August 04, 2005

Enemies to the Right. Enemies to the Left.

Yesterday I showed how at least some Islamists are a bit on the chummy side with German neo-Nazis. That’s why I titled the post Islamofascists. A handful of commenters (two, I think) thought this was evidence that Islamists have an alliance with “the left.” Um, no. It isn’t. German neo-Nazis are anything but left. If you don’t believe me, ask them what they think of the left. Ask them to self-identify. They will probably answer your email if you ask nicely. I can’t imagine they are flooded with polite inquiries.

Conservatives who try to rewrite history and make fascists out to be left-wingers remind me of how Noam Chomsky tries to rewrite history and make Stalin out to be a right-winger. It’s comforting, I suppose, to think all the bad people are on one side of a (false) binary political divide and that all the good people are on the other. But it isn’t so. The extremists on your side - whichever side you happen to be on - often strikingly resemble the extremists on the other side. I guess that’s one reason why this argument never ends.

Anyway, connections between Islamists and neo-Nazis just remind us that there are enemies (not merely opponents) on the extreme right. And there are enemies (not merely opponents) on the extreme left, too. Check out what British MP George Galloway is saying on Middle Eastern television if you think I’m overstating things. It has been a long time since I’ve seen such a repulsive and filthy performance.

NOTE: The title of this post, if you didn't know, is an answer to the old saying "No Enemies to the Left." I don't know if anyone actually says "No Enemies to the Right," but some appear to argue from that premise.

UPDATE: The discussion in the comments below is almost exclusively about which bad guys belong on the left or the right. That's not really what I wanted to emphasize here in this post. What prompted me to write this in the first place was George Galloway's truly appalling behavior on Middle East television. Don't miss it. The first third is standard far-leftist nonsense...Bush and Blair are the real terrorists, that sort of thing. Then he brazenly and even poetically throws his support behind the jihad. It really must be seen to be believed.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at August 4, 2005 07:15 PM
Comments

NEO-nazis are certainly of the right by self-identification, but many of their stated economic goals are rooted in Marxism.

"From 1912 to 1914, Mussolini was the Che Guevara of his day, a living saint of leftism. Handsome, courageous, charismatic, an erudite Marxist, a riveting speaker and writer, a dedicated class warrior to the core, he was the peerless duce of the Italian Left. He looked like the head of any future Italian socialist government, elected or revolutionary." - The Mystery of Facism ( http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm )

Leftist come from this tradition, a statist one.

Those on the left of our political spectrum, which is different from leftist, are from the the Liberal, old meaning, tradition, as are those on the Right in our country; i.e. politics are very narrowly drawn here.

It is not revisionism to point out that although Franco and Hitler found common cause against communist, Franco (a church supporter) was a rightest, while hitler (who sought to supplant churches) was a creature of the left.

Michael is supremely right though, there are those, both leftist and rightest, who would seek common cause with those we fight in order to subvert our society. The only Americans to openly support the terrorist on 9/11 were neo-nazis.

Posted by: ElamBend at August 4, 2005 07:40 PM

It's simply a truism that there are enemies of liberty on the left and the right. As you say, the binary divide is false. It's really more of a circle and the question is always how much force someone is willing to use to enforce his own views on everyone else.

Posted by: John Jenkins at August 4, 2005 07:46 PM

Hitler was not a creature of the left. That is truly absurd. It doesnt matter if he sampled leftism in his search for his identity - ditto Mussolini. They found the left unsatisfying and aligned themselves with what can only be considered the right.

Leftism is not the same as statism. The anarchist movement was wholly, organically of the left, and was anti-statist to the core.

There is a reason that there are such a plethora of descriptive terms for political positions. Many movements had roots in one larger tradition or the other, some branched off and left their roots way behind, some popped up from outside the more general traditions.

Michael is right that there is a whole hell of a lot of self serving revisionism going on, in which people try to conjure up a way to stick notable bad guys on their opponents.

Posted by: IP - p.o.d. at August 4, 2005 07:51 PM

You write that
Conservatives who try to rewrite history and make fascists out to be left-wingers remind me of how Noam Chomsky tries to rewrite history and make Stalin out to be a right-winger

What is your basis for this characterization of
Chomsky's views?

Posted by: Seth Kulick at August 4, 2005 08:02 PM

I.P. needs to read a bit more about Fascism and the economics system it proposes: corporatism.

Basically, while property rights remain, all groups (corporates) such as labor, capital, etc. must work for the goals of the state.

It may not be classic socialism, but it's a lot closer to it than laissez-faire capitalism.

Maybe it could be summed up like this:

In communism, capital belongs to the collective of workers and is for their benefit.

In fascism, capital belongs to an owner, but it along with labor must work for the benefit of the state.

Posted by: Aaron at August 4, 2005 08:05 PM

Oh, and not just anarchism. Even communism, in its pre-Lenin days, was all about the "withering away of the state". Statist, totalitarian communism arose from a marriage between leftism and the traditional culture of autocratic rule in Russia. Then easily taken up by autocrats in other countries. This ended up being, no doubt, the primary manifestation of extreme leftism in the 20th century, but it is not in any way a necessary attribute of traditional leftism.

If anything, Hitler and Mussolini, who moved away from leftism before the Russian civil war was barely over, may well have found the leftism of their day incapable of being a suitable mechanism for acheiving the type of power they coveted.

Posted by: IP at August 4, 2005 08:06 PM

Well, Michael,

As you say, it is pointless to argue about the rewriting of history that made Hitler a right-winger. What, exactly do the terms left and right mean, anyway. They have nothing to do with socialism and economics, as your distinction makes clear, nor religion, nor sexual morality, nor the emancipation of women, nor democracy, nor the sanctity of life, nor even architecture. Guess all that is left is a distinction based on whether racism and nationalism (nazism), or just nationalism (fascism), is an official part of the ideology. So, I don't think the Islamists are rightist in any sense, either, as their motivations seem to be mostly religious and not covered by the previous categories. It follows that the term Islamofascist is simply an obfuscating slur and a waste of time. Likewise, in this fight, the terms left and right are pointless.

Lets dispense with all that, and simply note that they have declared themselves our enemy, and that they wish to kill us for religious reasons and on account of perceived slights. If we don't wish to yield and would rather retain our own ways, then we must fight to protect ourselves. No need for high-falutin' analysis here.

Posted by: chuck at August 4, 2005 08:11 PM

Yes Aaron, facism was statist. But the distinction you draw - ownership by the workers as opposed to an owner, is precisely one of the distinctions between the left and the right.

Leftism became statist with the rise of Russian communism. Fascism was rightwing and statist. That does not make fascism leftist. That makes both of them susceptible to being statist, which is a danger for any ideology which takes power.

Posted by: IP at August 4, 2005 08:12 PM

What, exactly do the terms left and right mean, anyway

How about the good old standard basis for the terms? Left wing refers to movements that advocate for the interests of the poor and the workers. Rightwing refers to the movements that advocate for the interests of the established wealthy. That was essentially the breakdown in the Frech revolutionary congress from which the terms derive.

Posted by: IP at August 4, 2005 08:15 PM

Conservatives who try to rewrite history and make fascists out to be left-wingers remind me of how Noam Chomsky tries to rewrite history and make Stalin out to be a right-winger.

The Right is usually associated with conservativism. So if Hitler was "Right", what was he trying to conserve? He certainly wasn't considered a conservative by his contemporaries. And why should he have been? He was basically re-writing the book as he went along. No, he wasn't a catholic as many on the Left ignorantly claim-- he was an occultist-- and his values were not conservative in the traditional sense. The Vatican-- true rightwingers-- rejected him in 1937 when they caught on to him, and that's why he basically tried to create his own state religion out of Nordic mythology and race. He was an occultist. Conservatives are not occultists.

Fascism also was not conservative because it was a relatively new phenomenon at the time. Germany had just come out of monarchism and democracy. So what is so "conservative" about fascism? Nothing. It's Leftist PR.

Eugenics was also new-- not traditional. It was considered "cutting edge". There was nothing conservative about it-- it was a relatively new science pioneered by Leftist champions like Margaret Sanger. So how is that conservative?

If Hitler was "Right", i.e., conservative, what was he trying to conserve? The answer: nothing. It's Leftist PR. Simply because he doesn't fit your idea of the Left doesn't make him a rightwinger.

Posted by: spaniard at August 4, 2005 08:19 PM

I.P.,

The dictatorship of the proletariat...let's not forget that little step on the way to the worker's utopia and the withering away of the state.

In the end of the day, does it matter who owns the factory if the orders come down from the ministry for what to produce?

Though must admit it sure was a confusing time period with all the competing sects of economic theories that never worked out quite as planned.

Not only this, with war-time it all gets confusing.

Posted by: Aaron at August 4, 2005 08:23 PM

In fascism, capital belongs to an owner, but it along with labor must work for the benefit of the state.

Ever hear of syndicalism? Fascist economic organization in Italy went through several phases, but syndicalism was one of the ideas. Here:

Syndicalism is a political and economic ideology which advocates giving control of industry and government to labor union federations.

Posted by: chuck at August 4, 2005 08:24 PM

And here I thought your post title was referencing Jimmy Buffett...

Posted by: Barry at August 4, 2005 08:26 PM

Spaniard,

Actually, the fascists and nazis could be seen harking back to feudalistic systems or pre-christian times, but that's only part of their appeal.

At the same time, Fascists were "cutting edge" in the 1920's and associated with art movements, etc. They were like Che is today - very popular with the "cool" crowd.

Posted by: Aaron at August 4, 2005 08:28 PM

IP,

How about the good old standard basis for the terms? Left wing refers to movements that advocate for the interests of the poor and the workers. Rightwing refers to the movements that advocate for the interests of the established wealthy.

Then it follows that Hitler and Mussolini were left wing. Hmmm.

Posted by: chuck at August 4, 2005 08:28 PM

Chuck,

Yep. Exactly.

Ever wonder why today's anarchists espouse "action" over words, violence, and wearing black?

because they are political descendants of Fascism.

Posted by: Aaron at August 4, 2005 08:30 PM

No, he [Hitler] wasn't a catholic as many on the Left ignorantly claim-- he was an occultist--

I like to think of him as a bohemian sort with artistic pretensions. Kind of a Greenwich Village socialist come to power.

Posted by: chuck at August 4, 2005 08:35 PM

Spaniard,

I didn't say Hitler was a conservative.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 4, 2005 08:37 PM

Michael,

I know, so then what's the difference between a Rightwinger and a conservative? My thesis is that there is little to no difference. Therefore, it's not accurate to say Hitler was Right.

Posted by: spaniard at August 4, 2005 08:42 PM

Spaniard,

Is David Duke a conservative? He says he is. If I were you I would argue with him about that.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 4, 2005 08:53 PM

Wow. This is off topic, but you just got your ass handed to you, Totten:

http://www.thepoorman.net/2005/08/05/the-global-struggle-against-straw

He can post pictures AND write...

Posted by: JuiceBox at August 4, 2005 08:58 PM

Oh boy.

First of all, thanks for posting this, Michael. The tired meme from people who have little knowledge of political history and economic philosophy that the fascists were leftists is a constant source of annoyance. The idea that Hitler would in any way follow a political philosophy (Marxism) named after and developed by a Jew is just bizarre.

Secondly, anarchists and syndicalists can only be considered to be fascists or statists by people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Both political philosophies, at their very core, advocate the removal of the state, and propose implementation of grass-roots democratic groups to run society.

Utopian? Definitely. Possible? Arguable. Fascist? Pick up a book on the subject before talking about it like you're an expert, because all you're demonstrating is a shocking ignorance on the subject.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 4, 2005 09:06 PM

How about the good old standard basis for the terms? Left wing refers to movements that advocate for the interests of the poor and the workers. Rightwing refers to the movements that advocate for the interests of the established wealthy. That was essentially the breakdown in the Frech revolutionary congress from which the terms derive.

Oh yes, and the people on the left of that Assembly did such a splendid job of "advocating for the interests of the poor and the workers," except for when they were murdering their political enemies. I wouldn't tar the American left with the brush of the French Revolution like that.

Once again, all this demonstrates is the futility of the silly binary division. The real division, if there is a binary one, is statism and individualism. In America today, all you have are statists and the question is how statist are they?

Posted by: John Jenkins at August 4, 2005 09:13 PM

Did anybody watch the Galloway clip? It's more interesting than this argument (I think).

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 4, 2005 09:21 PM

I don't understand why people on the "left" fail to apprecaite how great the United States is. I am not talking about Democrats who want to tweak a few things, this is not directed at reasonable Dem's or Rep's. I am talking about the hardcore left. Why would anyone want to turn their life over to the government? (communism!!) I suspect that it is more an urge to control others than an attempt to form some sort of "utopia".

Posted by: Mike #3or4 at August 4, 2005 09:24 PM

Michael ( and anyone interested)

Fascism is solidly on the Right, though it is radically nationalist and statist and not " conservative".

Nazism was a fusion of Left-Right extremes and in fact drew many younger recruits from the Communist Left, particularly the streetfighting SA units. Nazism also is not " conservative" in either the European or American sense of the term. Hitler considered himself a revolutionary and the German conservatives to be untrustworthy " reactionaries". ( Hitler consider Social-Democrats and Communists to be " Marxists"and traitors).

Nazism had a well documented radical left-wing that stressed the " socialist" aspect of National Socialism. It was represented by the Strasser brothers, the SA leadership under Rohm, Goebbels, Bormann and many of the " old fighters" among the Gauleiters. The radicals among the Nazis played a significant role in internal power struggles within the Reich until the final days of the war.

Pick up any recent thorough or scholarly volumne on the Third Reich or Hitler - Richard Evans Coming of the Third Reich, Ian Kershaw's 2 volume bio of Hitler, Burleigh's The Third Reich: A New History all are excellent and provide ample documentation.

Posted by: mark safranski at August 4, 2005 09:26 PM

I don't understand why people on the "left" fail to apprecaite how great the United States is... Why would anyone want to turn their life over to the government? (communism!!)

Well, two things. First, both Marx and Engels had great admiration for the US, and a great disregard for Russia. Ironic.

Secondly, as has been pointed out several times on this thread (and repeatedly ignored, apparently) is that a big proportion of the left are not statists, and most emphatically do not want to turn their lives over to the government. Which is why many leftists support organizations like Amnesty International, which does a great job tracking and publicizing authoritarian abuses of individual rights, and the various flavours of Civil Liberties Unions, which track and fight against government intrusions on individual liberties.

Strangely, organizations like this that are dedicated to preserving personal liberties are often roundly condemned by those on the right that profess themselves to be advocates of personal liberty. Weird.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 4, 2005 09:35 PM

Secondly, anarchists and syndicalists can only be considered to be fascists or statists by people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Both political philosophies, at their very core, advocate the removal of the state, and propose implementation of grass-roots democratic groups to run society.

But DPU, syndicalism was part of the fascist economic idea. As the 19'th century passed into the 20'th, there were a great variety of ideas floating about, not the dreary few that have survived. The only common feature of many of these was that they sought something other than the capitalist organization of industry. Perhaps it is best said that fascism incorporated many bits and pieces of these philosophies in an attempt to find a "third way" between the marxist and the capitalist viewpoints, avoiding the class struggle and uniting all in a national state. The whole thing was pretty much improvised on the fly by charismatic dictators and there was a great deal of variety. Peron was a variant in this hemisphere.

Posted by: chuck at August 4, 2005 09:50 PM

But DPU, syndicalism was part of the fascist economic idea.

Please demonstart how a decentralized democratic grass-roots anti-statist political philosophy manifested itself in a semi-spiritualist anti-democratic pro-authoritarian militaristic and racists political movement. Please. Aside from the word "union."

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 4, 2005 09:57 PM

"demonstart" == "demonstrate" in my comment above.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 4, 2005 09:58 PM

Oh baloney.

the Nazis, the Marxists and the Jihadists
were and all TOTALITARIAN and Oppressive

Leave the abstract, were they to the Left or were they to the Right, were the Nazis Socialists or not, alone and to the side the RESULT of all of the above in power
is TOTAL STATE CONTROL and no presence of Individual Liberty whatsoever,.

So to me no matter what label you choose to put on the Nazis, the Marixists or the Jihadists they are all the same.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at August 4, 2005 09:59 PM

what's the difference between a Rightwinger and a conservative

Completely orthogonal axes. Or almost completely.

Left - right is a distinction over primary advocacy of the interests of the poor or middle class vs. the intersts of the powers that be.

Conservative - liberal is a distinction in attitude toward tradition (often religous) vs. innovation.

Those in power often are rw, as advocates of their own interest, and tend to be conservative, since that is the system that gave them their power. The opposite combo of works as well.

But not necessarily so. Libertarianism, or, at its extreme, Randian philosophies are very liberal, and very very right wing.

Some religous movements, like Gandhi's, or the Catholic church on its better days are very conservative, but often rather leftist.

On the narrower scale of current American politics, the old "rockefeller republicans", or institutions like the NYT, tend to be liberal, but also somewhat to the right - they are corporate enterprises and support those interests. Modern labor unions (in the Meany afl-cio tradition) tend to be rather conservative, but essentially leftist.

Posted by: IP at August 4, 2005 10:09 PM

WHile the Islamists and the left are not the same, it is certainly valid to say that the Islamists and the far left share a lot of the same goals. We see that every day.

Posted by: exhelodrvr at August 4, 2005 10:11 PM

The whole left-right dichotomy is rather tired and highly inaccurate, and useful distinctions between the two can only be made contemporaneously. For example, John Kennedy was pretty much a right-winger by today's standards.

That said, I think it's fairly reasonable to assert that any type of socialism should be categorized as a creature of the left. I'm reading the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich right now, and almost everything describing the rise of Nazism points to it being a kind of socialism.

To begin with, the name is a big giveaway: "National Socialist German Workers' Party". Hitler spouted all sorts of socialist ideas, and he directed most of his speeches to the working class. His "alliance" with corporate interests lasted about as long as he needed them to get into power. His kind of socialism was more regulatory than command and control, and certainly the Nazi Party was far more interested in political control than in economic theory. That desire for total control was demonstrated when they purged the country of all competing parties. A lot of people insist that the zapping of the Social Democrats and the unions shows a right-wing bias, but that's only true if you ignore similar betrayals of the business interests. Nor does Hitler and Mussolini's antipathy to communists make them right-wingers--the communists were viewed as tools of alien interests (the Russians) by both, and Hitler also saw communism as somehow Jewish. In any case, whether the Nazis were good socialists or not is a moot point; their revolution was surely born from solid socialist roots.

I think the assumption that the Nazis must be labeled as the "far right" comes from a misperception that racism and nationalism are somehow right-wing tendencies. I don't think either is characteristic of the left or of the right--certainly in the U.S. example, the Democrats can't claim to lack either trait, given their history, any more than the Republicans can.

In any event, this whole debate shows how useless left-right distinctions really are. The real dividing line is between those who think that individuals should have control over their lives and those that think that they shouldn't. From where I'm sitting, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, et al. are all of a kind. I think we libertarians and moderates should remember that the greatest strength of a free society (and the basis for the founding of the U.S.) is a healthy distrust of the government. Or of anyone who attempts to control our lives. If someone's got his boot on my face, I don't really care if his shirt is red or blue.

Posted by: Pro Libertate at August 4, 2005 10:13 PM

Is David Duke a conservative?

If he had lived pre-1865, then yes. Today, no.

Posted by: spaniard at August 4, 2005 10:14 PM

...fuck you for being a moorish bastard...

First, it doesn't matter what Marx or Engels thought of the U.S. because they suck. Any country who follows that toxic model is doomed to state slavery. The nature of government is to take more.

Second: Amnesty Int'l documents abuse, good for them. Is it four or five million dead in the Congo at this point? Did you document it? Way to go, you really made a difference. The United States Marine Corp has done more for humanity than Amnesty Int'l could in the next 500 years.

Posted by: Mike #3or4 at August 4, 2005 10:23 PM

DPU,
Please demonstart how a decentralized democratic grass-roots anti-statist political philosophy manifested itself in a semi-spiritualist anti-democratic pro-authoritarian militaristic and racists political movement.

Bizarre, huh. How did Marxism manifest itself as a brutal totalitariam regime in a backward country like Russia? Ideas combine and mutate. Look, the times were far more interesting and the variety of thought far greater than you seem to think. The various movements were always splitting and evolving, and people changed their positions while dragging along their previous notions. Sorel and Bergson both seem to have had an impact on the mythic and violent aspects of fascism. In the end, what happens is even more interesting than all the theories that you seem to think define what movements are.

Did anybody watch the Galloway clip? It's more interesting than this argument (I think).

Yep. Kind of strange, and frightening, to run into this sort of demagogue again, shades of the 1930's. The rhetoric tends to the fascist side, what with the talk of grievance and the US and Britain portrayed as attacking the Arabs just because they are Arab. Strange that Galloway came up through the Labor Party, no? Or maybe not. There is a reason such folks start on the left. I think the Brits should toss the sucker in jail. They did as much to Mosley during WWII.

Posted by: chuck at August 4, 2005 10:24 PM

Chuck, I think he would look better on the end of a rope.

Posted by: Mike#3or4 at August 4, 2005 10:35 PM

Totten asked, "Did anybody watch the Galloway clip?"

I did (thanks for posting that link). Reading the transcripts didn't prepare me for this guy: he's not speaking; he's pounding the pulpit. Former MP Eric Moonman (that's his name, really) said Galloway's remarks "bordered on the unstable," but he's being too kind. I think the man's got delusions of despot-hood. I've written a bit more about this here.

Posted by: Rose Nunez at August 4, 2005 10:48 PM

Bizarre, huh. How did Marxism manifest itself as a brutal totalitariam regime in a backward country like Russia? Ideas combine and mutate
*************************************************
Not to my mind, more of Cultures do not change because someone wants them to, change has to arise out of the masses, it cannot be imposed upon them, in the end the people of a society define their society.

Before the Revolution Russialived under a Totalitarian Dictator= Tzar
The Country was run by an oligarchy of about 4 to 5% of the population= Nobility
The rest were Serfs= Slaves

AFTER Revolution Russialived under a Totalitarian Dictator= Party Chairman
The Country was run by an oligarchy of about 4 to 5% of the population= Party Apparatchiki
The rest were Proletariat= Slaves.

Someone point out to me what changed? I mean the STRUCTURE of the Society before and after the Revolution was pretty much the same no matter WHAT the Bolseviks SAID, it is more important to pay attention to what they DID.

Actually most of the people were probably more Free and had more Liberty under the Tzar,

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at August 4, 2005 11:27 PM

Not to my mind, more of Cultures do not change because someone wants them to, change has to arise out of the masses, it cannot be imposed upon them, in the end the people of a society define their society.

I am coming to think it has more to do with a love of violence that had its start with the French Revolution. I think it can be argued that both the nationalist and internationalist strains of socialism had their roots in that event. And violence leads naturally to dictatorship, to the rule of the strong.

Russia might have been very different if the October coup had failed and the government of Kerenski had survived. But who knows.

Posted by: chuck at August 4, 2005 11:37 PM

I'm sure there are a few fringe neo-nazi and racist groups who have common causes with the islamofascists, but there are even more of these types from the mainstream left.

It doesn't help that lefty media outlets like the guardian or bbc or reuters are anti-war and are undermining our war efforts with their bias.

Posted by: john marzan at August 5, 2005 12:59 AM

Michael, the confusion is because you refuse to identify what makes Left different from Right.

eg. Right opposes gay marriage, abortion. Left opposes private ownership of telecoms, or free trade. (Positions that don't necessarily contradict.)

Because I'm confused about what you think are the definitional positions.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 5, 2005 01:12 AM

Tom,

There is no one thing that makes "the left" different from "the right." Those labels are way too reductionist. There are different kinds of leftists. There are different kinds of rightists. Different cultures produce different variations.

Below are the extremes.

Leftists: Marxists, Anarchists, Greens

Rightists: Fascists, Monarchists, Theocrats

I'm not talking about Democrats and Republicans here. No mainstream liberal or conservative has any reason to get defensive about this.

The left/right axis is clearly bogus by itself. For example, if you were to make a libertarian/authoritarian axis, Marxists and Anarchists end up on opposite poles. And yet, both Marxists and Anarchists are "left."

There are many left-wing political traditions. And there are many right-wing political traditions. Fortunately for all of us, mainstream American liberals and conservatives have distinctly American pedigrees that are different from those above. Liberals aren't Marxists. And conservatives aren't fascists. Marxism and Fascism are European imports, rejected by the overwhelming majority of us.

I am surprised you think of neo-Nazis as leftists. (Judging from your comments on the other thread.) They certainly don't think of themselves as leftists. All of Europe's reformed Fascist and Fascist-lite parties are right-wing, to the right of the conservatives, regardless of the country you find them in. See the BNP in Britain, National Front in France, Haider's party in Austria, etc.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 5, 2005 02:11 AM

Jeez, how many posters to this site are political science professors?

Regarding Galloway, most probably he is a political whore. I imagine his pockets are well lined for making appearances like that one. Beyond that, his rhetoric (the rape of the beautiful Arab daughters of Jerusalem and Baghdad) transgresses any possible norm of political discourse. He seems to have a religious love for the Arabs, similar to the way Pat Robertson feels about Israel. In both cases, they are inappropriate and harmful.

Posted by: MarkC at August 5, 2005 02:35 AM

Michael:

"There are different kinds of leftists. There are different kinds of rightists. Different cultures produce different variations."

But you wouldn't know it by surfing the bloggosphere; it seems political blogs either scream "Bush lied!", or "Liberals are anti-America!". It's refreshing to find this blog.

As for the British MP; his comments were vile, treasonous, and disgusting, and I sincerely hope the price he pays for them are high enough to help him see the "light".

Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at August 5, 2005 03:07 AM

Thanks, MJT, for the link to Galloway.

I'm absolutely gobsmacked. I actually found myself hoping for the delicious irony of Galloway becoming the victim of a terrorist attack. Maybe while travelling around Baghdad glad-handing the 'insurgents'.

Only I'll bet it wouldn't be an attack carried out by a ragged, sandal-wearing, kalishnakov-toting Iraqi.

What a moron.

Posted by: Fish at August 5, 2005 03:54 AM

I watched the clip. Can't the British government try Galloway for incitement? Given how illiberal their mood seems to be just now, Galloway would be well advised to stay low.

As to you basic theme here, I am reminded of this exchange: "I've got millionsk of 'nemies, an' you may be 5 or 6 of 'em".

But seriously, can the center (which may shift definition over time and conflicts) define itself without the endless cataloging of fringe thought?

During the cold war, did we make the mistake of not taking a centrist position, thus embracing thugs on the right to counter thugs on the left?

Maybe the geometry could be a mountain, with the center representing upward (progress) and left/right/north/south representing unbalanced extremes (falling down)?

Once Hitler and contemporaries took power, did they stay true to the social/economic theories they espoused? Or did they merely serve power and their baser instincts? Thinking about this, I don't want either left or right to gain too much.

Finally, what makes America special? Why is our left/right so muted (if in fact it is)?

Posted by: jdwill at August 5, 2005 03:57 AM

Using the logic of the "Hitler was a leftie" crowd, South Africa's apartheid National Party regime was socialist to the core. Its strategy for obtaining power in 1948 was close to Hitler's in Germany. It appealed to working class white Afrikaners, outsiders in the white English-dominated economy and political establishment.

It created vast state corporations and a huge bureaucracy to accommodate these voters with jobs.

Of course, no working class or other black person was admitted to this circle. And the English-speakers became outsiders and "liberals" almost overnight.

All this shows national socialism is not Marxist.

Posted by: Dave F at August 5, 2005 04:35 AM

left,

right,

no

mean
i
n
g

- ee cummings (actually charons_oar)

Posted by: ee cummings at August 5, 2005 04:35 AM

Jeez, how many posters to this site are political science professors?

A better question might be "How many posters to this site have any poli-sci education whatsoever?" Not many, from the evidence.

The basic point that historically defines the difference between left and right is the issue of the individual, in that right-wingers believe that society works best when the individual follow their self-interest. Left wingers believe that society works best when collective groups of individuals look out for one another and provide mutual aid.

And that's it, people. The issue of how much state involvement should be present has very little to do with the left/right poles. That's a very different issue. Socialists can be anything from the most diehard Marxists-Leninist advocating complete state control over every aspect of life, to the most extreme forms of anarchism that reject any government whasoever as an unjust intrusion. As Michael said, both are on the left, along with a large number of socialists who also embrace the better aspects of capitalism and liberal democracy.

To simply think "Leftists = bad, Nazis = bad, therefore Nazis = Leftist" is just idiotic, and a strained attempt to rewrite history at worst.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 5, 2005 06:58 AM

DPU,

And that's it, people. The issue of how much state involvement should be present has very little to do with the left/right poles.

So what does distinquish the poles? I would like to see a definition of the left that excludes the fascists.

Posted by: chuck at August 5, 2005 07:21 AM

Michael,

Viz Neo-Nazis

They certainly don't think of themselves as leftists.

And yet Mussolini and Hitler considered themselves socialists. Does that mean socialists are not left, or does the method of self-identification lack a certain political precision?

Posted by: chuck at August 5, 2005 07:40 AM

Who is the audience here for Galloway's tirade? They seem to be in agreement with him, applauding any claim he makes.

I think Galloway believes much of what he says, and then makes other stuff up that he knows is false because it will further his cause.

Wide Boy.

Posted by: Peter G at August 5, 2005 07:55 AM

A quote:

I once overheard two botanists arguing over a Damned Thing that had blasphemously sprouted in a college yard. One claimed that the Damned Thing was a tree and the other claimed that it was a shrub. They each had good scholary arguments, and they were still debating when I left them. The world is forever spawning Damned Things- things that are neither tree nor shrub, fish nor fowl, black nor white- and the categorical thinker can only regard the spiky and buzzing world of sensory fact as a profound insult to his card-index system of classifications. Worst of all are the facts which violate "common sense", that dreary bog of sullen prejudice and muddy inertia. The whole history of science is the odyssey of a pixilated card- indexer perpetually sailing between such Damned Things and desperately juggling his classifications to fit them in, just as the history of politics is the futile epic of a long series of attempts to line up the Damned Things and cajole them to march in regiment. - Never Whistle Whle You're Pissing, Hagbard Celine

Aristotle, that great thinker (and damned fool) has cast on our society, what I percieve as a great wrong. He appears to have decided that reality appears as an IS/IS NOT proposition. From his sort of logic, we humans seem to make all sorts of generaliizations that don't work.

----------------

As an aside, a number of posters here appear to have great thoughts and ideas about current events, and while I may disagree, I tend to respect the opinion.

However, I do have to agree with some of the posters above... the lack of Pol-Sci knowledge among many posters appears very obvious.

"Better to be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Come on guys, its embarassing to watch.

PS - I think Galloway should be forced to return to Bethnal Green and Bow and allow them to provide a vote of confidence. If they are outraged, they should be able to dump him, if they share his err, views ick then in a democracy, one would have to respect that. I think.

Ratatosk

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 5, 2005 08:05 AM

George Galloway gobsmacked by Muslim goons - fled London mob with police escort while leaving daughter on sidewalk:

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/624

Posted by: spaniard at August 5, 2005 08:22 AM

MJT,

The problem is not that these people are necessarily trying to rewrite history. It is that the notion that all political viewpoints can be expressed as a function of a one-dimensional continuum. As you pointed out, the binary political divide is ridiculous. Here is the rub: If only one characteristic is going to define political attitudes, then which characteristic one chooses will control the outcome. For example, most people on the US political right see the continuum as between those that favor more government control (left) and those that favor less government control (right). If that is the test, then fascism is a left wing enterprise. On the other hand if you think, like IP, your test is those who favor the interests of the poor and downtrodden (left) over those who favor the interests of the wealthy (right), then you will see fascism as a right wing enterprise. Another group thinks that the spectrum is between the egalitarian and the libertarians. This has a lot to recommend it, but then again, it probably puts fascism in the center. After all, fascism is a melding of socialistic statism and capitalistic nationalism.

Each will argue for their interpretation in large part because it best expresses their political goal and defines who they believe to be their opponents. If this is correct, then it is no wonder that the left wants to place Stalin on the right and the right wants to place Hitler on the left. This is a good thing! It means that nearly everyone identifies such people as their opponents.

Posted by: JBP at August 5, 2005 08:26 AM

IP

How about the good old standard basis for the terms? Left wing refers to movements that advocate for the interests of the poor and the workers. Rightwing refers to the movements that advocate for the interests of the established wealthy. That was essentially the breakdown in the French revolutionary congress from which the terms derive.

Actually, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the ancien régime. "The Right" supported aristocratic or royal interests, and the church, while "The Left" implied opposition to it. In modern America and Europe this is ridiculous. Did Hitler support the Kaisers? How about the church? (Hitler once said that a Christian cannot be a true German.) Do you realize that at that time, support for laissez-faire capitalism and free markets were considered leftist?

The fact is that nearly all modern applications of left and right are analogies to that system and subsequent systems. I don't think the right believes that it is favoring the wealthy. I think it believes that liberty helps all people. JFK once said that a rising tide lifts all boats. You may think that is wrong, but many people, including a democratic president, believe it. Therefore, these people do not think they are favoring the wealthy.

Posted by: JBP at August 5, 2005 08:27 AM

"Better to be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt."---Tosk

You crack me up. Remember the time you confessed that you had had more than enough of the same-o,same-o, and were heading off to other pastures? My guess is that there really aren't any, but it's certainly an excellent thought.

You were right then. MJT posts a topical little essay on that ( searching for words that might not be profane and not finding any)Galloway and the first umpteen comments are a not overly profound rehash of fascism and its non-alignment with leftist thought.

You say to-mah-to, I say to-may-to, let's call the whole thing off. :-)

Posted by: dougf at August 5, 2005 08:29 AM

However, I do have to agree with some of the posters above... the lack of Pol-Sci knowledge among many posters appears very obvious.

Tosk,

I'll admit I'm more historian than political scientist, but it seems to me that to appear knowledgeable in that field we'd have to repeat the party line we learned in college, and most of us are trying to think for ourselves for a change. A pretty good example is this commonly accepted Hitler=Right truism, which I refuse to accept on face value until someone makes a good argument.

Posted by: spaniard at August 5, 2005 08:30 AM

Rat,
I hope you aren't equating someone being a PoliSci professor (one poster had a question re that) with knowledge about real-life political science.

Posted by: exhelodrvr at August 5, 2005 08:32 AM

JBP,

On the other hand if you think, like IP, your test is those who favor the interests of the poor and downtrodden (left) over those who favor the interests of the wealthy (right), then you will see fascism as a right wing enterprise.

So, let's have some facts here. On what basis do you claim that the fascists favored the wealthy over the poor?

Each will argue for their interpretation in large part because it best expresses their political goal and defines who they believe to be their opponents.

So really, it's all pointless. There are no facts, only convenience and a personal narrative. Guess we can all go home.

Posted by: chuck at August 5, 2005 08:34 AM

"And yet Mussolini and Hitler considered themselves socialists. Does that mean socialists are not left, or does the method of self-identification lack a certain political precision?"

Yes, and there are plenty of political parties in the world incorporating derivations of words like "liberty", "freedom", etc., in their parties' names, which nevertheless (gasp!!) hardly defend such values when in power. How hard is it to understand that naming your party/movement is simply that: a name. Was Hitler a "socialist"? No.

Posted by: Adam at August 5, 2005 08:34 AM

RE Galloway

By the way, if Galloway is not committing treason, then the word has no meaning. If that is not adhering to the enemies of the UK then what is?

Posted by: JBP at August 5, 2005 08:38 AM

(This comment was posted at Don Surber's blog a few days ago. I hope it addresses Michael's post directly.)

What will it take for us to realize that the battle is not between the right and the left but between the center and the fringes?

The extreme left sees everything in shades of gray and rationalizes away any responsibility for any action. Even the most horrible behavior must be understood in some esoteric context, thus the massacre of a school full of children has its basis in some justifiable grievance. Their academic arrogance would have us all debate the nuance of every issue until we are slaughtered by forces that care nothing of logic and compassion.

The extreme right sees everything in black and white and answers any question with dogma. Evil is clearly defined as any belief with which they do not agree, therefore books must be banned, and heretics must be converted or destroyed. Their spiritual certainty would have us all prostrate ourselves to their undeniable knowledge of what is good and what is evil.

The one thing the far left and the far right have in common is that they want to impose their beliefs on the rest of us through any means necessary.

Well, I've had enough of this crap. Practice your religion as you see fit, but if you try to impose one iota of it on my nation, I will respond with the Lord's vengeance. Sit in your ivory tower pondering the path to utopia if you will, but should your intellectual gymnastics put my nation at risk, I will run you over in its defense.

If you're in the center of the political spectrum you must decide where the line has been drawn. Is it between the right and the left, or between the moderate and the extreme? I've made my decision.

Posted by: G. Hamid at August 5, 2005 08:45 AM

How hard is it to understand that naming your party/movement is simply that: a name. Was Hitler a "socialist"? No.

Names do mean something. When Hitler chose the word "socialism" he did it for a reason-- it wasn't random. If he himself wasn't a socialist, he may certainly have been trying to appeal to that crowd. Many people in Weimar Germany did see socialism as a solution to their woes as socialism had not yet been discredited.

Posted by: spaniard at August 5, 2005 08:47 AM

Von Hayek = Georges Sorel?

Edmund Burke = Oswald Spengle?

Von Mises = Giovanni Gentile?

William F. Buckey = Utopian?

Free Market = Central Planning?

Free Enterprise = Syndicalism?

Gun Freedoms = Gun Control?

Limited Government = Totalitarianism?

Constitutional Republic = Dictatorship?

Get a clue Totten!!!!

Posted by: Totten = PC Goon at August 5, 2005 08:50 AM

Von Hayek = Georges Sorel?

Edmund Burke = Oswald Spengle?

Von Mises = Giovanni Gentile?

William F. Buckey = Utopian?

Free Market = Central Planning?

Free Enterprise = Syndicalism?

Gun Freedoms = Gun Control?

Limited Government = Totalitarianism?

Constitutional Republic = Dictatorship?

Get a clue Totten!!!!

Posted by: Totten = PC Goon at August 5, 2005 08:50 AM

Von Hayek = Georges Sorel?

Edmund Burke = Oswald Spengler?

Von Mises = Giovanni Gentile?

William F. Buckey = Utopian?

Free Market = Central Planning?

Free Enterprise = Syndicalism?

Gun Freedoms = Gun Control?

Limited Government = Totalitarianism?

Constitutional Republic = Dictatorship?

Get a clue Totten!!!!

Posted by: Totten = PC Goon at August 5, 2005 08:50 AM

Von Hayek = Georges Sorel?

Edmund Burke = Oswald Spengler?

Von Mises = Giovanni Gentile?

William F. Buckey = Utopian?

Free Market = Central Planning?

Free Enterprise = Syndicalism?

Gun Freedoms = Gun Control?

Limited Government = Totalitarianism?

Constitutional Republic = Dictatorship?

Get a clue Totten!!!!

Posted by: Totten = PC Goon at August 5, 2005 08:52 AM

“Was Hitler a "socialist"? No.”

Please take the time to study history. You are truly embarrassing yourself. Adolph Hitler was a staunch socialist. He was not even slightly discreet about his economic views. The very term Nazi is an abbreviation of national socialism! The very essence of Nazi economic theory is premised upon protectionism and the providing of state jobs to the citizenry. There is no such thing as distinguishing between the state and the private sector.

Posted by: David Thomson at August 5, 2005 08:52 AM

I am surprised you think of neo-Nazis as leftists. (Judging from your comments on the other thread.)

I certainly DO NOT -- but as I said, the Left is the Islamofascist ally:
“The Left is just more honest about third-kind friends: anybody, and everybody, who is full of Bush-hate (for whatever reason), is an ally.”

You replied: Islamists aren't left. No, but the Left IS supporting the Islamists (are?).

Michael, you keep trying to claim I’m saying the Islamofascists are moving left, or claiming the left; but I’m not.
I’m saying the LEFT is moving towards fascism, and allying itself with Islamofascists.

Isn’t that what Leftist Galloway is doing? The fascists aren’t moving, aren’t changing, aren’t even that interested in an alliance with Left – but the Left is power-hungry enough to follow the fascists. Haven’t you complained yourself of “PC-Nazis”?

In the 1979 Iranian revolution, the anti-Shah fundamentalists were “allied” with the anti-Shah communists. Was it not a Leftist revolution? But the mullahs soon murdered many of the communists – common with the Stalinists murdering the Trotskyites.

Oops, prolly my mistake here: “if the Left… is supporting the Islamists, doesn't that mean the Islamists ARE Left, or allies?” What I meant was that it seems that Leftism has almost no positional point, so the groups it allies with and who accept it become the “Left”. (What makes the Greens Left?) And you still have given no statement of any Leftist position which disqualifies the Islamofascists. Certainly “group rights” over individual rights is something the Islamists advocate.

Today, in America, “Leftism” might mean: anti-American “sole superpower” status. It seems almost all the Leftists, like Galloway and Stanford ex-Pres David Kennedy are mightily concerned with this issue/ problem. Islamofascists, too.

You replied: “Islamists are radical far-right. There is nothing even remotely liberal or leftist about them.”

Why? If we were talking about why bats are mammals, and birds are not, we could say hair or feathers. When you think leftist or liberal, please let us know: what do you mean?

me:”They kill people who disagree. Quite a bit like Pol Pot's Leftist communists.”

MJT: “Killing people who don't agree with you doesn't make you a leftist all by itself…the far-left and the far-right have key things in common”

Correct! But what is their key difference? You don’t say.

You did say your point:”Islamists are pulling crap off German Neo-Nazi Web sites,”

And more and more Leftists, and even Bush-hate Dems, seem to be agreeing with them and their anti-democracy terrorism.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 5, 2005 09:00 AM

"Names do mean something."

Precisely my point. Hitler no doubt incorporated the word "socialism" to appeal to anyone disenchanted with Germany's economy--which, as you tacitly acknowledge, in no way magically made his policies "socialist". Indeed, names do mean something, even (and often) when they are used to deceive.

Posted by: Andrew at August 5, 2005 09:05 AM

“I am surprised you think of neo-Nazis as leftists. (Judging from your comments on the other thread.) They certainly don't think of themselves as leftists.”

Oh my God, I can’t believe Michael Totten’s knowledge of economics is truly this abysmally lacking. I could care less whether today’s Nazis consider themselves to be leftists. It doesn’t make a bit of difference. The bottom line is this: they are outright socialists! Please take a look at the 25 Points of this particular American Nazi group:

“ 10 The abolition of incomes unearned by work The breaking of interest slavery.

11 In view of the enormous personal sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.

12 We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts)”

http://www.nsm88.com/25points/25pointsengl.html

Posted by: David Thomson at August 5, 2005 09:10 AM

Adam,

How hard is it to understand that naming your party/movement is simply that: a name.

So if names and self-identification are bogus, how do you propose we distinguish such groups as the nazis, communists, and fascists? Beyond that, how are we to distinquish the left from the right?

Posted by: chuck at August 5, 2005 09:12 AM

Remember the time you confessed that you had had more than enough of the same-o,same-o, and were heading off to other pastures?

dougf, actually I do inhabit the other pastures... However, after I left MJT sent me an email and I told him that I'd check back in a few weeks... I did and comments have resumed their somewhat sane manner, so I post here as well...

(The evolutionsist in one of the other pastures though, would probably love to line up with a few of the Creationists here, just to shoot me though ;-) )

-----------------------
Spaniard,

I always encourage thinmking for oneself... but I find it often important to do research on a subject before thinking for oneself about it (less we fall into Plato's folly).

A pretty good example is this commonly accepted Hitler=Right truism, which I refuse to accept on face value until someone makes a good argument.

You see, thats the problem. No one can make a really good argument for Hitler being on the Left or the Right, because Hitler was neither. He had a lot of Left-Wing Rhetoric, yet his actions did not line up with his rhetoric.

Nazis opposed both individualism and laissez faire capitalism, they also opposed communism and social democracy.

If he himself wasn't a socialist, he may certainly have been trying to appeal to that crowd.

BINGO!!!! Welcome to Sophomore PolSci.

Hitler used socialist rhetoric (because when you're in the middle of a depression, just had the shit kicked out of you in a World War and have no idea where your next meal is coming from... having the government take care of you sounds like a great idea.

Hitler was much less Left or Right than he was Oppurtunistic. Hitler dabbled with the Occult, because he was seeking power. He buddied up with Catholics, because he was seeking power, he preached socialism because he was seeking power, he killed communists, democrats and minorities, because he was seeking power. He took over the corporations, because he was seeking power.

Many people in PolSci, look at Hitler's Nazi Party , Mussolini's version of Fascisim and the whacked out Imperial Japaneese political system as distinct phenomenon. They can be classified as Left or Right in very strict definations, however, depending on which way we restrict the defination, they tend to swap sides.

Saying that Hitler was left or right is sort of like trying to figure out if Jeffery Dahmer was a murderer or a cannibal.

The answer is... he was an insane psychopath.

I think you'lll find that any political system which commits terrible atrocities rarely conforms to a 'normal' defination of left or right. Terrible atrocities tend to be comitted by people who have serious mental problems and often conflicting action/rethoric. I do however, think there are exceptions (Cuba, for example).

Ratatosk

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 5, 2005 09:14 AM

Galloway of the newly formed Respect Party (not Reform). (Long ago prior mistake.)

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 5, 2005 09:14 AM

Andrew,

Hitler no doubt incorporated the word "socialism" to appeal to anyone disenchanted with Germany's economy-

Why speculate when you can actually study up and maybe learn some history? Your "no doubt" is a rather lazy approach to the topic.

Posted by: chuck at August 5, 2005 09:16 AM

Tosk,

I think you'lll find that any political system which commits terrible atrocities rarely conforms to a 'normal' defination of left or right.

In recent history, you will find that terrible atrocities were mostly committed by the left because:

1) They had contempt for conventional morality.
2) They glorified revolution and violence.
3) Atrocities were justified by the necessary ends.

Your other implication, that politicians are opportunistic scoundrels with no core beliefs, seems to me to paper over a great deal. Have you read Mein Kampf? If so, do you regard it as a purely cynical book? Did Lenin believe in Marxism, or was it merely a ploy on his part? How about Stalin? What political purpose did the elimination of the Kulaks serve?

The notion that people do bad things because they have no core values strikes me as the precise opposite of what happens. Terrible atrocities are committed by the idealistic, not the self serving. The latter merely indulge in corruption, a far less harmful thing.

Posted by: chuck at August 5, 2005 09:34 AM

"So if names and self-identification are bogus, how do you propose we distinguish such groups as the nazis, communists, and fascists?"

Chuck, points off for sloppy reading comprehension. Let me make this crystal clear for you, to prevent further misrepresentations of my words: what I said was that names are simply names, and can either accurately or inaccurately represent what they name. Even more simply: names are names--they can be bogus or not. An example, if you need further help understanding my point: I can call myself a Christian, and yet in practice be a Satanist. Honestly, if that's not simple enough for you, then you're on your own. But I'd appreciate not being mis-represented.

Posted by: Adam at August 5, 2005 09:35 AM

David Thomson: Oh my God, I can’t believe Michael Totten’s knowledge of economics is truly this abysmally lacking.

Get stuffed. When I object to Neo-Nazis the last thing I'm thinking about is economics. Nothing I wrote in the last couple of posts is even remotely about economics at all.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 5, 2005 09:37 AM

Adam,

Even more simply: names are names--they can be bogus or not.

And my guestion was how are you going to distinquish the bogus from the not bogus? I suppose that maybe you can do this, but then again, maybe you can't. Am I wrong?

Posted by: chuck at August 5, 2005 09:39 AM

This (captured) thread is certainly interesting. We have people who strongly believe that the Nazis can be classified as leftists, those that see them as being on the right, and those who think the left-right distinction is meaningless. As much as I think that history points to a socialistic birth for fascism and Nazism, I don't think it really matters much. There is no doubt at all that the Italian Fascist party and the German Nazi party were made up of people who we'd label today as being on both sides of the political spectrum.

I agree that people generally talk about the Nazis as being on the "right", but I imagine that that classification has a whole lot more to do with the fact that Europe and the U.S. were dominated by the then-left and wanted to be sure to distance themselves from fascism as much as possible. Not to mention, it's a good way to attack the right (look at what happens when people like those right-wingers go bad). Let's just agree that fascism borrowed bad features from both sides of the aisle and was really sui generis in the world of politics.

Frankly, if some bozo gets up and starts spouting hate-filled rhetoric, he's a "fascist" in my book. Plenty of those on both sides of the aisle. Too many, if you ask me.

Posted by: Pro Libertate at August 5, 2005 09:43 AM

“Why speculate when you can actually study up and maybe learn some history?”

Agreed. There is simply no excuse for the ignorance displayed by many of the above commenters---including our host, Michael Totten. The Nazi movement revolved around socialist economic principles. This is not some sort of great mystery. The evidence is overwhelming and not even slightly debatable. One can only hope that these individuals take the time to study history. Is that too much to expect?

Posted by: David Thomson at August 5, 2005 09:44 AM

Hitler was basically a nationalist and a racist. The left likes to label those two characteristics as "right wing", but it's a bunch of bs. Hitler might also be considered "right" because he didn't want Slavic Stalin adding a depressed Germany to it's sphere of influence. I'm sure in the utopian world of the German's who got caught up in Hitler, Germany would be full of clean public parks, gun control, health care for all (Germans), women (German women) as equals, euthanasia (These aren't necessarily policies of the current GOP). . You basically take a bit of folklore, and throw that in with a desire to go back to some world where your neighbors all shared the same culture, and genetics, throw that in with a few socialist policies and you have Nazism. I don't know how this fits in with the we define the "right" or "left" in 21st century America. You'd go crazy if you spent too much time trying to fit everything in the right/center/left. I'm sure all the "left wingers" up in Vermont wouldn't be so anxious to have a big migration of inner city people move up there. I'm not sure that every minority that votes for Democrats is necessarily going out and rallying for gay marriage and abortion. I know people in the NRA that congenitally vote Republican that would like to see more wealth redistribution, environmental regulations, etc. Generally, in the US, if you pulled the lever for Bush you're considered right by people who pulled the lever for Kerry, and vice versa. Other than that, why we try to label everything as right/left/center, makes no sense to me.

Posted by: Tom in CT at August 5, 2005 09:45 AM

Perhaps the Wikipedia article on fascism will help:

Fascism was typified by attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life. Many scholars consider fascism to be part of, or in coalition with, extreme right politics. The definitional debates and arguments by academics over the nature of fascism, however, fill entire bookshelves. There are clearly elements of both left and right ideology in the development of Fascism.

Another key distinguishing feature of fascism is that it uses a mass movement to attack or absorb the organizations of the working class: parties of the left and trade unions. Peter Fritzsche and others have described fascism as a militant form of right-wing populism. This mobilization strategy involves Corporatism, Corporativism, or the Corporative State [1], all terms that refer to state action to partner with key business leaders, often in ways chosen to minimize the power of labor unions. Mussolini, for example, capitalized on fear of a Communist revolution [2], finding ways to unite Labor and Capital, to Labor's ultimate detriment. In 1926 he created the National Council of Corporations, divided into guilds of employers and employees, tasked with managing 22 sectors of the economy. The guilds subsumed both labor unions and management, but were heavily weighted in favor of the corporations and their owners. The moneyed classes in return helped him change the country's laws to raise his stature from a coalition leader to a supreme commander. The movement was supported by small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats, and the middle classes, who had all felt threatened by the rise in power of the Socialists...

Fascism, in many respects, is an ideology of negativism: anti-liberal, anti-socialist, anti-Communist, anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian, etc., and in some of its forms anti-religion. As a political and economic system in Italy, it combined elements of corporatism, totalitarianism, nationalism, and anti-communism.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 5, 2005 09:50 AM

But Michael, if When I object to Neo-Nazis the last thing I'm thinking about is economics.
it's not the economy (stu...), what IS it?

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 5, 2005 09:51 AM

"And my guestion was how are you going to distinquish the bogus from the not bogus?"

No, your question--the one I responded to in my first post--was this:

"And yet Mussolini and Hitler considered themselves socialists. Does that mean socialists are not left, or does the method of self-identification lack a certain political precision?"

My response--echoed by Tosk, among others--was that neither of your conditions in the second sentence is correct. Mussolini's and Hitler's self-identification as socialists was only that--a name, and one assumed with the intent to manipulate.

Posted by: Adam at August 5, 2005 09:54 AM

“Nothing I wrote in the last couple of posts is even remotely about economics at all.”

This is utterly senseless. It is similar to playing baseball without a baseball. There is way to sharply distinguish between the economic policies of a particular regime and its overall policies.

Nazism is purely socialist. The state is to dominate all aspects of human life. Capitalism is perceived as Jewish plot against the common good.

Posted by: David Thomson at August 5, 2005 09:55 AM

Chuck,

I've read Mein Kampf, and yes it does espouse a left-leaning political ideology. However, in action Hitler did not support the traditional Left values, (any mroe than he did the right).

The analogy doesn't work, it's never worked well and in some historical cases (Hitler, Mussolini and some others) it fails to work well at all. In the context of who the Left and Right are today, in the United States... I doubt we could find a useful answer. Republicans aren't espousing smaller government, they aren't espousing responsible fiscal policies, they aren't acting in a conservative manner in the WoT and socially, they are more authoritarian than mosbunall on the Left.

A political party on the traditional American Right (yet again different from the European or even Isreali Right), would not seek federal intervention in the removal of a patients life support. They would not support a federal ban on recreational drugs, instead leaving that to the State. They would not push for a Federal admendment to define marriage. They would not have a deficit the size we currently have without some useful plan in place to fix it.

I don't know why Mr. Bush has wavered from his Conservative values, but I fear it may have something to do with appeasing some constituants on the fringe of the Republican party.

Traditional pigeon holes don't wrok, they've never worked well, and they are even less useful now.

Remember, polsci is like any science, we develop a model and then use the model to make perdictions about observations. The Left Right Model, can provide us with some useful data that corresponds with some observartions. However, mosbunall PolSci folks have recoginized the restrictive nature of the model, and its inability to closely model reality (whatever that is ;-)).

That's why we see new models, such as the quadrents which try to split Liberal/Conservative and Authoritarian/Libretarian... it doesn't seem to work perfectly, but it does appear to model things more closely. We can perdict the political views of people in each of the four quadrents (and can even be a little more exact based on the location within the quadrent). This currently, appears to match somewhat closely with observations that we make. Of course, no system or model is exact, but the quadrent currently appears more useful than the static line.

However, based on exactly which political action/philosophy we're discussing... Hitler still wanders about the quadrent somewhat.

Ratatosk

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 5, 2005 09:56 AM

Tom in CT: I don't know how [Nazism] fits in with the we define the "right" or "left" in 21st century America.

It doesn't. Nazism is not American. It is German.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 5, 2005 09:56 AM

Wiki seems to think it's mostly economic.

And "nationalist" (which isn't negative, merely exclusive).

What were YOU thinking, Michael?

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 5, 2005 09:58 AM

"mosbunnal"

wtf?

Posted by: spaniard at August 5, 2005 10:01 AM
"In the decade and a half between the close of World War I and the assumption of Adolf Hitler the German people faced the imposing tasks of absorbing defeat in the war, of adjusting to a peace settlement universally regarded in Germany as unjust, and of coping with armed insurrection, runaway inflation, reparations payments and the depression. In response to this series crises there arose among the nationalist-minded intellectuals of the Right an ideological movement referred to by some of its participants as the "conservative revolution." These intellectuals were "conservative" in the sense of wanting to retain or revitalize certain traditional political, economic, and cultural forms and values which they felt were more in keeping with pristine Germanic character than were the "alien" forms associated with the Weimer democracy; they were "revolutionary" because they felt that only by embracing these traditional forms and values to revolutionary extent could Germany rejuvenate her national life and restore her political power. In general the conservatives revolutionaries-or neo-conservatives-were anti-Western, anti-Liberal, and anti-Semitic. Hence they often found themselves en rapport with the National Socialist, though for the most part the conservative revolutionaries were not Nazis in the strict sense. Nonetheless, as the 1920's progressed, the movements represented by the two groups became more closely entwined. The Nazis allowed the largely congenial writings of the conservative revolutionaries to complement their own intellectually barren ideology, while the conservative revolutionaries viewed the dynamism of the Nazi movement as the necessary practical engine for dislodging the Weimer system and opening the way to true volkisch state. Yet once the National Socialist had seized power in 1933, they quickly lost patience with the independent-minded conservative revolutionaries, while the latter soon grew dismayed by the crudeness and fanaticism of the de facto Nazi regime. As a group, the conservative revolutionaries remained true to themselves and after the mid-1930's played no positive role in the Hitler regime.

From:
The Fichte Society: A Chapter in Germany's Conservative Revolution
Nelson Edmondson
The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 38, No. 2. (Jun., 1966), pp. 161-180.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 5, 2005 10:02 AM

Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.

from:
The Neoconservative Persuasion

Posted by: NeoDude at August 5, 2005 10:03 AM

Michael,

I'm ahead of you. It is useful to read the whole Wikipedia article and follow some of the links under Italian fascism. The topic is more complicated and less clearcut than your selection implies. I also tend to be a bit more skeptical when Wikipedia deals with politcal topics. The article, for instance, seems to possess conceptual breaks between some of the paragraphs that may indicate the contributions of different authors.

I think the success of the Fascist movements in collecting members from the left indicates a certain affinity. This happened in Vichy also. This sort of thing needs to be explained. The old circle idea is a copout here, IMNSHO.

Posted by: chuck at August 5, 2005 10:06 AM

Marxism

The most dangerous opponent of our worldview at present is Marxism, and its offspring Bolshevism. It is a product of the destructive Jewish spirit, and it is primarily Jews who have transformed this destructive idea into reality. Marxism teaches that there are only two classes: the owners and the property-less. Each must be destroyed and all differences between people must be abolished; a single human soup must result. That which formerly was holy is held in contempt. Every connection to family, clan and people was dissolved. Marxism appeals to humanity's basest drives; it is an appeal to subhumans.

We have seen firsthand where Marxism leads people, in Germany from 1919 to 1932, in Spain and above all in Russia. The people corrupted by Liberalism are not able to defend themselves against this Jewish-Marxist poison. If Adolf Hitler had not won the battle for the soul of his people and destroyed Marxism, Europe would have sunk into Bolshevist chaos. The war in the East will lead to the final elimination of Bolshevism; the victory of the National Socialist worldview is the victory of Aryan culture over the spirit of destruction, the victory of life over death.

From:
Der Reichsführer SS/SS-Hauptamt, Rassenpolitik

This is a pamphlet outlining Nazi racial theories. It seems to have been intended primarily for members of the SS, though the copy I am working from carries the stamp of a school library. The book also suggests a plan for covering the content of the booklet in eleven class periods, indicating it was intended for use in the schools.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 5, 2005 10:08 AM

Tom Grey: Wiki seems to think it's mostly economic. And "nationalist" (which isn't negative, merely exclusive). What were YOU thinking, Michael?

Do you think Islamists read Neo-Nazi Web sites for information about economics? I don't. For them it's about sharing the hate.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 5, 2005 10:10 AM

Our Speakers in the Anti-Marxist Battle

Why? In opposing Marxism, we oppose a deeply-rooted worldview that is based on over sixty years of intensive work. It is in turn founded on the still older liberal world view and economic order. It enjoys not only the protection of tradition, but the strength a younger movement can bring to bear against an older one. Liberalism was not able to resist Marxism. The liberal parties and ideologies could only fight defensively against a worldview with greater strength and clarity of purpose. Even the Marxist worker who long doubted and sought for something better eventually had to conclude that Marxism is the only world view that can bring a new and better society and economic order. Who can hold it against him that he rejected the forces that denied him equality and a share in the results of his labor? The German worker absorbed Marxism in his parents' home, and was surrounded by people who thought the same in the workplace. In what remained of his sound understanding, he knew that there was a flaw somewhere in the world view. He realized that there was a catch somewhere to the lovely teachings of "expropriating the expropriators," of "the equality of everyone with a human face," of "international brotherhood," of "international solidarity," but he did not know where, and there was no one to show him the contradictions, the weak points in the thinking of Karl Marx and his followers.

From:
Unsere Redner im antimarxistischen Kampf. Die Bilanz eines Wahljahrs," Unser Wille und Weg

This article from the Nazi party's monthly for propagandists discusses Nazi propaganda battles with the Marxists, which to their minds included both the socialists (SPD) and communists (KPD). The article notes that National Socialism has gone about as far as it can in reaching the middle classes. The target now has to be the workers, which the writer notes will be a difficult task. He directs some rather biting criticism at many Nazi propagandists. It was published late in 1932, at a critical time. Nazism had lost ground in the 6 November 1932 Reichstag election, and the party was weary after a year of almost constant elections. There had been two presidential elections, two Reichstag elections, and the Prussian state elections, not to mention a variety of others.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 5, 2005 10:14 AM

spaniard, I believe that "mosbunnal" is a contraction of "mos,t but not all." Similarily, "sombunnal" is a contraction of some, but not all.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 5, 2005 10:19 AM

The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism's nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive.

From:
Joseph Goebbels and Mjölnir, Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler - Etwas zum Nachdenken

This is a widely distributed Nazi pamphlet from before 1933. The title, loosely translated, is "Those Damned Nazis." At least several hundred thousand copies were printed. It is a good summary of the basic lines of Nazi propaganda just before Hitler's takeover in 1933. The booklet included five cartoons by Mjölnir, Goebbels' cartoonist, three of which I include here. Mjölnir also produced some of the most familiar Nazi posters.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 5, 2005 10:20 AM

Crap, make that "most, but not all."

Stupid punctuation.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 5, 2005 10:20 AM

MJT, Neodude, Tree-Rat, heroic efforts all, but pointless. There are some deep-rooted faith issues at work here that will not be swayed by words and facts.

Or by anything else, for that matter.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 5, 2005 10:23 AM

NeoDude,

Nice selections.

Spaniard,

Mosbunall/Sombunall - both appear as words used within E-PRIME, a subset of English. E-PRIME tries to abolish any variant of the verb 'to be' and is based on the general semantics work done by Count Korzybski, Dr. Bourland and others.

Typical E-PRIME Statements, as compared to English statements:

(as swiped from Wilson's Essay on E-PRIME in the magazine Trajectories, and reproduced later in his book: Quantum Psychology.)

lA. The electron is a wave.
lB. The electron appears as a wave when measured with instrument-l.

2A. The electron is a particle.
2B. The electron appears as a particle when measured with instrument-2.

3A. John is lethargic and unhappy.
3B. John appears lethargic and unhappy in the office.

4A. John is bright and cheerful.
4B. John appears bright and cheerful on holiday at the beach.

5A. This is the knife the first man used to stab the second man.
5B. The first man appeared to stab the second man with what looked like a knife to me.

6A. The car involved in the hit-and-run accident was a blue Ford.
6B. In memory, I think I recall the car involved in the hit-and-run accident as a blue Ford.

7A. This is a fascist idea.
7B. This seems like a fascist idea to me.

8A. Beethoven is better than Mozart.
8B. In my present mixed state of musical education and ignorance, Beethoven seems better to me than Mozart.

9A. That is a sexist movie.
9B. That seems like a sexist movie to me.

10A. The fetus is a person.
10B. In my system of metaphysics, I classify the fetus as a person.

This improves clarity and often acts as a buffer against the most often found forms of logical error and emotional thinking.

Sombunall and Mosbunall, within E-Prime have been found by many as useful in stating the more or less relative facts of most situations without using absolutes (or negating absolutes). This has been called Predicative Relativism.

Note that this differs from post-modernism and moral relativeism, since E-PRRIME doesnt' try to state what IS real, but only emphaisizes that mosbunall of the statements made by humans tend heavily toward subjectivity.

In other words, we can make definate statements about reality:

"I have a friend named Roy, all of his children are boys. All of his boys have blonde hair."

But we cannot make definate statements about mosbunall things:

"All Americans love democracy."
(vs)
"Mosbunall Americans love democracy."

"All Leftists are Socialists."

"Mosbunall Leftists are Socialists."

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 5, 2005 10:26 AM

Regarding the use of "Socialist" in the Nazi Party's name, can I point out that North Korea's name is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea?"

They're democratic, people. No more talk of a dictatorship.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 5, 2005 10:26 AM

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right
Here I am
Stuck in the middle with you

Posted by: TallDave at August 5, 2005 10:33 AM

Shorter Tosk = mosbunnal is a generalization.

;-)

Posted by: spaniard at August 5, 2005 10:33 AM

But the Nazis did nationalize key industries, s they were socialists by that definition.

N Korea holds elections, but they're a farce. Germany's nationalization of key industries was real.

Posted by: TallDave at August 5, 2005 10:35 AM

TallDave,

So do simulated elections equate to real elections?

Spaniard,

Shorter Tosk = mosbunnal is a generalization.

Well, its not just a generalization (most or some would suffice for that). Mosbunall and Sombunall tend to indicate that a portion of a set has been examined, but not the whole set.

But, thats the general idea, yes ;-)

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 5, 2005 10:38 AM

Hitler's Christianity

To deny the influence of Christianity on Hitler and its role in World War II, means that you must ignore history and forever bar yourself from understanding the source of German anti-Semitism and how the WWII atrocities occurred.

By using historical evidence of Hitler's and his henchmen's own words, this section aims to show how mixing religion with politics can cause conflicts, not only against religion but against government and its people. This site, in no way, condones Nazism, Neo-Nazism, fascist governments, or anti-Semitism, but instead, warns against them.

More:
"Gott Mit Uns" means God With Us and appeared on many Nazi soldiers belt buckles during WWII

Posted by: NeoDude at August 5, 2005 10:42 AM

"I often feel that we will have to undergo all the trials the devil and hell can devise before we achieve Final Victory....I may be no pious churchgoer, but deep within me I am nevertheless a devout man. That is to say, I believe that he who fights valiantly obeying the laws which a God has established and who never capitulates but instead gathers his forces time after time and always pushes forward—such a man will not be abandoned by the Lawgiver. Rather he will ultimately receive the blessing of Providence. And that blessing has been imparted to all great spirits in history."

(Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich : Memoirs. Bonanza Books ; Distributed by Crown Publishers, 1982, cited in an Internet article by Kevin Davids).

Posted by: NeoDude at August 5, 2005 10:43 AM

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

–Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

Posted by: NeoDude at August 5, 2005 10:46 AM

A lot of conservative and libertarian critique that Naziism was a left wing enterprise comes from Hayek, who in the "Road to Serfdom" posited that fascists and communists, rather than being natural enemies, were two sides of the same socialist coin, and their antagonism came from fighting over the same turf, i.e. young disaffected ne'er-do-wells longing for a Utopian state solution.

Regardless of what Left and Right were used to denominate in the past, in today's parlance we tend to use it to describe Left=socialism (small s) and Right=individualism. By that standard, both fascism and communism are properly considered Left Wing.

Jonah Goldberg said that his favorite rebuttal to Liberals decrying the "Fascist (Republican Goblin of the week)" was to ask, "Other than the whole killing Jews and Gays thing, what is it about the tenets of National Socialism that you disagree with?" Conservatives and Libertarians (generally considered right wing) can give you point by point how they differ.

If in your political cosmology, Communism and Fascism are opposite ends of the spectrum, then there is no place on that spectrum, for Conservatism, Libertarianism, Classical Liberalism, or basically any flavor of ism we follow in the US today.

Posted by: Mark at August 5, 2005 10:49 AM

Do you think Islamists read Neo-Nazi Web sites for information about economics? I don't. For them it's about sharing the hate.

Sigh. I know a lot about what you DON'T think is the case. And I know you name the Islamists fascists, which I agree with.

What I don't know is what, makes a Leftist be on the left?

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 5, 2005 10:54 AM

what, for you, makes a Leftist Left?

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 5, 2005 10:54 AM

what, for you, makes a Leftist Left?

I know this was asked of MJT, but as a socialist, I think I can answer that one.

A belief that an individual philosophy of mutual aid works better than self interest in modern society and economics. I also believe that an authoritarian state is a flawed and undesirable institution.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 5, 2005 11:01 AM

NeoDude,

I can play that game too:

I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. ... What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.

Adolf Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930.

We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak ... and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.

Gregor Strasser, National Socialist theologian...

"Our National Socialist ideology is far loftier than the concepts of Christianity, which in their essential points have been taken over from Jewry * * *. A differentiation between the various Christian confessions is not to be made here * * * the Evangelical Church is just as inimical to us as the Catholic Church. * * * All influences which might impair or damage the leadership of the people exercised by the Fuehrer with the help of the NSDAP must be eliminated. More and more the people must be separated from the churches and their organs the pastors. * * * Just as the deleterious influences of astrologers, seers and other fakers are eliminated and suppressed by the State, so must the possibility of church influence also be totally removed. * * * Not until this has happened, does the state leadership have influence on the individual citizens. Not until then are the people and Reich secure in their existence for all time."

Martin Bormann

Posted by: chuck at August 5, 2005 11:03 AM

Mark,

What would be Goldberg's take on Kristols' critique of Hayek and Spencer?

Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.

from:
The Neoconservative Persuasion

Kristol described the current Republican coalition as consisting primarily of two main strains: economic and social conservatives. The economic conservatives are anti-state and the social conservatives are anti-liberal who view liberalism "as corroding and subverting the virtues that they believe must be the bedrock of decent society." He believes that the differences between the economic conservatives and the social conservatives produce "tensions" between the two groups. Kristol's long range view is that the social conservatives represent "an authentic mass movement that gathers strength with every passing year."

from:
Splitting the Republican Coalition
Social Democrats, USA
Copyright: 1996, SD, USA

Posted by: NeoDude at August 5, 2005 11:06 AM

Chuck,

So Hitler sounds like a Neo-Conservative, what's your point!

Posted by: NeoDude at August 5, 2005 11:07 AM

Strasser's complaint, that liberals have taken over the churches sounds like today's evangelicals.

Some of the most "anti-Christian" remarks come from fundamentalists who believe the faith has become to pluralistic.

Like most rabid nationalistic right-wingers, who fuse Christianity with nationalism, Hitler and Strassner hate Liberalism and anti-Fundamentalist strains.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 5, 2005 11:13 AM

hits head on desk

Chuck says: NeoDude,

I can play that game too:

Well, duh! What do you think people have been telling you? You can find evidence for Left or Right in Hitler's rhetoric (and is sombunall of his actions). Yes, he had many socialist values, he also had a number of conservative values. He also had a number of ideas that one should not consider valuable to either side!

The left vs right model doesn't work, it's like trying to explain quantum theory via a Newtonian Model... it fails to properly predict observations and therefore should be considered a flawed model.

Are you really unable to grasp this concept?

Left---Right = failed model

Quadrant = imperfect, yet better model

Circle = Silly model, since there is no useful difference between the back half and front half of the circle (until you place it on the quadrant model).

Got it?

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 5, 2005 11:21 AM

Thanks, Ratsy!

Posted by: NeoDude at August 5, 2005 11:48 AM

Why can't we just admit that the "Political Rainbow" is not a 1/2 circle? It is instead, a FULL circle with the "Extreme Left" actually meeting the "Extreme Right"??
This is not all that hard a concept if you modify your definitions and your 'vision' of them. I would think that Columbus would have had the same trouble convincing Europe to go "West" to get "East".

Posted by: at August 5, 2005 11:49 AM

RataTosk,

Nope. I was just pointing out that selective quotes were inadequate, doesn't mean that the preponderance of the evidence points nowhere. Your constant invocation of uncertainty and conceptual inadequacy simply avoids the hard work of investigation and classification. Really, I thought the General Semantics fad had run its course back in the 1950's, although scientology persists. It hasn't borne any fruit that I can see.

Posted by: chuck at August 5, 2005 11:49 AM

Hitlerian "christianity":

"The Nazi party stands on the basis of Positive Christianity, and Positive Christianity is National Socialism...National Socialism is the doing of God's will...God's will reveals itself in German blood...Dr. Zoellner and Count Galen [the Catholic bishop of Muenster] have tried to make it clear to me that Christianity consists of faith in Christ as the Son of God. That makes me laugh...No, Christianity is not dependent upon the Apostle's Creed...True Christianity is represented by the party, and the German people are now called by the party and especially by the Fuehrer to a real Christianity...The Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation."

~~Dr. Hans Kerrl, Minister of Church Affairs, February 13, 1937

Neodude, yours amounts to nothing more than slander.

Posted by: spaniard at August 5, 2005 11:49 AM

And just in case Quadrants are confusing enough, here's a much more exact (and complicated/confusing) model which has some value:

http://www.friesian.com/quiz.htm

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 5, 2005 11:50 AM

I asked before about your claim that
Noam Chomsky tries to rewrite history and make Stalin out to be a right-winger

I didn't get a response, so I am trying again.
Where does Chomsky try to make Stalin out to be a
"right-winger"? And whatever Chomsky might have
meant by whatever description he uses of Stalin,
in what way was he tryig to "rewrite history"?

As far as I know, Chomsky places himself in the
tradition of the anarchist critics of the
Bolsheviks, who viewed Lenin and Trotsky as
opposed to "the most essential features of
socialism" and that Lenin and Trotsky
"proceeded to create the basic proto-fascist
structures converted by Stalin into one of the
horrors of the modern age."

quotes from Soviet Union vs. Socialism,
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/86-soviet-socialism.html

And his views on the Spanish Civil War were
pretty much in line with George Orwell's, viewing
the Soviet Union as opposed to the social
revolution in Spain. I don't think that's even
debatable.

I guess perhaps one could say from this that
Chomsky viewed Stalin as a "right-winger",
although I doubt Chomsky used the term in this
context. But, I ask again - in what way has
Chomsky tried to rewrite history with his
characterization of Stalin? These are views that
are not by any means original with Chomsky, but
are part of a tradition of left-wing thought that
was harshly critical of the Bolsheviks before
the Russian Revolution, and during the Spanish
Civil War.

Posted by: Seth Kulick at August 5, 2005 11:52 AM

Mark: If in your political cosmology, Communism and Fascism are opposite ends of the spectrum, then there is no place on that spectrum, for Conservatism, Libertarianism, Classical Liberalism, or basically any flavor of ism we follow in the US today.

That's because the spectrum doesn't really exist. Dfferent ideologies on "the left" contradict each other, sit at opposite ends of their own poles, and are mutually hostile. Same with ideologies on "the right." See anarchism versus socialism, for example. See also monarchy versus libertarianism.

Remember, also, that what is left-wing in one country may be right-wing in a different country. What is left-wing in one time period may be right-wing in a different time period in the same country.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 5, 2005 11:55 AM

I would think that Columbus would have had the same trouble convincing Europe to go "West" to get "East".

Um, no, everyone knew that the world was round in Columbus' time. They even knew the size of the earth. Columbus believed that the world was actually smaller than had been calculated by the ancient Greeks, and that it was shorter to travel to Asia by going West than East.

He was wrong, and if he hadn't run into the Americas, he and his crew would have died.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 5, 2005 11:56 AM

"Our National Socialist ideology is far loftier than the concepts of Christianity, which in their essential points have been taken over from Jewry * * *. A differentiation between the various Christian confessions is not to be made here * * * the Evangelical Church is just as inimical to us as the Catholic Church. * * * All influences which might impair or damage the leadership of the people exercised by the Fuehrer with the help of the NSDAP must be eliminated. More and more the people must be separated from the churches and their organs the pastors. * * * Just as the deleterious influences of astrologers, seers and other fakers are eliminated and suppressed by the State, so must the possibility of church influence also be totally removed. * * * Not until this has happened, does the state leadership have influence on the individual citizens. Not until then are the people and Reich secure in their existence for all time."

~~Martin Bormann in a secret decree of the Party Chancellery signed by him and distributed to all Gauleiters 7 June 1941

Posted by: spaniard at August 5, 2005 11:57 AM

See anarchism versus socialism, for example.

Anarchism IS a branch of socialism. Perhaps what you meant was "Anarchism vs. Marxist-Leninism"

I gotta put together a primer on the history of socialism on my blog just to clear up a bunch of this stuff.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 5, 2005 11:59 AM

Michael,

That's because the spectrum doesn't really exist.

What we need is a cladogram of the descent of political memes. It will require some modifications as the species concept doesn't really apply to ideas.

Posted by: chuck at August 5, 2005 12:00 PM

Tom: what, for you, makes a Leftist Left?

Again, it depends. The answer is, and has to be, "nothing in particular." There is no one thing that all leftists have in common. Everything you can find somewhere on the left you can also find somewhere on the right.

I'm speaking in global terms here. What is considered left in Iraq is considered right in America. What is considered left in America is considered right in France.

These terms aren't completely useless, but they're getting there fast.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 5, 2005 12:01 PM

neodude, more:

"The Fuehrer considers his efforts to bring the Evangelical Church to reason, unsuccessful and the Evangelical Church with respect to its condition rightfully a useless pile of sects. As you emphasize the Party has previously carried on not only a fight against the political element of the Christianity of the Church, but also a fight against membership of Party Members in a Christian confession."

~~Hans Kerrl, Reich Minister for Church Affairs, in a letter dated 6 September 1939

Posted by: spaniard at August 5, 2005 12:01 PM

There is no one thing that all leftists have in common.

I would disagree. I'd also say that there are ideas that are common to all on the right-wing as well.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 5, 2005 12:04 PM

What is considered left in Iraq is considered right in America.

Examples?

Posted by: chuck at August 5, 2005 12:04 PM

Seth Kulick,

You answered your own question for me. You provided precisely the quote by Noam Chomsky I would have given you had I gotten to your question.

Chomsky certainly thinks of "fascist" as right-wing. So when he refers to Lenin as a "proto-fascist" who laid the groundwork for Stalin, well, there you go. I don't know what else to tell you.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 5, 2005 12:05 PM

There is no one thing that all leftists have in common.

There is only one thing Leftists have in common-- anti-establishment. Everything else is debatable, but not that. Only this explains their obsession with the "American Taliban" but silence about muslim repression.

Posted by: spaniard at August 5, 2005 12:07 PM

"Your constant invocation of uncertainty and conceptual inadequacy simply avoids the hard work of investigation and classification"

Oh christ.

Chuck,

How many years of PolSci do you have? How many years of actual investigation have you done? By what model and system are you classifying Politics, and, more importantly, which subest of politics are you refering to (economics, defense, social)?

Simplification can be useful in somebunall instances of science. We call these Approximations. However, one must realize that solving with an Approximation does not actually tell us what is happening. For example Bhor's Model of the Atom (which is probably the one you studied in school) used Approximations. Today, mosbunall scientists don't use Bhor's model, because the model is flawed. However, its still useful for broad generalizations and High School science class.

If you are happy with High School level models for politics, then stick with your dichotemy and your generalizations and your Approximations. Mosbunall of the people who'd actually like to get an idea of what really going on, will use more complex (and more accurate) models.

Choose for yourself at what level you want to communicate or debate... just don't be surprised if people look at your comments and consider them flawed.

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 5, 2005 12:08 PM

Chuck: What is considered left in Iraq is considered right in America. Examples?

"Americans are liberators."

This is the view of the left-wing Kurdish PUK party, for example. Left-wing Americans think it's hogwash.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 5, 2005 12:10 PM

spaniard: There is only one thing Leftists have in common-- anti-establishment.

Well, I'd hardly take that as an expert opinion. I recollect the Soviet govenment being fairly pro-establishment, as it WAS the establishment. Or take a look at the conservative nature of the loony communist government of Albania, for example. Hardly anti-establishment.

I'd say that the root philosophy behind all socialist movements is that collectives should control society. The forms of those collectives, and the definitions of the type of control that they have are what differentiate the vasrious forms of socialism.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 5, 2005 12:13 PM

I'm going camping on Mt. Hood for two days, so I'm going to have to sign off on this discussion for now. Enjoy the rest of the purely semantic and ultimately irrelevant argument. :)

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 5, 2005 12:13 PM

Tosk,

However, its still useful for broad generalizations and High School science class.

Oddly enough, I have degrees in physics and mathematics and have read some of the original papers on quantum mechanics by Bohr, Born, Einstein, Schrodinger, Dirac, and Heisenberg. I didn't read them in high school, I admit. I don't think a pissing contest in these areas would be to your advantage.

Posted by: chuck at August 5, 2005 12:13 PM

I don't think a pissing contest in these areas would be to your advantage.

Chuck, I think that in your eagerness to announce your area of expertise, you missed Rat's point. He's not trying to debate you on atomic models, he's applying a metaphor about simplistic vs. complex modelling of the real world, with the implication that a higher level of education in the subject matter is necessary to discuss the more complex models.

I'm sure you're able to discuss extremely complex models that involve mathematics and physics. Now, back to politics.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 5, 2005 12:18 PM

So Spaniard….it looks like Hitler and the millions of Germans who followed him were being sinful Christians…big story, Christians acting in a wildly wicked manner…this is what they do, this is why they need a savior…no, this is why they need THE SAVIOR…because they will kill in the name of self survival…and murder for momentary pleasure…have wonton sex and say it’s a disease…and rape another one because “they asked for it”…and steal in the name of their daughter…and commit mass killings in the name of God & Country…and will tell thousands of lies to wage war…and get their dicks sucked by an intern when they should be working and keeping their vows to their partner…in essence they will act like the craven sinful humans that they are and need to be saved from this pit of human misery….WHAT I WOULD NEVER BELIEVE OR REPEAT IS THAT IT WAS CHRISTINITY THAT FORCED THEM TO DO THOSE THINGS!!!

Just as it is not Islam that forces others to sin.

Trust me…politics forces people to act in some crazy fashion…not their faiths.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 5, 2005 12:22 PM

neodude,

have you run out of quotes? I've got a pile of them. And don't forget, those were mosbunall christian boys landing on the beaches of Normandy.

Posted by: spaniard at August 5, 2005 12:25 PM

"There is only one thing Leftists have in common--anti-establishment. Everything else is debatable, but not that."

False. "Anti-establishment" is a completely relative word--if a society were socialist, Rightists would be "anti-establishment." In a fascist state, Leftists assume the role.

Posted by: Adam A. at August 5, 2005 12:26 PM

Chuck,

"I have degrees in physics and mathematics and have read some of the original papers on quantum mechanics by Bohr, Born, Einstein, Schrodinger, Dirac, and Heisenberg"

Good, then you have some idea, I hope, of how models work. The Left---Right model has flaws similar to that of Bhors model.

Bhor's model works well to describe a one electron atom. The Left----Right model works well to descibe a single political statement. Neither work well to describe more complex systems (be they atoms with multiple electrons or the full set of political beliefs that an individual holds). To accomplish this we need to rely on better models, like Schroedinger's wave equations, or a Political Quadrant.

I'm not trying to hold a pissing contest here... I'm trying to have a rational discussion, yet you seem completely unwilling to use a more appropriate model for your debate. Could you debate quantum physics with someone who recoginzied only Principia Mathematica as a basis for discussion? Would you be able to effectively communicate with the individual?

What if, when you describe indeterminacy, Heisneburg's Uncertianty Principle and other basics... the person just told you that you were being lazy... that surely you could always predict where a particle would be at any given time, if you knew its acceleration and trajectory.

With a degree in physics, you understand that Newton's laws are incapable of even predicting the location of a basic harmonic oscilator (even if we have all the data to fit Newton's Second Law), since we can't seem to find a formula to account accurately for friction. Yet, to someone only versed in Newtonian physics, this would seem a cop-out.

Does that make any sense to you?

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 5, 2005 12:28 PM

In a fascist state, Leftists assume the role.

and in a democratic capitalist one.

Posted by: spaniard at August 5, 2005 12:33 PM

Michael Totten:

"You answered your own question for me. You provided precisely the quote by Noam Chomsky I would have given you had I gotten to your question.

Chomsky certainly thinks of "fascist" as right-wing. So when he refers to Lenin as a "proto-fascist" who laid the groundwork for Stalin, well, there you go. I don't know what else to tell you."

I fail to see how this is any different from Berman saying that Stalinism, Fascism, and Islamism are all totalitarian in nature and thus share many similarities. It would seem that you should agree with Chomsky on this point.

Posted by: richard at August 5, 2005 12:37 PM

"and in a democratic capitalist one."

Wrong again--there are U.S. Leftists who are "anti-establishment", and there are U.S. Rightists who are "anti-establishment". Your reductio ad absurdum of Leftism to "anti-establishmentarianism" is incorrect, and more than a little silly. But you already knew that, right? :)

Posted by: Adam A. at August 5, 2005 12:42 PM

Chuck,

What we need is a cladogram of the descent of political memes

I think that is a wholly inappropriate framework. Cladograms assume (impose) a model of bifurcation without horizontal transfer. Appropriate for biological lineages which diverge, never to meet (share genes) again. Cladograms do not work for relationships within species - where genes or traits are still being shared throughout.

Political ideas, as in all cultural dynamics and evolution, partake almost wholly in a process of horizontal sharing. Ideologies, no matter how extreme they become, can and do always incorporate other ideas from any other source if it suits their purposes.

Posted by: IP at August 5, 2005 12:47 PM

Well stated IP.

Hail Eris!

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 5, 2005 12:51 PM

Wrong again--there are U.S. Leftists who are "anti-establishment", and there are U.S. Rightists who are "anti-establishment".

I'm impressed by your Latin, but how does this prove your point? For your argument to be true in this case we would have to define the Left very broadly, while the Right would have to be defined very narrowly.

Posted by: spaniard at August 5, 2005 12:52 PM

Michael,

In response to your response to me (for some reason trying to highlight to copy anything on the page causes me to highlight the whole page, so no cuts and pastes for me :( ) I completely agree that the spectrum does not exist, but I feel you're somewhat palming a card by insisting that fascists are right wing, when that is generally also used as a designation for promoters of individualism/libertarianism.

I've always thought the 2 axis political graph (charting both economic freedom and individual vs authoritarian) to be a better way to chart positions than the rather false Left/Right dichotomy. But even there, Fascism and Communism wind up in roughly the same place (High Statist economically/High Authoritarian in the area of personal freedom).

And for the record, in such a graph, Democrats and Republicans are almost in the same place, with only slight variation on the economics line (both are about equally authoritarian).

Posted by: Mark at August 5, 2005 12:58 PM

Spainiard,

Yeah, I got more.

"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition."

-Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)

Posted by: NeoDude at August 5, 2005 01:03 PM

The total number of posts in this thread: 155

The total number of posts in this thread that mention Galloway: 12

Posted by: Peter G at August 5, 2005 01:03 PM

Part of the problem is that, as some have pointed out, many in America today (especially "conservatives") feel that the most important distinction to be made is a statist - anti-statist one. Perhaps they get that from Hayek.

Unfortunatly, instead of using this distinction in a straightforward manner, classifying everyone on that spectrum, they decided to try to appopriate the older left-right distinction and to use those terms instead. Left = statist, right = antistatist.

But this is sheer nonsense, as all of the heat generated above makes clear. Like most ideas of this type, there certainly can be some evidence dredged up to support such an alignment, but there is tons of evidence that contradicts it as well. Advocates tend to be really bad about fessin' up to contrary evidence.

Why cant the Hayekians simply agree to use the terms that they really mean - statist and anti-statist, and stop trying to drown everyone in confusion by trying to appropriate the left-right distinction?

Regarding Chomsky: I dont think his view of Stalin (if it is in fact remotely similar to what is being discussed here) is illegitimate. As someone above pointed out, Lenin and certainly Stalin were seen as traitors to communism by some communists - the "purists". They felt that communism, the paradigm of a leftist movement, a movement of the poor and dispossessed workers, had become, in the theories of Lenin, and the practice of Stalin, a monstrous form of "state capitalism". The replacement of the older oppressive capitalists with a new set of rulers. That is not what Marx or most of the leftist early communists had in mind. Using the traditional distinctions between left and right, it makes perfect sense to see Stalin as one who sold out the interests of the workers, and transformed Soviet communism (as opposed to communism in theory) from a leftist to a rightist phenomenon.

Posted by: IP at August 5, 2005 01:06 PM

Peter G.

The total number of posts in this thread that mention Galloway: 12

Well, I think this probably indicates one of two things:

A) No one here wants to defend the twit, therefore there's not much to discuss.

B) No one wants to think about a fat englishman while doing all this mental masturbation... ;-)

Ratatosk

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 5, 2005 01:06 PM

_You answered your own question for me. You provided precisely the quote by Noam Chomsky I would have given you had I gotten to your question.

Chomsky certainly thinks of "fascist" as right-wing. So when he refers to Lenin as a "proto-fascist" who laid the groundwork for Stalin, well, there you go. I don't know what else to tell you._

Well, you could answer my question, which is in
what way is Chomsky "trying to rewrite history"?
If you had stuck with something like "Chomsky
views Lenin & Stalin as opposed to essential
principles of socialism and so should not be
considered left-wing", that would seem to be
unobjectionable. But since you say he is
rewriting history, you must disagree with his
characterizations of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc.
and so I guess for you they are authentic
representatives of socialism. Which is okay -
lots of people have believed and still believe
that. But it has nothing to do with "rewriting
history". What is he rewriting? He is simply
echoing a leftist characterization of the
Bolsheviks.

Posted by: Seth Kulick at August 5, 2005 01:08 PM

Neo,

so your quote basically proves Hitler actually hated christianity? Thanks, I'll add that to my files.

Posted by: spaniard at August 5, 2005 01:18 PM

spainiard,

Do you even know what a Christian is?

Posted by: NeoDude at August 5, 2005 01:22 PM

so your quote basically proves Hitler actually hated christianity?

And Spaniard proves you don't need drugs to have hallucinations.

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 5, 2005 01:24 PM

Ok, I'm done for the night. If anyone still has serious issues with what I've written here, please research The Copenhagen Interpertation and "model agnosticism".

Have a good weekend, I'm sure MJT will have something more for us to fight over next week.

;-)

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
Muncher of the ChaoAcorn
Chatterer of The Words of Eris
POEE of The Great Googlie Mooglie Cabal

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 5, 2005 01:27 PM

I think that is a wholly inappropriate framework. Cladograms assume (impose) a model of bifurcation without horizontal transfer. Appropriate for biological lineages which diverge, never to meet (share genes) again. Cladograms do not work for relationships within species - where genes or traits are still being shared throughout.

Yep, that's why I said the species concept wouldn't work. I think a interesting approach would be more like field biology al la Jane Goodall: map interactions over time, describe them as collaborative or adversarial, note books read, etc. What we are looking for here are relations between the ideas carried by individuals. This avoids some problems: for instance, we may not know what fascism is, but we know that Mussolini was a fascist and we can see where his ideas came from and who he associated with. Biographers do this sort of thing, but perhaps biologists have better ways of organizing the data.

Posted by: chuck at August 5, 2005 01:42 PM

RE Galloway:
I have real problems with the restriction of speach, but at what point do you draw the line. However, what's the difference between what Galloway said and the incitement to overthrowing the established order of Britain that would come regularly from the Imam of the Finsbury Mosque?
Does it matter more that Galloway is a Brit. citizen? I think so. I also think, however, that it makes his transgression worse. Bad enough to prosecute? I'm not so sure.

Posted by: ElamBend at August 5, 2005 01:47 PM

May I propose that one of the things that we should do is to negotiate with Sadr? And we can also negotiate with others in the resistance?

Posted by: Jose at August 5, 2005 01:54 PM

Regarding our communist brethern in Russia, this is an entertaining read.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 5, 2005 01:59 PM

Just a further note on the Soviet-communists-as-traitors-to-the-left idea.

Life abounds in ironies. What would be the ideal model of the left-wing hero? A humble man, a worker, oppressed by his bosses, who organizes his fellow workers and fights the injustice, and wins. And then goes on not just to win his local battle but to overturn the corrupt and entrenched power system in his entire country.

And who, in the past half century, would most apporoximate such a figure?

Lech Walesa. He was the pure leftist, rooted in trade unionism. Also turned out to be rather conservative / religous.

Posted by: IP at August 5, 2005 02:03 PM

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.

Argument

To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler's warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.

The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.

However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was.
And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." (1)

The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling Nazi elite. After the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly established a highly controlled war economy under the direction of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht. Like all war economies, it boomed, making Germany the second nation to recover fully from the Great Depression, in 1936. (The first nation was Sweden, in 1934. Following Keynesian-like policies, the Swedish government spent its way out of the Depression, proving that state economic policies can be successful without resorting to dictatorship or war.)

Prior to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, worker protests had spread all across Germany in response to the Great Depression. During his drive to power, Hitler exploited this social unrest by promising workers to strengthen their labor unions and increase their standard of living. But these were empty promises; privately, he was reassuring wealthy German businessmen that he would crack down on labor once he achieved power. Historian William Shirer describes the Nazi's dual strategy:

"The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow [Nazi officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly 'socialists' and against the money barons. On the other hand, money to keep the party going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample supply of it." (2)

Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the "Labor Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not represent workers. According to the law that created it, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able… to perform the maximum of work." Workers would indeed greatly boost their productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became exploited. Between 1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor. (3) Yet workers did not protest. This was partly because the Nazis had restored order to the economy, but an even bigger reason was that the Nazis would have cracked down on any protest.

There was no part of Nazism, therefore, that even remotely resembled socialism. But what about the political nature of Nazism in general? Did it belong to the left, or to the right? Let's take a closer look:
The politics of Nazism

The political right is popularly associated with the following principles. Of course, it goes without saying that these are generalizations, and not every person on the far right believes in every principle, or disbelieves its opposite. Most people's political beliefs are complex, and cannot be neatly pigeonholed. This is as true of Hitler as anyone. But since the far right is trying peg Hitler as a leftist, it's worth reviewing the tenets popularly associated with the right. These include:

* Individualism over collectivism.
* Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
* Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
* Merit over equality.
* Competition over cooperation.
* Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
* One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
* Capitalism over Marxism.
* Realism over idealism.
* Nationalism over internationalism.
* Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
* Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
* Gun ownership over gun control
* Common sense over theory or science.
* Pragmatism over principle.
* Religion over secularism.

Posted by: jose at August 5, 2005 02:07 PM

Tosk,

...please research The Copenhagen Interpertation

May I suggest Quantum Decoherence and Consistant Histories to get a flavor of what is going on these days.

Posted by: chuck at August 5, 2005 02:11 PM

Do you even know what a Christian is?

What difference does it make? This is about what Hitler thought about christians, not me. I sense a devolution into the personal coming.

Posted by: spaniard at August 5, 2005 02:40 PM

Lech Walesa. He was the pure leftist, rooted in trade unionism. Also turned out to be rather conservative / religous.

Let's not forget that the whole Solidarity movement was magnifiently heroic. It wasn't just one guy. While Walensa was certainly at the forefront, there were thousands of these guys risking everything.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 5, 2005 03:07 PM

Make that "Walesa".

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 5, 2005 03:11 PM

Michael
Your problem is an unawareness of prewar political history generally. Unlike today, prewar Leftists were often very nationalist and Hitler was one of them. There is a world of evidence for that below:

http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/amerfasc.html

and

http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/hitler.html

Please read up!

Posted by: John Ray at August 5, 2005 03:39 PM

Wrong. Hitler's first target of elimination was the trade unionions controlled by the socialists and Communists. He then liquidated the Communists and socialists. The capitalist class of Germany suffered no such extensive campaigns of mass liquidation. Nor did small owners of capital, unless they were Jewish or socialists.

Posted by: jose at August 5, 2005 04:55 PM

Only a person who doesn't know their history would call Hitler a leftist:

"New elections had been set for March of 1933, and Hitler wanted to make sure that the Nazis would win these elections decisively. In the second election of 1932 they had lost votes, losing some of their seats in the Reichstag. Hitler was determined to ensure that it would not happen again. Most historians agree that Hitler arranged for a fire in the Reichstag building and arranged to make it seem that the Communists had set the fire.

Even before the fire was set, Hitler and his chief lieutenants drew up lists of enemies to be arrested and accused of the fire. On these lists were many leading members of the Reichstag, leading members of the Communist party inside Germany, and others who had spoken out from time to time against Hitler and against Nazism.

Luck was with Hitler; whether by plan or by accident, his storm troopers discovered a down-and-out Dutchman who happened to be a member of the Communist party. The Dutchman had been heard bragging that the only way to change the government in Germany would be to set fire to government buildings. It is now believed that it was actually the Brownshirts that set fire to the Reichstag building, using gasoline and other chemicals. In only a few minutes, the building was ablaze in the night. The Dutchman was immediately arrested; later he was tried and executed.

When Hitler, the new chancellor of Germany, arrived on the scene of the fire, he declared that the burning of the Reichstag was the work of the Communists. With the elections only a week away, he stepped up his campaign against "Marxists," the press, and organizations of the political left.

To the old President von Hindenburg the fire came as a great blow. As the Nazis quickly arrested many of Germany's foremost political leaders, their parties were left stunned and without direction. The government seemed near collapse. Hitler insisted that the Communists were trying to take over Germany by force, as they had taken over Russia in 1917. Something had to be done, he declared. And he knew just what it should be. He called for von Hindenburg to sign an emergency decree "for the protection of the people and the state."

The emergency decree canceled all individual and civil rights, placing power in the hands of Hitler and his party. It became illegal for Germans to express their opinions freely, or to assemble to hear political speeches or for any other reason. And the decree made it legal for Hitler and his Brownshirts to control what was published in newspapers or broadcast as news over the radio; to open mail, read telegrams, and listen in on telephone conversations; to search houses without warning; to confiscate personal property; and to rule by dictatorship in any of the states of Germany, whenever Hitler thought it necessary."

http://www.rossel.net/Holocaust01.htm

Posted by: jose at August 5, 2005 04:59 PM

Hitler a leftist? Not if you know your history:

"In 1919 in the city of Munich, Hitler joined a group called the German Workers' Party. Within a short time, he became one of seven committee members who headed the party. The Workers' Party held meetings to discuss the present government and its weakness, to remember the better days before World War I, to talk about the threat posed by the Bolsheviks (Communists) who had recently come to power in Russia, and to discuss the "enemy" within Germany--the Jews."

Posted by: jose at August 5, 2005 05:01 PM

jose,

You know that your postings demonstrate nothing whatsoever and have no bearing on the question, right? Just askin'.

Posted by: chuck at August 5, 2005 05:28 PM

weak reply chuck, the postings i provided show that Hitler attacked the left in Germany systematically and that he was virulently anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-syndicalist....i.e. anti-leftist.
duh.

Posted by: jose at August 5, 2005 05:32 PM

Michael,

I think the Nazis illustrate that the left right spectrum is inadequate. If you want to be fair then just go with what you often say. Extremists have more in common with each other than people closer to the center.

Hitler was a modern revolutionary and extremist. He had a lot in common with other extremists and revolutionaries of the period (including policy ideas which were romantic, collectivist, and wished to remake man into something new). Regardless of whether they were perceived as ‘left’ or ‘right’.

Conservatives and Bush are not ‘the far right’ like Dean always screams any more than you libs are communists leftists.

I think most conservatives would be happy if the left would just admit leftist extremists had a lot in common with the likes of Hitler. They tend not to and always fall back on that Marxist public ownership of means of production cop out (which is seen by us as a way of continuing to associate us with 'the far right'). :0

Cheers

Posted by: Thomas at August 5, 2005 05:41 PM

So.

Lenin was virulently against the social democrats and socialist revolutionaries, strikes were suppressed and in Lenin speak, the workers had become declassed and their protests could no longer be justified. Stalin was virulently against Troskyites, etc., etc. The left has always spent its time slandering each other and, when in power, resorting to murder. In general, the is little tolerance for dissent on the left. The very same holds true today in America: the left is notably intolerant. See Michael's posting noting this sad fact. Hitler was no different, and why should a national socialist tolerate foreign and internationalist forms of socialism. Its not as if Marxism was the only form of socialism at the time, and its evident problems in Russia increased the popularity of other forms, fascism among them. The sad lack of leftist variety and intellectual vigor is fairly recent.

Frankly, I get tired of pointing these things out. The information is out there and the merest acquantance with history will clue you in if you don't do all your reading with preformed opinions.

Posted by: chuck at August 5, 2005 05:57 PM

Very different cases. For one, in Germany capitalist for profit markets remained the driving force of the economy, they were virtually eliminated as a force in the Soviet economy. Competition had little to do with how the economy operated, nor did profitability.
2, yes, Stalin's regime repressed workers, but repression of workers does not make one per se left or right. Hitler's politics were virulently anti-communist and anti-left, you'd be hard pressed to make that argument about either Lenin or Stalin. Stalin squashed the right completely and retained a certain wing of the left in the Communist Party to rule with distinctly state socialist policies aimed at eliminating the class power of captalists in the SU. Hitler's reign reinforced the power of capitalists, thus the support he received from significant portions of Germany's captalist class and their right-wing political parties. Ditto Mussolini.

Your arguments presume that anti-worker policies can't be distinguished along right or left varieties, when in fact they can quite logically so [as the post i linked to above does so well actually].

Only fools who don't know history think Hitler was a leftist

Posted by: jose at August 5, 2005 06:35 PM

"The discussion in the comments below is almost exclusively about which bad guys belong on the left or the right. That's not really what I wanted to emphasize here in this post. What prompted me to write this in the first place was George Galloway's truly appalling behavior on Middle East television. Don't miss it."

Michael, thanks for re-focusing the post.

I got lost all of the statis-anarchist-communist-socialist-fascist debates above, of which I am most happily ignorant. One wonders whether economics should cede the title of the "dismal science" to political science and its chest-thumping minions.

Even bean counters and lawyers are more interesting.

Simply stated, Galloway is a traitor to everything decent and worth preserving in the West. If he were living in the United States in 1800 under President John Adams, his speech would have justifiably qualified as sedition.

Posted by: bob at August 5, 2005 07:34 PM

For one, in Germany capitalist for profit markets remained the driving force of the economy

The fascist idea was that control was more important than ownership, and less disruptive. Mussolini felt that Russia had suffered on account of the methods used. The idea was that of a regulated economy. In Germany, tax rates for industry were increased and more money spent on social welfare; the workers were well taken care of. The German welfare state actually goes back to Bismarck, but Hitler increased its reach. The fascists were just ahead of their time;) Then there is this:

It all began in 1934 when the leader of Nazi-Germany, Adolf Hitler, ordered dr. Ferdinand Porsche to develop a new small 'car for the people'.

Back in the early sixties I knew a fellow who fought in the Lincoln Brigade; he was soooo proud of driving a little beetle, not one of those ugly American cars. You can still run into such folks driving beetles that are now antiques. Ironic, I think.

Another story is that of a friend's mother. She came from a good family and was in Switzerland going to school when the war started. She was called home and the state put her to productive work as housemaid to the family of an SS officer. Well, being young and provocative, she set a place for herself at the dinner table. The officer complained. She called him on the hypocrisy of the Nazi propaganda about the equality of all Germans. She spent the rest of the war in a concentration camp. The point here is that the Nazis presented themselves as socialist. You may argue that this just shows that they weren't "true" socialists, but all the totalitarian socialist movements suffered from a similar hypocrisy. How could it be otherwise, given human nature?

Stalin's regime repressed workers, but repression of workers does not make one per se left or right.

I didn't say Stalin suppressed workers (although he did), I said Lenin suppressed the workers. Trotsky also took part in the sad spectacle. Trotsky's excuse was that Russia didn't really have a proletariat: it hadn't advanced that far. Someone above suggested the treatment of workers as a distinguishing feature between left and right. So I think my point is valid.

I read the post you linked to above. The list of right characteristics was quite the laundry list and had some fanciful elements, racism and eugenics, for instance. I wouldn't even include extreme nationalism on the list, as it seems to me that it started on the left in France and a certain strand continued on the left, even if you exclude the fascists. Nation and ethnic roots were also quite the thing in the late 1800's, progressive even: collecting folk music and such. Ethnic considerations are still considered progressive by some leftists, no? I don't think it is that far removed from nationalism. As to eugenics, it was in vogue among scientific progressives back in the day. It just isn't considered progressive anymore. And Stalin also sought to limit divorce and abortion in the late twenties because insufficient little workers were being produced. I suppose you could argue that Stalin was a fascist and Lenin was a proto-fascist, but I don't think such a relabeling removes fascism from the left, it just covers up some embarrassing zits.

I wouldn't even put religion on the list, as some of the fundamentalist evangelical religions are quite aligned with socialist ideals of equality and helping. Indeed, the earliest communes I know of were among the early Christians. Believers also took part in the emancipation and the civil rights movements, the latter going right back into the 19'th century. Ditto women's suffrage. So the whole laundry list is, as the author implied, somewhat unreliable.

Posted by: chuck at August 5, 2005 08:18 PM

""So if names and self-identification are bogus, how do you propose we distinguish such groups as the nazis, communists, and fascists?"

Why bother distinguishing them? They are ALL Totalitarian.

The defining meme for me is: some Philosophys accentuate Individual Liberty and some Total Control by the State the rest is just academic
pedantry.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at August 5, 2005 08:56 PM

Everything all of you know about fascism is wrong. It's much more complicated than the glossy posturing I'm seeing here.

Ever heard of syndicalism? I thought not.

Follow the first link on this blog entry.

http://wethefree.blogspot.com/2005/06/did-i-forget-to-mention-that.html

You will be rocked back in your chair. And don't start any crap with me about how Mussolini wasn't a REAL fascist.

And then follow the second link for dessert -- everything you know about Orwell is wrong too. I can't believe that the syndicalist's progeny have also managed to flush the wonderful term "fascifism" down the memory hole!

You may also want to check out my current jaw dropper:

"In a series of e-mails I patiently explained that Bush couldn't be Hitler since Hitler was dead. He also couldn't be a "new Hitler" since the two men have policies almost diametrically opposed. Most significantly, Bush is attempting to replace genocidal dictatorships with secular democracies. Hitler did everything he could do to destroy democracies and replace them with genocidal dictators. I thought my sister might understand the difference. I also pointed out that Hitler was a starving artist who joined the National Socialist Party, supported gun control, abortion, government control of corporations, was an athiest with an affinity for paganism, hated Jews and allied himself with radical Muslims. I then noted that the Democratic Party, not the Republicans, had a platform which came closest to Hitler's. In other words, using objective reality, not delusional rantings, Hitler is closer politically to the Democrats than to Bush."
http://wethefree.blogspot.com

Posted by: Bob Gronlund at August 5, 2005 11:46 PM

Galloway is on the Left, he IS a Leftist.

All talk about the left implicitly includes talk about Galloway, as a representative of the Left.

Michael, enjoy your holiday. Thanks for your answer (finally), on what distinguishes being on the Left:
"The answer is, and has to be, "nothing in particular." There is no one thing that all leftists have in common."

Of course, this answer rebuts ALL your claims that Islamofascists are NOT on the Left. You say the Taliban is not on the Left. I claim the UK Left, like Galloway, is moving the Left to include anti-American islamofascists -- and you offer "nothing in particular" to support your "No."

With respect to Left-Right identities, the World's Smallest Political Quiz with econ-freedom & civil-freedom vs. state authoritarianism is fine. For economics & individual freedom, but not quite for the WoT -- a third axis is needed.

One thing not mentioned yet is how there are always differences between Leftism IN power, and Leftism OUT of power.

The IN power Left tries to do its core beliefs, HillaryCare for instance, "no genocide" in Rwanda in 94, increase minimum wage, totally pro-abortion and fund abortion globally and support Women's rights in Beijing (in UN Conf. 1995) -- where many Chinese women thought, wrongly, that "reproductive rights" meant the UN was against the one-child policy, when it was really code-words for abortion. [No official translation was given other than the English text.]

The OUT of power Left has to react against the IN power non-Left. Bush has 3 axes of policy: pro-Moral Values, pro-Tax Cuts, pro-Iraq War (ME Democratization project).

The Dem Party has decided to oppose Bush on all three, and therefore has become Leftist. pro-Moral Values is almost identical with pro-Life versus pro-abortion. Leftists are hysterical against Roberts, who might well help in overturning Roe (and letting states decide, even differently). Since the biggest (?) pro-Life group are Christians, at least the loudest, pro-abortion has morphed into anti-Christian. This Huge mistake for the Dems, but consistent with a "secular" Leftism comfy with Marx's chant that "religion is the opiate of the masses." (And elite are oblivious to the fact that the masses will ALWAYS want one opiate or another, possibly even opium!) The US Left also wants to claim that being pro-Life means being pro-theocracy, which is nonsense. Human Rights are Fetal Rights, and Fetal Rights are Human Rights.

Leftist anti-Tax Cuts ( Higher Taxes...for the rich!) is meeting Rep huge spending -- what Bush programs/ pork do the Leftists want less of? Um, Pentagon? Like Cole (anti-$400 bil.) With unemployment so low, and inflation so low, Bush is doing a fantastic job ... with the Economy (stupid)! Leftists hate that, too; but focus instead more on the deficits (trade, silly; and gov't, a real problem).

So the OUT of power Left's last axis of attack is the war. "Iraq invasion was illegal, too few troops, incredible incompetence, the US is losing" -- all these Leftist ideas against Bush, against America (the sole superpower) are aimed at making Bush look bad, so that he loses. But this means the Left is supporting ... Islamofascists.

And where the Left leads, the OUT of power "liberals" are following; towards supporting Islamofascists.

The solution is for the Dems to accept the Iraqi War needs NOW, with the mistake of invading being in the past (punishment to Bush should be Reps losing in 2006), and promote a strategy of winning the War; meaning establishing a human rights respecting democracy in Iraq. A long, hard, job, no country has ever succeeded at, before. So there's no comparison to claim Bush is doing a "bad" job. Expensive, yes. "Could have been much better/ cheaper", no examples show this.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 6, 2005 02:52 AM

"In Germany, tax rates for industry were increased and more money spent on social welfare; the workers were well taken care of. The German welfare state actually goes back to Bismarck, but Hitler increased its reach. The fascists were just ahead of their time;)"

Utter nonsense. Their unions were obliterated, their best and most militant leaders killed or imprisoned if lucky to be alive. Hitler didn't have (like Mussolini) the strong support of captains of industry for no reason at all. One can't even come close to saying that about Stalin or Lenin.

And Bob, Hitler never supported free choice of abortion for all, never. And he had the strong support of major [capitalist] captains of industry in Germany as he pursued his policies. If they for a moment thought that Hitler [or in Italy Mr. Mussolini] was about destroying their power, they never would have supported fascism. Nor for that matter would people like Churchill or Chamberlain be so cosy with a Mussolini.

Posted by: jose at August 6, 2005 06:12 AM

Spainiard,

Hitler was a Christian…and he acted like a typical Christian, lying, cheating, misrepresenting his faith, ditching Church, manipulating other Christians to get them to do what he wanted them to do, worshipping nationalism above faith, starting wars on nationalistic passions, romanticizing revenge….and from everything I’ve learned about Christianity, this is exactly why they needed Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Sheez, just because some one is despicable, you don’t get to misrepresent their faith. And if you are a Christian, then you better get to know your faith and its theology better.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 6, 2005 08:03 AM

Only a fool would think Hitler supported socialism or the left in Germany

"After Hitler seized the reins of state, the first thing he did was destroy the workers organizations. He understood that once these organizations were destroyed, atomized workers would be incapable of resisting the naked rule of capital. Gunter W. Remmling's article "The Destruction of the Workers' Mass Movements in Nazi Germany" describes this in chilling detail. In the span of less than a year in 1933, shortly after Hitler's illegal "election", the massive institutions of the working-class had been destroyed."

"By April of 1933, most Communists were either in Dachau, in prison, in exile or dead. But the Nazis were not finished. They next set their sights on the rest of the working-class movement. They put through a law on April 7, 1933 that would purge all politically suspect individuals from civil service. This included Jews as well, regardless of their political views. The law profession was purged next. "Bolsheviks" and Jews were not allowed to practice law. This meant that if you were an ordinary worker who was arrested for opposing the regime, you could not even find a lawyer to defend you. Is it any surprise that so few Schindlers were to be found in the coal mines or steel-mills, let alone the corporate board-rooms? An idealistic member could always find a good lawyer, but an ordinary worker could not.

In May of 1933 a new campaign against the German Socialist Party began. SA and SS units occupied party, trade union offices and buildings housing their newspapers. In this month, all Socialist deputies, politicians, administrators and mayors were removed from their offices.

The unions were the final bastion of independent working class opposition to be smashed. Legislation was passed on May 19 called the Law About Trustees of Labor. It dissolved the old unions and set up corporatist units under the control of high-ranking Nazis. The goal was to provide political conformity and Arbeitsfrieden, or labor peace. "

Posted by: jose at August 6, 2005 08:21 AM

Hitler was a Christian…and he acted like a typical Christian, lying, cheating, misrepresenting his faith, ditching Church, manipulating other Christians to get them to do what he wanted them to do, worshipping nationalism above faith, starting wars on nationalistic passions, romanticizing revenge….

Neodude,

lmao! that's quite the litany. I'm going out on a limb and I'm going to take a WILD guess that you don't like christians very much.

But your own hatred doesn't make Hitler a christian.

Posted by: spaniard at August 6, 2005 08:35 AM

Sorry Spainiard,

Your hatred doesn't change the doctrines and creeds of your faith.

Christianity has a long history of what makes someone a Christian and what stops someone from being a Christian. Just because your political world is ROCKED that their are horrible members within different churches...you are not a Pope or a member of an Elder's counsel (maybe you sat through an excommunication service...I have sat through several Orthodox Presbyterian meetings where the process of excommunication was done)...What is so hard to understand, Hitler was baptized a Christian and if he wasn't given last rites, he did the ultimate sin (as Roman Catholic) and is in purgatory...or God didn't accept this sinful Christian and sent him to hell. But you do not get to say who is Christian and who is not Christian.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 6, 2005 08:49 AM

Here is my take on the strange alliance between far left and far right. In the end, the political distinctions are less important, I think, then the fact that they are working together symbiotically.

Posted by: neo-neocon at August 6, 2005 09:18 AM

Just because your political world is ROCKED that their are horrible members within different churches

neodude,

On the contrary, I take it as a given that there are horrible members within the church. My only argument here is that Hitler wasn't a christian.

You've provided ample evidence of your own personal hatred of christians and zero credible evidence that I'm wrong.

Posted by: spaniard at August 6, 2005 09:51 AM

Wow.

Galloway almost succeeds in making someone like Justin Raimondo appear sane.

What a scumbag. A Scottish far-leftist version of a radical cleric, mostly interested in lining his own pockets.

And his fan base, from James Wolcott, to "oppressed" jihadis, just love him.

Embarrassing.

Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 6, 2005 10:04 AM

I need not remind you that before the Iraq official invasion Galloway and Raimondo sounded a whole lot more sane in their assessment of the threat level from Sodom Husane than you folks did...

Posted by: jose at August 6, 2005 10:49 AM

Don't know what you're defining as 'jihad', but Galloway is explicit that he throws his support to Iraqis who are fighting the US occupation of Iraq at the moment. How is that support for foreign jihadists? It seems you collapse the two to score rhetorical points

Posted by: jose at August 6, 2005 10:58 AM

Just because Hitler hated the Treaty of Versailles, that didn't make the treaty any less wrong.

And it should wake some of us up, that many "fringe" folks were more right and honest than many Neocons.

(Don't forget, the Neocons were fringe when they started out.)

Spaniard,

Maybe you should be more worried about your own soul and your knowledge of Christian theology and stop worrying about who does bad PR for the Christian faith.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 6, 2005 11:07 AM

I'm not collapsing anything, Jose.

If you actually read my post, you would have seen that I specifically referred to his "fan base," not who he says he supports.

He supports the death of "imperialist" troops and Iraqis trying to get jobs as police officers who are blown up by the "resistence," because, as he says, "this is normal in every liberation struggle."

Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 6, 2005 11:35 AM

Anyone trying to argue Hitler was "not considered a conservative" might usefully explain why it was a coalition of conservative parties that put him in power. They certainly thought he was a man they could do business with in opposition to the left.

Posted by: Flea at August 6, 2005 11:40 AM

Flea,

you just answered your own question: a group of conservative and antirepublican aristocrats and industrialists in opposition to the Left thought they could do business with him. They lived to regret it. Lots of people thought they could do business with him, and then changed their minds, such as the Vatican's dissavowal of him in 1937-- that was 3 years BEFORE Chamberlain learned to regret it.

Posted by: spaniard at August 6, 2005 12:54 PM

Maybe you should be more worried about your own soul and your knowledge of Christian theology and stop worrying about who does bad PR for the Christian faith.

neodude,

I'm not worried about my soul, nor bad PR-- only wrong PR.

Posted by: spaniard at August 6, 2005 12:57 PM

Did the Roman Catholic Church excommunicate him?

Or did they "disavow" him like they may "disavow" Roman Catholic governors who sign off on the death penalties or young girls who get abortions...either way, the only way a "traditional" Christian is treated, when outside of bounds, is excommunication...especially Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant churches. He was a member of a Christian church, up until his death...there was a lot of time to excommunicate him, the Roman Catholic church found the time to excommunicate Martin Luther...Luther knew that a Christian could not claim to be a Christian unless he was part of a Church/Fellowship so he started his own church..."disavow"? In theology, "disavow" is wimpy liberal stuff...if someone is not acting in accord to doctrine they are dealt with...Hitler was obviously, not a real big problem for most.

You can say he was a heretic, although I have only heard churches in Europe describe him in those terms.

Being a Christian (or any other monotheistic religion) isn't just an idea you get and decide to keep or a feeling you have, and try to have all the time. There is a process to get in and a process to get kicked out. I'm not making this up...what is the big deal? Do you believe all psychopaths are secular liberals and Muslims?

Why is this news to you?

Posted by: NeoDude at August 6, 2005 01:42 PM

Hiter and Stalin both believed in:
1. single part rule
2. no democratic elections
3. the use of secret police to viciously eliminate all political opposition
4. total cotrol of public information
5. Use of military force to conquer others
6. the validity of sacrificing millions to their dreams of glory,
7. A tightly regulated economy where the interests of the state took precedence.

How can these two be considered on the opposite ends of any political spectrum? Aaron was spot on in showing the minimual differences between Stalin's socialism and Hitler's economic facism.

Posted by: at August 6, 2005 01:54 PM

neodude,

the Vatican's dissavowal of Hitler in 1937 came in the form of The encyclical Mit brennender Sorge ("With burning anxiety") which was one of the strongest condemnations of a national regime that the Holy See had ever published. In fact, the Vatican took pains to ensure that Nazi officials could not prohibit its distribution. Unlike most encyclicals, which are written in Latin, Mit brennender Sorge was written in German. It was then smuggled into Germany, secretly distributed, and read at the Masses on Palm Sunday, March 14,1937. Mit brennender Sorge condemned not only the persecution of the Church in Germany but also the neopaganism of Nazi theories, the idolizing of the state, and the use of race and bloodlines to judge human value. It declared in part:

"Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds. None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations before whose immensity they are "as a drop of a bucket" (Isaiah 11:15).

The encyclical concluded that "enemies of the Church who think that their time has come will see that their joy was premature." The Nazis confiscated all available copies of the encyclical, arrested printers who made copies, and seized -their presses. Those distributing the encyclical were arrested, payments due to the, Church from Germany under the concordat were reduced, and several priests were subjected to trials on trumped-up currency or momfity charges.

Shortly thereafter, Hitler was quoted in a Swiss newspaper as saying, "The Third Reich does not desire a modus vivendi with the Catholic Church, but rather its destruction with lies and dishonor, in order to make room for a German Church in which the German race will be glorified.' Pope Pius M was henceforth considered an enemy by the Nazis.

neodude, this is all obviously news to you.

Posted by: spaniard at August 6, 2005 01:57 PM

This argument is simple to resolve.

Google the Nazi political platform, its easy to find.

Google the NeoNazi political platform.

Remove planks that relate to jews and you have Ralph Nadar.

Replace the word jew with 'republican' and you have Howard Dean.

Posted by: Kevin at August 6, 2005 03:12 PM

The Church knows how to distance itself from certain beliefs...Liberation Theology for example, and Roman Catholics who agreed with Martin Luther...they were "dealt" with, excommunicated or forced to repent...it sounds to me that the Roman Catholic church viewed German fascist like they view Roman Catholics who allow state executions...it's naughty, but won't get you damned to eternal hell...and if you were a Roman Catholic fascist in Franco's Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, Austria, Pinochet's Chile and many other Roman Catholic fascist states, you were a good Catholic.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 6, 2005 04:22 PM

Spainiard,

Just curious where you got that "encyclical"...Is it one of the notorious papers that pop up, in Rome, to soften the Church's compliance in the face of tyrants? Anyway:

Achille Ratti, Pope 1922 - 1939
(and a side remark on Protestantism)

Pius XI, in his own words a "man with no love for democracy," helped to bring Mussolini's Fascist Party to power in Italy and in 1926 solemnly declared: "Mussolini is a man sent by Divine Providence." [MC247] In 1935 Fascist Italy attacked and invaded Abyssinia. Since the population of Italy lacked enthusiasm for this agression, the pope hastened to declare a new crusade. For example the Archbishop of Tarent, holding a Holy Mass on a submarine, declared: "The war against Abyssinia should be viewed as a Holy War, as a crusade," which also opened "Ethopia, the land of infidels and schismatics, to the Catholic Faith."

The pope's emissary in Germany, Papal Nuncio Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, helped to demolish the young Weimar republic. After the liberal democratic Catholic leader Erzberger had been assassinated, the Pope's exertions became directed to the support of all Right-Wing movements in Germany, via the influence of the Catholic Centre Party. On march 23, 1933, the German Reichstag met, and the Catholic Party, led by its Catholic leaders, former chancellor Brüning and prelate Mgr. Kaas, personal friend of Pacelli, voted for Catholic Hitler. After this, having received, directly from the Vatican, orders to disband, the Catholic Party dissolved. Preached Pacelli to the German Catholics:

"...it is all the more necessary that the Catholics, deprived of diplomatic representation, should find in the diplomatic pacts between the Holy See and the National Socialist Government guarantees which can assure them ... the maintenance of their position in the life of the nation."

Mgr. Kaas, leader of the dissolved Catholic Party, put it even more bluntly: Catholics must support Hitler, he said. They should not have any fears about it. For Hitler's ideals were "noble ideals." Furthermore, "Hitler knows well how to guide the ship." In this way the first successful democracy on german soil had been destroyed. [MC250-252]

(A side remark: lest anyone think that only Catholic Christians supported the demolition of German democracy, it should be mentioned here that the Protestants had founded their own organization aimed at the same goal, the "German Christians," who kept the crucifix on their banner, but now added the swastika. All ex-Jewish Christians were banned from the organization. Celebrating the fourth centennial of Reformation, the German Führer was compared with the German Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) and the German Luther.

A superintendent of the Protestant Church named Buchwald reminded his fellow Christians of all the evils the fatherland had had to endure in the time of the Weimar republic: no religious lessons in school, the growing alienation from God, the growth of un-German spirit, fatherland treason, licentiousness, and the declining birth rate. He continued:

"Behold, what a miracle came to pass: At this time of our fatherland's greatest need, in the last hour, there has come a leader, given to us by God: Adolf Hitler."

But this was not enough for the pope. The Spanish people, stricken with poverty and a high rate of analphabets (about 80% of the population), had swept away monarchy, proclaimed a republic and elected a left-wing government in 1931. Separation of State and Church was made a reality, religious freedom was granted and civil marriage adopted. Some of the Church property - which was estimated at one third of the nation's wealth - was nationalized. To fight the "Antichrists," a violent, relentless Catholic opposition was promptly started on a large scale throughout Spain [MC291]

By 1934 Catholic organizations already planned a coup d'état, having been in touch with the Fascist Government of Italy. On July 17, 1934 the Spanish Army rose in many Spanish towns. The Spanish Civil War had begun. As soon as the revolt broke out, a General Franco made haste to let the pope know that his coup had succeeded. The papal banner was unfurled over the rebel headquarters at Burgos, and the pope had Franco's flag raised over the Vatican.

This was the beginning of a world-wide Catholic offensive against Republican Spain. Bishops in Italy, Germany and other countries published pastoral letters urging Catholics to help. The pope spoke.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 6, 2005 04:42 PM

One cannot deny that in the 1930's, Germany was predominantly a Christian nation. It certainly was not a Hindu or Buddhist or Islamic nation. Germany is also indisputably the birthplace and cradle of the Protestant Reformation, launched by Martin Luther in the 16th century.

One cannot deny that Hitler and most of the Nazis were raised as Christians. Whether or not they were "true Christians" is a sophistical question. Certainly, it is fair to say that "a tree is known by its fruit", and it is fair to say that, whatever Hitler and the Nazis were, they were the fruits and products of a Christian society and upbringing, and a centuries-long Protestant tradition.

Whatever Hitler was in his "heart of hearts", it is undeniable that he used much pro-Christian rhetoric in his speechs and writings to gain support among the people.

If you read "Hitlers Willing Executioners" by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen ISBN 0-679-44695-8,

you will see how the author attempts to demonstrate that the GERMAN CHRISTIAN people (not NAZIS!) WILLINGLY AND ENTHUSIASTICALLY murdered the Jews and that the anti-semitism was rooted in the writings of Martin Luther (1543).

The writings of Martin Luther (1543) laid the foundations for the anti-semitism which resulted in the Nazi Holocaust, especially Luther's pamphlet "The Jews and their Lies".

Posted by: NeoDude at August 6, 2005 04:46 PM

I don't total agree with the abouve author's conclusions...but he sure does sound like today's American Christians attempting to tar Islam with their more "passionate" members.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 6, 2005 04:48 PM

"The national government ... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality." - Adolf Hiter, The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

"Today Christians ... stand at the head of Germany ... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... (few) years." - Adolf Hitler. Ibid, pg. 871-872.

"They each supported Hitler openly, enthusiastically, and with little restraint." In fact, they deemed it the Christian thing to do. They "saw themselves and were seen by others as genuine Christians acting upon genuine Christian impulses." Furthermore, all three tended "to see God's hand in the elevation of Hitler to power." Hirsch was a member of the Nazi party and of the SS. The Nazi state, he said, should be accepted and supported by Christians as a tool of God's grace. To Althaus, Hitler's coming to power was "a gift and miracle of God." He taught that "we Christians know ourselves bound by God's will to the promotion of National Socialism."

Kittel and a group of twelve leading theologians and pastors issued a proclamation that Nazism is "a call of God," and they thanked God for Adolf Hitler. Kittel was a party member and he himself proudly claimed that he was a good Nazi. He explains that he did not join it as a result of pressure or for pragmatic reasons but because he concluded that the Nazi phenomenon was "a völkisch renewal movement on a Christian, moral foundation." He accorded Christianity a place of honor in Nazi Germany precisely because of its position on the Jewish Question. He said he was speaking for other theologians too when he maintained that agreement with state and Führer was obedience to the law of God.

The other extreme has been noted by the historians Rubenstein and Roth: "Of all the churches of Europe during the period 1933-45, none was as silent or as indifferent to the known fate of the Jews, when it did not actively support National Socialist antisemitic politics, as was the German Lutheran Church."

Posted by: NeoDude at August 6, 2005 04:49 PM

The Catholic Bishops conference in 1933 "expressed joy that through the new state Christianity had been promoted, morality improved, and and the struggle against Bolshevism and godlessness condicted with energy and success" In the same year, 1933 "The Catholic Students Union hails the National Socialist revolution as the greatest spiritual breakthrough of our time".

In 1934, responding to an enquiry from the Ministry for Church affairs, the Catholic Seamen's Mission listed the books and papers they provided to seamen. The list included Hitler's own anti- semitic Mein Kampf, and the newspaper Volkischer Beobachter.

In 1936, the Bishops of Hannover, Wurtemburg and Bavaria signed a statement that said in part "We, together with the Reich Church Committee, stand behind the Fuhrer in the life-struggle of the German people against Bolshevism. In this struggle, the Church mobilizes the forces of christian belief against unbelief."

In 1939, The Bishop of Hannover, Marahans, was one of the signers of a statement that explained the need for the foundation of an institute to "dejudaize" the Church. "The foundation of this institute is based on the conviction that Jewish influence in all areas of German life, including therefore that of the Church and religon, must be brought to light and eliminated." At the outbreak of war, the Protestant bishops signed a statement which read in part "So at this hour too we join with our nation in intercession for the Fuhrer and the Reich...."

In November 1941, the Vicar General of the Diocese of Rottenburg wrote "The fact that so many believing soldiers are among the lists of the fallen justifies the conclusion that it is above all those soldiers with true Christian belief who have helped to win the great victories."

It is also true that many individual Christians and Priests resisted Hitler. However, the Churches themselves gave their followers a highly ambiguous and collaborationist message. Not only was Hitler a Catholic, he was an altar boy, wanted to be a priest, but was refused. And although he was into paganism, you'll note from the following, that he used 'Christian' type speeches to sway the populas...

Posted by: NeoDude at August 6, 2005 04:52 PM

Roman Catholic Fascist Dictators of the 20th Century
( four of whom were ordained priests )

Austria : Engelbert Dollfuss
Belgium : Leon Degrelle
Croatia : Ante Pavelic
Bohemia-Moravia : Emil Hacha
Germany : Adolf Hitler
Hungary : Miklos Horthy
Portugal : Antonio Salazar
Ruthenia : Fr. Augustin Voloshin
Slovakia : Fr. Josef Tiso
Slovakia : Fr. Andrei Hlinka
Spain : Francisco Franco
Sudetenland : Konrad Henlein
Vichy-France : Pierre Laval
Vichy-France : Henry Petain
Yugoslavia : Fr. Anton Koroshec

I would add the Fascist Dictators of Latin America, like Pinochet...except Mot of El Salvador who converted and became an Evangelical while he was ethinicaly cleansing the mountain sides.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 6, 2005 04:59 PM

How ironic, that Islamofascism has its roots in European Christianity?

Posted by: NeoDude at August 6, 2005 05:01 PM

Or should I say Christiofascism?

Posted by: NeoDude at August 6, 2005 05:14 PM

Replace the word jew with 'republican' and you have Howard Dean.

I'm beginning to think if you replace the word jew with 'christian' you get NeoDude.

Posted by: chuck at August 6, 2005 05:23 PM

Neodude,

the dates you cite all came before 1937 which pathetically just shows how deeply into the barrel you now have to reach. And I'm sure you find it compelling that you found 3 vicars to quote, but the catholic vicars and bishops of the entire free world were against Hitler as per the Vatican edict.

Your Leftist and atheist heroes killed more people in the previous century than all the people killed by christians in all the previous centuries combined.

Posted by: spaniard at August 6, 2005 05:33 PM

Fascism is a Christian phenomena and the Rock of Peter has been an eager supporter…most religious fanatics love fascism, that is no secret…many progressive and liberal Christians work to defeat it, when it rears its ugly head, unlike yourself, they do not pretend it never existed.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 6, 2005 06:56 PM

Neodude,

thanks for sharing your opinion. Unfortunately for you, you've shown nothing to back it up.

Posted by: spaniard at August 6, 2005 07:10 PM

>>>many progressive and liberal Christians work to defeat it, when it rears its ugly head,

Yes, apparently that included the Vatican.

Posted by: batlle at August 6, 2005 07:17 PM

"Hiter and Stalin both believed in:
1. single part rule
2. no democratic elections
3. the use of secret police to viciously eliminate all political opposition
4. total cotrol of public information
5. Use of military force to conquer others
6. the validity of sacrificing millions to their dreams of glory,
7. A tightly regulated economy where the interests of the state took precedence."

Hitler increased the power of the capitalist class, especially its industrial captains against workers. Stalin obliterated the capitalist class. How could anyone but a fool not see the difference?

Posted by: jose at August 6, 2005 08:53 PM

Hitler increased the power of the capitalist class, especially its industrial captains against workers. Stalin obliterated the capitalist class. How could anyone but a fool not see the difference?

He also obliterated the peasants. Russian agricultural production didn't recover to 1914 levels until the 1960's. He obliterated the old revolutionaries. He obliterated practically everyone, and was getting ready to finish off the Jews. Stalin was hardly selective.

As to the Nazis, After Hitler came to power the workers became much more cooperative and worked together with the state. Admiral Doenitz comments on this among the naval shipyard workers in his autobiography. Besides, I have spent time tossing down schnapps with some old Nazis -- Germany was full of them 20 years after the war -- and the general impression I got was of nostalgia for a great dream that failed. The whole Nazi phenomena was a great national movement that cut across class lines.

But I don't expect to convert you. You have your narrative and no doubt it gives you comfort.

Posted by: chuck at August 6, 2005 09:33 PM

I cringe with the "islamofascist" tag it is much more correct for example "Islamonazis" or "islamothugee" (since most people dont know what were the Thugee Cult in India this last one doesnt work very well).

Neodude most of that governements weren´t Fascists. Nazis werent Fascists.

Salazar while was a dictator and an authoritian wasnt a Fascist, he actually fought the fascist wing in Portugal.

Fascist initially came as a left tag word to designate every dictator. In itself fascism was very restricted to Italy and some few politics in other dictatorships.

So the word more than surpassed it's real meaning.

Neodude also you are making confusion of a tactical alliance between church and fascism and authoritarian dictators. As a comparison US supplied weapons to the Soviet Union this made US communist? The church in Spain and other countries was fighting for it's survival, since the only forces that had real power were Communists or Traditionalists it obviously choosed to tacitly support the Traditionalists.

In my own political division i put revolucionary movements like Fascism and Nazism has leftists and Authoritarian dictators like Pinochet, Salazar as traditionalists and as such conservatives.

Posted by: lucklucky at August 6, 2005 10:41 PM

I find it fascinating how syndicalism remains unconsidered in this debate despite my earlier comment. Orwell must be agape in disbelief that Sorel and Mussolini have been flushed down the memory hole...

Here's the direct link to the article you just can't afford to miss and still consider yourself anything but a lightweight in your understanding of fascism:
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm

Posted by: Bob Gronlund at August 6, 2005 11:08 PM

NeoDude has made a convincing case, and it's a matter of historical record that Hitler was raised as a Catholic and the Nazis were appeased by the Catholic Church, but I think it fundamentally misses the point. Hitler, and all fascist leaders, were primarily characterised not by their religious belief, but by their lust for power. They were willing to adopt any rhetoric in the pursuit of power, including the odd bit of socialist rhetoric if they thought it might win them a few supporters. But the Nazis' socialist rhetoric was as dishonest as the promise they gave to Hindenburg, that they would restore the Kaiser to power.

Whatever modern methods he employed, Hitler's goal was to recreate feudalism with himself and his chosen successors as monarchs, hereditary or not. While socialism and liberalism were direct enemies, anything that stood in the way of the the new feudalism was an enemy - and that included the established churches and those who wished to restore the constitutional monarchy. With its feudalistic goals, Nazism was a regressive movement, and thus it is correct to place it on the far right of the political spectrum. That is also where Islamic fundamentalists, who seek to recreate the Caliphate, belong.

Posted by: Gregg at August 7, 2005 12:09 AM

It appears there is a lot of confusion about the terms "Left" and "Right". But the important distinction is between those who favor state control over freedom. Ultimately, statists and libertarians would be polar opposites. Throwing anarchism into the mix is dishonest, because anarchism will always lead to some form of tyranny.

Tyranny, by definition, is statist. Regardless how you wish to label Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc, they were ALL statists.

THE central problem of human history has been and still is the concentration of power in the STATE ; especially economic power.

Throw lablels around all you want, but first lets understand a few FACTS. Free enterprise capitalism mitigates and checks concentrations of power unlike any other system. In the market, concentrations of economic resources occur because of the VOLUNTARY acts of free individuals, and such concentrations of power are always shifting and temporary. Free market capitalism rewards ambition and innovation, and produces prosperity and peaceful interdependence. Private property is THE most important check against state power. The state is not only inefficient, but also incorrigibly corrupt. Wars are started by governments, not corporations. The state is an instrument of coercion and violence.

Libertarian or statist. Peace or war.

Posted by: freeguy at August 7, 2005 01:15 AM

but I think it fundamentally misses the point. Hitler, and all fascist leaders, were primarily characterised not by their religious belief, but by their lust for power.

Then neodude has not made a convincing case, anymore than a convincing case can be made that Joseph Stalin was Russian Orthodox simply because he happenned to have been raised Russian Orthodox (he was).

Posted by: batlle at August 7, 2005 08:18 AM

Hitler sent thousands, if not tens of thousands, of RC Catholic priests into his death camps.

Those are not the ACTIONs of a "Christian." They ARE the actions of a power-crazy egoist.

A Hitler who, in the 33 election, could realistically say "Look at the Atheist Communists and their killing." Lots of folks agreed, then, that "anything was better."

Lots of folks were wrong -- again.

The folks who thought "Peace Now" in Vietnam were also wrong -- lots of anti-Christians thought supporting the commie N. Vietnamese in winning was better than supporting the capitalist USA & S. Vietnam.
Those folks were wrong.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 7, 2005 09:41 AM

"He also obliterated the peasants. Russian agricultural production didn't recover to 1914 levels until the 1960's. He obliterated the old revolutionaries. He obliterated practically everyone, and was getting ready to finish off the Jews. Stalin was hardly selective."

All of which is true and none of which is relevant. He did not do that to restore the power of the capitalists in Russia. Hitler, of course, did, thus his quite strong support from the captains of capitalist industry. Ditto Mussolini. Points that seem lost on you for some odd reason.

Posted by: jose at August 7, 2005 05:55 PM

But the important distinction is between those who favor state control over freedom.

That's utter nonsense, you know little about the left

Posted by: jose at August 7, 2005 05:58 PM

But the important distinction is between those who favor state control over freedom.

As in Kelo.

Posted by: spaniard at August 7, 2005 06:46 PM

A few comments:

1. Galloway is utterly reprehensible. As others have noted, he is so far off the reservation that nobody seems to want to defend him. His statements appear to be motivated either by insanity or intense self-loathing or both; OR, he may just be a collaborator.

2. Most of the arguments about whether Nazi Germany was left or right these days are not really arguments about the political structure of Nazi Germany. They are about leftists trying to tar today's conservatives with the Nazi label and conservatives trying to resist them. (Just like Neodude tars Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular based upon what those who claim to be Christian or Catholic may have done in the past).

3. Hitler does not really fit neatly in either the left or right box. He certainly was not a conservative, as he suppressed the established churches, the nobility and the business elite with vigor equal to that employed against everyone else who disagreed with him. Remember, one of his earliest purges involved cleaning the old guard/nobility out of the officer corps of the army. In addition, the plot to kill Hitler in 1943-44 (the only one that almost succeeded) was primarily a plot by conservative officers. In addition, there is a distinct difference between true right-wing dictatorships (e.g., Franco's Spain) and Hitler's Germany.

4. I have always preferred Seymour Martin Lipset's model, which holds that the Left-Right axis should be thought of as a six-fold table, with Moderate and Extreme versions of Left-Center-Right. Nazism is placed in the Extreme Center. Center because it is a creature of the middle class more than the upper class, and extreme for obvious reasons.

Posted by: Ben at August 7, 2005 07:15 PM

"But the important distinction is between those who favor state control over freedom."

To my mind, while a Conservative Government can be Totalitarian, A Socialist Government must incline so, and to that degree its Socialism has advanced, to that degree it will be Totalitarian.

Capitalism, at its best and finest, is willing and mutally exchange aggreed upon by two parties.

I think of it as the Human Races FIRST attempt at some other Paradigm other than Plunder and Pillage,

Socialism? Is "We do not think you need all you have, we think we need it, there being more of us than there are of you, we will take from you what we desire"

That is the Plunder and Pillage Paradigm

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at August 7, 2005 08:33 PM

"But the important distinction is between those who favor state control over freedom.

That's utter nonsense, you know little about the left

Posted by jose at August 7, 2005 05:58 PM "

We are aware the Left can Talk a fine Talk, but we are also aware of how they Walk,

As in "they can talk the talk but they cannot walk the walk,"

Utopian promises culmintating in Gulag Realities.

I am amused at some statements

The Nazis were not REAL Facists, Stalin and the USSR were not REAL Communists.

What does it matter, they were what those who CLAIM wonderful things for the future always turn out to be in Reality.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at August 7, 2005 08:38 PM

Martin Lipset's model, which holds that the Left-Right axis should be thought of as a six-fold table, with Moderate and Extreme versions of Left-Center-Right.

I thought it was fun to play with, but basically silly. Sociology isn't any sort of science, and silly nonsense from a famous George Mason ne Stanford ne Harvard Professor is still silly nonsense. In any case, later research showed that the Nazis had far more support in the laboring classes (left) than liberal apologists supposed, and Lipset's analysis of Nazism as extremism of the center has foundered on the facts. I've found this Lecture (PDF) a useful summary of sociological explanations of fascism.

Posted by: chuck at August 7, 2005 09:34 PM

jose,

He did not do that to restore the power of the capitalists in Russia...

I never claimed Stalin was progressive!

Hitler, of course, did, thus his quite strong support from the captains of capitalist industry.

So you say, but you ignore everything we present that shows the contrary. So here we are: I think you believe in leftist fairy tales and you think I am obtuse. Really no point in carrying the argument further.

Posted by: chuck at August 7, 2005 09:39 PM

Look…I am not trying to tar Christianity…my point is that religions and many ideologies don’t force people to do things…I have noticed a lot of anti-Islamic notions floating around that remind me of many conservatives critique of Judaism just a generation ago.

If people begin to see Islam as the source of “sin” like they did Judaism, the evidence is strong, then to do the same to Christianity.

After the Holocaust, there were many Jewish thinkers, who came to the conclusion that Christianity was inherently anti-Semitic, it’s long history of oppressing Jews was obvious…this was unfair… politics will use anything at its disposal to gain and maintain power.

But, many right-wing nihilists, especially on this thread seem to have selective memory.

By the way..,ISN'T THE ATTEMPT TO "DEMOCRATIZE" THE WORLD A UTOPIAN ATTEMPT THAT WOULD NEED TO INCLUSE MASS MURDER???

Posted by: NeoDude at August 7, 2005 11:08 PM

One big mistake many on the Left make is to blame capitalism for concentrations of political power in the hands of the "wealthy and powerful". In fact, the converse is true. Politics allows the "wealthy" to become far more powerful yet LESS accountable than they are in the market, because politics, EVEN DEMOCRATIC politics (in some respects, especially democratic politics ) by its very nature, exploits one group of people by force in order to pander to another through influence, taxes, regulation, subsidies, and other favored treatment of all sorts. Many people, particularly those on the Left, complain about the influence of money in political campaigns, but that is only true precisely BECAUSE politics is so important. And politics is important because government has, regrettably, become large and important. So it is a vicious cirlce of corruption which can ONLY be solved by downsizing government. When people on the Left complain about money and politics, they are being dishonest, because it is not political power, but actually money - more specifically its distribution - which they wish to control.

Once government begins to treat one person, group, or select industries different from, the entire society becomes corrupt and dishonest. The bigger and more complex the tax code becomes, the more people try to figure out ways to get around it. Human nature is what it is. It does not change just because people move from living and acting in a capitalist system of honest and voluntary exchange to one of government coercion and plunder, or vice versa. But free market capitalism operating under rule of law and private property is the only system which harnesses the higher angels of human nature, and keeps the demons in check.

Posted by: freeguy at August 7, 2005 11:31 PM

Neo -

The attempt to democratize the Islamic world may have an aspect or two of totalitarianism to it, but it is not totalitarian in the traditional sense. First, it is being done as a legitimate self defense measure - the Islamic radicals really are trying to kill us, and we are under no obligation to let them. Secondly, this is an attempt to avoid the much more dire consequence of simply slaughtering the Islamists - hardly something Hitler, Stalin, et al. would have done.

Posted by: Ben at August 8, 2005 06:24 AM

Libertarians and especially the Hayekian don’t get to re-write the whole history of Western political philosophy. I totally agree with the Neoconservatives, you guys are either, liberal or conservatives as well. Your “utopian state” hasn’t seen the light of day since the early Puritan colonies. Economic liberty or civil liberty may separate many of you, but in the end the typical libertarian is still an “anti-statist” statist!

You posers are whores for a right-wing leadership of the state.

Many of you love the state from the right. You play lip service to “anti-state” rhetoric, but in the end, all “anti-state” Republicans have done everything to embrace and expand the state. Most libertarians have really ended up being right-wingers who hate to see certain portions of society end up with pork, while you do everything to make sure other segments end up with much pork.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 8, 2005 06:25 AM

Neo -

You certainly sound like you are trying to tar Christianity. Religions and ideologies do not force people to do things, but they may make it more or less likely that people will do certain things by providing moral justification or absolution for acts people would not normally commit. You cannot deny the role Islam plays in the acts of the Islamofascists, just like Christians cannot deny the role Christianity played in Nazi Anti-Semitism. One big difference should be highlighted, however: The Islamofascists are receiving outright theological support for what they are doing, while Hitler did not receive the support of the organized Churches for what he was doing; similarly, Islamofascists are acting in a manner consistent with their view of Islam, while Hitler openly admitted he was attempting to change Christianity.

Posted by: Ben at August 8, 2005 06:30 AM

Ben,

First, it is being done as a legitimate self defense measure

Spoken like a true fascist!

Stalin did it in the name of defending the proletariat and Hitler did it in the name of the oppressed German people….they both did it in the name of history!

Hoping that military force can go into the souls of other peoples to transform their ideology is truly totalitarian. Democratizing the Middle East, through military power is truly statist!

Posted by: NeoDude at August 8, 2005 06:38 AM

Ben,

Hitler did not receive the support of the organized Churches for what he was doing

LIE...he was able to take over BECAUSE of the Churches...they were not the foundation of liberty you pretend they were.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 8, 2005 06:43 AM

NeoDude,

You might be interested in the various Marxist views of fascism. Here is a starting point, link, You will see that the different theories are a bit more sophisticated and fact based than your own approach. If you are going to be left you might as well become familiar with what people like Trotsky and Gramsci thought about the matter.

Posted by: chuck at August 8, 2005 06:53 AM

chuck,

Maybe you should brush up on your Western Political Philosophy...Hitler was a Christian of the right...whether Hayak liked it or not.

And most Libertarians are utopian thinkers, especially if they believe The State's military can bring the salvation of markets to the world.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 8, 2005 07:20 AM

Neo -

Your comment about self-defense gives new meaning to relativism. It is abundently clear that Islamic fascists are actively trying to kill Westerners in general and Americans in particular. We have a right to defend ourselves, which includes the right to kill them before they kill us. Welcome to the jungle.

We are attempting to "civilize" the ME as an alternative to killing a lot of Muslims. If we are not able to change the dynamic in the ME, it is very likely that we will eventually have little choice but to slaughter many Muslims. I would think that all compassionate, liberal people would think forced change is the better of two bad choices.

Clearly we are acting in self-defense. Clearly Hitler and Stalin were not. If you don't see the difference between what we are doing and what Hitler/Stalin did, from motive to magnitude to everything in between, there's really no point in further discussion of the matter.

Posted by: Ben at August 8, 2005 07:41 AM

Neo -

"LIE...he was able to take over BECAUSE of the Churches...they were not the foundation of liberty you pretend they were."

Absolutely, flatly, wrong. Some German religious leaders supported Hitler. Their support may have contributed to, but did not cause, his rise to power. Their support was more about nationalism than religion. Christianity and the Christian Churches as a whole, did not support Hitler, particularly after it became known what his regime was.

Posted by: Ben at August 8, 2005 07:50 AM

Ease up folks. Lets not forget that "left" and "right" are arbitrary categories for a masssivly diverse range of opinion. Like any other categorization strategy, its value lies in its usefullness in describing the real world. There was a time when these terms had some real meaning - when the political world was basically divided along the lines of the original French revolutionary split between the aristocracy and the peasantry. As a metaphor based on this split, the later division between workers and industrialists had some meaning.

But in modern times, the political divides are different and more complex. The use of the terms left and right are now essentially meaningless, as they function essentially as curse words by ideologoues of one position or another, who wish to associate their opponents with the monstors that the old left and the old right produced.

Most of you seem to sense the truth in this, yet continue to use the terms. Why dont we just agree that anyone speaking of today's political spectrum, who uses the terms left or right, is, by definition, a misleading propagandist who deserves to be ignored.

Given the overwhelming amount of political commentary we encounter these days, and the need for some filters, this standard can be very useful. Hear someone refer to "the left" or "the right" and tune them out immediatly.

Posted by: IP at August 8, 2005 08:40 AM

Ben,

I am not saying that Christianity caused Hitler, but I am not saying that Islam caused 9-11.

What really gets me is that many self-proclaimed Christians love to discuss who is a “real Christian” and who is a false Christian...and surprise, they usually pick the Christians they don't like as "not really Christian".

You are not Jesus Christ; you don't get to choose who he rejects, Hitler was raised Christian and died a member of the church. The church was more concerned with power than disciplining its right-wingers (it sure went out of its way to discipline left-wingers, when could), this is horrible politics, but the churches were not going to be left out of power, they threw in it’s influence behind right-wingers, that is no surprise, it usually does!

There is a process to become Christian and a process to get out! Its Christian 101...you can say he was a bad Christian, a heretical Christian, a very naughty and sinful Christian...but to say that his Christian upbringing and his political alliances should be ignored so that you can feel good about the faith is absurd.

And justifying the use of military force to democratize the souls of the Middle East, so that you could feel good is right-wing nihilism at its finest.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 8, 2005 08:57 AM

Neodude,

it's obvious that you have a deep hatred of conservative christians, that much is clear. And I'm not going to argue with you about that because I'm sure the feeling is mutual and who really cares. But all that hatred is just sound and fury signifying nothing, and it doesn't ammount to Hitler having been a christian. That's my only point, and you've not proved me wrong.

Hitler had the Catholic Church fooled until 1937, but Chamberlain and Liberals of his ilk were fooled until the very moment Hitler invaded Poland. Winston Churchill and the warmongering conservatives of his ilk are the only ones that got it right from the beginning. Even most of the Jews living under his regime refused to see what is so obvious to us in hindsight.

Posted by: spaniard at August 8, 2005 09:20 AM

I suspect, since you probably consider your self a right-wing Christian, the FACT that the demon above all demons, within the Christian tradition, is a Right-Wing Christian just trembles your weak little faith in the Lord, huh, Spaniard?

Posted by: NeoDude at August 8, 2005 09:41 AM

Neodude,

if I was an atheist instead of a conservative christian it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference in the facts.

And by the way, all those christians whom you reluctantly admit did oppose Hitler would be considered conservative today. Bonhoeffer's theology-- just as an example-- is considered quite orthodox today which is why he's wildly popular amongst evangelicals.

Posted by: spaniard at August 8, 2005 10:44 AM

Bonhoeffer did not believe in a literal interpretation in scripture. He was also involved with various Christian Socialist movements in Northern Europe; he was a neo-orthodox in the vein of Paul Tillich and Karl Jaspers, who were despised by American fundamentalists.

I realize how the PR conscious right-wing try to cling to Bonhoeffer, while he is long dead and gone, but while he was alive American fundamentalist believed his views were weakening Christianity…he was a radical pluralist.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 8, 2005 11:03 AM

Neodude,

Bonhoeffer's books are on the shelves of every self-respecting christian rightwinger I know.

Posted by: spaniard at August 8, 2005 11:05 AM

*Nazis had far more support in the laboring classes (left) than liberal apologists supposed, *

Rubbish. The strongest opposition to Hitler came from the workers in the heart of capitalist industry in Germany. Thus Hitlers almost immediate liquidation of the militant unions and unionists, especially members of the Communist Party and SDP. Hitler was, as it were, deeply committed to smashing the left in Germany entirely and he had no interest in destroying the capitalist class.

Posted by: jose at August 8, 2005 11:11 AM

If you are going to be left you might as well become familiar with what people like Trotsky and Gramsci thought about the matter.

Gramsci died in a fascist prison. He was the most respected leader of Italy's left. The left was liquidated in Italy by the fasicsts, who had the strong support of Italy's leading capitalist industries. They were especially fond of the Fascists interest in liquidating union militants and their strike potential.

Posted by: jose at August 8, 2005 11:30 AM

Ideologies are usually thought to be linear in nature, when in reality, they are points on a circle. "Left" and "Right" join at their extremes at the bottom of the circle. Remember that "Nazi" is a German contraction for "National SOCIALISTS."

Google "National BOLSHEVIKS," and look at the startling symbolism (http://www.bolsheviks.org/, and http://www.nbp-info.org/) to see what I mean. Seen that red flag with the white circle somewhere before?

Posted by: Roderick Reilly at August 8, 2005 01:15 PM

Neo -

You are of course wrong.

1. At best for your position, Hitler may have self-identified as a Christian; I doubt this is true because he made clear that he wanted a state church under his control. In addition, he encouraged paganism in the Church. Whatever he thought of himself, he was not a Christian.

2. At 6:43 a.m., you said "[Hitler] was able to take over BECAUSE of the Churches." At 8:57 a.m. you said, "I am not saying that Christianity caused Hitler." Are you repudiating your 6:43 comment or are you limiting it by drawing a distinction between the religion itself and the churches?

3. Some false Christians are easy enough to identify: For example, one who claims to be a Christian, then does such things as deny the authority of Holy Scripture, incite others to commit mass murder of innocents, subscribe to pagenism and attempt to subjugate the churches is a false Christian. No Christian denomination embraces Hitler now, and those who did in the past did so at gunpoint.

4. I do not "justify[] the use of military force to democratize the souls of the Middle East, so that you could feel good...." My posts clearly state that I support the use of military force because I believe it is a matter of self defense. It does not make me feel good; in fact, I get no joy out of it whatsoever. I support the policy because I believe it is what must to be done under the circumstances. The fact that a necessary task is distasteful does not mean it should be avoided.

5. I believe that there are only two alternatives to the present policy: (a) Let the Islamofascists have a free hand in their attempts to kill us, and (b) do nothing until the problem becomes much larger and more killing needs to be done to deal with it. I am unwilling to agree to consider option (a). I think the present policy is much more humane than option (b).

6. As usual with the Left these days, you are long on criticism of whatever conservatives do and short on useful suggestions for alternatives. If you believe you have a better answer, I would love to hear it. Until someone comes up with something better, I will continue to support the present policy in Iraq.

Posted by: Ben at August 8, 2005 01:23 PM

Jose -

You are wrong, too. As I pointed out above, Hitler acted against left and right with equal enthusiasm. In fact, he went after anyone who opposed him. He did not encourage "the capitalists" because he did not want rivals. There are plenty of examples of capitalists that Hitler liquidated or otherwise oppressed because they disagreed with him. Hitler did not literally destroy the unions, he co-opted them, in totalitarian fashion. In similar fashion, his animus against opposition politicians was not limited to the SPD.

Posted by: Ben at August 8, 2005 01:29 PM

Ben,

So then you seem to agree with me, in that Hitler was neither Left nor Right, but a whacked out psychopath, willing to use any political/belief system that he could, to gain advantage.

Do you agree?

Tosk

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 8, 2005 02:01 PM

jose,

Gramsci died in a fascist prison.

That is merely biography. In any case, he died in Rome shortly after being released, not in prison. My question was: what was the Gramscian analysis of the Fascists? Do you know?

Posted by: chuck at August 8, 2005 02:46 PM

I believe many Christian churches were complacent and compliant during the Inquisition....that does not mean Christianity did it! The Pope was the Inquisitions’ biggest supporter…yet I would never say that it was Christianity that tortured millions (a tradition many right-wing Christians seem to enjoy) unless they “confessed”.

Just because right-wing Christians are dangerous, especially when they mix the Gospel with nationalism (America, Spain, Germany, Italy) I do not say it is Christianity fault that these nationalistic right-wingers put on white robes, or black shirts. But it is sure scary that right-winging Christians begin to mix theology, metaphysics and politics.

Fascist could never take control of Christian nations unless Christians were compliant. Now, that isn’t Jesus Christ’s fault, he warned you/us of sinful humans willing to dress sin up in all kinds of rationalizations.

But it was compliant Christians that allowed it to happen…no let me restate that, IT WAS RIGHT-WING Christians who helped and allowed it. These patriotic right-wingers who were Christians, thought they were patriotic sons of the Homeland defending God and country, some may have thought the Fuehrer was full f himself, but he was better than those wimpy liberals and traitorous leftists.

The Roman Catholic, as well as the German Lutheran churches gave those Christian and Patriotic Right-Wingers their support, in Italy, Spain, and Germany. Now, a Hindu or Muslim will look at that and say “See, how those Christians act?” or “See, proof that Christianity is inherently racist and authoritarian” but they would be making an unfair generalization.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 8, 2005 02:55 PM

Is Galloway starting to remind anyone of Oswald Mosley, without the glamorous wife?

And has anyone really ever figured out Galloway's motivation? Does he just hate Western civilization, or is his love of Islamofascism simply a transference of his former love of the Soviet Union (he did tell the Guardian that the fall of the USSR was the worst thing to happen).

Or is it something more?

Posted by: Some Guy at August 8, 2005 03:06 PM

One other point. I am loath to jump into the "What is Left, What is Right" discussion, but to someone like me, the only real difference between Communists and Fascists is that Fascists have a slightly better fashion sense.

Posted by: Some Guy at August 8, 2005 03:10 PM

Neodude,

again, atheists killed more people in the last century than christians did in all the previous centuries combined. I never tire of reminding people of that well-known fact.

Posted by: spaniard at August 8, 2005 03:31 PM

Spaniard,

To say Dahmer was better than Hitler, because he killed less people, is really not saying much.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 8, 2005 04:43 PM

Hitler is a phenomenon of the right simply because he was put into power by the right. Stalin is a phenomenon of the left for the same reason. Whether either accurately represent the spirit of any current or former political movement is irrelevant.

The lesson of Hitler and Stalin, therefore, should be that we are all vulnerable to being misled in the most catastrophic way possible by charismatic political figures. To sustain democracy, we must not follow blindly, willfully or otherwise.

Posted by: sivert at August 8, 2005 04:54 PM

Neodude,

I had in mind someone more along the lines of Stalin, Pol pot, etc.-- not Dahmer or Hitler. You know, heroes of the atheist Left that rarely get a mention from Libs because they aren't on "the Right".

Posted by: spaniard at August 8, 2005 05:55 PM

Tosk -

Yes, I agree.

Posted by: Ben at August 8, 2005 07:31 PM

Neo -

You have, at last, revealed yourself: it's all about the right-wing being evil. Your last post proves one of the first points I made - namely, that this debate is more about the left trying to tar the right with Hitler than an honest debate about whether or not Hitler was right-wing.

Posted by: Ben at August 8, 2005 07:36 PM

Some Guy,

Is Galloway starting to remind anyone of Oswald Mosley, without the glamorous wife?

Very much so. From the Labor Party: check. Switch to Fascist: check. Womanizer: check. I don't know that Mosley was quite as corrupt about money, though, nor does Galloway yet have a uniformed following beating up Jews.

Posted by: chuck at August 8, 2005 07:42 PM

Spaniard,

So you're saying that Pol Pot, Stalin and the other mass murdering psychos of the 20th century acted in the way they did, because they were socialists and athiests?

If we look at the past two thousand years of history, we can find mass murdering psychopaths that were Christian and not socialists... does that mean that Christianity and 'political view other than socialism' caused them to be that way?

Or do vile men act in vile ways, no matter what ideology they espouse?

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 9, 2005 08:51 AM

Tosk,

I'm simply saying that anti-christian bigots live in really huge immense glass houses.

Posted by: spaniard at August 9, 2005 09:00 AM

Spaniard,

Glass houses indeed. :)

I think, that we might be able to draw a comparison between the dogmatic view of a particular political/religious/ideological platform and the violence directly attributable to it.

Very dogmatic Christians seem more prone to act in horrific ways. Very dogmatic socialists seem to act in horrific ways. Very dogmatic __________ seem to act in horrific ways.

Would you agree?

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 9, 2005 09:45 AM

"German neo-Nazis are anything but left"

You're probably correct, I know little of them. What you might've run into is people confusing the actual Nazis with the neo-Nazis. Historical Nazis were socialists, which is properly attached to the left side of the political aisle.

I also agree with posts stating the binary-divide is one of those perception falsefications about which Glenn Reynolds has written. A good example of one view that breaks the binary mold is here:
"world's shortest political quiz"
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

It's a libertarian site, so of course their classification tops the chart, and the questions are geared to make everyone seem more libertarian.

I really like the "libertarian v. authoritarian" top to bottom split. It's another view, and an interesting one to me.

Posted by: nanobrewer at August 9, 2005 10:12 AM

The libertarian model is about as utopian as anarchist models.

The fact that "libertarian hawks" no longer seems absurd, as well as "libertarian socialist" it kinda shows the futility of the anti-state vs. pro-state binary.

According to that model, all NAZI and Communist are anti-state, until they control the state.

Many right-wingers who claim the libertarian mantel, use the anti-state rhetoric, until their party is in office...then the state seems to be All Good.

And Hayek was extraordinarily anti-war and Anti-War.com and Lew Rockwell.com seem to keep reminding us.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 9, 2005 10:31 AM

Tosk,

do very dogmatic pacificists tend to act in violent ways? You see, it all depends on what the "dogma" is.

There is nothing in christian dogma that would tend to make people violent, or else all the abortion clinics would have been bombed into oblivion decades ago.

Posted by: spaniard at August 9, 2005 10:57 AM

Spaniard,

Not Dogma, the teaching... 'dogma' the psychological phenomena.

A dogmatic individual isn't simply someone who holds the tenants of the faith, but rather, someone who completely refuses to accept that they might be wrong... That their view might not be THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE VIEW.

We might say that dogmatists mistake the simulacrum of truth and the Truth itself.

Does that make more sense?

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 9, 2005 11:13 AM

Dogmatic religionists/fundementalist desire to federalize, both the prejudices AND the tenets of their faith, whether the citizen is member or not.

Certain rules, which might be fine for the congregants of individual churches or whole denominations, are not necessarily fine for the nation as a whole.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 9, 2005 12:17 PM

NeoDude,

And when we replace the religious aspect of that dogmatic mind, with a political aspect of that same mind... we find similar problems, wouldn't you agree?

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 9, 2005 12:36 PM

A dogmatic individual isn't simply someone who holds the tenants of the faith, but rather, someone who completely refuses to accept that they might be wrong...

Tosk,

I understand and I agree, and I would also add that some dogmas are better than others at containing and limiting such dogmatic individuals-- like christianity.

Posted by: spaniard at August 9, 2005 01:08 PM

Spaniard,

I can see that perspective.

However, Christian Dogma led to the Inquisition, Christian Dogma led to the Crusades, Christian Dogma led to people being burned at the Stake for trying to translate the Bible, or for practicing a belief system that was different than Christianity.

So I would have to qualify your statement to say that the current western interpertation of Christianity tends to limit extremely dogmatic individuals.

But then, that appears true of mosbunall belief systems that are acceptable within modern Western Society. After all, I think we can agree that Muslims who have adopted a more western view of their faith tend to minimize the threat of extremism in their adherents (mosbunall of the Islamic jihadists, seem to come from more extremist mosques). The same might be said of many of the Pagan cultures, which, here in the West do not seem to promote extremists.

Could it be, that the Western philosophy of liberty, democracy and freedom (and the laws we have to protect them) do more to modify belief systems, making them less dogmatic?

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 9, 2005 01:34 PM

Yes Tosk, good points. Its called liberalism, undermining the existential claims of religion. Spaniard seems to have a problem accepting the dognmatic core of the christian religion. It is hardly only the extremists who meet your definition of dogma - belief that their religion's teachings are the one and only truth. In fact, this is itself a core teaching of christinity, and islam and most other religions. When you invoke an all powerful creator who lies at the core of your belief system, how can one then accept that all of that may possibly not be true?

Religions can serve some useful social purposes, as vehicles for the dissemination of basic ethical rules. But in their cosmological claims, they are a cancer to the thinking mind, and a force for fundamental division amongst peoples and cultures. The only good religion is one that dispenses with claims to divine truth. The problem of course, is that mosbunall religions see that as their foundational belief.

Posted by: IP at August 9, 2005 01:50 PM

Tosk,

I would agree with your generous concession that the more negative aspects found in yesterday's christian institutions isn't typical of christianity today.

But (there's always a 'but') considering the Crusades was in response to unrestricted islamic military expansion since the 7th century, one could argue that it wasn't because of christian dogma that we went to war, but because of a perceived threat to our interests.

Posted by: spaniard at August 9, 2005 01:52 PM

Could it be, that the Western philosophy of liberty, democracy and freedom (and the laws we have to protect them) do more to modify belief systems, making them less dogmatic?

Tosk,

I think that the belief systems remain just as dogmatic, but our democratic system provides a framework by which competing systems can co-exist without destroying each other. It's only a framework-- not a competing dogma.

Posted by: spaniard at August 9, 2005 01:56 PM

"But (there's always a 'but') considering the Crusades was in response to unrestricted islamic military expansion since the 7th century, one could argue that it wasn't because of christian dogma that we went to war, but because of a perceived threat to our interests."

Well, there appear numerous reasons for the crusades, and somebunall of them do have roots in western interests... however, can you make the same 'but' claims for the Inquisition or the number of people burned alive for heresey (or the sin of owning a copy of the Bible)?

our democratic system provides a framework by which competing systems can co-exist without destroying each other.

I agree wholeheartedly, and I half-suspect that Christianity has benefitted from this just as other belief systems have.

As an aside, I will gladly state that some belief systems tend to encourage extremely dogmatic individuals, while others tend to discourage extremely dogmatic individuals. I am, in no way, trying to make all belief systems equivalent.

Though I would probably make the argument that any individual or group that has embraced an extremely dogmatic reality-tunnel are equally dangerous (be it dogmatic christianity, dogmatic Islam, dogmatic socialism etc).

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 9, 2005 02:29 PM

Ratatosk,

Indeed, whenever the DSA would have open meeting the hated Peoples Liberation Workers Party of the Commie Whatever, would spend more time yelling and screaming at us for being sell-outs, than actuaaly getting some work done.

-----------------------------

At somepoint, if dogmatic Christians were to live like the Hasidim (in American urban centers)or early Mormons (in rural Utah), religious passions would not seem threatening…it is when the Hasidim or Mormons require that their faith dictate the civil conditions of others, that is when they become threats.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 9, 2005 02:36 PM

Neodude,

I'm sure the Hassidim would find you Libs far more palatable if you too made yourselves scarce in little rural communes instead of trying to remake the country in your Leftist image.

Posted by: spaniard at August 9, 2005 03:36 PM

...however, can you make the same 'but' claims for the Inquisition or the number of people burned alive for heresey (or the sin of owning a copy of the Bible)?

Tosk,

Although the Catholic Inquisition should go down as a dark stain on that church's record, most historians agree that no more than 2,000 people were killed in hundreds of years under the Catholic Inquisition. 'But' compared to the Cultural Revolution (Leftist Atheist)-- a movement which killed millions in only a few years-- it was a picnic. Interesting how very bloody these atheists have proven themselves to be in so few years, no?

Next, the gulags.

Posted by: spaniard at August 9, 2005 03:49 PM

Spainiard,

A Protestant would never make that statement...I'm guessing your a bonafide right-wing Roman Catholic?

Posted by: NeoDude at August 9, 2005 04:59 PM

Most of the info I get, concerning the horror and terror that was Christian Europe, does not come from atheist or liberals or demonic leftist, but TRADITIONAL PROTESTANTS!

Posted by: NeoDude at August 9, 2005 05:03 PM

Neodude,

I was raised Presbyterian, but left that church when they became a Liberal social club. Now I'm a non-denominational Protestant. My father, however, was born catholic and educated since childhood to become a catholic priest. After seminary he converted to Protestantism, and in catholic Spain that was no small thing. I've heard his horror stories and I know the history, so I have a very realistic view of what all that stuff was about, i.e., it wasn't people being hearded into gulags. So I'll take catholic Spain any day over any country that officially declared atheism as its state religion.

Posted by: spaniard at August 9, 2005 05:41 PM

I hate talking about the Crusades in this context because (1) it is talked to death, especially by Moslems, (20 it was a very long time ago and (3) THE MOSLEMS WON (they always leave out that part when complaining).

However, the Crusades were a direct result not of Christian fanaticism, but rather of the threat to the Byzantine Empire. After the Battle of Manzikert in 1069, the Syzantines found themselves hard ressed. By 1090, they had lost most of Asia Minor, which was traditionally the place they recruited most of their soldiers from (imagine if the US suddenly lost the South, how would we have an army?)

The Byzantines asked for soldiers to help in reconquering Asia Minor. Once the call went out, it got out of control. The Byzantines hoped for something like 15,000 Western mercenaries to be incorporated for a time into the Roman army, until they could liberate Asia Minor. Instead, someting like 100,000 Europeans showed up, unruly, some untrained. It basically got out of control.

Posted by: Some Guy at August 9, 2005 08:36 PM

Most "devotees" saw heretics bastardizing the faith...and pluralism and secular democracy were not yet the all the rage of Europe, so The Church dealt with crypto-Jews and heretics the only way it knew how...death and torture.

I have attended an Orthodox Presbyterian (no friend to liberalism) church for a decade, and the Roman Catholic’s attempt to “purify” the Faith did not take 2000 lives. I’m having a hard time believing you grew up anything Protestant.

Not to say the Protestants were any better…Cromwell and his followers were no joke….and liberal and pluralistic values took a back seat to burning Roman Catholics at the stake.

If your faith is based on white washing the horrible and terrible past of European Christianity, then you really have weak and feeble faith.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 10, 2005 07:25 AM

For what it's worth, I have always believed that ideology is not the sole determining factor in whether a person would be an extremist. I think you also need to look at what I will call "temperment." Not all people with extreme ideologies are prepared to act on their ideology, although they may "go along" as followers. The really dangerous person is the person with an extreme ideology AND an extreme temperment.

For example, the overwhelming majority of Americans on the "religious right" would not even dream of committing mass murder of those who disagree with them. In part, this is because the US system encourages moderation.* OTOH, with the Islamists you have an extreme ideology coupled with a willingness (even an enthusiasm) to act on it. IMHO, this enthusiasm to act on extremism is a consequence of the dysfunctional political culture in most Muslim countries.

The Iraq War is an attempt to fix this problem by "cleaning up" one of the more dysfunctional states. I supported it on that basis, among others.

*This encouragement of moderation is the benefit and true genius of the messy our political system that forces people to compromise. It is also why proportional representation is a stupid idea -- it makes it more likely extremists will be elected. It is also the problem with gerrymandering -- fewer Congressmen have to move to the center to get elected.

Posted by: Ben at August 10, 2005 07:46 AM

Neodude,

I grew up PCUSA, not orthodox Presbyterian. There's a HUGE difference. Whenever you hear about the Presbyterians voting on gay issues, or divesting from Israel, and other similar tomfoolishness, they're talking about PCUSA, not orthodox.

I didn't say the Reformation and Counter Reformation only cost 2,000 lives-- I said that was the approximate number of people killed by the Inquisition. There's a difference. That's not a whitewash, that's a historical fact.

Posted by: spaniard at August 10, 2005 11:11 AM

Spaniard,

2000 doesn't appear to be 'historical fact'. 2000 appears as the number of executions that recent research (sponseded solely by the Catholic Church), indicates. This information came form a single study by a professor in Spain I believe. (a Catholic Historian I think).

If we examine other scholarly works, we find a large number of varied opinions. The Secretary of the Inquisition at the turn of the 19th century stated numbers around 30,000, White, Rummel, and others tend to agree with this number. Some historians include the additional 100,000 or so people who died under torture and due to horrific living conditions in the prisons.

Even the Church (in the 2000 figure) admits that many more were killed under the asupices of secular tribunals. I wonder if they rinsed their hands in a bowl of water before writing that?

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 10, 2005 01:24 PM

I would also point out that mosbunall Christians have tended to oppose the extremists. The Puritan ministers, for example, by and large found the witch trials terribly unjust and highly suspect. A number of them are recorded as having berated the local officials for allowing a few Ministers to run such an operation.

This, I think, may be the key point. No belief system alone is responsible for dogmatic actions. No group is singled out as free of dogma or full of dogma... each man must stand on their own. We can find murderous sucm, dogmaticaly sure that God is directing them.... Just as we can find murderous dogmatic scum who see religion as the opium of the people and dogmatically try to erase it from existence.

Belief systems, I think, can lead to dogmatic thinking. When we enter a belief system, we say "I believe X is true". For sombunall people, this statement morphs into "X is True". For fewbunall of those people, the statement becomes "X IS TRUE AND ALL ELSE IS FALSE".

Finally, if the political, social and religious climate is right, someone says "X IS TRUE, ALL ELSE IS FALSE AND MUST BE REMOVED."

That, appears as the threat to me.

When I was a child of 4, my father, pregnant mother and I were in the door-to-door ministry. As Jehovah's Wittnesses, we would knock on doors see if the person was interested in talking about the Bible, then either launch into a sermon, or leave.

We knocked on one door and a woman came screaming out onto the porch, she shoved my mom, who fell backward down the steps (fortunately my dad was behind her by a few paces and caught her), then kicked me in the rear as I turned toward my mom.

We quickly headed back to the car, meanwhile her husband came around the side of the house with corn cutters in hand and tried to break the window of the car as we attempted to drive past him.

They went to the local Presbetyran chruch and were upstanding members of the local community.

Once, someone told me I was going to hell for being a JW. As we left, they turned three dobermen pincers loose. My friend Michelle had to go to the hospital and still has facial scars. (I have some dogbite scars from a different incident).

Two women I know (one was about 45 at the time and the other was 70), were chased off at gunpoint and had several holes in the trunk where some christian unloaded a shotgun into the back of their car as they drove away.

Many other Christians treated us well, often asking if we would like a drink or something. Even if they said they weren't interested they would smile and say have a nice day.

In 23-24 years of knocking on doors, the only violent people we met were christians. Pagans tended to be rude and liked showing up to the door naked in order to shock us. Atheists tried to convert us... lots of people we never knew just slammed the door in our faces.

So no, Spaniard, I don't think that Christianity is a great belief system for keeping the hatred/violence/bigotry/dogmatic action down. No more than mosbunall others, its always seemed to me.

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 10, 2005 01:47 PM

Tosk,

even if Rummel's figures are true, it doesn't change the fact that catholic atrocities don't hold a candle to atheist ones in sheer numbers, and that's my only point.

Regarding your anecdotal evidence, you need to consider that the vast majority of people you would have been proselytizing self-identified as christian, while only a tiny minority would identify as atheist. Therefore statitically the chances that your bad apples would be christian are very much higher. Are you quite certain that had the number been reversed it wouldn't have been atheists kicking you in the ass?

Now answer me this question honestly please. If you're walking down a dark alley alone at night in the wrong side of town and you see two people approaching you in the dark would you be less or more afraid of them if you saw Bibles in their hands?

Posted by: spaniard at August 10, 2005 02:43 PM

It depends, do they think I'm a heretic or possessed by a demon?

Most traditional Protestant denominations (except the Charismatic and the Apocalyptic-post-millennial) believe the state of Israel was built on stolen land.

And, I remember them correctly, it doesn’t matter if the government of Israel was formed from libertarian, social-democratic, pro-USA, socialist or anything, the land was stolen.

Charismatic and Apocalyptic Christians believe God is preparing the land for the final Apocalypse, thus war is always good. Especially since “Peace in the Middle-East” is a phrase given to the anti-Christ, to fool the world, according to the Apocalyptic Christians.

Rome’s stance on the Palestinian question is much more “progressive” than the PCUSA, so it seems liberal and conservative mainline Protestant churches share something with The Rock of Peter.

But using PCUSA's stance on Israel is foolish. Ordaining women in positions of authority and gay marriage is quite another.

Posted by: NeoDude at August 10, 2005 11:13 PM

Historian links Germany's new Left Party to Nazis

10 August 2005

BERLIN - Germany's new Left Party, which polls show will win 12 per cent next month's general election, draws on a concept of 'National Socialism' from the Nazi era, a prominent German historian alleged on Wednesday.

"This is not an accident - it's intentional," said Goetz Aly who recently published a book arguing that Hitler's Nazis won allegiance by creating a huge social welfare state funded by property stolen from the Jews and people in Third Reich-occupied Europe.

A leader of the Left Party, a rebel former Social Democratic (SPD) chairman Oscar Lafontaine, said in a speech last month that German workers had to be protected to prevent foreigners
stealing their jobs.

"The state is obligated to prevent family fathers and women from becoming unemployed because 'Fremdarbeiter' (foreign workers) are taking away their jobs by working for low wages," said Lafontaine at a rally in the eastern German city of Chemnitz near the Czech border.

Germany's Brockhaus dictionary says the term 'Fremdarbeiter' is a Nazi expression used to describe foreign and often slave labour brought to Germany during World War II.

"In Lafontaine's propaganda of the past weeks, elements of the National Socialist concept can very clearly be recognised," said Aly in a Handelsblatt newspaper interview.

He added that angry reactions of the right-wing extremist National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) showed the far-right now viewed the Left Party as serious competiton.

The newly-founded Left Party is a merger of former East Germany's neo-communists and a smaller western German movement, the WASG.

Aly noted that many of Germany's tax loopholes and social welfare policies originated under the Nazis.

For example, the fiercely defended tax-free status of bonus pay for work on Sundays, holidays and night shifts dates back to 1940 - and was imposed after the Nazi invasion of France, he said.

"Because National Socialism under Hitler was a continuation of German social welfare policy, big chunks of it were taken over by the successor states (West Germany and East Germany), cleansed of racist elements and then further developed," said Aly.
(...)

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?
subchannel_id=52&story_id=22678&name=
Historian+links+Germany%27s+new+Left+Party+to+Nazis

Posted by: lucklucky at August 10, 2005 11:33 PM

It depends, do they think I'm a heretic or possessed by a demon?

Have you noticed a growing trend of people being beaten up in dark alleys for being heretics or demon possessed?

You should spend a day or two at a christian blog and make a general nuisance of yourself there just to see how they treat you. You'll notice it's far more civil than the way I'm treated at Kos or Atrios. Try this one:

http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/

Posted by: spaniard at August 11, 2005 07:54 AM

Spaniard,

Of course, since I was in Ohio, our ratio of Christian to X was definately skewed.

However, two points.

1) I have never claimed that an athiest, socialist, pagan or (insert something here) may be any less likely to be violent than a Christian. I only argued that, in my experiences, I have found some of the most violent acts ever directed at me to be from Christians, therefore, I find it hard to accept your maxim that Christianity somehow retards the process of dogmatic violence. I don't think it increases it, but I don't think it decreases it either.

2) Usually one of two reasons came out of the spittle wreathed mouths of our assailants. One was that Jehovah's Wittnesses refuse to fight for their country. Of course, this one gets them in trouble everywhere. Its why they went to concentration camps in Germany, its why they have been killed by the hundreds in Malawai, Brundai, the USSR etc. The second reason (and just slightly more common in the particular territory I was in), often came out in the form of damnation. Damned for not believing in Christ, though we did. Damned for making up our own Bible (which is debatable) and damned for thinking that only a few were going to heaven.

Now, a particularly patriotic athiest might get violent, I dunno... but the second reason would, I think not be an issue for them.

Again, I think that dogmatic thinking appears as a pitfall to any humans, no matter what belief system they hold. The lack of violence and murder in the name of whatever dogma, seems to me, a product of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, rather than the modern Christian ideology.

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 11, 2005 09:12 AM

Tosk,

the VAST majority of violence committed in this country is not committed in the name of religious dogma, it's committed for reasons of personal selfishness and lack of humanity. I woud posit to you that the vast majority of people committing that violence are not religious christians, don't go to church, don't read the Bible, or follow any religion at all.

Posted by: spaniard at August 11, 2005 09:33 AM

"I woud posit to you that the vast majority of people committing that violence are not religious christians, don't go to church, don't read the Bible, or follow any religion at all."

Are you serious?!

Would you like to provide some statistics or studies to back that up?

As I said, I do not intend this as a screed against Christians. I would even argue that someone who is 'devout' in any religious system (or moral system) will be less likely to commit illegal acts. However, I don't think Christianity as a religion encourages 'more devoutness' than any other.

If you have statistics to back up your claim, I'd love to look at them... if it's just your opinion, thats fine too... But I won't share it.

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 11, 2005 10:09 AM

Religion decreases crime, social dysfunction (atheism increases it):

"A review of the small amount of research done on the relationship between crime and religion shows that states with more religious populations tend to have fewer homicides and fewer suicides."

"A four-year longitudinal, stratified, random-sample study of high school students in the Rocky Mountain region, published in 1975, demonstrated that religious involvement significantly decreased drug use, delinquency, and premarital sex, and also increased self-control.74 A 1989 study of midwestern high school students replicated these findings.75 Similarly, young religious adults in Canada were found in a 1979 study to be less likely to use or sell narcotics, to gamble, or to destroy property."

"What is true for youth is also true for adults.77 Religious behavior, as opposed to mere attitude or affiliation, is associated with reduced crime.78 This has been known in the social science literature for over 20 years."

"In research conducted in the late 1980s -- controlling for family, economic, and religious backgrounds -- a research team from the University of Nevada found that black men who eventually ended up in prison and those who did not came respectively from two different groups: those who did not go to church, or stopped going around ten years of age, and those who went regularly.80 This failure of faith at the onset of adolescence parallels the pattern found among those who become alcoholics or drug addicts."

"We may have underestimated this 'silent majority' and it is only fair to give them equal time."44 The centrality of stable married family life in avoiding such problems as crime,45 illegitimacy,46 and welfare47 has become indisputable. If such a stable family life is linked closely to a lively religious life, as these studies indicate, then the peace and happiness of the nation depend significantly on a renewal of religious practice and belief."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Religion/BG1064.cfm

Posted by: spaniard at August 11, 2005 10:09 AM

Spaniard,

Thank you for the statistics, I shall have a look at them. If I don't get back to you, don't think I'm leaving you hanging... my vacation starts today and I may be gone :)

If I don't catch you before, see you on the 22nd... after a good week of rapier fighting, I should be in fine spirits ;-)

I'll definately look at the link you provided.

Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at August 11, 2005 10:13 AM

I don’t trust those numbers…it would be interesting to see what they believe “being a Christian” is?

I had followed some of the work different churches did with prisoners; inevitably most criminals would claim to have committed crimes in spite of being brought up “to know better.”

If “being a Christian” was all that was needed, many of the criminals would have never been locked up, in the first place and Germany would have never embraced the NAZIs.

It is a simplistic view of faith…that it (a claim to faith) will lead to glorious safe places. This kind of hubris is warned in scripture, because the self-righteous are incapable of seeing their sinful lives. And it is usually too late for the self-righteous to turn the clock, since they have been in denial of their sin for so long.

Rat,

Are you still a Witness?

Posted by: NeoDude at August 11, 2005 01:15 PM

It seems pretty clear that most crimes in the U.S. have base motives. I'd guess that love, money, etc. are the most common causes, as opposed to a conviction that some higher power has told me to hold up the 7-11 on the corner. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I doubt most of us are idealistic enough to operate that way. Compare the number of people who die in disputes over drug money to those killed in abortion clinic bombings (or even 9-11, for that matter). There's a much more plausible case to be made that Christianity may fail to PREVENT criminals from becoming the deviants that they are; I would agree that religion by itself is not enough. At the same time, though, this acknowledgement of the limits of Christian influence makes some posters' monomaniacal insistence that Christianity caused Nazism seem all the more bizarre.

Posted by: Samsung at August 14, 2005 08:05 PM

Hi I have been given the task of getting links for our websites thathave good page rank on the links directories.In addition we have many categories so your site will be place on an appropriate page. If you would like to trade links please send me your website details.Best Regards,seopro@walla.com
http://www2w.bravehost.com vs the best casino http://casino.vmedical.us new online casino
casinos
casino
online poker
online gambling
online casinos
online casinos
online casinos
online poker
online casinos
online casino
casino
poker
casino
casino
casinos
online casino
online gambling
casino
poker
neteller casinos
online casino
online poker
online casino
internet poker
free online poker
texas holdem poker
poker
online slots
online roulette
online blackjack
poker
online casinos
online casino
online casino
online roulette
online poker
internet casinos
online slots
online blackjack

Posted by: online casinos at October 10, 2005 09:00 AM

Very nice site. notebooki

Posted by: Notebooki at October 13, 2005 11:48 AM

online poker
online casino
online viagra sale
try viagra online
order viagra online
buy viagra online
order cialis online
free levitra online
cheap meridia online
buy xenical online
order propecia
order viagra online
online casino
online slots
phentermine
phentermine
levitra
tami flu
online poker
poker
poker
online poker
online poker
poker
poker

Posted by: online casino at October 23, 2005 12:35 PM

Adult Personals adult dating service sex dating adult
club erotic personals adult dating online
dating service join free.

adult personals Adult personals online
personals
adult dating
adult dating sex dating
adult
personals
adult personals sex dating
Internet Dating Service Internet Dating Service
dating
services
dating services - adult dating
service
adult dating
service
adult dating service adult
personals
adult photo personals adult photo personals
sex
dating
sex dating adult dating service
sex
dating
sex dating adult personals
personals
personals adult personals
adult sex
dating
adult sex dating adult personals
adult dating
online
adult dating online adult personals
online
personals
online personals adult personals
adult dating
service
adult dating service adult
personals
adult dating
personals
adult dating personals adult
personals
adult dating
adult dating service
adult dating
service
adult dating service
adult dating
online
adult dating online
single woman single woman
singles singles
singles match singles match
sexy singles sexy singles
singles dating singles dating
single dating single dating
dating service dating service
dating tips dating tips
adult personals adult personals
adult dating adult dating
adult personals adult personals
adult personal ads adult personal ads
adult dating adult dating
adult singles adult singles
adult picture personals adult picture personals
adult personal page adult personal page
adult personals pic adult personals pic
adult photo personals adult photo personals
xx xx
adult personal ads adult personals ads
adult singles adult singles
adult photo personals adult photo personals
adult personals pic adult personals pic
adult personal page adult personal page
adult picture personals adult picture personals
adult dating adult dating
personals ads personals ads
adult dating adult dating
adult personals adult personals
adult dating ads adult dating ads
adult singles adult singles
adult single dating adult single dating
adult personal adult personal
free adult dating free adult dating
adult dating online adult dating online
adult dating site adult dating site
adult swingers adult swingers
adult friend finder adult friend finder
xx xx
x x
singles adult singles adult
sexy singles sexy singles
singles personals singles personals
singles dating online singles dating online
adult singles dating adult singles dating
adult singles adult singles
singles site singles site
singles club singles club
singles dating service singles dating service
adult swingers adult swingers
adult personals adult personals
adult dating adult dating
singles on line singles on line
personals singles personals singles
sex personals sex personals
swingers swingers
swingers club swingers club
dating sex dating sex
personals sex personals sex
adult personals dating adult personals dating
online adult dating online adult dating
personals adult dating personals adult dating
sex dating sex dating
adult personals adult personals
personal ads personal ads
adult personal ads adult personal ads
free personals free personals
adult personals adult personals
sex dating sex dating
Autosurf For Cash autosurf for cash
Get Paid To Surf get paid to surf
satellite tv satellite tv
adult personals adult personals
sex site myspace.com sex site myspace.com
Discount Airfare discount airfare
Discount Hotels discount hotels
Discount Travel discount travel
Discount Cruises discount crusies
Discount Hotel Rooms discount hotel rooms
Discount Car Rentals discount car rentals
Discount Airline Tickets discount airline tickets
Discount Vacations discount vacations
Discount Airline Tickets discount airline tickets
Discount Air Travel discount air travel
Discounted Airfare discounted airfare
Airfare airfare
Levitra Generic Levitra
online pharmacy online pharmacy
Prozac Prozac
Cialis Generic cialis soft tabs
Cialis Generic cialis soft tabs
tadalafil tadalafil cialis
meridia generic meridia Sibutramine
Zenegra Zenegra
Celebrex Generic Celebrex Celecoxib
sildenafil sildenafil
sibutramine sibutramine Generic Meridia
celecoxib celecoxib Generic Celebrex online pharmacy
adult personals adult personals
home security home security
nanny cam nanny cam
nanny camera nanny camera
home security system home security system
home automation kits home automation kits
wireless camera systems wireless camera systems
universal remotes universal remotes
camera systems camera systems
home automation home automation
home security systems home security systems
credit card offer credit card offer

Adult Personals adult dating service sex dating adult
club erotic personals adult dating online
dating service adult singles join free.

Posted by: adult singles at November 4, 2005 04:17 PM

boston celtics news boston celtics news rumors
charlotte bobcats news charlotte bobcats news rumors
miami heat news miami heat news rumors
new jersey nets news new jersey nets news rumors
new york knicks news new york knicks news rumors
orlando magic news orlando magic news rumors
Philadelphia 76ers news philadelphia 76ers news rumors
washington wizards news washington wizards news rumors
atlanta hawks news atlanta hawks news rumors
new orleans hornets news new orleans hornets news rumors
chicago bulls news chicago bulls news rumors
cleveland cavaliers news cleveland cavaliers news rumors
detroit pistons news detroit pistons news rumors
indiana pacers news indiana pacers news rumors
milwaukee bucks news milwaukee bucks news rumors
toronto raptors news toronto raptors news rumors
dallas mavericks news dallas mavericks news rumors
denver nuggets news denver nuggets news rumors
houston rockets news houston rockets news rumors
memphis grizzlies news memphis grizzlies news rumors
minnesota timberwolves news minnesota timberwolves news rumors
san antonio spurs news san antonio spurs news rumors
utah jazz news utah jazz news rumors
golden state warriors news golden state warriors news rumors
los angeles clippers newslos angeles clippers news rumors
los angeles lakers news los angeles lakers news rumors
phoenix suns news phoenix suns news rumors
portland trailblazers news portland trailblazers news rumors
sacramento kings news sacramento kings news rumors
seattle supersonics news seattle supersonics news rumors
tickets tickets
sports tickets sports tickets lakers tickets
concert tickets concert tickets
eagles concert tickets eagles concert tickets
theater tickets theater tickets
tickets tickets
nfl tickets nfl tickets
2006 super bowl tickets 2006 super bowl tickets
baseball tickets baseball tickets
hockey tickets hockey tickets
nba tickets nba tickets lakers tickets
lakers tickets los angeles lakers tickets
clippers tickets los angeles clippers tickets
boxing tickets boxing tickets
nascar tickets nascar tickets
tennis tickets tennis tickets us open
final four tickets final four tickets college basketball tickets
college football tickets college football tickets
rodeo tickets rodeo tickets pbr tickets
pbr tickets pbr tickets nfr
national finals rodeo tickets national finals rodeo tickets
2006 world cup tickets 2006 world cup tickets
soccer tickets soccer tickets world cup
wwe tickets wwe tickets raw smackdown
raw tickets wwe raw tickets
smackdown tickets wwe smackdown tickets
lakers tickets la lakers tickets
cheap lakers tickets cheap los angeles lakers tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
lakers tickets la lakers tickets
cheap lakers tickets cheap lakers tickets
lakers season tickets lakers season tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
los angeles lakers tickets los angeles lakers tickets
2006 rose bowl tickets 2006 rose bowl tickets
pasadena rose bowl tickets pasadena rose bowl tickets
rose bowl tickets pasadena rose bowl tickets
bowl games bowl games cheap super bowl tickets
cheap super bowl tickets cheap super bowl tickets
cheap super bowl tickets cheap super bowl tickets
nfl football tickets nfl football tickets
nfl super bowl tickets nfl super bowl tickets
ducks tickets mighty ducks tickets tickets
world series tickets world series tickets
2005 world series tickets 2005 world series tickets bowl tickets
baseball world series baseball world series
world series world series
miami vice dvd miami vice dvd
miami vice miami vice
la live la live
sporting event tickets sporting event tickets
music events music events
sporting event tickets sporting event tickets
all events all events
sports events sports events sporting event tickets sporting event tickets lakers tickets
music events concert tickets
cheap concert tickets cheap concert tickets
concert tickets online concert tickets online
broadway tickets broadway tickets
broadway show broadway show
broadway musical broadway musical
nfl tickets nfl tickets
nfl football tickets nfl football tickets
cheap nfl tickets cheap nfl tickets
baseball tickets baseball tickets
mlb tickets mlb tickets
nba tickets nba tickets
basketball tickets basketball tickets
nhl hockey tickets nhl hockey tickets
nhl tickets nhl tickets
hockey tickets hockey tickets
serenity dvd serenity dvd
the 40 year old virgin dvd the 40 year old virgin dvd
the skeleton key dvd the skeleton key dvd
law and order dvd law and order dvd
serenity serenity
serenity dvd serenity dvd
the 40 year old virgin the 40 year old virgin
the 40 year old virgin dvd the 40 year old virgin dvd
the skeleton key the skeleton key
law and order dvd law and order
white sox world series tickets white sox world series tickets
chicago white sox world series tickets chicago white sox world series tickets
white sox tickets chicago white sox tickets
world series tickets world series tickets
baseball world series tickets baseball world series tickets
tarps tarps
discount tarps discount tarps
covers covers
discount covers covers
hollywood club hollywood club
club club
music site myspace.com music site myspace.com
700 sundays tickets 700 sundays tickets
wilshire theatre wilshire theatre
wilshire theatre tickets wilshire theatre tickets
700 sundays 700 sundays
Buy cheap concert tickets for audioslave, 2005 rolling stones concert tickets as well as the eagles concert tickets plus kanye west in concert and keith urban buy depeche mode tickets you can even buy paul mccartney concert tickets gwen stefani of no doubt concert tickets don't miss 311 in concert if you have children the wiggles concert tickets would be a great choice plus get all concert tour schedule for 2005 music events.
concerts concerts
concert schedule concert schedule
concert dates concert dates
concert tickets concert tickets
cheap concert tickets cheap concert tickets
concert tour concert tour
kanye west concert tickets kanye west concert tickets
rolling stones tour rolling stones tour
rolling stones tickets rolling stones tickets
eagles concert eagles concert
the eagles the eagles
audioslave tickets audioslave tickets
depeche mode tickets depeche mode tickets
gwen stefani tickets gwen stefani tickets
paul mccartney tickets paul mccartney tickets
paul mccartney tour paul mccartney tour
paul mccartney concert paul mccartney concert
paul mccartney 2005 tour paul mccartney 2005 tour
paul mccartney 2005 us tour paul mccartney 2005 us tour
bon jovi tickets bon jovi tickets
bon jovi concert bon jovi concert
bon jovi tour bon jovi tour
bon jovi tour dates bon jovi tour dates
bon jovi concert dates bon jovi concert dates
bon jovi concert schedule bon jovi concert schedule
rolling stones concert tickets rolling stones concert tickets
eagles concert tickets eagles concert tickets
eagles farewell tour eagles farewell tour
eagles tour eagles tour
eagles concert tour eagles concert tour
audioslave concert tickets audioslave concert tickets
audioslave tickets audioslave tickets
audioslave concert audioslave concert
depeche mode concert tickets depeche concert tickets
depeche mode tickets depeche tickets
gwen stefani concert tickets gwen stefani concert tickets
gwen stefani tickets gwen stefani tickets
gwen stefani concert gwen stefani concert
gwen stefani tour gwen stefani tour
gwen stefani tour dates gwen stefani tour dates
paul mccartney concert tickets paul mccartney concert tickets
paul mccartney tickets paul mccartney tickets
paul mccartney tour paul mccartney tour
paul mccartney concert paul mccartney concert
paul mccartney 2005 tour paul mccartney 2005 tour
paul mccartney 2005 us tour paul mccartney 2005 us tour
paul mccartney us tour paul mccartney us tour
bon jovi concert tickets bon jovi concert tickets
stones tickets stones tickets
rolling stones concert rolling stones concert
rolling stones tour 2005 rolling stones tour 2005
rolling stones tour rolling stones tour
2005 rolling stones tour 2005 rolling stones tour
rolling stones tour dates rolling stones tour dates
rolling stones concert tour rolling stones concert tour
rolling stones concert schedule rolling stones concert schedule
2005 rolling stones 2005 rolling stones
the wiggles tickets the wiggles tickets
the wiggles concert tickets the wiggles concert tickets
concert ticket wiggles concert ticket wiggles
wiggles tickets wiggles tickets
the wiggles concert ticket the wiggles concert ticket
wiggles concert wiggles concert
the wiggles tickets the wiggles tickets
the wiggles tour the wiggles tour
wiggles concert tickets wiggles concert tickets
wiggles in concert wiggles in concert
keith urban tickets keith urban tickets
keith urban concert tour keith urban concert tour
concert keith urban concert keith urban
keith urban concerts keith urban concerts
keith urban in concert keith urban in concert
keith urban tour dates keith urban tour dates
keith urban concert keith urban concert
keith urban concert tickets keith urban concert tickets
kanye west concert tickets kanye west concert tickets
kanye west concert kanye west concert
kanye west tour kanye west tour
kanye west concert ticket kanye west concert ticket
kanye west tour date kanye west tour date
kanye west in concert kanye west in concert
311 tickets 311 tickets
311 concert tickets 311 concert tickets
311 tour dates 311 tour dates
311 in concert 311 in concert
311 concert 311 concert
311 concert tour 311 concert tour
final four tickets final four tickets
cheap sports tickets cheap sports tickets
theatre directory theatre directory
football directory football directory
nba basketball tickets nba basketball tickets
ncaa tournament ncaa tournament
broncos football directory broncos football directory
nba basketball nba basketball
buy theatre tickets buy theatre tickets
kicking and screaming dvd kicking and screaming dvd
munsters dvd munsters dvd
unleashed dvd unleashed dvd
land of the dead dvd land of the dead dvd
high school reunion collection high school reunion collection
cinderella man dvd cinderella man dvd
tickets links tickets links
battlestar galactica dvd battlestar galactica dvd
broken flowers dvd broken flowers dvd
american gothic dvd american gothic dvd
sports tickets for less sports tickets for less
nfl football tickets nfl football tickets
sports links sports links
tickets directory tickets directory

Posted by: concert tickets at November 4, 2005 04:18 PM

Resources for major league baseball tickets buy baseball tickets
Major League Baseball Tickets where mlb baseball tickets are bought
Baseball Tickets U2 tickets cheap concert tickets has scored another box office bonanza, grossing $48.4 million on tour during the first half of 2005.
Concert Ticketsinfo to purchase cheap concert tickets
Cheap Concert Tickets info to purchase cheap concert tickets
Concert Schedule You can buy nba basketball tickets
Basketball Tickets for all basketball games with nba finals tickets
NBA Finals Tickets where to buy nba tickets Basketball TicketsNFL Football tickets NFL Football , American, distinct type of nfl football tickets
NFL Tickets that developed in the United States in the 19th century now get your super bowl tickets.
NFL Tickets As NHL Hockey tickets spread across the continent with the national hockey league
National Hockey League , there was a marked increase in the number of organized NHL hockey tickets
Hockey Tickets leagues. Hockey Tickets wwe tickets world wrestling federation or as it is know the wwe buy wwe tickets for all wrestling tickets events with wwe smackdown tickets
WWE Tickets also wwe wrestling tickets. WWE Tickets rodeo tickets rodeo tickets are becoming even more popular these days the pro bull riders or known as the pbr tickets and the national finals rodeo tickets also known as nfr tickets
Rodeo Tickets are flying through the roof. Rodeo Tickets soccer tickets or what they call in european countries football tickets in the US as us soccer tickets go World Cup Soccer Tickets buy world cup soccer tickets.
Soccer Tickets Part of the Los Angeles Center Theatre tickets Group with los angeles theater tickets, along with the Mark Taper Forum, the Ahmanson Theatre tickets or as you would say ahmanson theater tickets don't forget to get the hard to get wicked tickets.
Theater Tickets buy los angeles tickets like los angeles dodgers tickets Dodgers Tickets or buy los angeles lakers tickets
Los Angeles Lakers Tickets or relax and buy los angeles theater tickets
Los Angeles Theater don't for get those los angeles clippers tickets have a good time los angeles concert tickets. Los Angeles Theater well you won't lose out if you go to live horse racing tickets there is plenty of enjoyment at the fairgrounds at thoroughbred horse racing.
Thoroughbred Horse Racing buy boxing Schedule with boxing schedule Boxing Tickets. autoracing or the term for today really would have to be nascar tickets with nascar schedule along with nascar racing
Nascar Racing people these days are scrambling to buy nascar tickets for all the nascar races.
Nascar Tickets buy sports tickets Sports Tickets for all events what sports tickets are you going to buy?
rose bowl tickets rose bowl tickets singles singles
the big lebowski the big lebowski dvd
Lakers Tickets buy sports tickets
Sports Tickets for all events like lakers tickets what sports tickets are you going to buy?
sex dating sex dating.
best affiliate program best affiliate program free affiliate program free affiliate program
dodgers tickets dodgers tickets big lebowski dvd big lebowski dvd the big lebowski big lebowski dvd
Los Angeles Lakers Tickets buy los angeles lakers tickets at staples center for all events like los angeles lakers tickets what los angeles tickets are you going to buy for sports tickets?
Blues Brothers blues brothers dvd movie
rumble fish dvd rumble fish dvd
carlito's way rise to power carlito's way rise to power carlitos way rise to power carlitos way rise to power
angels tickets angels tickets sports tickets sports tickets
Los Angeles Concert Tickets buy los angeles tickets for all los angeles concert tickets Los Angeles events like los angeles dodgers also los angeles angels tickets events like los angeles clippers tickets what los angeles tickets are you going to buy for los angeles concert tickets? Affiliate Program ticket affiliate program
lakers tickets lakers tickets sports tickets sports tickets singles dating singles dating
lakers news lakers news
dodgers tickets los angeles dodgers tickets
lakers tickets los angeles lakers tickets
super bowl tickets super bowl tickets
lakers tickets los angeles lakers tickets tickets tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
sports events sports events
sporting event tickets sports event tickets
event tickets event tickets
all events all events
sporting events sporting events
theater tickets theater tickets
music events music events
all events all events
other events other events
concert events concert events
lakers rumors lakers rumors news
music events music events
all events all events
nfl tickets nfl tickets
broadway tickets broadway tickets
concert tickets concert tickets
sporting event tickets sporting event tickets
nba tickets nba tickets
mlb tickets mlb tickets
sports events sports events
sporting events sporting events
other events other events
music events music events
event tickets event tickets
sporting event tickets sporting event tickets
sporting events sporting events
seaquest dsv dvd seaquest dsv dvd
seaquest dsv seaquest dsv
leave it to beaver dvd leave it to beaver dvd
hollywood club hollywood club
sports site myspace.com sports site myspace.com
music site myspace.com music site myspace.com
leave it to beaver leave it to beaver
2006 super bowl 2006 Super Bowl
rose bowl rose Bowl
lalive lalive
wrestlemania tickets wrestlemania tickets
lakers tickets la lakers tickets
lakers tickets cheap los angeles lakers tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
lakers tickets la lakers tickets
lakers tickets cheap lakers tickets
lakers tickets lakers season tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
lakers tickets los angeles lakers tickets
buy theatre tickets buy theatre tickets
los angeles theater los angeles theater
nfl directory nfl directory
nfl sunday tickets nfl sunday tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
nba basketball tickets nba basketball tickets
nba directory nba directory
cry baby dvd cry baby dvd
breakfast club dvd breakfast club dvd
mall rats dvd mall rats dvd
house dvd house dvd

Posted by: cheap concert tickets at November 4, 2005 04:19 PM

very nice site.

Posted by: Aparaty cyfrowe at November 6, 2005 09:41 AM

bardzo ładna stronka .
Kancelaria prawna
telewizory plazmowe

Posted by: dvd at November 13, 2005 03:43 PM

super promocje odzież dziecięca , niezłe atrakcje u-booty , filmy dvd sklep super nowsci dvd, prawo lex Radca prawny , sklep internetowy ekspresy do kawy , golarki i inne depilujące urządzenia Golarki , odkurzacze do odkurzania odkurzacze, żelazka do prasowania i wygładzania materiałów ubraniowch :) żelazka, telewizory lcd okno na świat Telewizory lcd, a tu telewizory plazmowe o jeszcze coś fajnego Telewizory plazmowe , kamery cyfrowe kamery cyfrowe super promo najlepszych firm firmowanych w firmie firmowo firmowej :))).

Posted by: Telewizory Plazmowe at November 28, 2005 01:42 AM

Resources for major league baseball tickets buy baseball tickets
Baseball Tickets where mlb baseball tickets are bought
Baseball Tickets U2 tickets cheap concert tickets has scored another box office bonanza, grossing $48.4 million on tour during the first half of 2005.
Concert Ticketsinfo to purchase cheap concert tickets
Cheap Concert Tickets info to purchase cheap concert tickets
Concert Schedule You can buy nba basketball tickets
Basketball Tickets for all basketball games with nba finals tickets
NBA Finals Tickets where to buy nba tickets Basketball TicketsNFL Football tickets NFL Football , American, distinct type of nfl football tickets
NFL Tickets that developed in the United States in the 19th century now get your super bowl tickets.
NFL Tickets As NHL Hockey tickets spread across the continent with the national hockey league
National Hockey League , there was a marked increase in the number of organized NHL hockey tickets
Hockey Tickets leagues. Hockey Tickets wwe tickets world wrestling federation or as it is know the wwe buy wwe tickets for all wrestling tickets events with wwe smackdown tickets
WWE Tickets also wwe wrestling tickets. WWE Tickets rodeo tickets rodeo tickets are becoming even more popular these days the pro bull riders or known as the pbr tickets and the national finals rodeo tickets also known as nfr tickets
Rodeo Tickets are flying through the roof. Rodeo Tickets soccer tickets or what they call in european countries football tickets in the US as us soccer tickets go World Cup Soccer Tickets buy world cup soccer tickets.
Soccer Tickets Part of the Los Angeles Center Theatre tickets Group with los angeles theater tickets, along with the Mark Taper Forum, the Ahmanson Theatre tickets or as you would say ahmanson theater tickets don't forget to get the hard to get wicked tickets.
Theater Tickets buy los angeles tickets like los angeles dodgers tickets Dodgers Tickets or buy los angeles lakers tickets
Los Angeles Lakers Tickets or relax and buy los angeles theater tickets
Los Angeles Theater don't for get those los angeles clippers tickets have a good time los angeles concert tickets. Los Angeles Theater well you won't lose out if you go to live horse racing tickets there is plenty of enjoyment at the fairgrounds at thoroughbred horse racing.
Horse Racing buy boxing Schedule with boxing schedule Boxing Tickets. autoracing or the term for today really would have to be nascar tickets with nascar schedule along with nascar racing
Nascar Racing people these days are scrambling to buy nascar tickets for all the nascar races.
Nascar Tickets buy sports tickets Sports Tickets for all events what sports tickets are you going to buy?
rose bowl tickets rose bowl tickets singles singles
the big lebowski the big lebowski dvd
Lakers Tickets buy sports tickets
Sports Tickets for all events like lakers tickets what sports tickets are you going to buy?
home security home security
best affiliate program best affiliate program free affiliate program free affiliate program
dodgers tickets dodgers tickets big lebowski dvd big lebowski dvd the big lebowski big lebowski dvd
Los Angeles Lakers Tickets buy los angeles lakers tickets at staples center for all events like los angeles lakers tickets what los angeles tickets are you going to buy for sports tickets?
Blues Brothers blues brothers dvd movie
rumble fish dvd rumble fish dvd
carlito's way rise to power carlito's way rise to power carlitos way rise to power carlitos way rise to power
angels tickets angels tickets sports tickets sports tickets
Los Angeles Concert Tickets buy los angeles tickets for all los angeles concert tickets Los Angeles events like los angeles dodgers also los angeles angels tickets events like los angeles clippers tickets what los angeles tickets are you going to buy for los angeles concert tickets? Affiliate Program ticket affiliate program
lakers tickets lakers tickets sports tickets sports tickets singles dating singles dating
lakers news lakers news
Los Angeles kings Tickets Los Angeles kings Tickets
dodgers tickets los angeles dodgers tickets
lakers tickets los angeles lakers tickets
super bowl tickets super bowl tickets
lakers tickets los angeles lakers tickets tickets tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
sports events sports events
sporting event tickets sports event tickets
event tickets event tickets
all events all events
sporting events sporting events
theater tickets theater tickets
music events music events
all events all events
other events other events
concert events concert events
lakers rumors lakers rumors news
music events music events
all events all events
nfl tickets nfl tickets
broadway tickets broadway tickets
concert tickets concert tickets
sporting event tickets sporting event tickets
nba tickets nba tickets
mlb tickets mlb tickets
sports events sports events
sporting events sporting events
other events other events
music events music events
event tickets event tickets
sporting event tickets sporting event tickets
sporting events sporting events
seaquest dsv dvd seaquest dsv dvd
seaquest dsv seaquest dsv
leave it to beaver dvd leave it to beaver dvd
hollywood club hollywood club
hollywood nightclub hollywood nightclub
hollywood night club hollywood night club
sports site myspace sports site myspace.com
music site myspace music site myspace.com
leave it to beaver leave it to beaver
2006 super bowl 2006 Super Bowl
rose bowl rose Bowl
lalive lalive
wrestlemania tickets wrestlemania tickets
lakers tickets la lakers tickets
lakers tickets cheap los angeles lakers tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
lakers tickets la lakers tickets
lakers tickets cheap lakers tickets
lakers tickets lakers season tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
lakers tickets los angeles lakers tickets
concert tickets directory concert tickets directory
mlb baseball directory mlb baseball directory
nba directory nba directory
concert directory concert directory
astros playoffs astros playoffs
astros tickets astros tickets
nba basketball directory nba basketball directory
cry baby dvd cry baby dvd
breakfast club dvd breakfast club dvd
mall rats dvd mall rats dvd
house dvd house dvd
buy rose bowl tickets buy rose bowl tickets
los angeles clippers tickets los angeles clippers tickets
clippers tickets clippers tickets
poly tarps poly tarps
discount tarps dicount tarps
Coal Miners Daughter DVD Coal Miners Daughter DVD
Inside Deep Throat DVD Inside Deep Throat DVD
Las Vegas DVD Las Vegas DVD
Hitchock presents dvd Hitchock presents dvd
kolchak dvd kolchak dvd
land of the dead dvd land of the dead dvd
discount concert tickets discount concert tickets
rock concert tickets rock concert tickets
hip hop concert hip hop concert
country music concert country music concert
concert events concert events
events events
los angeles kings tickets los angeles kings tickets
ucla bruins tickets ucla bruins tickets
usc trojans tickets usc trojans tickets
los angeles tickets los angeles tickets
buy theatre tickets buy theatre tickets
football directory football directory
nba basketball nba basketball
broncos football directory broncos football directory
nba basketball tickets nba basketball tickets
mlb tickets mlb tickets
buy theatre tickets buy theatre tickets
los angeles directory los angeles directory
nfl football directory nfl football directory
football directory football directory
nfl tickets nfl tickets
76ers tickets 76ers tickets
bobcats tickets bobcats tickets
charlotte bobcats tickets charlotte bobcats tickets
celtics tickets celtics tickets
boston celtics tickets boston celtics tickets
heat tickets heat tickets
miami heat tickets miami heat tickets
buy heat tickets buy heat tickets
wizards tickets wizards tickets
washington wizards tickets washington wizards tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
los angeles lakers tickets los angeles lakers tickets
sports tickets sports tickets
bucks tickets bucks tickets
milwaukee bucks tickets milwaukee bucks tickets
cheap basketball tickets cheap basketball tickets
rose bowl tickets rose bowl tickets
cavaliers tickets cavaliers tickets
cleveland cavaliers tickets cleveland cavaliers tickets
buy cavaliers tickets buy cavaliers tickets
grizzlies tickets grizzlies tickets
memphis grizzlies tickets memphis grizzlies tickets
kings tickets kings tickets
sacramento kings tickets sacramento kings tickets
hornets tickets hornets tickets
new orleans hornets tickets new orleans hornets tickets
nuggets tickets nuggets tickets
denver nuggets tickets denver nuggets tickets
mavericks tickets mavericks tickets
dallas mavericks tickets dallas mavericks tickets
detroit pistons tickets detroit pistons tickets
pistons tickets pistons tickets
suns tickets suns tickets
trailblazers tickets trailblazers tickets
portland trailblazers tickets portland trailblazers tickets
buy suns tickets buy suns tickets
phoenix suns tickets phoenix suns tickets
pacers tickets pacers tickets
indiana pacers tickets indiana pacers tickets
timberwolves tickets timberwolves tickets
minnesota timberwolves tickets minnesota timberwolves tickets
warriors tickets warriors tickets
golden state warriors tickets golden state warriors tickets
final four tickets final four tickets
los angeles kings tickets los angeles kings tickets
kings tickets kings tickets
paid to surf paid to surf
buy chiefs tickets buy chiefs tickets
nfl super bowl tickets nfl super bowl tickets
nba tickets nba tickets
rose bowl tickets rose bowl tickets
rose bowl tickets rose bowl tickets
tickets to rose bowl tickets to rose bowl
pasadena rose bowl pasadena rose bowl
singles singles
pasadena rose bowl tickets pasadena rose bowl tickets
rose bowl tickets rose bowl tickets
tickets to the rose bowl tickets to the rose bowl
buy rose bowl tickets buy rose bowl tickets
rose bowl rose bowl
rose bowl rose bowl
rose bowl tickets rose bowl tickets
2006 rose bowl tickets 2006 rose bowl tickets
rose bowl tickets rose bowl tickets
buy rose bowl tickets buy rose bowl tickets
rose bowl tickets rose bowl tickets
rose bowl tickets rose bowl tickets
rose bowl rose bowl
pasadena rose bowl pasadena rose bowl
pasadena rose bowl tickets pasadena rose bowl tickets
rose bowl tickets rose bowl tickets
rose bowl 2006 tickets rose bowl 2006 tickets
rose bowl football game rose bowl football game
2006 rose bowl tickets 2006 rose bowl tickets
2006 rose bowl game tickets 2006 rose bowl game tickets
rose bowl tickets rose bowl tickets
rose bowl game tickets rose bowl game tickets
pasadena rose bowl pasadena rose bowl
rose bowl pasadena rose bowl pasadena
tickets for rose bowl tickets for rose bowl
rose bowl stadium rose bowl stadium
tickets to the rose bowl football game tickets to the rose bowl football game
rose bowl tickets rose bowl tickets
cheapest super bowl tickets cheapest super bowl tickets
super bowl tickets super bowl tickets
superbowl tickets superbowl tickets
2006 super bowl tickets 2006 super bowl tickets
nba basketball schedule nba basketball schedule
rose bowl history rose bowl history
rose bowl history rose bowl history
http://discoveryformen.org/wwwboard/messages/6542.html
http://www.syscomllc.com/salcomsg/messages/874.shtml
http://plun.com/wwwboard/travel/messages/39.html

Posted by: Rose Bowl Tickets at December 21, 2005 03:31 PM

boston celtics news boston celtics news rumors
charlotte bobcats news charlotte bobcats news rumors
miami heat news miami heat news rumors
new jersey nets news new jersey nets news rumors
new york knicks news new york knicks news rumors
orlando magic news orlando magic news rumors
Philadelphia 76ers news philadelphia 76ers news rumors
washington wizards news washington wizards news rumors
atlanta hawks news atlanta hawks news rumors
new orleans hornets news new orleans hornets news rumors
chicago bulls news chicago bulls news rumors
cleveland cavaliers news cleveland cavaliers news rumors
detroit pistons news detroit pistons news rumors
indiana pacers news indiana pacers news rumors
milwaukee bucks news milwaukee bucks news rumors
toronto raptors news toronto raptors news rumors
dallas mavericks news dallas mavericks news rumors
denver nuggets news denver nuggets news rumors
houston rockets news houston rockets news rumors
memphis grizzlies news memphis grizzlies news rumors
minnesota timberwolves news minnesota timberwolves news rumors
san antonio spurs news san antonio spurs news rumors
utah jazz news utah jazz news rumors
golden state warriors news golden state warriors news rumors
los angeles clippers newslos angeles clippers news rumors
los angeles lakers news los angeles lakers news rumors
phoenix suns news phoenix suns news rumors
portland trailblazers news portland trailblazers news rumors
sacramento kings news sacramento kings news rumors
seattle supersonics news seattle supersonics news rumors
tickets tickets
sports tickets sports tickets lakers tickets
concert tickets concert tickets
eagles concert tickets eagles concert tickets
theater tickets theater tickets
tickets tickets
nfl tickets nfl tickets
2006 super bowl tickets 2006 super bowl tickets
baseball tickets baseball tickets
hockey tickets hockey tickets
nba tickets nba tickets lakers tickets
lakers tickets los angeles lakers tickets
clippers tickets los angeles clippers tickets
boxing tickets boxing tickets
nascar tickets nascar tickets
tennis tickets tennis tickets us open
final four tickets final four tickets college basketball tickets
college football tickets college football tickets
rodeo tickets rodeo tickets pbr tickets
pbr tickets pbr tickets nfr
national finals rodeo tickets national finals rodeo tickets
2006 world cup tickets 2006 world cup tickets
soccer tickets soccer tickets world cup
wwe tickets wwe tickets raw smackdown
raw tickets wwe raw tickets
smackdown tickets wwe smackdown tickets
lakers tickets la lakers tickets
cheap lakers tickets cheap los angeles lakers tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
lakers tickets la lakers tickets
cheap lakers tickets cheap lakers tickets
lakers season tickets lakers season tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
los angeles lakers tickets los angeles lakers tickets
2006 rose bowl tickets 2006 rose bowl tickets
rose bowl tickets rose bowl tickets
rose bowl tickets pasadena rose bowl tickets
rose bowl tickets pasadena rose bowl tickets
bowl games bowl games cheap super bowl tickets
cheap super bowl tickets cheap super bowl tickets
super bowl tickets super bowl tickets
nfl football tickets nfl football tickets
nfl super bowl tickets nfl super bowl tickets
super bowl tickets super bowl tickets
ducks tickets mighty ducks tickets tickets
world series tickets world series tickets
2006 world series tickets 2005 world series tickets bowl tickets
baseball world series baseball world series
world series world series
miami vice dvd miami vice dvd
miami vice miami vice
la live la live
sporting event tickets sporting event tickets
music events music events
sporting event tickets sporting event tickets
all events all events
sports events sports events sporting event tickets sporting event tickets lakers tickets
music events concert tickets
cheap concert tickets cheap concert tickets
concert tickets online concert tickets online
broadway tickets broadway tickets
broadway show broadway show
broadway musical broadway musical
nfl tickets nfl tickets
nfl football tickets nfl football tickets
cheap nfl tickets cheap nfl tickets
baseball tickets baseball tickets
mlb tickets mlb tickets
nba tickets nba tickets
basketball tickets basketball tickets
nhl hockey tickets nhl hockey tickets
nhl tickets nhl tickets
hockey tickets hockey tickets
serenity dvd serenity dvd
the 40 year old virgin dvd the 40 year old virgin dvd
the skeleton key dvd the skeleton key dvd
law and order dvd law and order dvd
serenity serenity
serenity dvd serenity dvd
the 40 year old virgin the 40 year old virgin
the 40 year old virgin dvd the 40 year old virgin dvd
the skeleton key the skeleton key
law and order dvd law and order
white sox tickets white sox tickets
chicago white sox tickets chicago white sox tickets
white sox tickets chicago white sox tickets
world series tickets world series tickets
baseball world series tickets baseball world series tickets
tarps tarps
discount tarps discount tarps
covers covers
discount covers covers
hollywood club hollywood club
hollywood nightclub hollywood nightclub
music site myspace music site myspace
700 sundays tickets 700 sundays tickets
wilshire theatre wilshire theatre
wilshire theatre tickets wilshire theatre tickets
700 sundays 700 sundays
Buy cheap concert tickets for audioslave, 2005 rolling stones concert tickets as well as the eagles concert tickets plus kanye west in concert and keith urban buy depeche mode tickets you can even buy paul mccartney concert tickets gwen stefani of no doubt concert tickets don't miss 311 in concert if you have children the wiggles concert tickets would be a great choice plus get all concert tour schedule for 2005 music events.
concerts concerts
concert schedule concert schedule
concert dates concert dates
concert tickets concert tickets
cheap concert tickets cheap concert tickets
concert tour concert tour
kanye west concert tickets kanye west concert tickets
rolling stones tour rolling stones tour
rolling stones tickets rolling stones tickets
eagles concert eagles concert
the eagles the eagles
depeche mode tickets depeche mode tickets
gwen stefani tickets gwen stefani tickets
paul mccartney tickets paul mccartney tickets
paul mccartney tour paul mccartney tour
paul mccartney concert paul mccartney concert
paul mccartney 2005 tour paul mccartney 2005 tour
paul mccartney 2005 us tour paul mccartney 2005 us tour
bon jovi tickets bon jovi tickets
bon jovi concert bon jovi concert
bon jovi tour bon jovi tour
bon jovi tour dates bon jovi tour dates
bon jovi concert dates bon jovi concert dates
bon jovi concert schedule bon jovi concert schedule
rolling stones concert tickets rolling stones concert tickets
depeche mode concert tickets depeche concert tickets
depeche mode tickets depeche tickets
gwen stefani concert tickets gwen stefani concert tickets
gwen stefani tickets gwen stefani tickets
gwen stefani concert gwen stefani concert
gwen stefani tour gwen stefani tour
gwen stefani tour dates gwen stefani tour dates
gwen stefanie gwen stefanie
gwen stefanie tickets gwen stefanie tickets
paul mccartney concert tickets paul mccartney concert tickets
paul mccartney tickets paul mccartney tickets
paul mccartney tour paul mccartney tour
paul mccartney concert paul mccartney concert
paul mccartney 2005 tour paul mccartney 2005 tour
paul mccartney 2005 us tour paul mccartney 2005 us tour
paul mccartney us tour paul mccartney us tour
bon jovi concert tickets bon jovi concert tickets
stones tickets stones tickets
rolling stones concert rolling stones concert
rolling stones tour 2005 rolling stones tour 2005
rolling stones tour rolling stones tour
2005 rolling stones tour 2005 rolling stones tour
rolling stones tour dates rolling stones tour dates
rolling stones concert tour rolling stones concert tour
rolling stones concert schedule rolling stones concert schedule
2005 rolling stones 2005 rolling stones
wiggles in concert wiggles in concert
keith urban tickets keith urban tickets
keith urban concert tour keith urban concert tour
concert keith urban concert keith urban
keith urban concerts keith urban concerts
keith urban in concert keith urban in concert
keith urban tour dates keith urban tour dates
keith urban concert keith urban concert
keith urban concert tickets keith urban concert tickets
kanye west concert tickets kanye west concert tickets
kanye west concert kanye west concert
kanye west tour kanye west tour
kanye west concert ticket kanye west concert ticket
kanye west tour date kanye west tour date
kanye west in concert kanye west in concert
banquet 400 tickets banquet 400 tickets
tickets directory tickets directory
cheap basketball tickets cheap basketball tickets
cheap theater tickets cheap theater tickets
theater events theater events
entertainment tickets entertainment tickets
cheap sports tickets cheap sports tickets
cheap theatre tickets cheap theatre tickets
ncaa tournament ncaa tournament
kicking and screaming dvd kicking and screaming dvd
munsters dvd munsters dvd
unleashed dvd unleashed dvd
land of the dead dvd land of the dead dvd
high school reunion collection high school reunion collection
cinderella man dvd cinderella man dvd
tickets links tickets links
battlestar galactica dvd battlestar galactica dvd
broken flowers dvd broken flowers dvd
american gothic dvd american gothic dvd
sports tickets for less sports tickets for less
nfl football tickets nfl football tickets
sports links sports links
tickets directory tickets directory
sooners tickets sooners tickets
nfl football sports nfl football sports
super bowl tickets super bowl tickets
buy los angeles dodgers tickets buy los angeles dodgers tickets
los angeles lakers news los angeles lakers news
bengals links bengals links
pbr tickets pbr tickets
super bowl nfl super bowl nfl
mlb baseball world series mlb baseball world series
lakers playoff tickets lakers playoff tickets
sports directory sports directory
cheap baseball tickets cheap baseball tickets
tickets to the los angeles lakers tickets to the los angeles lakers
football sports history football sports history
football funny sports football funny sports
tickets directory tickets directory
buy cheap hockey tickets buy cheap hockey tickets
buy cheap basketball tickets buy cheap basketball tickets
kroq almost acoustic christmas kroq almost acoustic christmas
kroq almost acoustic christmas concert tickets kroq almost acoustic christmas concert tickets
kroq almost acoustic christmas tickets kroq almost acoustic christmas tickets
kroq concert kroq concert
kelly clarkson tickets kelly clarkson tickets
kelly clarkson concert tickets kelly clarkson concert tickets
kelly clarkson ticket kelly clarkson ticket
kelly clarkson tour kelly clarkson tour
kelly clarkson concert kelly clarkson concert
kelly clarkson concert ticket kelly clarkson concert ticket
billy joel concert tickets billy joel concert tickets
billy joel tickets billy joel tickets
billy joel ticket billy joel ticket
billy joel concert billy joel concert
billy joel tour billy joel tour
aerosmith lenny kravitz tickets aerosmith lenny kravitz tickets
aerosmith concert tickets aerosmith concert tickets
lenny kravitz concert tickets lenny kravitz concert tickets
lenny kravitz tickets lenny kravitz tickets
lenny kravitz tickets aerosmith tickets
lenny kravitz tickets aerosmith with lenny kravitz tickets
queen paul rodgers tickets queen paul rodgers tickets
queen concert tickets queen concert tickets
queen tickets queen tickets
coldplay tickets coldplay tickets
coldplay concert coldplay concert
coldplay concert tickets coldplay concert tickets
coldplay tour coldplay tour
Myspace 40 year old virgin Myspace 40 year old virgin
myspace eugene levy myspace eugene levy
myspace bon jovi myspace bon jovi
myspace crywolf myspace crywolf
Buy universal pictures movies return of the pink panther dvd for the holidays or repo man dvd thats a must see movie and the dune dvd buy online everyones favorite saturday night live dvd and tv show magnum pi dvd and the emergency dvd and tv show dvd the a team.
return of the pink panther dvd
return of the pink panther return of the pink panther
repo man dvd repo man dvd
repo man repo man
dune dvd dune dvd
dune dune dvd
saturday night live dvd saturday night live dvd
magnum pi dvd magnum pi dvd
a team dvd a team dvd
emergency dvd emergency dvd

http://userboards.horrorfind.com/board/Womenofhorror/messages/563.html
http://www.anycities.com/isolt/wwwboard/3883.html
http://userboards.horrorfind.com/board/darkwarrior/messages/353.html
http://brumley.com/forums/kazaamessages/1003.html
http://www.dushkin.com/discussions/feldman/ch11/381.html
http://www.mkat.com/southwest/swbboard/messages/15965.htm
http://nettsmia.no/diskusjonsforum/messages/1281.html
http://www.dlfkreds24.dk/wwwboard/messages/6168.shtml
http://rulk.com/wwwboard/main_news/messages/39.html
http://www.kk-step.com/wwwboard/messages/1540.html
http://www.dreamwater.org/game/mariomansion/wwwboard/1171.html
http://ussodax.com/messages/1558.html
http://userlands.com/wwwboard/travel/messages/87.html

Posted by: Rose Bowl Tickets at December 21, 2005 03:33 PM

adult dating agency adult dating agency
x sex x sex
Sex Dating Sex Dating
Sex Site Sex Site
Adult Dating Free Adult Dating Free
Adult Date Adult Date
Adult Single Dating Adult Single Dating
XXX Webcam XXX Webcam
XXX Chat XXX Chat
Sex Date Sex Date
Sexy Ads Sexy Ads
Sexy Woman Sexy Woman
Sexy Man Sexy Man
Sexy Photo Sexy Photos
Sexy Sex Sexy Sex
Sex X Sex X
Hot Sexy Woman Hot Sexy Woman
Adult Dates Adult Dates
Sex Sex
Sexy Sexy
adult web chat adult web chat
adult chat rooms adult chat rooms
adult online web cam adult online web cam
adult xxx dating adult xxx dating
adult xxx chat adult xxx chat
sex webcam sex webcam
chat free sex xxx chat free sex xxx
adult sex site adult sex site
adult sex adult sex
adult dating services adult dating services
single adult dating single adult dating
free sex free sex
sex free sex free
single dating single dating
hot woman sexy hot woman sexy
sexy woman hot sexy woman hot
dating single adult dating single adult
adult dating single adult dating single
free sex chat free sex chat
adult single chat adult single chat
adult dating services online adult dating services online
adult single adult single
free adult dating free adult dating
dating sex dating sex
date adult date adult
dating adult single dating adult single
webcam xxx webcam xxx
chat xxx chat xxx
date sex date sex
sex sexy sex sexy
dates adult dates adult
dating free adult dating free adult
dating adult free dating adult free
dating agency adult dating agency adult
ads sexy ads sexy
woman sexy woman sexy
man sexy man sexy
photos sexy photos sexy
sexy hot woman sexy hot woman
woman hot sexy woman hot sexy
dating single adult dating single adult
single dating adult single dating adult
adult dating adult dating
adult dating service adult dating service
sex chat free sex chat free
web chat adult web chat adult
chat rooms adult chat rooms adult
online adult web cam online adult web cam
xxx adult dating xxx adult dating
xxx adult chat xxx adult chat
sex site adult sex site adult

Posted by: dating adult free at December 21, 2005 03:34 PM

x x
singles adult singles adult
sexy singles sexy singles
singles personals singles personals
singles dating online singles dating online
adult singles dating adult singles dating
adult singles adult singles
singles site singles site
singles club singles club
singles dating service singles dating service
adult swingers adult swingers
adult personals adult personals
adult dating adult dating
singles on line singles on line
personals singles personals singles
sex personals sex personals
swingers swingers
swingers club swingers club
sex dating sex dating
single woman single woman
singles singles
singles match singles match
sexy singles sexy singles
singles dating singles dating
single dating single dating
casino gambling casino gambling
gambling gambling
casino games casino games
online casino games online casino games
Roulette Roulette
Slots Slots
games casino games casino
vegas style casinos vegas style casinos
Keno Keno
Craps Craps
Blackjack Blackjack
Stud Poker Stud Poker
video poker video poker
on line casino on line casino
online casino online casino
casino casino

Posted by: singles site at December 21, 2005 03:38 PM

sex toys sex toys
bondage toys bondage toys
xxx adult videos xxx adult video
adult videos adult videos
vibrators vibrators
adult books adult books
adult dvd shop adult dvd shop
adult gifts adult gifts
vibrater vibrater
rent adult dvd rent adult dvd
xxx adult dvd rental xxx adult dvd rental
sex swings sex swings
stimulation stimulation
erotic clothing erotic clothing
buy condoms buy condoms
anal sex toy anal sex toy
adult lingerie adult lingerie
bdsm toys bdsm toys
adult sex toy adult sex toy
erotic sex toy erotic sex toy
man sex toy man sex toy
cock ring cock ring
love dolls love dolls
lesbian sex toys lesbian sex toys
sextoys sextoys
buy sex toys buy sex toys
penis pump penis pump
g-string g-string
flavored condoms flavored condoms
xxx dvd xxx dvd
butt plug butt plug
sex store toy sex store toy
sex shop toy sex shop toy
gay sex toy gay sex toy
sex toy sex toy
bondage toy bondage toy
vibrator vibrator
sex swing sex swing
bdsm toy bdsm toy
bondage sex toy bondage sex toy
adult video xxx adult video xxx
xxx adult videos xxx adult videos
party sex toy party sex toy
adult video adult video
adult book adult book
adult gift adult gift
adult sex toys adult sex toys
erotic sex toys erotic sex toys
man sex toys man sex toys
cock rings cock rings
love doll love doll
lesbian sex toy lesbian sex toy
buy sex toy buy sex toy
penis pumps penis pumps
butt plugs butt plugs
sex store toys sex store toys
sex shop toys sex shop toys
gay sex toys gay sex toys
vibraters vibraters
male sex toy male sex toy
male sex toys male sex toys
party sex toys party sex toys
anal sex toys anal sex toys
cheap sex toy cheap sex toy
cheap sex toys cheap sex toys
female sex toys female sex toys
female sex toy female sex toy

Posted by: cheap sex toy at December 21, 2005 03:40 PM

I don't have a video codec. Is the speech available in either MP3 or text?

Posted by: Collin at August 19, 2007 08:15 PM
Post a comment













Remember personal info?






Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member



Testimonials

"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

"Terrific"
Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere


Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com


News Feeds




toysforiraq.gif



Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button

totten_button.jpg


Tip Jar





Essays

Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn