxism. Not so.

Why would you be under the relatively huge misunderstanding that I thought socialism started with Marx?

David,

There is a quote from a Nazi somewhere in "Nemesis" to the effect that Christianity was inadequate to the heroic German soul. Makes sense to me, turning the other cheek is not exactly what the Nazis had in mind.

Tosk:

Martin Niemoller.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Nazis systematically repressed the christian church, and catholicism.

Now this seems to be some urban myth of the right. For a beginning you should read this about the Reichskonkordat and you will find out that the Vatican endorsed the Nazi government in 1933 and helped to destroy democracy in Germany.

Schulz,

on the contrary, I think the Hitler-christian link is a myth of the Left that has too long gone unchallenged, not that anybody but the choir takes it that seriously.

The Concordat was signed in '33, shortly after Hitler was elected chancellor. Hitler violated the terms of that agreement in '37, and all bets were off. Shortly thereafter, the Pope issued an encyclical, "With Deep Anxiety" condeming Nazi theory of race and Nazi ideology. It is one of the few encyclicals in the history of the Roman Catholic Church not written in Latin but in a national language, in this case German. It was for all people to read. The encyclical was adressed to German bishops and to German Catholics and was read in all parish churches of Germany.

Folks,

Christianity and Occult are not necessarily seperate. In fact, many commonly held Christian rituals and beleifs are based on occult and pre-christian magical systems. Gnostic Christians, who have been around for centuries, are christians who delve very deeply into the occult.

Hitler very definately got a nice hand in his rise to power and his early years from the Church. While he later deviated from the standard religious belief system of Most Christians, one must keep in mind that he kept one of M. Blavatsky's books on his bedside table. M. Blavatsky and the Theosophists were occult/gnostic Christians, in fact, it was their belief in the 'arayn supremacy' that influenced Hitler's view on the subject.

Now for some more details: (Rat opens his notes on Hitler and the Church)

Hitler was born and raised a Roman Catholic.
He was baptized, became an alter boy and a 'solider of the church' (no idea what that phrase means in particular, its just underlined in my notes).

In europe during Hitlers youth and rise to power, anti-semitism was fomented primarily by the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church. Remember, before 1961 the Catholic Liturgy refered to the Jew as 'perfidious'. Hitler was a big fan of Martin Luther, who was very much a Jew hater ( about the only thing he did agree with the Pope on).

(I have two quotes here attributed to Luther, I do not have the sources where they came from)

"The Jews desrve to be hanged on the gallows, seven times higher than ordinary thieves,"

"We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them."

Hitler wrote in Mien Kampf '... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work.'

In 1941 he is quoted as saying to General Engel 'I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.'

Koblenz, 1934 Hitler is quoted as saying in a speech

"National Socialism neither opposes the Church or is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of real Christianity . For their interests can not fail to coincide with ours in our fight against the symptoms of degenerates in the world of today, in our fight against Bolshevist, against atheistic, against criminality, and our struggle for a consciousness of community in our national life . These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles!"

(I don't know if that is a perfect quote, it was written sloppily, but I believe it to be mostly correct)

Also there is a rather large rant from "My New Order" where he talks about his feelings as a Christian and how happy the Savior was that he was fighting agasinst the Jewish poison"

Hitler used whatever he thought would achieve his aims, Christianity worked, Occultism worked, brutal dictatorial actions worked.

Now, I will also state that MANY christians at that time were against Hitler. Many Christians (including Jehovah's Wittnesses) were placed into concentration camps because they refused to buy into Hitlers beliefs. There are many examples of GOOD and Heroic priests who risked their lives and suffered trying to save Jews, Gays and JW's.

Just as with our current situation, there ARE many Muslims who do not subscribe to any sort of Islamo-Facist ideal.

It is not a mark against Christians that Hitler (and many others throughout history) have used the rallying cry of 'Christ' to perpatrate horrors. It is a mark against the individuals who chose to behave in a way that is completely unjustifiable.

You can take or leave the statements I've made here. As I said, they were notes from studies and lectures, I did not document them since they were for personal use. Some of the syntax in the quotes may be wrong. However, I am pretty sure that the import remains.

Tosk

>>>"M. Blavatsky and the Theosophists were occult/gnostic Christians,"

Tosk,

blavatsky was not a christian. That's RIDICULOUS.

But I knew you'd be gone for a while during which time you'd cobble together a cut and paste job with string and elmer's glue.

Tosk and Schulz,

Read and learn:

http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/RJLR_3_1_2.pdf

Actually, I was gone for awhile because I was in my mid-year review here at the office. But, interpert as you will... I try not to guess what your doing when/before you post. I accept at your word that you're trying to have a rational conversation. (However, I noted that you didn't actually converse about my post)

Blavatsky was a Gnostic, I have read most of her books, I have studied theosophy and I tell you that it is a Gnostic/Occult system that stemmed out of ties between Christian and earlier mythos. This sort of belief is often called "Gnostic Christianity". In fact one of Blavatsky's beliefs was that Jesus went to Tibet and worked with the magical schools there. (I not saying she was mainstream Christian.)

Furthermore, I'm interested in you response to my other notes. I am certianly NOT blaming Christians for Hitler, I only point out that Hitler stated he was a Christian, based some of his ideals on (what was at the time) Christian beliefs, and indeed draped his entire movement in a Christian symbol (The swastika has been a stylized cross in European Heraldry since 1100).

Hitler's relationship with Christianity was much like the current extremist views in Islam. It's not what the religion is about, it is what men do by twisting the religion into a tool for their own agenda.

(I not saying she was mainstream Christian.)

Tosk,

no, she certainly wasn't.

The only reason I'm not trading quotes with you is because I've had this discussion numerous times before and frankly I'm tired of it. I had plenty of counter quotes saved to my yahoo files, but had to delete them some time ago, and I frankly don't have the energy to go out and hunt them down again. It's not about you, it's about me.

But I'll repost factoid for you because I think it's a checkmate:

"In March 1937, Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical entitled “Mit Brennender Sorge” (With Deep Anxiety) and in it denounced the violations of the Concordat by the Nazi state and described the actions of the Nazi government against the Church as “intrigues which from the beginning had no other aim than a war of extermination”.

http://www.cryingvoice.com/Christian_martyrs/NaPers.html

I don't care if Hitler's mom was catholic, he was no friend of the church.

OK, but she's like, totally fly.

Tosk,

Fascists and communists are both anti-Christian. The difference is that communists abolish the church, while fascists co-opt the church and use the symbology and authority of the church to advance their own agenda after gutting it of its theology.

You can prattle off all the quotes you want, but none will bridge the chasm between fascist ideology and Christian theology. There is nothing in common between the two.

HA,

I agree with your link. Hitler committed terrible atrocities against many Christians, just as he did against anyone who did not conform to his worldview. Much like many of our Iraqi friends who are losing their lives to their fellow Muslims, because they support a free Iraq.

I am not under any misconception that Hitler was a model christian, or that christian ideals and Nazi ideals are similar. I am under the impression that Hitler (at least publicly) stated he was a christian and that the Nazi party and the Christian church were in line. I believe that he did this in order to gain support from his predominately Christian base.

Some of his beliefs stemmed from beliefs (which at the time) were Christian beliefs (hatred of the Jews, for example). The church has long since repudiated these crass and unchristian beleifs.

Tosk

Tosk,

I don't have a major problem with your last two paragraphs.

It's just that I've seen anti-christians try to link Hitler for purposes of slander. It's born of malice and ignorance.

I wish people would stop trying to argue that fascism is left or right. It really makes no practical difference and you will not score any points by linking it up as the logical extreme of the Democrats or the Republicans. Fascism, Stalinism, etc has absolutely nothing to do with either of our two mainstream political parties. The fringes of both the left and the right are wicked and deranged. Almost everyone in America knows this. Only a certain kind of willfully obtuse intellectual believes the Democrats or Republicans are totalitarian political parties in sheep's clothing.

Tosk,

Don't confuse Christianity with the "church." A "church" is a bureaucratic institution that can only imperfectly implement a theology. All churches will be burdened by human imperfection to some degree.

To claim that "hatred of Jews" is a Christian belief has as much credibility as claiming that pedophilia is a Christian belief.

David-
So basically the Vatican issued an open letter where they complained about some aspects of the Nazi system, the Nazis made some concessions and the Catholic Church went on to consecrate Germany's weapons and to provide military priests for the coming war. Great acts of resistance.

Btw I do not dipute that the Nazis had ideological problems with Christianity but nevertheless Catholic as well as Protestant leaders of Germany overwhelmingly supported the Nazi regime.

David,

Yes, I'm familiar with that document and I agree, Pope Pius figured out (just a tad too late) that Hitler was not a friend of the Catholics.

"no, she certainly wasn't."

Damn it man, how many of her books have you read? How much of the theosophists works have you studied? I'm telling you that she was a gnostic. Her works make very clear that she was a gnostic. She draws on Christianity as well as earlier beleif systems. She was not mainstream Christian, she was not Catholic or Protestant, but Gnostics are Christians (a small minority to be sure). I am friends with a number of gnostics today, and they are just as defensive of the Christian ideals and belief systems (with lots of addons) as any Catholic I've met.

Anyway, I won't argue you on posts here. I thought you might like to discuss, but if its not a topic you care to try, thats cool :)

HA,

It depends entirely on how one defines the Christian ideology. Facisism obviously distorts the message that is written in the Bible. But then so do some churches ;-).

The problem with Big religions like Christianity and Islam are that they can get co-opted into a distorted minority cult, which can reflect poorly back on its foundation religion.

Hitler tied himself to the Church, he did it for political gain and power. He used it when it suited him, he dumped the bits that didn't. Much like our current "Islamo-facists".

I do not usually argue that Hitler was a Christian. I think its a banter of words and labels that don't fit. A true Christian would never kill, as blood and life is sacred.

However, if we are willing to tag Islam with a suffix and say that it fair, then we certianly could do the same of Christianity in this instance. For the extremists Islam sects are no more a true view of Islam, than was Hitler's self-serving bastardization of Christianity.

Tosk

HA,

re: Christianity versus The Church.

I apologize, you are absolutely right. The ideals of Christianity have no room for prejudice in any fashion, be it against Jew or Gentile. It was only the Church (Lutherian and Catholic) that had anti-semetic views are part of their religious beliefs.

Of course, one should not confuse Islam with some Sects of Islam... no?

Thank you for the correction, it was not intentional, but a poorly worded statement on my part. I'm glad you clarified it.

Tosk

The problem, Michael, is that the fringe of the Democratic party is not so fringe these days. I mean Moore, Kos, et. al.. I will not be the least surprised if there is some violence after the election.

And it bugs me that the left should preen themselves on their morals for opposing their twin while they accuse Bush of being Hitler, suppressing free speech, etc. All of which they themselves are guilty.

It is not irrelevant. The left has been marked by totalitarian tendencies for the last century, and has committed genocide on massive scales. The democratic socialists like to play with fire, but when the forest goes up in flames they have to run just like everyone else.

Chuck: It is not irrelevant. The left has been marked by totalitarian tendencies for the last century, and has committed genocide on massive scales.

As has the right. As Michael says, the fanatics on both ends of the spectrum are deranged.

HA: It's just that I've seen anti-christians try to link Hitler for purposes of slander. It's born of malice and ignorance.

For the record, I was not linking Hitler with Christianity in order to condemn Chritianity, I was pointing out the absurdity in labelling the secular Ba'ath party as IslamoFascist when we don't do the same for fascist movements founded in predominantly Christian societies.

Chuck: The problem, Michael, is that the fringe of the Democratic party is not so fringe these days.

Yes, I know, and that's why I had to take a walk. But it's easy to overstate the problem. The Democrats are not slouching toward totalitarianism any more than Bush=Hitler.

No Schulz,

the church didn't "basically complain" against the Nazis. They roundly condemned them in the strongest terms, accusing them of a war of extermination; and that was in 1937 before the Nazis had even begun their invasions; this condemnation, as you can plainly see, came a lot earlier than most other people did (except for Churchill). Joe Kennedy, for instance, was still making money off the Nazis when the war broke out, and so was Prescott Bush. It was the norm, apparently. So as I see it, the church got an early start.

Your agenda is clear however. But you can't back it up.

WTF is a 'a pristine, feminist, democratic, secular, non-violent war?

David,

They roundly condemned them in the strongest terms
Let us leave aside the question if this really were the 'strongest terms' imaginable, what did the church do during the next 8 years after they had found out that the Nazis were no longer useful allies in the fight against atheism and communism and finally had turned against the church? Unfortunatly not very much. Business as usual.

Your agenda is clear however. But you can't back it up.
I already mentioned the role the Vatican played in the destruction of the German democracy. Your answer is that they later discovered that this wasn't such a great idea. Fine. But there were others who already knew in 1933 that the Nazis were evil. Some of them were already dead, incarcerated in concentration camps or in exile by 1937. So the church really cannot claim a moral highground on that matter. What else needs to be said?

MJT,

But it's easy to overstate the problem.

Its easy to UNDERSTATE the problem too.

The Democrats are not slouching toward totalitarianism any more than Bush=Hitler.

How do you KNOW? Is it just a matter of faith? Are Democrats NOT corruptable? Are Americans NOT corruptable? Who are you trying to convince?

I believe Americans are just as corruptable as anybody else. The only reason we haven't been as corrupt as anybody else is because our national creed and system of government are superior than the others. If we tinker too much with our creed and our system, if we make it too much like the European model, we will become as screwed up as they are.

And the Democrats practically WORSHIP the Europeans. You know how much more sophisticated Europeans are than we provincial Americans.

Schulz,

I already mentioned the role the Vatican played in the destruction of the German democracy.

Are you looking for answers or scapegoats? You wanna know who destroyed German democracy?

Germans.

I would just like to add my thoughts to the discussion about the political spectrum and philosophy of government. With all due respect I think some people are confused about the nature of freedom. Of course, no government would be anarchy, which would NOT lead to maximum freedom, but chaos and eventually probably some sort of dictatorship. So I leave anarchy out of the equation. Political power is THE main problem, as I see it. It is clear that the genius of the Ameican governmental system is that it not only limits government power better than any other on earth, but it also pits elements of political power against each other ( federalism ), which is another way of limiting state power.

When people complain about "corporate power" they are implying that this is a problem, and, that the solution if of course more state power. But what is a corporation ? It is a VOLUNTARY association of people, and therefore it is inherently peaceful, as long as it operates under a system of private property and contract law, enforced by rule of law.
All government, on the other hand, is an instrument of coercion. This is true of democratic government as well as dictatorships. The only real difference is the method of coercion. Is it more moral that all gay people be put to death simply because it is voted by a majority of people in a "democracy", rather than ordered by the decree of a dictator ?

This goes back to my point that the ESSENCE of a good society is NOT democracy, but rather limits on STATE POWER. And this must apply AS MUCH to economic exchange as to all other private, mutually-agreeable personal behavior. Hence the irrefutable morality of capitalism.

The political spectrum, as I see it, is not a circle, but a linear spectrum of increasing tyranny and decreasing freedom.

From most free ( most just ) to least free ( least just), my spectrum would be as follows :

1. Libertarianism (live and let live, rule of law )
2. Republicanism ( minimal state )
3. Democracy ( rule by interest groups, bureaucractic corruption, politicians who pander to voters, etc. This describes America today, sadly ).
4. Fascism ( too much "democracy" is a form of fascism. Militarism, strong leaders, Hitler, etc ).
5. Socialism ( Economic totalitarianism. Merely another form of fascism ).
6. Communism and religious totalitarianism
( total state control of all aspects of life ).

Will America remain in category #3, or, move BACK to #2 ( where we used to be), or hopefully eventually to #1 ? Or will be slip into #4 ?

If we continue to vote and act as though we believe politicians have the answers to our problems, particularly economic problems, we risk slipping into a defacto fascism.

HA: Are Democrats NOT corruptable? Are Americans NOT corruptable? Who are you trying to convince?

Of course. Everyone is corruptible.

If we tinker too much with our creed and our system, if we make it too much like the European model, we will become as screwed up as they are.

That's obviously true, as well. I used to "worship" the Europeans, as you put it, and I don't any longer. Partly because of their idiotic response to 911, and also because I've actually been to Europe now. It doesn't suck, but it is not at all the storybook land I was led to believe.

Still, the Democrats do not "worship" the way Germany and France behaved during World War II. Hardly.

I fully agree that the problem of extremism in the Democratic Party is easy to understate. But you really do overstate it. Sorry, that's just how it looks from where I sit. I think one reason you do this is because you forget about the majority of Democrats who aren't activists and loud-mouth intellectuals, people like my wife who rarely think about politics and are completely sensible people who simply happen to not be conservative.

Madame Blavatsky?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaaaa........Tree Rat, now that's funny.

Here's a crude effort to graph my two-dimensional political ideology model. I've made some adjustments so it won't quite match up with my comment from before:

.......................Individualist
..Anarchy.................|
......Libertarianism...|
..........Liberalism......|
................................|
................................|........Monarchy/Theocracy
Libertine--------------|-------------Authoritarian
................................|
................................|..Socialism
................................|.......Fascism
................................|............Communism
................................|
..........................Collectivist

A few comments:

Government power is the enabler of collectivist authoritarianism. Constitutionally limited government is a barrier to socialism.

Socialism is probably the most difficult to plot on this model. I think it has a greater variability than other ideologies. When I plotted socialism, I had the European "social democracy" model in mind. Think France, not Cuba. I pushed it more towards the authoritarian pole rather than the libertine poll because of economic considerations. On moral matters however, social democracy can be quite libertine and even nihilist.

I didn't include democracy on this model. I see democracy as a method more than an ideology. Without any ideology, democracy can range over the entire graph.

I view free-market democratic republicanism as equivalent to classic liberalism.

I believe that the traditional wall between individualism and collectivism is religious faith and its concept of the soul. The concept of a "soul" gives us the original source that each person is an end rather than a means (think Declaration of Independence). The problem with extreme secularist creeds is that by discarding faith and the concept of soul, individuals can come to be viewed as means rather than ends. We've seen this in both fascist and communist regimes.

All nations started off in the monarchist/theocratic quadrant. Through revolutions they progressed to the liberal quadrant or the socialist quadrant. Britain and America moved to the liberal quadrant. France, Germany and Russia moved to the socialist quadrant. And Germany and Russia went to the extremes of that quadrant.

Examples of each:

Anarchy - Africa
Libertarianism - America's Wild West
Liberalism - 20th Century America and Britain
Socialism - France and Germany
Monarchy/Theocracy - Saudi Arabia
Fascism - Post Communist China and Russia
Communism - North Korea/Cuba

MJT,

But you really do overstate it.

Who, me? ;-)

I think one reason you do this is because you forget about the majority of Democrats who aren't activists and loud-mouth intellectuals, people like my wife who rarely think about politics and are completely sensible people who simply happen to not be conservative.

Here you're wrong. I admit my rhetoric may go over the top at times. I do it because I KNOW that most Democrats are NOT activists and intellectuals. Most rank and file Democrats just like most Republicans are pretty apolitical and are unaware that the direction of the party is being determined by the activists and intellectuals. And the rank and file do not understand and may not like where the activists are leading them. The rhetoric I use sometimes is a way to grab people by the collar and give 'em a good shake.

However, I do believe that the leadership of the Democratic party has become morally and intellectually corrupt. I think the leadership of the party has placed partisan interests and personal ambition ahead of the national interest and I think it is disgraceful. John Kerry embodies this. If the rank and file don't wake up and get rid of the leadership, the Democrats and the nation will be in big trouble. I think there is an embryonic authoritarinism forming in the Democratic party. It might take 20-40 years to reach fruition. I don't expect it will affect me much. But it will tremendously affect my children and any grand-children I may have if it isn't nipped in the bud. I don't think this is an overstatement.

I think you understate the problem because conciously or subconciously you don't want to offend your friends.

HA: I think you understate the problem because conciously or subconciously you don't want to offend your friends.

I offend my friends anyway, but that's nothing new. They aren't offended by my opinions, but rather the force in which I sometimes deliver those opinions. They are used to it and put up with me anyway. :)

The thing is, though, that I'm a lot less forceful in my opinionatedness in person than I am on this blog. Those who show up here to argue with me might be surprised at how much more mellow I am about this stuff one-on-one. But I'm still more opinionated than most people, including most of my friends.

"I think there is an embryonic authoritarinism forming in the Democratic party. It might take 20-40 years to reach fruition. I don't expect it will affect me much. But it will tremendously affect my children and any grand-children I may have if it isn't nipped in the bud. I don't think this is an overstatement."

You're right, you're rhetoric can seriously go over the top at times. This falls right in line with your description of the democrats as a 'socialist' party. I don't mind or particularly disagree with beliefs that the leadership of the Democrats is weak or intellectually or morally lacking, or that it serves it's own partisanship over national interests (though I believe this exists in both parties) But the doomsday fanaticism of the zealots about the Democratic party marching forward with goals of rugged socialist authoritarianism, and statements that seriously imply that guys like Kos and Moore pose a danger no different than Bin Laden or Zarqawi...

Well eventually those of us who wish to keep our feet planted in the soil of reality have to point out that such reactionary persecution says more about the speakers themselves (though I'm sure you mean well) and their radical libertarian dogmatism than it does about the new republic reading neo liberals and moderates that make up the bulk of the democratic party.

I think John Kerry is a douche that will say anything that he thinks people want to hear. I think Terry Mcauliffe is a smug partisan douche who cares about nothing that doesen't relate to his own advancement and the advancement of his party (Hey, kinda like Tom DeLay?) I think Al Sharpton has alot of noble qualities and public oratory skills, and he cares and has done more for black people than conservative white males accusing him of being a racial huckstering clown would ever care to admit, but to be kind, he can be misguided at times. Yet I could never seriously accuse any of them of being agents sewing the seeds of totalitarian socialism unless I already had a bunker underneath my house to hide in when armageddon comes.

HA,

Are you looking for answers or scapegoats? You wanna know who destroyed German democracy?

Germans.

I wouldn't have guessed that, wise man.
No, I'm not looking for scapegoats, but nearly all of these Germans were members of a Christian church. So it is interesting to see how these churches used their moral authority which was back then much greater than today. It wasn't me who started this discussion here but when I pointed at some failures the counter-argument was mainly that my 'agenda is clear however'. Okay, if you think so.

HA,

regarding your two-dimensional political ideology model:

So a country like Germany or France which in your view is part of 'socialism' is more collectivist and nearly as authoritarian if you compare it to Saudi-Arabia, a combination of theocracy and absolute monarchy, or maybe Iran?

Yeah, right.

Btw, I'm posting this from quite collectivist Germany. I encountered no restriction in doing so, but from the more individualist Saudi-Arabia this might be even easier.

Epitome,

But the doomsday fanaticism of the zealots about the Democratic party marching forward with goals of rugged socialist authoritarianism

It is not a goal. If they keep marching the way they're marching they will get their by accident. The Democrats have their own ideals of "social justice" and they need to use government power to achieve these ideals. Once government power has been consolidated, it can be used for good or ill. Inevitably at some point it will be used for ill in spite of the most noble intentions of those who led the consolidation becaue it will be coopted by the corrupt to serve their own interests instead of the nation's interests.

Kos and Moore pose a danger no different than Bin Laden or Zarqawi...

Kos and Moore are a far different and far greater danger than Bin Laden or Zarqawi. Because of Kos and Moore and their ilk, we are fighting each other rather than the enemy. When Bin Laden said in his fatwa that America is a paper tiger, he was counting on people like Kos and Moore. Just as the Vietnamese Communists were counting on people like John Kerry. If we cut and run from Iraq they way we did from Vietnam, our enemy will follow the troops home. The Vietnamese didn't do this because all they wanted was independence, not global supremecy. I believe that if John Kerry is elected, we will cut and run from Iraq and it will be a catastrophe for America, Iraq and the world.

I think Al Sharpton has alot of noble qualities and public oratory skills

Yeah, his oratory skills include the ability to whip a lynch mob into a murderous frenzy so that they run off and burn down a store and kill 7 people. Al Sharpton is pure racist evil who has learned to put on a happy face to get a seat at the table. The failure of the Democrats to condemn him is one of the prime factors that prove the moral and intellectual corruption of the Democratic party. If there was ever a situation crying out for a Sister Souljah moment, it was the Democratic primary debates. We didn't get one and that speaks volumes about the Democrats.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment090701.shtml

Schulz,

So a country like Germany or France which in your view is part of 'socialism' is more collectivist and nearly as authoritarian if you compare it to Saudi-Arabia, a combination of theocracy and absolute monarchy, or maybe Iran?

Do you get your strawmen from the same place you get your scapegoats?

HA,

No, I get my strawmen from you. Your own definition:

Socialism - France and Germany
Monarchy/Theocracy - Saudi Arabia

"If you're in a hole, stop digging."
DONALD RUMSFELD

No, I'm not looking for scapegoats, but nearly all of these Germans were members of a Christian church.

Schulz,

Guess what, most of the people who gave their lives to defeat the Nazis were members of the Christian church too. That, and official condemnation, is good enough for me. But I don't have an anti-christian axe to grind, you do.

HA

[i]It is not a goal. If they keep marching the way they're marching they will get their by accident. The Democrats have their own ideals of "social justice" and they need to use government power to achieve these ideals. Once government power has been consolidated, it can be used for good or ill. Inevitably at some point it will be used for ill in spite of the most noble intentions of those who led the consolidation becaue it will be coopted by the corrupt to serve their own interests instead of the nation's interests.[/i]

I'm sorry but I just don't see it. Number one, no matter which direction the Democratic party is heading, in our current system it is very unlikely that any one party could consolidate enough power of government that would be needed to seriously inflict the opression and atrocity of something like a soviet satellite.

Secondly, the Democrats are not socialists, they're free marketeers in the tradition of American Liberalism. Most of their goals for enacting social justice with state power wouldn't even be to the extent of semi-socialist countries like France or Canada and neither of those more statist nations are exactly getting involved in Castroism. I'm not saying that it doesen't have the potential to be a bureaucratic nightmare, but to infer that it would lead to some of the gross abuses of power by the socialist government's of the 20th century is to me, hyberbole.

[i]Kos and Moore are a far different and far greater danger than Bin Laden or Zarqawi. Because of Kos and Moore and their ilk, we are fighting each other rather than the enemy.[/i]

Moore is an Anti-American jackass who hates everything about this country except for his right to bitch about how lame he thinks it is; and Kos, no doubt has true believer syndrome and is extremely partisan, but I don't think the tribalism that has gripped this country rests on their shoulders. They, at least in Kos's case, are playing by rules that were already set when they entered the game.

HA - You think that Africa is an example of Anrchism at work? Um, why? There have been no significant Anarchist movements in Africa that I know of. Why not instead list the Anarchist collectives of Spain in the '30s, or the Paris commune, or Mahknovist Ukraine, or Christiania, or any of the other actual Anarchist societies?

Africa?

double,

I lived in Africa for almost 4 years, and it was pretty anarchic.

David,

Guess what, most of the people who gave their lives to defeat the Nazis were members of the Christian church too.
That's a good argument but might nevertheless be wrong if you take into account that on the Soviet side, at least nominal, nearly everyone was atheist. Would you also appreciate the contribution of atheists for defeating Nazism?

Anyway, I was mainly talking about the church hierarchy in Germany and within the Vatican. I never disputed that there were also important contributions from Christians in the fight against the Nazis.

But I don't have an anti-christian axe to grind, you do.
No, I only think the churches could and should have done better. If you think this makes me anti-Christian, that is your problem, not mine.

David: I lived in Africa for almost 4 years, and it was pretty anarchic.

But not anarchistic. Different meaning, David.

Schulz,

I think atheism and christianity are virtually irrelevant to any discussion about Nazi Germany.
The Germans didn't go on a rampage because of christianity, and the Russians didn't fight back because of atheism. Complete irrelevance.

On the other hand, I think the occult figured very heavily into Nazi ideology, as well as into Hitler's motivations, and I have the evidence to prove it. I think that someone who uses Nazism as some kind of indictment of christianity does indeed have an axe to grind, or is just deeply ignorant, particularly about Nazi occult origins.

Tosk also tries to tie in christianity, but he uses the back door, by claiming madame Blavatzky was a "christian", but that's nonsense. She was an occultist and a student of the esoteric. She had her own complete mythology with absolutely nothing in common with christian doctrine.

Hitler, like many people in that period were very attracted to the occult, of which she was seen as an authority, and of which the swaztika was seen as a symbol. The double lightning bolt of the SS was also an occult symbol; a rune of Nordic mythology. Virtually all Nazi government ministries also had corresponding runes to symbolize their role in Nazi society. Occultism infused the Third Reich from top to bottom, and this is completely overlooked by people who attempt to propogate Leftist myths as you were attempting to do.

Schulz,

No, I get my strawmen from you.

You must have exceptionally poor reading skills. I made an explicit point that just because France is socialist, it is not Cuban style socialism. I did this because in the past I've encountered some who are too obtuse to see the difference.

I didn't make a similar distinction wrt France/Germany and Saudia Arabia because it never occured to me that one could be so obtuse. Congratulations. You have risen to previously unknown heights of obtuseness.

"Tosk also tries to tie in christianity, but he uses the back door, by claiming madame Blavatzky was a "christian", but that's nonsense."

First (ignoring Blavatsky), I used quite a number of quotes from Hitler personally, his speeches and his books to show that he used Christianity as a tool for his own purposes. Just as the current 'Islamo-Facists' "use" Islam as a tool for their own purposes. Groups like Al-Queda distort Islam, just as the Nazi's distorted Christianity. The Catholics did just about the same level of protestation as the Muslim community does now. The parallels are there, its your decision if you choose to ignore them in your reality.

About M. Blavatsky. HPB was an esoteric, she developed a number of ideologies which are what many today categorize as 'gnostic'. She wrote several commentaries on the bible, including a number of critical works examining the pagan roots of modern Christianity (As did her contemporary Rev. Robert Taylor did in 'The Diegesis'). This sub-culture which was a mix of people like Crowley, who derided the Bible as mostly garbage and focused on different religious systems for his work, to people like Taylor and Blavatsky who drew parallels between Christian and Pagan ideals, and used the Bible as an esoteric work. On the one side, you have Crowley as an Esoteric or more correctly a Thelemic (post-OTO), on the other you have Blavatsky as an esoteric and gnostic, slightly further along you find hardcore Gnostic Christians, which believe pretty much the same things as most Christians, with magic thrown in on top.

Blavatsky used the Bible as a spiritual tool, she held some common beleifs with Mainstream Christianity. She was, herself, part of a sub-sect of Christianity, which spread out into a number of other forms of worship.

Finally a note about the swastika.

The swastika was no more a occult symbol than any other cross (and yes, the cross was an occult symbol long beofre the Christians adapted it). During the Middle Ages, at the beginning of the heraldic movement (using heraldry to identify people circa. 1100 C.E.) the swastika was listed as one of the many stylized crosses available for heraldry. It was used in Heraldry by the Europeans through modern days (though obviously it has fallen out of favor due to the Nazis).

Hitler used a Cross (which in the 30's, the swastika in Europe, was still considered a christian cross), to tie his reich to Christianity.

Again, I will state that I do not accuse Christians of being nazis, nor do I believe that the Nazis were espousing christian ideals. I believe that they were an abberation that used a popular religion, in order to achieve their own twisted goals. I believe the same of Al-Queda.

Hence, back to the beginning of this argument, if you can label Iran/Al-Queda/Hamass as 'Islamo-Facism' then someone could, using that logic, label the Nazi movement as Christo-Facisim.

Believe it or not, that's up to you.

Tosk

I think Tosk wins this one because (i) he seems to know a great deal more about the subject than what other commenters have shown, (ii) is more moderate in tone, and (iii) hasn't resorted to insults as a substitute for reasonable discourse, as HA has done.

DPU,

Thanks, but I'd rather not have winners and losers in a conversation... hopefully everyone learns and everyone wins.

But thanks for the compliment.

Tosk

Hitler used a Cross (which in the 30's, the swastika in Europe, was still considered a christian cross), to tie his reich to Christianity.

double,

Tosk only gives the appearance of knowing more because there's more verbiage. I keep it short and sweet. But I'll oblige you, as I've taken some time to revie my sources. (The Occult Origins of the Third Reich, DVD set.)

Take his above comment for instance. It's bunk. Everybody knows the swastika originated in the Far East; and I challenge him to show me credible evidence that the swastika was considered "christian" in the 30's. On the contrary, the swastika came into vogue in the early 20th century among occultists, and joe blows adopted it as a good luck talisman during WWI in the trenches. It was used by occult societies, not christian ones, such as the Thule Society which helped springboard Hitler into power. Many of the rich elites backing him were from Thule.

And the swastika had several variations, some spinning one way, some spinning the other way, some with curved arms instead of straight. What did the swastika symbolize? Nothing to do with christianity, that's for sure. Yes, it's true that the swastika was used in medieval church decoration and heraldry, but that was from the 1100s, so what. The swastika has been used over the centuries by a dozen cultures. To most early 20th century Germans, it symbolized good luck and protection, thus it's use as a talisman. For instance, to earlier Hindus it meant something was blessed or auspicious. To the occultists of the early 20th century, like Blavatksy and Guido Von List, her mentor, it meant regeneration and life-force. (Von List taught about the ancient Germanic religion of the god Woden, and of its long-vanished priesthood; He did not teach about Yahweh). Both were dedicated to the occult doctrine of Aryanism.

The idea for the use of the swastika by the Nazis came from a dentist named Dr. Friedrich Krohn who was a member of the Thule. The Thulists were also into Blavatsky and Von List. Krohn produced the design for the actual form in which the Nazis came to use the symbol, that is reversed, spinning in an anti-clockwise direction. As a solar symbol, the swastika is properly thought of as spinning, and the Buddhists have always believed the symbol attracted luck. The Sanskrit word "svastika" means good fortune and well being. And so the symbol appeared as the flag of Nazi Germany and the insignia of the Nazi party, an indication for those who had eyes to see, as to the occult nature of the Third Reich.

ps. Tosk, I higly recommend this to you if you're into this kind of stuff, as you appear to be:

The Occult History of the Third Reich

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6305247730/qid=1096576173/sr=2-1/103-7030856-3569416?v=glance&s=dvd

HA,
I made an explicit point that just because France is socialist, it is not Cuban style socialism.
I have not misunderstood you, I just looked at your little matrix, and there socialism is ranked as more collectivist/less individualist than theocracy/monarchy. At the end of your post you write:

"Examples of each:

Socialism - France and Germany
Monarchy/Theocracy - Saudi Arabia"

So it seems that you are not able to understand your own scheme. Your two-dimensional political ideology model has obviously some flaws.

You have risen to previously unknown heights of obtuseness.
In this special case it must be a compliment. Thank you.

David,
I think atheism and christianity are virtually irrelevant to any discussion about Nazi Germany.
After you wrote several post where you described how hostile the Nazis were towards christianity, this suddenly becomes irrelevant. You are not only ignoring my arguments and make up your own understanding of what I've written, you're now also becoming inconsistent. Nuff said.

winger,

you've obviously been winging it from your first post about conservative "urban myths". I can already see you and your buddies at some Liberal cocktail party circle jerking each other about how evil christianity is, and how it caused WWII didn't you know!!? Really dude!?? No way! Yes way!!

And each of your posts get weaker and weaker; you're fading fast. The whole bit about how "atheists" should get credit for fighting the nazis was just plain silly; as if they fought Nazism because they were atheists. Problem with your little theory is that Stalin signed a peace treaty with Hitler, and didn't make war on the Nazis until they attacked him. What was that, 1940? That's 3 years AFTER the Catholic church declare itself at odds with Hitler. But you still love them atheists!

I'm very consistent; problem is, you can't seem to catch the gist of things, choosing instead to veer off on tangents to avoid getting caught on the issues.

Yes, Nazis persecuted the church; and if I said christianity was irrelevant to National socialism, I meant that it had zero to do with their origins or their motivation.

Schulz,

I have not misunderstood you, I just looked at your little matrix, and there socialism is ranked as more collectivist/less individualist than theocracy/monarchy.

Here's a hint. When you evaluate a model with two dimensions, consider both dimensions. Its not that hard. Really.

If you weren't so busy looking for strawmen, you might have noticed that I classified socialism as LESS authoritarian than monarchy/theocracy. I also stated explicitly that I put socialism closer to the authoritarian pole than the libertine pole because of economic considerations.

Go on. Go have another look. It's all still there. However, just in case you are too lazy I'll repeat the relevant passage here:

Socialism is probably the most difficult to plot on this model. I think it has a greater variability than other ideologies. When I plotted socialism, I had the European "social democracy" model in mind. Think France, not Cuba. I pushed it more towards the authoritarian pole rather than the libertine poll because of economic considerations. On moral matters however, social democracy can be quite libertine and even nihilist.

Furthermore, I classified monarchy/theocracy as equally authoritarian to fascism. My basis for this equivalence was Franco who is often accused of being a fascist when he was in fact a monarchist.

My last words on this thread:

HA,
If you weren't so busy looking for strawmen, you might have noticed that I classified socialism as LESS authoritarian than monarchy/theocracy.
I noticed that in my original post on that topic, and it is also still there: So a country like Germany or France which in your view is part of 'socialism' is more collectivist and nearly as authoritarian if you compare it to Saudi-Arabia [...]
Who got problems with reading skill?

David,
I can already see you and your buddies at some Liberal cocktail party circle jerking each other about how evil christianity is, and how it caused WWII didn't you know!!?
Now you are really becoming a bit ludicrous. So I am part of the great Liberal conspiracy to smear christianity? At this point further dicussion with you becomes futile.

David,

Well, I guess all of my heraldry reference books must be wrong... I've only studied heraldry for 4 years in any detail... two as a deputy herald for the Society of Creative Anacrhonism, then two as group herald for the Columbus chapter. The heraldic charge named fylfot, must have been something other than a swastika and the evil anti-christians changed it.

I only have 6 authortative reference books that cover heraldry from 1100 through the 20th century, and only three of them show examples of swastikas in churches and listed as a stylized cross, they must be wrong.

I obviously have no basis for my claims, its not like the swastika was known by thethe heraldic names "Cross Cramponee - A cross, Cramped from the arms in Chief Toward the Sinister angle" (Cramped is a heraldic term for a 90deg right angle, Chief and Sinister describe the position and direction on the heraldic device), "Cross Gammadion" - which in 1872 was recorded as an ecclesiastical device in the Glossary of Ecclesastical (sp?) Terms published by the Catholic church in that year, and "Cross potent rebated".

But of course, it was never considered a Chistian symbol....

I apologize for ever thinking that History was more correct than you.

Tosk

PS - You are right that the swastika was around long before Christianity, (it existed in India, Fuedal Japan, Old Baltic Eurpoe (early Christian pre-1000)), but, my dear friend, so was the traditional Cross venerated by Christians today. Funny how new religions borrow from old, no?

PPS - You can try to pick on the little details, but you apparently don't like the idea of trying to tackle the actual point (Islamo-facisism is a bastardization of Islam, just as Christo-Facisism (Nazi) was a bastardization of Christianity.)

If you're going to apply labels, then compound labels, you have to apply the labeling evenly, or better yet, try to avoid it when possible.

PPS - You can try to pick on the little details, but you apparently don't like the idea of trying to tackle the actual point (Islamo-facisism is a bastardization of Islam, just as Christo-Facisism (Nazi) was a bastardization of Christianity.)

Tosk,

fine. You're the authority on heraldry on this thread. I accept it. But I think it's you who's picking on the details. Even if everything you've said about heraldry is true (and I'll stipulate to that), you have no basis whatsoever to say that National Socialism was a "bastardization" of christianity. Far more evidence suggests it was occultic.

Here's why. You mention the pre-christian cross. We both know it was a Mithraic symbol, with perhaps even earlier origins than that I think. But to suggest that the heraldric swastika implicates christianity in Nazism is to imply that the cross implicates christianity in Mithraism. Neither of those conclusions can be supported by a substantive argument. The ideology/theology of all three are planets appart.

The same cannot be said of islam and islamo-fascism.

So it's YOU who's hung up on the details; and I'm not impressed by the details if they don't support the substance of the argument.

In the baltic area, throughout the Middle Ages, in the 19th century and the early 20th century the swastika was considered a christian symbol. (WW1 Finnish pilots had it painted in blue under their wings).

I think we can both agree that Hitler publicly claimed to be Christian and publicly claimed that his political movement was not only in line with the church, but doing the will of the Savior.

Let us compromise and call that his "rethoric of christian validity." In other words, his lies, which twisted the ideals of Christianity into something different and mixed with a healthy does of gnostic and esoteric beleifs. The occult influence was not what Hitler Publicly showed as his reich, indeed, he showed it in a pro-christian light, and based his anti-semite actions on the then-current official anti-semetic dogma of the Catholic and Lutheran Churches.

Let us also compromise and say that Hitler's ideals were NOT truly based on the Bible, but instead the Bible was used to excuse/approve his own twisted designs.

Now, if we can agree on those two points, can we also agree that the current facists, who are based in the Middle East, are using and twisting the dogma of Islam to excuse/approve their own twisted designs?

They base their hatred of the Jews and the West on longstanding Islam Dogma (like Hitler did), not on the holy writings of Islam. Would you agree with this?

Most christians in other countries spoke against Hitler, once the world realized what he was. Many Islamic groups have publicly spoken against the terrorist attack on 9/11 and the brutal actions by the terrorists in Iraq.

The 'norms' of the Catholic Church have changed quite a bit due to Hitler's reign and actions. I doubt that the Church will ever again make mistakes like they did in dealing with the Third Reich. Perhaps, in 50 years, we'll be able to say the same about Islam.

I never once meant to dispariage the Christian faith by tying it to the Nazi movement. I only supported the point that the current facist are using Islam, as Hitler used Christianity.

We can agree on these, or agree to disagree.

:)

It doesn't really matter at the end of the day anyway, because he ended up in a ditch covered in gaoline. Let's hope the same fate awaits Osama.

Tosk,

I think that's a pretty good compromise. And let me sum it up: I'll agree that Hitler may have used "christianity", if you'll agree that he was an occultist.

But I don't agree with your analogy to islamo-fascism. The islamists appeal directly to Koranic scripture, and if anything, their interpretation is more literal than mainstream islam's, to all our detriment. Not so with the Nazis. They didn't appeal to christian scripture; if anything, they ignored it.

Hitler absolutely was an occultist. Just keep in mind that there are a large number of ocultists (esp those who buy into the Victorian Era occult) that still consider themselves Christians as well, the two are not mutually exc