JimmyHavok: Re: the full analysis

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:23:47 EST

It is very doubtful that Palestinians, despite the name that they have adopted, actually originated in Palestine; they seem to have been originally Bedouin Arabs who immigrated from what is now known as Saudi Arabia (but previously was just Arabia).

JimmyHavok: Re: the full analysis

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:09:34 EST

you therefore hate them.

And you accuse me of being simplistic.

skeptic: Re: the full analysis

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:39:37 EST

You have such a conveniently simplified view of historical events. Sephardic Jews were living in perfect peace with their Muslim neighbors until those nasty Ashkenazic Jews showed up to spoil everything. Actually, there were repeated anti-Jewis

JimmyHavok: Re: the full analysis

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:19:50 EST

the Jews didn't just show up in 1948. They had been there for thousands of years.

Certain Ashkenazi Jews began the Zionist project in the mid-19th century. The Sephardic and Mizrah

JimmyHavok: Re: the full analysis

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:42:29 EST

You have suggested that Israel should accept the Palestinian demands even as Palestinians continue to fire rockets at Israel, which makes no sense. There is no basis for trust if the Palestinians won't even stop trying to kill Israelis. No n

skeptic: Re: the full analysis

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:55:50 EST
Hey, a succinct reply! Very nice! But you have over-simplified the issue. In 1948, Palestine was not simply the house of the Palestinians, it was inhabited by both Palestinians and Jews, as well as being part of the British Empire until t

JimmyHavok: Re: the full analysis

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:39:43 EST
Jews and Palestinians have BOTH been engaged in an effort, going back at least to 1929 if not earlier, to drive each other out of the region
If you come into my house and try to chase me out so you can live there, we are not equally responsible f

skeptic: the full analysis

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:37:59 EST
Oh, so you do think that some of things that Palestinians have done were wrong and were not excusable simply on the grounds that they are the officially designated victims. But then, my own previous proposal actually DOES make sense, that if Palestin

JimmyHavok: Re: Beat that straw man!

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:34:16 EST
no matter what Palestinians do, they cannot be blamed
Hardly. For example, I don't think the sort of thing the PLO was doing during the '70s was excusable. Things like the hijacking of the Achille Lauro and the murder of Leon Klinghof

skeptic: Re: we've been lied to

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:32:11 EST
OK, this one is one of your more reasonable comments, although it still shows your bias; you are very concerned about lies told by Zionists but unconcerned about lies told by Arabs, just as you are unconcerned about violence committed by Arabs, who are the

skeptic: Re: Beat that straw man!

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:12:20 EST
Yes, beat that straw man - that was exactly my reaction to your own previous comment (I didn't bother to explain that at the time since there were more urgent matters to discuss - this is the kind of argument which, like the revenge of Palestinians, expand

JimmyHavok: we've been lied to

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:15:26 EST
I started discovering the lies when I began researching the history of Israel, much the same as Chaim Simons, author of "A Historical Survey of Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine 1895 - 1947" did. As I have argued with both naive supporters o

JimmyHavok: Beat that straw man!

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:29:02 EST
Let us try to apply the principle of infinite revenge in another setting. Let us say, purely hypothetically, that some criminal breaks into your house and steals your computer. This would constitute a terrible crime which all decent people (

skeptic: more commentary

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:33:19 EST
Here I am again. I should explain why I continue to vacillate about whether to continue the discussion or not. On the one hand, there are many irritating aspects of your comments, and I aspire to have enjoyable rather than irritating discussion

JimmyHavok: Re: and the debate concludes

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:19:56 EST
It is remarkable how you shrug off the continuing rocket attacks against Israel as if the worst they can do is to disturb the sleep of Israelis.
It is remarkable how you shrug off the continuing missile (rifle, machine gun, cannon, artillery, blu

skeptic: and the debate concludes

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:26:17 EST
Yes, it is my attitude that Palestinians are indeed Arabs who would be quite at home in other Arab nations. Historically they have often attempted to do so, but other Arab countries have expelled them, because it is the intention of those countries t

JimmyHavok: Re: and the debate continues

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 02:22:22 EST
They have already agreed to a whole series of peace plans (of which the Oslo Accord is the most significant) which they have then violated
I think that article from Political Science Quarterly deals with in a well-documented way.
Here's an art

skeptic: and the debate continues

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 08:47:44 EST
You have repeatedly accused me of not reading the link that you posted to the Arab peace plan, but you are missing my point (which I made fairly explicitly) which is that Arab intentions will have to be judged by what they actually do, not by the peace pla

JimmyHavok: Re: surprise!

Fri, 8 Feb 2008 23:57:48 EST
there are currently a million Palestinian citizens of Israel who have somehow NOT been driven out, and how such a large number of Palestinians managed to escape this supposed Jewish program of ethnic cleansing, I don't know, not unless Zionist intention

skeptic: surprise!

Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:31:45 EST
Although I have previously promised to end this discussion and to post no more comments about Israel, your own eloquent comment has motivated me to change my mind - and if this disappoints anybody, I apologize. But I am going to make at least one mor

JimmyHavok: Re: Israel

Wed, 6 Feb 2008 18:45:11 EST
I see a determined campaign by Arabs to ethnically cleanse the middle east of Jews (a campaign which considerably predates even the 1948 founding of Israel) and the resulting desperate attempts by Israel to fend off these attacks, whereas you see only

skeptic: Re: Israel

Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:46:01 EST
You & I see amazingly opposite versions of reality. I see a determined campaign by Arabs to ethnically cleanse the middle east of Jews (a campaign which considerably predates even the 1948 founding of Israel) and the resulting desperate attempts

JimmyHavok: Re: Israel

Tue, 5 Feb 2008 02:17:50 EST
The fact remains, as much as you try to confuse the issue, that Lebanon DID attack Israel, and Israel responded in self-defense.
The fact remains, Israel still occupies Lebanese territory, and refuses to release it. As I pointed out, it's d

skeptic: Re: Israel

Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:27:24 EST
When I read the material to which your links direct me I get a slightly different picture than the one that you present. Yes, Israel had plans for an invasion of Lebanon a year before the Hezbollah attack on Israel, but NOT because they always intend

JimmyHavok: Re: Israel

Sun, 3 Feb 2008 21:04:31 EST
No, I'm sorry, Israel did not try to seize a big chunk of Lebanon.
Bullshit. They did it twice, and were driven out twice. Hezbollah's actions against Israel are motivated by two things: Israel's detention of Lebanese citizens, and Israel'

skeptic: Re: Israel

Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:14:44 EST
No, I'm sorry, Israel did not try to seize a big chunk of Lebanon. Once again, as usual, any time Israel defends itself from an attack it is deemed to be guilty of aggression. Lebanon was shelling Israel, or more precisely, Hezbollah was shelli

JimmyHavok: Re: Israel

Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:07:23 EST
What I really want for the middle east is for Jews and Arabs to stop fighting with each other and to work together for a more prosperous and happier region in which everybody, Jews, Arabs, Persians, etc., will be better off.
If Israel would accep

skeptic: Re: Israel

Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:29:31 EST
OK, what were Palestinians fleeing from? I would say that they were fleeing from their own pre-conception of the evil intentions that they had always ascribed to Jews. They knew perfectly well that they had conducted anti-Jewish pogroms when th

JimmyHavok: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:18:40 EST
have you counted the number of Israelis who have been killed by Palestinians during that same time period?
700

JimmyHavok: Re: Israel

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:16:50 EST
of the current roughly 6 million citizens of Israel, one million are ethnically Palestinian, and they enjoy the same rights as Jewish Israelis
Not e

skeptic: Re: The Audience for Peaceful Resistance

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:26:51 EST
OF COURSE there is a lot more to negotiate than just violence or non-violence. But nothing else can be negotiated while Palestinians continue to fire rockets at Israel. I believe that all the other issues that you raise, travel restrictions, wa

Shy Elf: Re: The Audience for Peaceful Resistance

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:20:41 EST
One of the consequences of the Israeli pullout is that the violence is increasingly under the control of Hamas, and many of the people behind it have now stopped and are part of Fatah.
If Palestinians actually wanted peace they could have peace

skeptic: Re: Israel

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:15:29 EST
Ethnic cleansing is intended to entirely remove an ethnic group that is not wanted in a given territory. All Palestinians who chose NOT to flee Israel in 1948 were allowed to remain and today they and their descendants are citizens of Israel. S

skeptic: Re: The Audience for Peaceful Resistance

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:12:15 EST
You have presented a very good argument, particularly in comparison to what I usually get in these kinds of discussions, however, I still think that you do not fully understand the situation. Israel has ALWAYS wanted peace with its Arab neighbors (al

Shy Elf: The Audience for Peaceful Resistance

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:05:50 EST
Peaceful civilians?
A major distinction between the Gaza Strip and the Warsaw Ghetto is that while the Warsaw Ghetto existed for around 3 years, the Gaza Strip has been a ghetto for 40 ye

Shy Elf: Re: Israel

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:33:58 EST
Ethnic cleansing IS making people flee on the assumption that otherwise you will kill them. You're arguing that it wasn't attempted genocide.

skeptic: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:14:53 EST
Since Palestinian terrorist and revolutionary groups have been continuously at war with Israel for the past 60 years, it is hardly surprising that thousands of Palestinians have been killed by Israel; have you counted the number of Israelis who have been k

skeptic: Israel

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:57:00 EST
I do not consider this to be a simple, black-and-white type issue. There is plenty of blame to go around, for both Arabs and Israelis. I do believe, as you do, that the creation of Israel in 1948 was wrong. Although there was a pressing n

zyxwvutsr: Re:visionist history

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:38:30 EST

He did it because the Republican congress wouldn't allow him to support NATO any other way
If you mean that Congress refused to authorize a war, then, yeah, you're right. But that is , according to the Constitution, the prero

novy: Re: Victory

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:37:43 EST
True enough, just as there are people who were so left-wing that Dennis Kucinich looked right-wing to them. Funny thing, when you go far enough to right or left, some paths lead around to other side, and people can be so right-wing that they can seem left-

JimmyHavok: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:51:43 EST
I had to run off and work so I didn't get a chance to deal with this:
Gaza is at war with Israel because it has chosen to be at war with Israel and insists upon attacking Israel, but when Israel makes the very moderate response of cutting off fuel su

JimmyHavok: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:17:55 EST
despite the fact that it was the Arab countries which have declared war on Israel and not Israel which declared war on them.
Israel drove the Arabs out of Palestine before any Arab country moved against them, and it was that ethnic cleansing whic

JimmyHavok: Re:visionist history

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:03:43 EST
He had no problem, for example, dropping every bridge over the Danube in Belgrade for no good reason.
He did it because the Republican congress wouldn't allow him to support NATO any other way.

JimmyHavok: Re: Victory

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:01:45 EST
Ruby Ridge was about right-wingers feeling like left-wing government would hunt them down and kill them
There are people who were so right-wing that the Bush administration looked left-wing to them.

JimmyHavok: Re: rubber and glue

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:57:44 EST
(you could say property rights in the US try to encourage people to act in entrepreneurial ways)
...but you'd be wrong.

Shotgun Stockton: Re: rubber and glue

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:43:58 EST
What you're claiming to be unique about liberal rights to free speech is no different than the right to property.
Small government conservatives and libertarians are fond of the idea that besides enforcing property rights, the government should stay ou

Shotgun Stockton: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:46:44 EST
Here's a link to another Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry, this one on John Dewey's political philosophy. Shorter, less jargony, and Dewey's thought is pretty influential, especially

Shotgun Stockton: Re: rubber and glue

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:37:43 EST
You're slightly misconstruing communitarianism. What Charles Taylor, Alasdair MacIntyre, Michael Sandel (these are the most prominent communitarian philosophers - though none of them like the label) argue is not that the rights of the community should nece

novy: Re: Victory

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:11:01 EST
Thank you. Obviously I should get Vista already.

PenitenziAgite: Re: Victory

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:07:36 EST
I just hit left-alt-right-shift and I rotate between latin, Български, и Русский... I recommend I have no idea who was criticizing Clinton for that, exactly. I've

novy: Re: Victory

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:39:46 EST
Secretpath answered your question better than I would have. Ruby Ridge was about right-wingers feeling like left-wing government would hunt them down and kill them, rather like left-wingers seem certain that right-wing governments will do that to them.

secretpath: Ruby Ridge

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:03:13 EST
OK, so I grew up in Northern Idaho ("North Idaho" to the locals), not far from the area that became known as Ruby Ridge. My dad met Randy Weaver in a bar when the guy was running for sheriff of our county, passing out "get out of jail free" cards as part o

JimmyHavok: Re:visionist history

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:55:53 EST
Yes, they took grief at the time, and rightly so, for using cruise missiles as assassination tools. But they took grief "after they were out of office" for being too careful, and not simply flattening anyplace where a tall man in a turban was o

PenitenziAgite: Re: Victory

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:17:16 EST
At Ruby Ridge? I dunno, two or three?
What is the big fucking deal about Ruby Ridge? Other than a bad situation gone wrong, I never quite got why people got in such a twist about it.
People simultaneously criticize Clinton for not being

zyxwvutsr: Re:visionist history

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:53:44 EST

...note the grief that the Clinton administration took, after they were out of office, for not using wholesale cruise-missiles against bin Laden
You've got it precisely backwards, Jimmy. Clinton has been criticized because

novy: Re: Victory

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:45:45 EST
Under Clinton, US didn't invade Serbia, you just bombed them into submission, and Europe approved so it was all right. Was Serbia "hostile" to US? Did atrocities claimed against Serbia turn out to be real?
How many cruise missiles did Clinton fire at Af

JimmyHavok: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:37:46 EST
Hatred of one [Israel] leads to hatred of the other [Jews].
Your premise is that liberals hate Israel. Disapproval of a country's policies does not equal hatred for its citizens, unless you are trying to feel like a victim.
So at le

Jackkeefe: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:53:15 EST
of one-man rule, party before people, the obsession with purity and order, and the mentality of "enemies of the state must be destroyed", is identical across the GOP, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union
That's insane and I have hard time taking a

skeptic: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:13:31 EST
That is true, fascism does not always entail hatred of Jews although in its most famous and historically important version, Nazism, it certainly does. Since the subject of this discussion is the possible resemblance of liberalism to fascism, I happen

skeptic: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:07:53 EST
I stand by that statement. Insofar as Israel is a Jewish country, hostility toward Israel does entail hostility toward the Jews who live there. Anyway, if my original point was not sufficiently clear, I did clarify it for you in my reply.

JimmyHavok: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:14:11 EST
Stalin was a liberal? News to me!

JimmyHavok: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:10:51 EST
Who said this? "in that both political philosophies wind up being hostile to Jews"

JimmyHavok: Re: Nazi platform

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:10:32 EST
That's a real intresting position to take at a time when the Democrats are likely to nominate someone simply because of her last name.
If Democrats were as dynastic as Republicans, she wouldn't be facing the tough haul she's having against

JimmyHavok: Re: Victory

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:51:33 EST
But when lefties ruled under Clinton, they were just as willing to kill "enemies" (Waco, Ruby Ridge)
Ruby Ridge occurred in 1992 when Bush was in office. Waco happened just weeks into the Clinton administration, and was run by lower-level l

JimmyHavok: Re: rubber and glue

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:28:31 EST
Your what kind of "right" to free speech do you have if you aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater? It's a hypocritical travesty!

novy: Re: Victory

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:17:50 EST
Although you impress me with your ability to write in cyrillic letters (how did you do that?), there was no need to be rude. Self-reflection doesn't always amount to masturbation.
But if you prefer, I will suggest that main difference between left-wing

Dyolf Knip: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 01:06:16 EST
Progressive notions of taxation and property ownership are only vaguely similar in nature, and then only in gross generalities, to that of the USSR. It's not quite apples-to-oranges, more like key limes to grapefruits. The most you can say abou

PenitenziAgite: Re: Victory

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:46:39 EST
каждый дрочит как он хочет...

Jackkeefe: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:55:15 EST
Stalin would have agreed with all of those propositions as well. It was Stalin after all, who awarded ethnic Russian woman with rewards for having large families.
He also acted as the personal censor of the Russian fim industry, ordering all salicious

Jackkeefe: Re: Nazi platform

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:05:41 EST
Conservatives are essentially authoritarian, and it shows in their favor for dynasties.
That's a real intresting position to take at a time when the Democrats are likely to nominate someone simply because of her last name. Hillary's

Steve Urkel: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:48:49 EST
"Fascists hate Jews no matter what the Jews do"
You can be fascist without hating Jews. Italain fascism wasn't early on, and only became so under influence of the Nazis. And I don't think the Japanese are anti-semites.

Steve Urkel: Re: rubber and glue

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:22:13 EST
Exactly, liberalism claims to be in a favor of individual rights, but in reality it's the imposition of a particular set of values, the primary one being equality, administered by the state. So your 'right' to political speech is subject to buearacratic ov

skeptic: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:59:22 EST
I did not say that liberalism is hostile to Jewish people, I said that it is hostile to Israel. Since Israel is the world's only Jewish country, hostility toward Israel does create problems for Jews, even if it is not intended for that purpose.

skeptic: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:42:40 EST
You are confirming what I said, that the left is hostile to Israel. You explain that the left is hostile because of the behavior of Israel and not because it's a Jewish country, however, I already noted that there is a different reason for left-wing

JimmyHavok: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:53:47 EST
The state of Israel is not "Jews," it is the state of Israel. A lot of antisemites think it's a great idea for all the Jews to go off to their own country.
The left doesn't object to Israel because it's a Jewish country, we object to it because of

JimmyHavok: Re: Nazi platform

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:48:40 EST
a belief that democracy and capitalism together solve all problems.
Leave out the part about democracy and you're right. Maybe you don't remember all the triumphal talk about "this is a republic, not a democracy" after W stole that election

JimmyHavok: Re: rubber and glue

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:40:24 EST
Speech? Not if you think money equals speech.
Association? Not if you think institutionalized racism is free association.
Property? Not if you think taxation is theft.
Bearing arms? Not if you think you have the right to nu

Shy Elf: Re: Nazi platform

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:09:11 EST
The word "fascism" as commonly used nowadays is an epithet used for favoring the excessive abuse of government power, and has little to do with what the fascists actually stood for.
As for what the Nazis wanted, remember that the word Nazi is a c

zyxwvutsr: Redefining: rubber and glue

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:54:02 EST
No true Scotsman would ban speech, association, property, or gun rights.

Steve Urkel: Re: rubber and glue

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:32:20 EST
"Liberals are more focused on the rights of the individual"
Which rights, exactly? Certainly not speech, association, property, or bearing arms.

JimmyHavok: Re: rubber and glue

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:19:59 EST
The difference between communitarians and liberals lies in their differing attitude toward individuals. Liberals are more focused on the rights of the individual, and feel that the good of the community will come out of respect for them, whereas comm

thefadd: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:15:14 EST
What line of thinking draws you to conclude in the first place that liberalism is hostile to jewish people? The vast majority of jewish people that I meet are liberals. How does criticism of certain hardline political policy is israel come to reflect on on

thefadd: Re: rubber and glue

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:08:54 EST
I like the distinction of communitarians. Whether that's a separate set or a subset of liberalism is, I suppose, up for debate. But if you can throw feminists who want to ban stuff and Clintonian pc liberals into the communitarian label and hold them separ

Steve Urkel: Re: Goldberg's response to Bramwell

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:56:24 EST
" I don't think Goldberg's basic thesis that fascism, which like communism is a bastardized form of socialism, belgongs on the left as opposed to the right is untenable."
There are, of course, leftist elements in fascism, as people who JG uses as source

novy: Re: Victory

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:40:24 EST
I was being serious. Maybe I hate rural people and misinterpret anger of others on that account. I do not take it personally that you disagree with me, or even that you may be right.
I intend no sarcasm in this post or in my previous post to you.

zyxwvutsr: Re: rubber and glue

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:15:42 EST
I don't get it, Jimmy. Are you saying that liberals don't do those things? I suppose they don't do all fourteen, but most of those things sound like the liberals I've known about.

PenitenziAgite: Re: Victory

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:03:50 EST
No, have you ever even read books like "The Truth, With Jokes"? Find me one passage, one line, where his rhetoric is directed at rural people, or even the people that voted the Republicans in.
You won't find it, and don't take it personally that I

skeptic: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:17:53 EST
In recent years I have observed that it is the political left which is most hostile to the state of Israel, and the political right which is most inclined to defend Israel. This gives us at least a superficial similarity between liberalism and fascis

paulrevere: Re: Goldberg's response to Bramwell

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:49:24 EST
No, 'm not Goldberg, but I do read read National Review Online. I've refrained from offering any substantive comments about the book because I haven't read it yet. However, I don't think Goldberg's basic thesis that fascism, which like co

novy: Re: He's fundementally unsound

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:39:11 EST
People capable of flashes of brilliance and insight have much to offer even when they espouse fundamentally unsound ideas because they force you to think about things that you would otherwise ignore and make you come up with brilliant thoughts of your own

JimmyHavok: Re: nazi platform

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:37:42 EST
Seems Lou Dobbs would be right in line with a number of those points, although I'm sure he'd deny that he was taking race into consideration.
And it seems like anyone who is against child labor is a Nazi as well.

novy: Re: Victory

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:28:14 EST
You have important point. Maybe Franken and Moore only feel anger at rural folks and their political leaders rather than hate. True hatemonger must be me.

Steve Urkel: Re: Goldberg's response to Bramwell

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:14:58 EST
Thanks for the link. (By the way, are you Goldberg?) He misses the point again when he says:
"Aha, so Weaver, Voegelin, "Nisbett" and Bloom are also peddlers of the same silly ideas. Good to know! I'm delighted to be in that company"
But he's not in

JimmyHavok: Re: Color me unimpressed...

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:09:27 EST
The invocation of Hillary Clinton is a good example of what is wrong with Goldberg's argument: Clinton is not a liberal at all, rather she is a communitarian. THe difference may not be obvio

paulrevere: Re: Goldberg's response to Bramwell

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:09:03 EST
http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDFiNjM0N2FlODRjMTI5ZDQzY2VlODBmODljYzdiZTU=

stevetherobot: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:56:25 EST
Other positions held by the Nazi's:
anti-pornography
anti-homosexual
anti-birth control
pro large families
anti-"decadent" entertainment (i.e., art, movies, music)
anti-abortion
Which side embraces similar positions?

Steve Urkel: He's fundementally unsound

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:35:15 EST
In what little I've read, amongst a lot craziness he was astonishingly perceptive about certain things.

PenitenziAgite: Re: Victory

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:14:29 EST
I've read all of Al Franken's books, and I have never seen any hate from him on rural people, or even people who vote Republican. He makes fun of the pied pipers who lie to them and lead them on, but even then, he's angry at them, he doesn't hate the

gerrymander: Re: Same Old Bullshit

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:46:06 EST
In middle of Reagan administration, evil liberals were redefining words and rewriting history just to make you look bad?
Not me, per se, but otherwise yes. Howard Zinn published The People's History of the United States in 1980 (I r

novy: Re: The black shorts

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:17:22 EST
Roots of fascist tendency have always been militarism, anti-individualism, and imposition of state religion. Both Hitler and Stalin were anti-individualistic, and both tried to impose state religion (in Hitler's case, German neo-paganism, and in Stalin's c

novy: Re: rubber and glue

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:00:50 EST
I have to agree with Jimmy Havoc here. Goldberg's "responses" to clipped versions of Eco's definitions of fascism was extremely weak. Many of his responses seemed based either on obvious misinterpretations of what was being said or on trying to fit Eco's d

novy: Re: Same Old Bullshit

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:44:12 EST
In middle of Reagan administration, evil liberals were redefining words and rewriting history just to make you look bad? That must explain why Reagan decided right around then that US had won Vietnam War. All part of "revenge" motif, I suppose: liberals re

novy: Re: Victory

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:32:06 EST
US Civil War was fought between industrial society and agricultural society. Defeat of agricultural society set off intense anger and even outright hate that has never gone away, simply changed in various ways. Given that US Constitution gives rural states

novy: Re: Meh

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:07:29 EST
I find Nietzsche ponderous, usually unpleasantly so. I don't think of tragedy as particularly life-affirming, I find his rejection of 19th century Christianity unconvincing, and I find his interest in eternal recurrence (idea that our universe repeats itse

shane: Re: nazi platform

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:36:24 EST
Man, those are very demanding people. I would object to demanding things. Also, the definition of citizen leaves a lot to be desired. Right off I would then have to object to all the points that refer to citizens.
Since he co

wetkarma: Re: nazi platform

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 02:43:45 EST
Here you go - Nazi Platform.

thefadd: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:09:21 EST
Maybe that NYT review sucks because I see even more silliness there than I see in what Goldberg's just had to say. It is always interesting to think of the apocalypse as set forth in the bible as an apocalypse of the common world view, though.

gerrymander: Re: Same Old Bullshit

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:53:14 EST
Welcome to my world, circa 1985.

tomc: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:34:58 EST
This book looks silly.
However, I just finished a really fascinating book on millenialism by John Gray called Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia
I highl

Steve Urkel: Re: Meh

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:57:54 EST
Many pseudo-nihilists are pseudo-Nietzschians. Everything is second hand with Goldberg, so it's no suprise that's the view he adopted. It's not just Nietzsche, he has habit of misconstruing philosophers, including Burke and perhaps most weirdly, De Maistre

uncarved block: Meh

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:29:29 EST
If there wasn't already enough evidence that Goldberg was an idiot, his use of Nietzsche as a nihilist thinker is proof enough. Fred may be a lot of things, but a nihilist ain't one of them.

uncarved block: Victory

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:18:45 EST
Why has the face of modern conservatism changed? Well, there's a couple reasons I would note, being strictly an amateur on the subject:
1) These strains have always existed on that side of the aisle. Ever read some of the John

keta: Same Old Bullshit

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:25:21 EST
Look, the American right has been trying to expropriate anything bright and shiny while arraying the left with matte black for years now.
I mean, did you know Martin Luther King was really a http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=147884&title=jonah-goldberg
That is p

thefadd: Re: Color me unimpressed...

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:07:39 EST
Goldberg should stick to the fascist comparison and not godwinize his argument with the nazi word:
Liberal economics are a "fascist bargain" and Hillary Clinton's It takes a Village explicates "the liberal fascist agenda".
Now tho

Steve Urkel: Re: See also

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:39:58 EST
Now he is, but obviously not at the time. I'm not an expert on the inner workings of that magazine, but over time Buckley moved left and became more and more enamored with aligning NR with the Republican/neocon establishment. So he got rid of the immigrati

port1080: Re: See also

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:26:54 EST
Really? After reading about Buckley's critique of Bush I thought he was at odds with the editorial slant of his magazine. I wouldn't have expected that if most of them

Steve Urkel: Re: See also

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:17:41 EST
I don't know. Certain types of people don't exist anymore (Bramwell is around 30 years old, by the way).
NR has become sort of an adjunct to the Republican party. It's just a bunch of hacks, and Buckley is a big part of the problem. He forced picked th

JimmyHavok: Re: See also

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:08:03 EST
Best line from the review:
[Goldberg] grants that some of his points are trivial and others may appear outrageous, so that nothing he says should be taken as both true and interesting at the same time.

port1080: Re: See also

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:57:52 EST
What a perfect, lovely takedown. Why is it that the face of conservatism today are people like Goldberg and the crazy tranny, and not the more erudite folks of an era past? William Buckley's gotta be

JimmyHavok: Re: rubber and glue

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:57:21 EST
Yeah, Goldberg gets off to a great start with his very first sentence, Judeo-Christian culture isn't a "cult", as a rebuttal to the point that the American Right is a cult of traditionalism. His argument smells like ass, because it's the idoli

PenitenziAgite: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:52:41 EST
They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs.
For members of the Nazi party.
They confiscated inherited wealth
From people who refused to join the Nazi party.
They loathed the free market
You had to be a membe

shane: nazi platform

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:47:31 EST
How much do you know about the nazi platform? Other than the the parts about 'killing all the jews and invading poland' I mean? I find it hard to answer the question what parts do I disagree with, because I really don't know all that much about

thefadd: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:47:21 EST
modern conservatism has little in common with either the philosophy or political program of fascism
"Modern conservatism" is actually rather difficult to define these days. There's a great many people in power today who certainly don't qualify

port1080: Color me unimpressed...

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:46:48 EST
While I haven't read the book, I did read an interview Goldberg gave, so I feel like I have a decent grasp of his main points. With that caveat

paulrevere: Re: rubber and glue

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:45:46 EST
goldberg addresses these points, as set forth Dave Niewart:
http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTE4M2FiNWI4YjUxN2JjN2MwYmY1ODAwOT

Steve Urkel: See also

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:39:28 EST
Former National Review trustee Austin Bramwell has an interesting review.

Steve Urkel: The black shorts

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:32:40 EST
Goldberg is an embarassment. I haven't read his book, and this is complex topic, I often mispell fascism when I type it, so I'm going to throw out a few points.
Besides selling books to dumbasses, Goldberg seems to be trying to reverse the stupid leftwi

JimmyHavok: rubber and glue

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:32:32 EST
How does liberalism differ from fascism? Well, here are 14 ways.

Liberal Fascism [Book Review] (Trees And Things)

skeptic: lies of the middle east

JimmyHavok: Re: the full analysis

JimmyHavok: Re: the full analysis

skeptic: Re: the full analysis

JimmyHavok: Re: the full analysis

JimmyHavok: Re: the full analysis

skeptic: Re: the full analysis

JimmyHavok: Re: the full analysis

skeptic: the full analysis

JimmyHavok: Re: Beat that straw man!

skeptic: Re: we've been lied to

skeptic: Re: Beat that straw man!

JimmyHavok: we've been lied to

JimmyHavok: Beat that straw man!

skeptic: more commentary

JimmyHavok: Re: and the debate concludes

skeptic: and the debate concludes

JimmyHavok: Re: and the debate continues

skeptic: and the debate continues

JimmyHavok: Re: surprise!

skeptic: surprise!

JimmyHavok: Re: Israel

skeptic: Re: Israel

JimmyHavok: Re: Israel

skeptic: Re: Israel

JimmyHavok: Re: Israel

skeptic: Re: Israel

JimmyHavok: Re: Israel

skeptic: Re: Israel

JimmyHavok: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

JimmyHavok: Re: Israel

skeptic: Re: The Audience for Peaceful Resistance

Shy Elf: Re: The Audience for Peaceful Resistance

skeptic: Re: Israel

skeptic: Re: The Audience for Peaceful Resistance

Shy Elf: The Audience for Peaceful Resistance

Shy Elf: Re: Israel

skeptic: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

skeptic: Israel

zyxwvutsr: Re:visionist history

novy: Re: Victory

JimmyHavok: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

JimmyHavok: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

JimmyHavok: Re:visionist history

JimmyHavok: Re: Victory

JimmyHavok: Re: rubber and glue

Shotgun Stockton: Re: rubber and glue

Shotgun Stockton: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Shotgun Stockton: Re: rubber and glue

novy: Re: Victory

PenitenziAgite: Re: Victory

novy: Re: Victory

secretpath: Ruby Ridge

JimmyHavok: Re:visionist history

PenitenziAgite: Re: Victory

zyxwvutsr: Re:visionist history

novy: Re: Victory

JimmyHavok: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Jackkeefe: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

skeptic: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

skeptic: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

JimmyHavok: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

JimmyHavok: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

JimmyHavok: Re: Nazi platform

JimmyHavok: Re: Victory

JimmyHavok: Re: rubber and glue

novy: Re: Victory

Dyolf Knip: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

PenitenziAgite: Re: Victory

Jackkeefe: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Jackkeefe: Re: Nazi platform

Steve Urkel: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

Steve Urkel: Re: rubber and glue

skeptic: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

skeptic: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

JimmyHavok: Re: Liberal Fascism [Book Review]

JimmyHavok: Re: Nazi platform

JimmyHavok: Re: rubber and glue

Shy Elf: Re: Nazi platform