tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post117472732168716046..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: In defense of Jonah GoldbergUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1175001718996522622007-03-27T07:21:00.000-07:002007-03-27T07:21:00.000-07:00Here is a quote from Norman Birnbaum that may be a...Here is a quote from Norman Birnbaum that may be applicable. The article is about the pressure applied by The [Israel] Lobby:<BR/><BR/><I>A problem here is that American Jewry has allowed itself to be represented by persons who in manner and personality resemble not the Nobel prizewinners, writers and thinkers of whom it has every reason to be proud, but <B>an earlier generation's formidable gangsters, who are not above descending to vulgar ethnocentrism for the sake of defending Israel.</B> [Sounds like Fascists to me.]<BR/><BR/>This can be manifest in the <B>tension</B> between the claim of full rights in the (majority-Christian) United States by virtue of the <B>universal principles of citizenship, and the insistence that nothing be done to alter the Jewish character of Israel.</B></I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/israel_potomac_4285.jsp" REL="nofollow">OpenDemocracy</A><BR/><BR/>I think this "tension" is what is being discussed here.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17387233246665688430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174920481443956852007-03-26T08:48:00.000-07:002007-03-26T08:48:00.000-07:00Never heard anyone claim that this [immigration ba...<I>Never heard anyone claim that this [immigration based on religion] would be "fascist", though I can't think of anything in America's Constitution which defines the country as a solely a Christian nation.</I><BR/><BR/>The constitution does not try to define the country – that is what the voters do using the system provided by the constitution.<BR/><BR/><I> If by "OK" [to restrict based on religion] you mean "legal", then sure.</I><BR/><BR/>It is hard for me to take this comment seriously considering the number of times I have heard people moan about the US not letting in Jews over the years due to “bigotry”. <BR/><BR/>But taking your comment at face value let’s do some google searches<BR/><BR/>Minutemen + nazi = 261,000 hits<BR/>Minutemen + fascist = 95,400 hits<BR/><BR/>Second hit for minutemen & fascist:<BR/><BR/><I> The Minuteman Project is a deeply reactionary organization that is fascist in character.</I><BR/><BR/><A HTTP://WWW.ETEXT.ORG/POLITICS/MIM/AGITATION/GATEKEEPER/ARIZONA041305.HTML” HREF="”" REL="nofollow">Link</A><BR/><BR/>So, I can only imagine that any effort to restrict on religion we be treated even more harshly and certainly get the fascist label.<BR/><BR/>Thus, the question still stands: Is it morally acceptable for the US to restrict immigration on race or religion? <BR/><BR/><I>Surely you understand that the United States is an exceptional country, no? Perhaps the name of its nationals might have given you a hint?</I><BR/><BR/>The name just means a bunch of states got together to form a united government. The government was a constitutional republic. As such, the people could then decide what they wanted it to be for themselves using the franchise. <BR/><BR/>They had decided in the past that they wanted a Christian and European character, although others were treated reasonably well. Then that policy was changed in 1965. We all know this story very well.<BR/><BR/>The more interesting point is whether it is a) morally OK, or b) desirable, to once against restrict inflow to preserve the remaining Christian/European character (or perhaps some other character).<BR/><BR/>Regarding German immigration laws, the question is does Germany currently have policies in place to keep Germany a) German or b) Lutheran (or some other religion). The answer is no. They have very liberal citizenship policies when compared to Israel – eight-year residence requirement and anyone from any EU country can enter and work legally at anytime. This policy is hardly restrictive or in any way an attempt to control the ethnic or religious makeup of the country.<BR/><BR/>Finally, Gibraltar and the American Southwest would be great examples if they held large populations of people that were not entitled to vote or exercise control of the borders, streets, or economies. Since there are not, they are very poor comparisons.<BR/><BR/>Fact is Dave, you like fascism when you are cheering for your “team.” Don’t be ashamed of it comrade. Some people just prefer tribalism over humanism. It’s human nature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174913162876918662007-03-26T06:46:00.000-07:002007-03-26T06:46:00.000-07:00"Yet, some closed minded people would say that an ...<I>"Yet, some closed minded people would say that an effort to preserve that diverse, but still Christian, majority in the US would be "fascist". No doubt the term Christo-fascism would be coined by someone."</I><BR/><BR/>Never heard anyone claim that this would be "fascist", though I can't think of anything in America's Constitution which defines the country as a solely a Christian nation.<BR/><BR/><I>"So it was OK for the US to prevent Jews from immigrating in the past. I mean, we were just preventing people from entering the country based on religion, right?"</I><BR/><BR/>If by "OK" you mean "legal", then sure. As a sovereign nation, the Congress of the United States has the authority to legislate its immigration policy. If by "OK" you mean was it in America's tradition of religious freedom as a nation <A HREF="http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:yGZk7LijL30J:www.au.org/site/DocServer/Washingtons_Letter_To_Touro_Synagogue.pdf%3FdocID%3D146+george+washington+rhode+island+synagogue&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us" REL="nofollow">which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance..."</A>, I would say no.<BR/><BR/><I>"Nothing exceptional about it."</I><BR/><BR/>Surely you understand that the United States <I>is</I> an exceptional country, no? Perhaps the name of its nationals might have given you a hint? Unlike other citizens named after an ethnic/linguistic group (e.g., "Germans", "French", "Poles"), we are called "Americans" -- a geographic term derived from the name of an (Italian) explorer.<BR/><BR/><I>"I am not sure what you are talking about when you say Germany has an immigration policy in Germany, based on either race or national origin. I think your example is wrong."</I><BR/><BR/>Although Germany now allows some non-ethnic Germans to become citizens (just as Israel allows some non-Jews to become citizens), the bulk of its new citizens remain ethnic Germans, and Germany gives preference to them. From <A HREF="http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/citizenship.html" REL="nofollow">The German Embassy's website</A>:<BR/><BR/><I><B>German Citizenship by Claim of the "Right of Return"</B><BR/><BR/>The majority of those who are granted German citizenship each year are ethnic German "resettlers" (Aussiedler), the descendants of German farmers and craftspeople who settled in Russia and Romania and other parts of Eastern Europe in the 18th century.</I><BR/><BR/><I>"The world is waiting. Forty years is a long time."</I><BR/><BR/>The world has waited a lot longer for Britain to give back Gibraltar. The world is used to waiting long periods for countries to give up lands won it conquest, because it so rarely happens. I am certainly not holding my breath until we give any of the Southwest back to Mexico.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174911851143233412007-03-26T06:24:00.000-07:002007-03-26T06:24:00.000-07:00Israel evacuated Gaza. Has anyone noticed this?Israel evacuated Gaza. Has anyone noticed this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174911472300675072007-03-26T06:17:00.000-07:002007-03-26T06:17:00.000-07:00I'm betting that Goldberg doesn't intend "liberal ...I'm betting that Goldberg doesn't intend "liberal fascism" as a smear. In fact, I'm betting that the meta point of the book is that some liberal elements can be traced to fascism as a descriptive matter and therefore that leftists should give up on fascism as a pejorative or a guilt-by-association smear themselves.<BR/><BR/>-Osvaldo MandiasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174897445177420332007-03-26T02:24:00.000-07:002007-03-26T02:24:00.000-07:00Even the Jewish population of Israel is far from h...<I>Even the Jewish population of Israel is far from homogenous -- there is tremendous diversity in terms of appearance (from blondes to blacks), religious adherence (from secular to orthodox, Ashkenazi versus Sephardic rituals, etc.), and politics (three major parties, but dozens of minor parties needed to form coalitions). None of that has much in common with fascism.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, and there is lots of diversity within the Christian community too. <BR/><BR/>Yet, some closed minded people would say that an effort to preserve that diverse, but still Christian, majority in the US would be "fascist". No doubt the term Christo-fascism would be coined by someone.<BR/><BR/><I>As far as Israel giving preference to Jews for citizenship, as an "ethnostate", there is nothing exceptional about this either; in fact, Israel is more liberal in its citizenship policies than, say, Japan or Germany [Really?]</I><BR/><BR/>So it was OK for the US to prevent Jews from immigrating in the past. I mean, we were just preventing people from entering the country based on religion, right? Nothing exceptional about it.<BR/><BR/>What would Dershowitz and Fox say about religion based immigration a policy for America? They would scream fascism from the top of their lungs. <BR/><BR/>Fox-Dersh would also go bananas if you based such a policy on ancestry, like European ancestry, so if you are going the “Jews as a nation path” forget that.<BR/><BR/>Germany is a member of the EU. Anyone from any EU country can move there, live and work, so I am not sure what you are talking about when you say Germany has an immigration policy in Germany, based on either race or national origin. I think your example is wrong.<BR/><BR/>BTW, does “nothing exceptional” imply it is OK? Very vague and evasive term. There is nothing "exceptional" about attempted genocide either, really. Happens all the time. It's human nature.<BR/><BR/>Comparing Israel with Japan is probably about right. By western standards, however, Japan would not be acceptable to many liberal, and in particular “leading” Jewish, groups.<BR/><BR/><I>Clearly, it makes no sense for Israel to administer land populated predominantly by Palestinians (as opposed to Israeli Arabs, though there is some identification between the two groups).</I><BR/><BR/>The world is waiting. Forty years is a long time. <BR/><BR/>I will say that multiparty elections do show that a country has not crossed over into deep fascism. Still, people start complaining about fascist policies long before single party rule has been achieved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174868739769956222007-03-25T18:25:00.000-07:002007-03-25T18:25:00.000-07:00Even the Jewish population of Israel is far from h...Even the Jewish population of Israel is far from homogenous -- there is tremendous diversity in terms of appearance (from blondes to blacks), religious adherence (from secular to orthodox, Ashkenazi versus Sephardic rituals, etc.), and politics (three major parties, but dozens of minor parties needed to form coalitions). None of that has much in common with fascism.<BR/><BR/>As far as Israel giving preference to Jews for citizenship, as an "ethnostate", there is nothing exceptional about this either; in fact, Israel is more liberal in its citizenship policies than, say, Japan or Germany (a quick anecdote about Japan's immigration policy: my girlfriend and I were waited on by a Japanese sales rep in Brazil; he met his Brazilian wife in New York but they started a family in Brazil instead of Japan because she couldn't even get permanent residency in Japan, even though she was his wife). <BR/><BR/>Clearly, it makes no sense for Israel to administer land populated predominantly by Palestinians (as opposed to Israeli Arabs, though there is some identification between the two groups). The problems of simply reverting the pre-1967 borders are that 1) They aren't very defensible; 2) It would leave the holiest sites in Judaism on the other side, and if history is any guide, the Arabs wouldn't allow Jews access to them; 3) Large settlement blocks would be left on the other side of the green line. <BR/><BR/>The solution Israel has been gradually moving toward is the separation barrier that would keep about 10% of the West Bank in Israeli hands; in later negotiations, this could be reduced to about 5%, with the Palestinians being given an equivalent amount of land elsewhere as compensation.<BR/><BR/>Even if that's completed and the Palestinians create a state there, it won't lead to peace. A significant faction of Palestinians won't settle for anything short of everything from Jordan to the Mediterranean. Nevertheless, Israel should complete its separation barrier, remove outlying settlements, then do what it can on a practical level to improve living conditions for Palestinians (remove unnecessary checkpoints, reduce contact, etc.). Perhaps after a couple decades of separation and quiet, the next generation can make a real peace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174859283474820082007-03-25T15:48:00.000-07:002007-03-25T15:48:00.000-07:00It is unclear (to me) whether you think such measu...<I>It is unclear (to me) whether you think such measures are acceptable.</I><BR/><BR/>I think Jews have right to an ethnostate of their own. However, the continuance of current anti-Palestinian policies <I>ad infinitum</I> would be wrong, both for humanitarian reasons and because of the tensions the situation creates between the West and the Muslim world.<BR/><BR/>Israel should ditch the occupied territories, and let there be a Palestinian state. The Pal state would probably become an unpleasant dictatorship, which would be in Israel's interest, as Steve argued recently. Of course there would still be the problem of Arabs with Israeli citizenship.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174858625997863012007-03-25T15:37:00.000-07:002007-03-25T15:37:00.000-07:00Daveg,I am just asking hypothetical questions to s...Daveg,<BR/><BR/><I>I am just asking hypothetical questions to see what the "anti-fascist" answers are, because I, frankly, don't understand their positions sometimes (or maybe I do understand and I am just exposing their hypocrisy).<BR/><BR/>Is "fascism" per se bad/evil/whatever, or is it just some types of fascism - e.g. expansionist fascism (Is Israel also an example of this?).</I><BR/><BR/>Your comment highlights one of the worst problems with the term "fascism" and its use in today's world. <BR/><BR/>The popular meaning is basically, as Orwell pointed out, anything the user of the word doesn't like. That's the reason why I think the discourse to follow Goldberg's book will be inevitably idiotic, confused and useless, particularly with that "this'll get the dittoheads to buy it" title. The thing is, I read stuff by Goldberg offhandedly referring to his book that suggested he was doing a much more academic and reasonable discussion of the certain strains of fascist thought that existed in leftism and contemporary liberalism (and they are there... "politics of meaning," "personal is political" etc), but the title suggests mere bomb-throwing. I.e., "these people inherited some ideas from Mussolini, therefore kick them out of office!!"<BR/><BR/>The meaningful and more historically appropriate use of the term is primarily descriptive and doesn't necessarily require normative approval or disapproval. And, precisely because of the way the word gets thrown around meaninglessly like "racist," it's pretty clear to me we should keep any question of morality separated from the discussion of whether a particular nation/policy is fascist or not. <BR/><BR/>By searching automatically for a course that can be deemed "anti-fascist," you're succumbing to the same confusion of terms that Goldberg relies on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174857092741811582007-03-25T15:11:00.000-07:002007-03-25T15:11:00.000-07:00I'm well aware of Israeli demographics -- they are...<I>I'm well aware of Israeli demographics -- they are the reason for Israel's use of semi-fascistic measures to control the Arab population. </I><BR/><BR/>It is unclear (to me) whether you think such measures are acceptable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174856774891261132007-03-25T15:06:00.000-07:002007-03-25T15:06:00.000-07:00Also, you seem to deny any sort of distinction bet...<I>Also, you seem to deny any sort of distinction between treating citizens in one's country equally regardless of race, versus treating equally those who want to come into that country.</I><BR/><BR/>I basically agree with you, but are you saying that it is OK for a majority population to control immigration to ensure they stay a majority, so long as they don’t “oppress” the existing minority in other ways? <BR/><BR/>I am just asking hypothetical questions to see what the "anti-fascist" answers are, because I, frankly, don't understand their positions sometimes (or maybe I do understand and I am just exposing their hypocrisy).<BR/><BR/>Is "fascism" per se bad/evil/whatever, or is it just some types of fascism - e.g. expansionist fascism (Is Israel also an example of this?). <BR/><BR/>Also, if there are elements of fascism and socialism that are similar, how do you draw a line between them? <BR/><BR/>Finally, could socialism benefit from the use of some fascist principals or techniques, as fascism has a better track record for accomplishment - efficiency and production - than socialism, but it seems to have some negative "side effects". How do you decide between the good and bad parts?<BR/><BR/>Can we take the good from fascism (if it does exist) without the bad, or are the two inseparably linked?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174856589120322752007-03-25T15:03:00.000-07:002007-03-25T15:03:00.000-07:00daveg:I'm well aware of Israeli demographics -- th...daveg:<BR/><BR/>I'm well aware of Israeli demographics -- they are the reason for Israel's use of semi-fascistic measures to control the Arab population. <BR/><BR/>As to the US, I think it will develop into a Latin American type class society where one's social status is largely based on race. I don't think any white nationalist scheme is feasible in America -- the white population is too heterogeneous. Whites will form the bulk of the upper classes in America in the future anyway.<BR/><BR/>Sweden has lots of immigrants, but most of them are of European descent and reasonably well adjusted. However, the number of Third World immigrants is swelling rapidly, and it's clear that the Social Democratic ideal of "folkhemmet" is not sustainable in the long run.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174853578242283942007-03-25T14:12:00.000-07:002007-03-25T14:12:00.000-07:00Daveg,Also, you seem to deny any sort of distincti...Daveg,<BR/><BR/>Also, you seem to deny any sort of distinction between treating citizens in one's country equally regardless of race, versus treating equally those who want to come into that country. <BR/><BR/>Why? That makes no sense to me. I think it's a pretty sensible principle to say that a country owes a certain standard of equal treatment to anyone who has been taken on as a citizen, and yet owes absolutely nothing to those outside the nation seeking to come in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174852988251132312007-03-25T14:03:00.000-07:002007-03-25T14:03:00.000-07:00Daveg,The problem of national homogeneity was also...Daveg,<BR/><BR/>The problem of national homogeneity was also described by Sun Yat Sen in his prescriptions for China. He argued for an acute and energetic sense of nationalism amongst the people, and this had to be preceded by the nation being composed of a single race. <BR/><BR/>Now, he meant this in a way different than what most people think of when they they hear "race." He was writing at the end of the 19th century, and yet he described a kind of racial identity that would be more recognizable to people like Steve rather than racial theorists of his own day, who were more prone to think of race and the races as a kind of Platonic form. <BR/><BR/>For instance, he described the "American race" that was emerging as the English, German and Scottish settlers, plus some others, interbred (whether these people were actually mixing to the extent he believed is not the point). At the time of his writing, the people of China did not think of themselves as Chinese; they had much more specific racial identities, and Sun was trying to get them to define themselves primarily as "Chinese." <BR/><BR/>The relevant VDARE-esque point about this today is that Sun's ideas of "race" as a national population that interbreeds over time and creates a more or less homogeneous polity would of course be frustrated and made impossible by continual mass immigration, which is exactly what we're doing today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174852221500190412007-03-25T13:50:00.000-07:002007-03-25T13:50:00.000-07:00oops,thats "vasectomy" :)oops,thats "vasectomy" :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174852148619117532007-03-25T13:49:00.000-07:002007-03-25T13:49:00.000-07:00Re Hitlers disdain for women working in factories:...Re Hitlers disdain for women working in factories:true,Hitler strongly objected to women in the workforce and encouraged them to have children.On the birthday of his mom,he awarded medals to women who had the largest number of children. Surprisingly,illegitamcy was tolerated. The Nazis of course created the 'Lebensborns' where German women could get knocked up by the appropriate German lad! "Hey Hans,ya vanna catch a movie? I hear 'Triumph of ze Vill' is pretty goot!" "No sanks,i'm headink to da Lebensborn!" "Zis is da 3rd time zis veek! I hope dose shmucks dont find out you haff a vasctomy!" :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174851658848259142007-03-25T13:40:00.000-07:002007-03-25T13:40:00.000-07:00Are you claiming Israel a homogeneous population t...Are you claiming Israel a homogeneous population today? I mean, I think it is clear that Israel is not homogenous, - that's the problem. <BR/><BR/>The have a large (~20%) Arab population, a substantial (~4%) but shrinking Christian population. <BR/><BR/>This does not even mention the fact that Israel been in control of an area with a MAJORITY Arab population for forty years.<BR/><BR/>And Israel is/has contorted itself to maintain a Jewish majority for years, bringing in immigrants from other areas and making it hard for Arabs to come in, etc.<BR/><BR/>In fact, Israel has about as many Jews as America does whites, give or take 10%. <BR/><BR/>So I assume you must think it is ok for the US to take steps to preserve the majority white status, or even increase. I assume that is within the bounds of "reasonable" fascism, no, so long as the minority gets some reasonable set of rights.<BR/><BR/>(BTW, Sweden has something like 10% Arab's now, no, so I am not sure they are a good example either.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174848569589081392007-03-25T12:49:00.000-07:002007-03-25T12:49:00.000-07:00Daveg:The problem with a system like that of Japan...Daveg:<BR/><BR/>The problem with a system like that of Japan, Sweden, or Israel is precisely that it presupposes a homogeneous population. When the population diversifies, the system becomes inviable. At this point a shift toward a more libertarian organization of society is preferable. I think something like this may be currently happening in Sweden under the new bourgeois cabinet, partly as a response to growing immigration.<BR/><BR/>Of course, such a reversion of values may be too difficult to pull through, and a bit of fascism may be in popular demand instead.<BR/><BR/>But if the nation manages to remain homogeneous, I see no reason why there would be a turn toward fascism. I think homogeneous population offers a good basis for a stable democracy.<BR/><BR/>(I'm the anonymous commenter above.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174850784635191822007-03-25T12:26:00.000-07:002007-03-25T12:26:00.000-07:00One analogy that hasn't been mentioned is between ...One analogy that hasn't been mentioned is between fascism broadly defined and today's China, which has the following characteristics that might be called fascist:<BR/><BR/>One party rule.<BR/><BR/>A cultivated sense of national grievance<BR/><BR/>A capitalist economy subsidized by the state<BR/><BR/>For the moment it's not expansionist and appears to be less repressive than it used to be, but doesn't the analogy have some merit?Grumpy Old Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06885003732996511989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174844922149217902007-03-25T11:48:00.000-07:002007-03-25T11:48:00.000-07:00Many successful political-economical systems have ...<I>Many successful political-economical systems have much in common with fascism. I mean the likes of Japan and Nordic welfarism. I don't find this shocking or problematic as long as such aspects of fascism as authoritarian rule and lack of human rights are not adopted.</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly, but the interesting question is how do you draw the line? Or better yet, can you really draw the line? Will it always spiral out of control?<BR/><BR/>For example, is a policy like that of Israel OK, were one can openly talk about the protecting the "Jewish" nature of the country, and where non Jewish citizens are treated OK, but not along the lines we would accept in the west? Every year is seems that Israel heads more towards fascism, not away. Think Avi Lebiermann, the Israeli cabinet member who want to ethnically cleanse Arab Israeli’s from Israel.<BR/><BR/>Or to think about it another way, if there are similarities between fascism and leftism, should the leftist's reaction be to jettison his leftist beliefs, or perhaps should he open himself up to some of the ideas of fascism?<BR/><BR/>I am not asking this rhetorically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174842778217715032007-03-25T11:12:00.000-07:002007-03-25T11:12:00.000-07:00The question is, if Hitler just expelled the Jews,...<I>The question is, if Hitler just expelled the Jews, rather than killed them, would things be different?</I><BR/><BR/>Germar Rudolf wouldn't be in jail, for a start. Or maybe he would...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174841670070475802007-03-25T10:54:00.000-07:002007-03-25T10:54:00.000-07:00The leftism=fascism thesis is the oldest trick in ...The leftism=fascism thesis is the oldest trick in the book. I doubt that Goldberg can contribute anything worthwhile to this topic, given his predilection for hyberbole and sensationalism. There are lots of great books -- some of them already mentioned in this thread -- about the similarities and differences between leftist ideology and fascism. For an eccentric yet interesting read, I recommend Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihin's "Leftism Revisited".<BR/><BR/>Many successful political-economical systems have much in common with fascism. I mean the likes of Japan and Nordic welfarism. I don't find this shocking or problematic as long as such aspects of fascism as authoritarian rule and lack of human rights are not adopted. A ban on public smoking, for example, is a very rational policy when you have socialized health care.<BR/><BR/>I think there are several fascisms, and it's unhelpful to lump all of them together. Mussolini's fascism was a leftist movement, with some elements of conservatism. Nazism was more pointedly conservative, but still very "progressive" in some ways. Franco and Salazar's "fascism" was traditionalist, authoritarian, and Catholic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174835733795657922007-03-25T09:15:00.000-07:002007-03-25T09:15:00.000-07:00Oh wait, that's right. [Hitler] was an amoral madm...<I>Oh wait, that's right. [Hitler] was an amoral madman! Sorry, forgot about that.</I><BR/><BR/>"Amoral madman" - now that provides a lot of insight!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174827573869144962007-03-25T06:59:00.000-07:002007-03-25T06:59:00.000-07:00I meant, of course, North Korea PROHIBITS all kind...I meant, of course, North Korea PROHIBITS all kinds of normal activities. That ruined the sarcasm in that sentence!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1174823098768746092007-03-25T05:44:00.000-07:002007-03-25T05:44:00.000-07:00The general consensus among historians is that the...<I>The general consensus among historians is that the Soviets, by the time they started advancing rather than defending, were producing tanks that were unit-for-unit better than what the Germans could throw into the field.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, well, all vehicles tend to look better going forward, than in reverse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com