About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 12:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Though the Article Queue is bulging, I decided to post only *this* article tonight, instead of the usual two or three. I wish it could be emblazoned across the sky all over America, "from sea to shining sea," that it might shame the pseudo-libertarians of whom it speaks into renouncing their membership, in these perilous times, of the obscene Islamo-fascist/left/"libertarian" alliance.

Linz



Post 1

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 1:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mme. Branden-

I do disagree with your views on foreign policy, for reasons too involved to explain here, but I wish to speak specifically to a narrower matter.

Why it is not possible for a rational person to be virulently opposed to Bush for his politics outside of the realm foreign policy?  Ayn Rand said she was "glad to be old" when informed of Reagan's candidacy, due to his religious-right connection and fervent antiabortion stance, yet Bush has not only enacted "faith-based" funding but stands a very realistic chance if he wins another term of seeing Roe vs. Wade overturned, an unmitigated disaster for liberty and living on Earth.  Planned Parenthood is currently planning contingency operations for transporting those seeking abortions across state lines, by any means necessary.

If for no other reasons, in defense of a generation of the young whose sexuality is not shrouded in fear which gives traditional repression its teeth, I cannot do otherwise than consider Bush an objective threat to the lives of those I value.  Though I find little appealing in his opponents, including Badnarik.

I am 25 years old, and already look to the political future and do not wish a long life.  The thought of what an America with abortion prohibitions would do to the young... is one I can express in no prudent words.

my regards,

Jeanine Ring





Post 2

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 3:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ms. Ring,

I would not bring up Ayn Rand's reaction to and assessment of Ronald Reagan as an example of anything even resembling reasonability.

Alec 

P.S. I find your reference to abortion as a form of birth control--rather than an emergency life-saving procedure--quite worrisome. Are you saying that it's a good thing that so many people consider abortion a comforting fallback?

(Edited by Alec Mouhibian on 10/15, 3:25am)




Post 3

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 3:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Don't let this thread be sidetracked by arguments about abortion. It's about those who betray Western civilisation in the face of Islamo-fascism & those who defend it. The former are the true, cosmic abortionists. When they call themselves Objectivists or libertarians, they become disgusting beyond words.

Linz



Post 4

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 4:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeanine, you wrote:

"Why it is not possible for a rational person to be virulently opposed to Bush for his politics outside of the realm foreign policy?"

It certainly is possible. I don't defend Bush for his domestic policies --(although I suspect some of those policies were trades for getting his way in foreign policy; James Kilbourne has made me understand that politics is the art of the possible). My point is that our survival is at stake, perhaps more than it ever has been, and I believe Bush to be the man who understands that and will act appropriately. Granted the threat we face, survival has to come before any other consideration.

As for the issue of abortion, I will say -- and I mean this exactly -- that it is not possible for anyone to be more opposed to outlawing it than I am. But in certain areas, I'm convinced it's too late for us to go back; that is, I don't think the tide favoring abortion can be turned -- not even by religious conservatives. Roe vs. Wade -- or something much like it -- will remain, because people will not again accept an alternative. The same pertains to gay marriage. The idea of a constitutional amendment forbidding it is ludicrous; such an amendment can never be passed (and I'm sure that Bush knows that). Gay marriage -- or something much like it -- will be possible, because people will refuse to accept an alternative. These are two ideas for which the time has come, and now they carry their own power.

Further, can you really believe that if Rand had known that Reagan would cause the death of communism, she would still have opposed him?

I feel great sadness that you "look to the political future and do not wish a long life." I shall wish it for you, then, even if you don't thank me for it, just as I wish it for myself -- because I don't believe this great country can be destroyed, nor will it destroy itself.

Barbara



Post 5

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 4:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Linz, thank you for your kind words about my article.

Barbara



Post 6

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 5:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What an inspiring article! It has historical context, a focus on the big issues, a contrast between our essential greatness and (Continental) Europe’s sad past, dispenses with anti-American bigotry, and champions our righteous fight against the barbaric Islamo-fascists. ... Damn, why can’t Bush talk like that? Well, for all his limitations, Bush is still the man of the hour. We have a war to fight. Brava, Barbara Branden!



Post 7

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 5:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara,

You quoted the libertarian viewpoint as being this: "If it were not for America’s disastrous foreign policy for many years (which clearly had nothing to do with Bush, who has been president for less than four years), there would be no problem of terrorism..."

I agree that this is what many people think, but I have a question about your parenthetical comment: are you denying that George Bush Sr. sowed any of the seeds of 9/11 through his approach to foreign policy in the Middle East? I mean this to be an honest question, not a challenge! I try to stay away from the news and from politics (because it's too depressing), but earlier this year my mother dragged me to go see Farenheit 9/11 (a rhetorically awful "documentary" that rests its case on circumstantial "evidence" and tasteless jokes). The viewpoint you have expressed is exactly opposite the viewpoint of that film (as I would expect).

I guess my question is where can I find information that contradicts Moore's thesis? Could you point me to some good resources? I'm all too willing to admit that Moore was wrong (just because I hate him), but I'd like to see some facts so that I can actually justify my opinion... ;) I suppose maybe it's time for me to pay attention to some of this stuff...as I have yet to decide if and for whom I'm voting...

Jana



Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 5:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While I always appreciate a discussion of politics, being a political junky myself, I honestly hesitate to re-open the same debate again.  But I don't think that criticism of this administration's Iraq policy constitutes a "disgusting" betrayal of Western civilization.  I lost many friends and colleagues in the devastation of 9/11.  I supported the President when he stood on the rubble of the WTC.  I supported the President when he went into Afghanistan (for which I was criticized by some in the "antiwar" crowd, even though I too was critical of the ways in which the Afghanistan campaign has been executed).   I continue to support a devastating response to Al Qaeda, its networks, allies, and state supporters, and to Al Qaeda-ism (which speaks to a cultural and philosophical war of historic proportions). 

But I became critical of this President and his neoconservative foreign policy architects when he went into Iraq, a country seeping with ethnic, religious, and tribal conflicts, for reasons I've discussed ad nauseum (and for which I've been criticized by many in the "prowar" crowd).  (See, for example, only a few of my countless commentaries here, here, herehere, here, here, and here; but, clearly, I am not alone, as there has been a long "America First" tradition of opposition to most US intervention abroad, a radical individualist representative of which is Ayn Rand herself.)

I don't think we achieve any clarification by not paying attention to the historical context, however, and part of that context is that the US did, in fact, contribute partially to the conditions that led to this insanity.  Explaining those conditions is not a justification for the insanity; understanding the conditions, however, is crucial to changing them in the long-run.

As an aside, I have a real problem with the term "Islamo-fascism" for reasons I describe here and here.  I think there are quasi-fascist elements at work in certain parts of the Arab-Islamic world, but there is a crucial distinction between fascism and theocratic authoritarianism, even if they are both species of statism.

Finally, I believe that the current policies have been fully institutionalized and that it won't make much of a difference who gets elected President, Bush or Kerry, in terms of policy.  At this late date, I still think that Bush is going to be re-elected.  And, to a certain extent, I think matters might be worse under Kerry for reasons I describe here.   But that's not enough for me to vote for Bush, for a number of reasons, among which is my opposition to his administration's pietistic and neocon ideological roots.  (Alas, whatever his pietistic roots, 2000 Presidential candidate George W. Bush understood then what he doesn't seem to understand now:  the folly of nation-building.  Even Dick Cheney understood the problems once.) 

I am fully aware that we can't hope for candidates who are 100% in sync with our own ideological convictions; that hasn't stopped me from voting for "mixed" cases (like Ronald Reagan and Rudy Giuliani) in the past.  At this stage, however, I am probably not going to vote for the Presidential candidates at all (even if I do vote on local races and local bond issues).   I disagree with Bush.  I disagree with Kerry.  I'm not enraptured by the Libertarian candidate; though I've voted Libertarian in the past, I've never been a registered LP member.  And my vote doesn't count, in any event, given that Kerry most likely will win the electoral votes in my home state of New York.  

I'll be back on November 3rd to say "I told you so," or, perhaps, to eat crow.

P.S. - Check out the newly refurbished Not a Blog for regular additions to my writings on these subjects and others.

(Edited by sciabarra on 10/15, 6:27am)




Post 9

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 6:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Without opening the war debate, you have to admit that Barbara Branden is onto the crux of a cultural phenomenon that permeates the anti-war Left and libertarian Right. I think she identifies the zeitgeist of the main opposition here and abroad. Don’t you think?



Post 10

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 8:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Whether or not George Bush wins reelection ( and I believe he will quite easily), he will go down as one of the greatest presidents in American history. Jeaninie, I have read many of your posts on Solo and have great admiration for your intelligence and diresctness, but I agree with Linz's admonition about getting off point here, so I will only say that I look forward to a lengthy post-election discussion about the political future. I believe the next decade is vital for numerous reasons, and I plan to write about political realignment shortly. I think you and I will be in the same party in the near future, along with my great friend Chris Sciabarra, who gives us the glorious news that he will be staying home on November 2.
Back on point. In times of chaos, it is unfortunately rare that a leader can not only deal with the horrors at hand, but can also see how new information gleaned from the crisis changes everything. George Bush is much criticizes by John Kerry for sitting in that classroom on 9/11/01 almost frozen, with an expression like a deer caught in the headlights. I have no doubt John Kerry would have looked better. He would have been thinking of the cameras. His hair would have been perfect, his expression resolute, his cape falling perfectly off one shoulder. But John kerry would have jumped off that stage right into the wall of appeasement know as the European world view, and the world would still be in chaos today.
Mr. Kerry, the reason Bush looked like that deer is because America WAS a deer caught in the headlights of terrorism, and he was THINKING. Nine days later, he delivered one of the great speeches in American history before the American congress, where he demonstrated the quality of that thinking. As a result, our age has been redefined. For too many years through the eighties and nineties, we had looked at terrorism as a police action. All this time, it had been a war. Wars require more than defense against individual enemies to be won; they need to concentrate on the NATIONS that are also our enemies. For a decade, the world had let a brutal tyrant ignore every warning and defy civilization. It had allowed the fundamentalist Taliban to help train international terrorists and torture its own citizens. No more. George Bush sees clearly that liberty and democracy are no longer just the best options in a highly technological age; they are necessary for the defense of the innocent. And following this speech, Bush identified the axis of evil and the true ties between the international terrorists movements and Arafat.
I agree that whoever wins, the hardest work has been done. Just as the Cold War continued on and eventually came to a successful conclusion despite the utter lack of understanding of Presidents such as Johnson and that imbecile Jimmy Carter, I believe George Bush has set us up for eventual victory, too. The crucial election was 2000. Can you imagine where we would be with President Gore?
The question of this election is not who will win the War on Terror, thanks to Mr. Bush. The question is do you want the War on Terror to last years or decades?
Barbara, you have succinctly identfied the ESSENTIAL issue of this election.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 11:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ms. Branden,

I very much liked that article.  You were very perceptive to identify and expose the existence of "liberals in libertarian's clothes". 

The people who are condemning America and the Bush administration for "creating" al-Qaeda are mentally lazy people who make the choice to endorse expedient "Down with The Man" jingoism, rather than make careful observations and logical connections, regarding what really created Islamo-fascism, as you rightly call it.

I'd like to give my reasons for why I don't think that the U.S. is to blame for all this:

In fighting the spread of communist thug dictatorship -- arguably the most salient political issue of the 20th century -- a succession of leaders in America had to make tough choices.  The American administrations (or, as I'll call it here, the AA) could not fight it alone, and part of the spread was occurring in regions not exactly populated by our ideal choices for political allies; namely, the Islamic regions.  They were brilliantly relentless fighting machines, but clearly anti-rational killers who did not take prisoners for very long, from an anti-rational culture... but because they loved to kill, the AA figured that they would likely stop cold the spread of communism into the desert regions.

So, the AA supported these cultures militarily... and they did their job superbly, of course.  Yet, once the threat was over, those who had been well-armed retained many of their weapons and/or learned to build their own, based on the design of the weapons they had obtained.  This was definitely a bad thing, for an Islamo-ideological region to gain such skill and weaponry.  Yet, because during the time of Soviet expansion, they were not any sort of salient threat (except to Israel, most definitely), all of this had been judged the right thing to do, in this particular order.

This brings us to where we are today, with regard to the threat of Islamo-fascism.  It has become simply the next target in the ever-prevalent, worldwide game of "Whack-A-Mole" that must be played, periodically.  The occasional emergence of evil is part of nature's grand design, and it is also part of nature's grand design, that a counter-system exist in order to regulate that evil, if existence is to continue.  Every generation must face this, and such challenge gives every generation a sense of purpose... if the generation is willing to see that.

Are the Islamo-fasicsts the "real victims" here, because we "fostered" them?  Did they become corrupt through our giving them power? 

No.  The Islamo-ideological cultures were nightmarish and sadistic before they were powerful... They only seemed "nice" because they were in a weakened, unemergent state.  (Here's an important rule regarding life:  All evil people become "nice" when they're in a weakened state.  When you meet a seemingly "nice" person, it is important to test how they act, when given a little power... that is your tip-off to whether they're latently evil or not). 

In fact, it was obvious that they were a threat to the United States, waaaay back in 1968, when Sirhan Sirhan -- a Muslim -- assassinated then-presidential-candidate Robert Kennedy because he had recently voiced his support of Israel during The Six-Day War.  Yitzak Rabin, with whom he was to have met before his murder, stated in his memoirs:  "The American people were so dazed by what they perceived as the senseless act of a madman that they could not begin to fathom its political significance."

Well, now we understand... if we care to. 

And is Yassir Arafat worthy of The Nobel Peace Prize?    

When Yassir Arafat's "Black September" terrorist organization stormed the Saudi Embassy in Khartoum in March of 1973 and took US Ambassador Cleo Noel, Charge d'Affaires George Curtis Moore, and others hostage, Sirhan's release was one of their main demands. On March 2, 1973, after Nixon rejected that demand, Arafat was overheard and recorded by Israeli intelligence and the U.S. National Security Agency giving the code words for the execution of Noel, Moore, and Belgian diplomat Guy Eid, who were shot to death. James Welsh, a Palestinian analyst for the N.S.A., went public with charges of a cover-up of Arafat's key role in the planning and execution of these kidnappings and murders. (There is no statute of limitations on murder.) If Sirhan had acted independently of the P.L.O., why were they willing to kill Americans to try to gain his freedom? (Michael D. Evans, Jerusalem Prayer Team)

Well, GOLLY! You might say... You mean all of this was happening, way back then? 

YESSSSS!  But we've only started paying attention now, because now it's happening to US.  The old saying goes that "necessity is the mother of invention".  Now that we're in danger, we have to start giving a shit and paying attention. (Also, in all fairness, the Islamic Oil-controlled, American media outlets didn't exactly try to make it clear to anyone what sort of person Arafat really was, and what was really going on).

Think about all of this, the next time you look at "frail, old Mr. Arafat" and feel an unconditional respect for your elders.  Even grinning killers get old... and then learn how to act "venerable and wise".  They know all too well, that society is typically conditioned to revere its elders, and the "evil aged" use that to their advantage, and "forget" to bring up their younger deeds.  Remember, Jack the Ripper was never caught, and likely lived to be a "venerable old man" somewhere... laughing all the way to his grave.     
   
But back to the primary subject, and another important question:  did we bring this on ourselves, for supporting Israel?  Has Israel somehow "done something" to Islam, to earn their wrath? 

Well, has India?  Has India ever sided with Israel?  Yet India is being savagely attacked by Islam.  What about all the other nations of the earth, who have since been swallowed up by Islam?  Did they ALL side with Israel?  Of course not.  What did Buddhism do, for al-Qaeda to explode the Buddha statues in Afghanistan?  Islam simply craves to destroy all else but Islam, because they've chosen to live under a sick and inescapable mind-game, for the duration of their lives.   

The Islamo-fascists worship conquest.  In a sense, the spirit of Allah is the spirit of conquest.  It's an obsession for them, just to see if they can accomplish and achieve that. 

But they also know that it won't come easy, and they have to use a combination of nightmarish force and mental trickery to gain the false confidence of those who would otherwise not allow them easy access to their lands.  That's what they do to us now... In the weaker lands such as Sudan, they conquer outright, with little need for trickery. 

But in America, a land whose might they are rightly heedful of, they just outright screw with our minds and manipulate us into allowing them entry and then prevalence, through manipulating the self-serving, pseudo-genuine guilt complexes of too many liberals, and the indiscriminate money-love and moral severity of too many conservatives.  And when all else fails, they just fake innocence and friendship like hell, and lie through their teeth... right to our faces.

People, don't be fooled any longer. 

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 10/15, 12:24pm)




Post 12

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 11:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"ISLAMO-FASCISM" has been such a contested word around here lately, indeed, so has the word fascist itself. I know it is so closely associated with Nazi's and Mussolini, but does the etymology of the word justify the use of the term "Islamo-Fascism?" If it does, is it worth it to use it in the broader application, as opposed to only a certain segment of history, instead of using substitute words? I'm not challenging for or against, I am trying to clarify it for myself, and looking for some insight from both sides...thanks, Joe.

BTW, I know this isn't the thrust of Barbara's article, so if it derails the topic, if anyone would rather comment elsewhere, that's cool.


fascism


NOUN: 1. often Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
ETYMOLOGY: Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle.
OTHER FORMS: fas·cistic (f-shstk) —ADJECTIVE
WORD HISTORY: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, “bundle, (political) group,” but also refers to the movement's emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini's group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 10/15, 11:25am)

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 10/15, 11:30am)




Post 13

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 11:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From that dictionary quote, Joe, Islamo-fascism is an appropriately constructed phrase. It describes the essence and significance of the enemy. It is far better that “terrorists,” which refers to how they fight. It’s better than "radical Islam," which implies some unspecified fundamental difference. It’s somewhat better than "militant Islam," which sounds like a bunch of tough Muslims with vague aims.

The other choice is “Islamism.” This implies a political totalitarian version of the religion. Perhaps it hints at the inclusion of 20th century totalitarian features merged with traditional Islam.

I prefer Islamo-fascism because it stresses that we are fighting fascists again – and by implication that we are fight for liberty. And, of course, the Left hates it all the more for that reason.




Post 14

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 11:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

I take your point well. 

I also want to add that muscles and other organs of the body are surrounded and held together by a tough membrane called the fascia

I will therefore and also contend that, under the proper conditions, a healthy form of fascism is part of nature's way. 

People of voluntarily like mind do seek out each other, and do wish to be voluntarily held themselves together with a kind of fascia.  Note the use of the term "voluntarily", in italics, because everything hinges on that.

We, here in SOLO, have a definite website address in all of cyberspace that we report to frequently in order to exchange ideas and information.  This website contains and designates our space -- like a fascia -- and we love it.  We even have a stated mission and informal code of purpose for this site, and those that have not stuck to that, have not received a warm welcome and have been spoken against, in order that they make the choice of voluntarily adhering to the established standards here, or go elsewhere.

However, that is an example of what I'll call a "healthy fascism".  What I'll call an unhealthy and evil fascism, is the kind we usually hear about:  Fascist Italy, Islamo-fascism.  Under these forms of fascism, people are forced, coerced, and/or terrorized into conforming, or else they are typically maimed or murdered. 

The critical missing element here is choice... and -- what's more -- rational and free choice.  With SOLO, you have rational and free choice... and the "fascia" in question -- that which binds us together -- is the love of objectivity and personal improvement through the use of rational argument.  With Islamo-fascism, you have none of this... in fact, you have the total opposite:  cruelty through enforced decerebration and stressful, blind faith.   

And if anyone sees a problem with my reasoning here, please give me feedback which is as specific as possible. 

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 10/15, 12:05pm)




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 12:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Two quick points:

1.  To Rich Z:  Yes, some of what Barbara describes fits many on the left and, perhaps, a few libertarians as well.  But I don't think it defines the whole of either; neither the left nor the libertarians are a monolith, ideologically, philosophically, or culturally.

2.  On "Islamo-fascism":  As I have pointed out above, the use of this phrase is, quite simply, sloppy and anachronistic.  I understand what people are driving at, but it just muddies the waters.  Over the past week, I have devoted several thousand words to this issue, here and here.  The Mideast regimes that are the most "fascistic" are also the ones that are the most "secular"; the Islamic fundamentalists are what they are:  theocratic authoritarians. 

"Fascism" is a concept with historical specificity; it also speaks to a particular politico-economic arrangement that just doesn't fit the Islamic fundamentalist model.  I'd say this is all a semantic issue, and, perhaps, in many ways it is.  But the moment we start talking about "a healthy form of fascism," I'm afraid the only way to go is down, conceptually speaking.




Post 16

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 1:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I appreciate the scholarly work of the renowned dialectical master. There are many worthy comments about fascism in his fact-filled piece (I recommend it). I was somewhat surprised that the standard formulation wasn’t addressed. Fascism is generally distinguished from Communism as there are two forms of totalitarianism. The standard list of differences are: 1) both take over the economy but fascism leaves nominal ownership private 2) fascism is nationalistic while communism is internationalist 3) fascist sentiment and imagery is pre-industrial, rural, and environmental while communism is industrial and urban 4) fascism favors pragmatist paths to power by giving new meaning to old symbols while communism is doctrinaire, sweeps aside old institutions, and re-inventing from scratch.

If you reread the above clearly, notice that the Left today has become fascist. It no longer requires outright nationalization (just control), internationalism (identity politics is fine), industrialism (need I comment?), or dogmatic ideals (nihilism anyone?).

Now the Islamo-fascists don’t, in general, take over industrial societies as there are few Islamic industrial societies. Perhaps Islamism is a better term since it adds a third category to the totalitarian list. However, for colloquial use I think Islamo-fascist has the most bang for the buck. Besides, Chris, you may be the dialectical master carrying on Rand’s analysis on triadic levels, Barbara Branden is the polemical master carrying on Rand’s hard-hitting principled big-picture rhetoric that can inspire.




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 1:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for your comments, Rick; I think I do mention nearly all the points you raise, though I don't formulate them point-by-point in the way that you do.  I think there are close relationships between fascism and communism, in any event, not simply because they are species of statism, but because communism, as such, is impossible, economically speaking.  What resulted was often closer to a "state-capitalist" model.  And let's not forget that fascism, in its economic roots, is a variant of guild socialism.

One would think that the Left would be more prone to opposing theocratic authoritarians when the phrase "Islamofascism" is used to describe these regimes, given the Left's historic "opposition" to the Spanish, German, and Italian fascists.  Alas, the Left, as you say, is too busy embracing its own form of quasi-fascism as economic antidote for our domestic ills.

Anyway, I have no problem with polemical bang for the buck; I just think that clarity is best called for when trying to assess the nature of the current enemies of liberty, wherever they exist.



Post 18

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 6:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other,but if one looks closely at the writings of the younger intellectual pacifists,one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States.
                                         George Orwell (May 1945)
Nothing changes......?




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 8:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ms. Branden writes:  "It is a sick irony that most of the countries of the world are damning, as imperialists, the one country that has invaded other countries only in order to free them."

Here's a list of US interventions in other countries since 1945:

http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/L/List-of-U.S.-foreign-interventions-since-1945.htm

Can anyone explain to me how these countries have been "freed" by U.S. intervention?




Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.