Conference back40::soapbox

    Nothing in .0 explains why fascism or nazism should be labelled extreme
    "right wing", as opposed to being labelled extreme "left wing."
    
    

Here's why I always considered "Nazi" to be extreme right wing:

Because my teachers in school told me so.

Then again, they did call themselves "National Socialist," which has a
distinctly left leaning ring to it.

I think this points up how limited it is to view political systems along a
single spectrum.  They had:

State run businesses: Definite left wing
Private run businesses: Definite right wing
Rampant racism: Can be either right or left wing (remember: some of the
most left leaning countries in the world have been racist and/or
anti-semetic as well)
Totalitarian: Either left or right wing

I think the best description I can think of, ignoring the right vs left
wing argument, is that it wasn't a nice governmental system to live with.

    Facist and Nazis and Klansmen oh my! 

    
      I won't comment on the propaganda .0, except that I never heard
     of Chip Berlet, and don't care who he (she ?) is.  These "isms"
     never really made it as a fad in the USA, as indeed, neither have
     the other European "isms".
    
      I know I'll get a lecture from Binder, but a "fasces" is a bundle
     of sticks the Roman lictors carried for praetors, consuls, quaestors,
     to signal their "imperium", sometimes (I forget when), with an axe
     in the middle.  The symbol is basically, safety in numbers, because
     the sticks are harder to break as a group than individually.  Thus,
     there is a merging in a group implied, to an extent that just doesn't
     sell here.  Makes for a good pageant in Rome, though.
    
      bb

    Guess you can't be familiar with the Nolan Chart.
    
    Check out http://www.self-gov.org/
    

Oh, that chart.

I usually end up square in the middle.  That's how I came to be a
libertarian with strong socialist tendencies.

    the fasces had axes tied into them when the lictors were outside the
    pomerium [an ancient boundary encompassing a younger Rome]
    
    inside the pomerium, no axes.
    
    essentially, no axes when in town, axes when "out in the provinces"z

    Just fine, Herr Braucher.
    
    The Romans adopted the fasces from the Etruscans; the Etruscan version
    had a double-bitted axe, possibly adapted from the Greek labrys,
    whereas the Romans, in one of their never-ending efficiency moves,
    used only a single-bitted axe.

    
    .8
    
    This is of course, before the Macintosh was invented I presume?

    RE: .1  
    
    > Nothing in .0 explains why fascism or nazism should be labelled extreme
    > "right wing", as opposed to being labelled extreme "left wing."
    
    Fascism is 'reactionary', as the article explained.
    
    The right wing is conservative and reactionary.
    

    re -1 
    ..reacting to a disfunctional administration

    Well, then you do acknowledge that the right wing is conservative and
    reactionary (and that Fascism is part of the extreme right wing).

    I'm no spokesman for the GOP, but yes, oftentimes they are right.
    -ss

> We need a Political Science 101 class here.

Actually yes. No one has yet actually defined what "left" and "right" mean, 
only other definitions in terms of left and right.

Is right "govt by one" and left "govt by all", with relative shades of these
extreme theories somewhere in between?

    Yes, it does seem pretty obvious that the basic principles of a good
    Political Science 101 class are somewhat lacking in our society.

    Although it comes as somewhat of a shock to me that some people don't
    realize that Fascism is a right wing ideology, it certainly explains
    why some people on the right toss the word 'Nazi' at people on the
    left (even though Nazis and Fascists are in the extreme right wing.)

    A lot of people simple don't realize what ideologies exist on the
    extreme right, apparently.
    
    I'll post some additional articles over the weekend.

    My point, Suzanne, only was simply just because someone is against
    Communism, personal freedoms, etc., it doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make them
    a right wingnut.  I am against communism, but I hate losing ANY of my
    personal freedoms, so by your definition, u can't categorize me easily.
    
    The communists themselves expouse giving up, or forcibly taking away
    personal freedoms, but u won't find them anywhere on a right wing
    chart.

    My point, again, was that I never said that being against Communism
    'automatically' makes a group right wing-nuts.
    
    It just so happens that the Nazis were right wing extremists, *and*
    they were very anti-Communist.
    
    My next two notes add some information which may be helpful for you.

From a course on the history of the Third Reich...

Soon after the war, Hitler was recruited to join a military intelligence unit,
and was assigned to keep tabs on the German Worker's Party. At the time, it
was comprised of only a handful of members. It was disorganized and had no
program, but its members expressed a right-wing doctrine consonant with
             **********************************************************
Hitler's. He saw this party as a vehicle to reach his political ends. His
*********************************************************************
blossoming hatred of the Jews became part of the organization's political
platform. Hitler built up the party, converting it from a de facto discussion
group to an actual political party. Advertising for the party's meetings
appeared in anti-Semitic newspapers. The turning point of Hitler's
mesmerizing oratorical career occurred at one such meeting held on October
16, 1919. Hitler's emotional delivery of an impromptu speech captivated his
audience. Through word of mouth, donations poured into the party's coffers,
and subsequent mass meetings attracted hundreds of Germans eager to hear
the young, forceful and hypnotic leader.

With the assistance of party staff, Hitler drafted a party program consisting
of twenty-five points. This platform was presented at a public meeting on
February 24, 1920, with over 2,000 eager participants. After hecklers were
forcibly removed by Hitler supporters armed with rubber truncheons and
whips, Hitler electrified the audience with his masterful demagoguery. Jews
were the principal target of his diatribe. Among the 25 points were revoking
the Versailles Treaty, confiscating war profits, expropriating land without
compensation for use by the state, revoking civil rights for Jews, and
expelling those Jews who had emigrated into Germany after the war began.

The following day, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were published in the
local anti-Semitic newspaper. The false, but alarming accusations reinforced
Hitler's anti-Semitism. Soon after, treatment of the Jews was a major theme
of Hitler's orations, and the increasing scapegoating of the Jews for inflation,
political instability, unemployment, and the humiliation in the war, found a
willing audience. Jews were tied to "internationalism" by Hitler. The name of
the party was changed to the National Socialist German Worker's party, and
the red flag with the swastika was adopted as the party symbol. A local
newspaper which appealed to anti-Semites was on the verge of bankruptcy,
and Hitler raised funds to purchase it for the party.

n January 1923, French and Belgian troops marched into Germany to settle
a reparations dispute. Germans resented this occupation, which also had an
adverse effect on the economy. Hitler's party benefited by the reaction to
this development, and exploited it by holding mass protest rallies despite a
ban on such rallies by the local police.

The Nazi party began drawing thousands of new members, many of whom
were victims of hyper-inflation and found comfort in blaming the Jews for
this trouble. The price of an egg, for example, had inflated to 30 million
times its original price in just 10 years. Economic upheaval generally breeds
political upheaval, and Germany in the 1920s was no exception.

From a course on the history of the Third Reich...

Totalitarianism
---------------

Totalitarianism is a form of government in which all societal resources are
monopolized by the state in an effort to penetrate and control all aspects of
public and private life, through the state's use of propaganda, terror, and
technology. Totalitarian ideologies reject the existing society as corrupt,
immoral, and beyond reform, project an alternative society in which these
wrongs are to be redressed, and provide plans and programs for realizing the
alternative order. These ideologies, supported by propaganda campaigns,
demand total conformity on the part of the people.

Totalitarian forms of organization enforce this demand for conformity.
Totalitarian societies are hierarchies dominated by one political party and
usually by a single leader. The party penetrates the entire country through
regional, provincial, local and "primary" (party-cell) organization. Youth,
professional, cultural, and sports groups supplement the party's political
control. A paramilitary secret police ensures compliance. Information and
ideas are effectively organized through the control of television, radio, the
press, and education at all levels.

Totalitarian Regime vs. Dictatorship
------------------------------------

Totalitarian regimes differ from older concepts of dictatorship or tyranny.
Totalitarian regimes seek to establish complete political, social and cultural
control, whereas dictatorships seek limited, typically political, control. 
Two types of totalitarianism can sometimes be distinguished: Nazism and
***********************************************************************
Fascism which evolved from "right-wing" extremism, and Communism,
*****************************************************************
which evolved from "left-wing" extremism. Traditionally, each is supported
*****************************************
by different social classes. Right-wing totalitarian movements have
generally drawn their popular support primarily from middle classes seeking
to maintain the economic and social status quo. Left-wing totalitarianism
has often developed from working class movements seeking, in theory, to
eliminate, not preserve, class distinctions. Right-wing totalitarianism has
typically supported and enforced the private ownership of industrial wealth.
A distinguishing feature of Communism, by contrast, is the collective
ownership of such capital.

Totalitarian regimes mobilize and make use of mass political participation,
and often are led by charismatic cult figures. Examples of such cult figures in
modern history are Mao Tse-tung (China) and Josef Stalin (Soviet Union),
who led left-wing regimes, and Adolf Hitler (Germany) and Benito
                               *********************************
Mussolini (Italy), who led right-wing regimes.
*********************************************

Right-wing totalitarian regimes (particularly the Nazis) have arisen in
********************************************************
relatively advanced societies, relying on the support of traditional economic
elites to attain power. In contrast, left-wing totalitarian regimes have arisen
in relatively undeveloped countries through the unleashing of revolutionary
violence and terror. Such violence and terror are also the primary tools of
right-wing totalitarian regimes to maintain compliance with authority.

Fascism
-------

Fascism was an authoritarian political movement that developed in Italy and
several other European countries after 1919 as a reaction against the
profound political and social changes brought about by World War I and the
spread of socialism and Communism. Its name was derived from the fasces,
an ancient Roman symbol of authority consisting of a bundle of rods and an
ax. Italian fascism was founded in Milan on March 23, 1919, by Benito
Mussolini, a former revolutionary socialist leader. His followers, mostly war
veterans, were organized along paramilitary lines and wore black shirts as
uniforms. The early Fascist program was a mixture of left- and right-wing
ideas that emphasized intense Nationalism, productivism, anti-socialism,
elitism, and the need for a strong leader. Mussolini's oratorical skills, the
post-war economic crisis, a widespread lack of confidence in the traditional
political system, and a growing fear of socialism, all helped the Fascist party
to grow to 300,000 registered members by 1921. In that year it elected 35
members to parliament.

Fascist Ideology
----------------

Fascist ideology was largely the work of the neo-idealist philosopher,
Giovanni Gentile. It emphasized the subordination of the individual to a
"totalitarian" state that was to control all aspects of national life.
Violence as a creative force was an important characteristic of the Fascist 
philosophy. A special feature of Italian Fascism was the attempt to eliminate 
the class struggle from history through nationalism and the corporate state. 
Mussolini organized the economy and all "producers" - from peasants and factory
workers to intellectuals and industrialists - into 22 corporations as a means
of improving productivity and avoiding industrial disputes. Contrary to the
regime's propaganda claims, the system ran poorly. Mussolini was forced
into compromises with big business and the Roman Catholic Church. The
corporate state was never fully implemented. The inherently expansionist,
militaristic nature of Fascism contributed to imperialistic adventures in
Ethiopia and the Balkans and ultimately to World War II.

Nazism
------

Nazism refers to the totalitarian Fascist ideology and policies espoused and
practiced by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Worker's Party
from 1920-1945. Nazism stressed the superiority of the Aryan, its destiny as
the Master Race to rule the world over other races, and a violent hatred of
Jews, which it blamed for all of the problems of Germany. Nazism also
provided for extreme nationalism which called for the unification of all
German-speaking peoples into a single empire. The economy envisioned for
the state was a form of corporative state socialism, although members of the
party who were leftists (and would generally support such an economic
system over private enterprise) were purged from the party in 1934.

    too bad you had to do all that typing when if u would have only
    believed me on Friday, u would have learned that extremisms happen on
    both the right & LEFT wings...   :-)
    
    I make this point because of the documented leftist bent of the
    American media strives to make ANY nut a right winger.  Then people who
    get their news from the 30 sec sound bites hear that the majority of
    Republicans are right wingers and automatically conclude that
    Republicans naturally support each and every crazy, mentally challenged
    wingnut out there.

It would be interesting to see a left-to-right wing chart assembled and then
have folks in the box identify what range they feel the political parties
of this country fall within ...

    .8
    
    And the right has been highly resistant to replacing the Roman axe with
    a modern version, hence their mantra: "no new axes".

    
      Actually, "right-wing" and "left-wing" came from the seating plan
     of the French assembly, in which le droit were the most supportive
     of the king, and le gauche the least.
    
      Whether this "spectrum" one-dimensional approach to political
     science is much good as a model, is a matter of some debate.  In
     some cases, it may add some value.  But I'd caution against taking
     it too seriously.
    
      As for taking power, employing thugs, committing crimes, it seems
     to exist in the center as well.  Or for that matter, with no very
     good idea what you think about the "issues of the day".
    
      Mussolini thought Hitler was nuts, and said so.  But he thought the
     Germans made the best planes and tanks, which he thought more
     important.  The attempt to link German Naziism, Italian and even
     Spanish fascism, Japanese imperialism, and even the American KKK,
     into some consistent ideological bag is pretty worthless as a way
     of explaining what those groups did, respectively.
    
      bb

    I fail to grasp the intent of this debate.  Trying to identify whether
    or not there are extremists in a particular political philosophy seems
    to be rather obvious even to the most casual observer.
    
    It appears that the intent is to tie the conservative philosophy and
    represented politically by the Republican party, to extreme positions
    of NAZIs, Fascists, etc.  It would then seem to be easier to paint the
    entire conservative spectrum as radicals and extremists.  That
    certainly doesn't wash and is rather disingenous.
    
    If the attampt here is to paint with a broad brush, then the reverse is
    equally as valid.  The Communist party is considered a left wing
    philosophy, albeit an extreme one, therefore all left wingers are
    Communists or have Communist leanings.  If liberals want to accept that
    definition that's Ok with me.
    

    It's all very sinister.

    as an atheist, i agree.

    A heterosexual atheist or the other kind?
    

    yes, a hetatheist.  as opposed to a homatheist.

    say, did hitler profess a belief in god?

    Hitler dealved into the occult quite heavily.  

    really?  i didn't know that.
    
    so you are saying that he did not profess
    a belief in god?

    yep, Hitler was a homtheist.  Say so in his book  "I'm Camp".
    

    well, in that case, hitler's idea of god must have been a 
    big, blowsy guy, a la wagnerian thunderbolts and all.

    "snapdragons. discuss"
    
    You pro-rrhinum or anti-rrhinum?
                                 
    

    i was anti-rrhinum until i saw the light.
    now i'm pro-rrhinum.  i sure wish everybody
    was.  well, maybe someday.

    O nose flowers.

    RE: .12

>    We need a Political Science 101 class here.

    At least here we agree.  Although instead of starting with someone
    else's interpretation of history it might be interesting to go back and
    read where the principals involved placed themselves.

    In _Mein Kampf_ (1926) Hitler accepted that National Socialism was a
    derivative of Marxism.  The point was more bluntly made in private
    conversations.  He told Hermann Rauschning "the whole of National
    Socialism is based on Marx."  Rauschning later reported the remark in
    _Hitler Speaks_ (1939).  

    Goebbels also considered himself a socialist.  Writing in his diary
    five days before the German invasion of the Soviet Union (June 1941),
    he stated that "real socialism" would be established in that country
    after a Nazi victory.

    In 1978, Otto Wagener's _Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant_ was printed in
    its original German.  Wagener was a lifelong Nazi who died in 1971 with
    his recollections of Hitler's conversations being composed from notes
    in a British POW camp.  The notes represent Hitler as an extreme
    socialist utopian, anti-Jewish because "the Jew is not a socialist." 

    Hitler's allegiance, even before such sources were known, was
    acknowledged by socialists outside Germany.  Julian Huxley, the
    pro-Soviet British biologist who later became director-general of
    UNESCO, accepted Hitler's claim to be a socialist in the early 1930s.

    Hitler's program demanded central economic planning, which is central
    to socialism.  

    Eugenics at the time, was also a product of the left:  
        --  Engels writings in Marx's journal _Neue Rheinische Zeitung_ in
            January-February 1849
        --  H.G. Wells' white socialist utopia in _Anticipations_ (1902)
        --  Socialist Bernard Shaw's _On the Rocks_'s preface called for
            scientists to devise a painless way of killing large multitudes
            of people, especially the idle and incurable (1933)
        --  In a letter to Beatrice Webb, Shaw remarked of Hitler's program
            to exterminate the Jews that "we ought to tackle the Jewish
            question," which meant "the right of States to make eugenic
            experiments by weeding out any strains that they think
            undesirable." (1938)


    RE: 18.3660

>    In 1933, the Nazi Party assumed power in Germany and Adolf Hitler was
>    appointed Chancellor. He ended German democracy and severely restricted 
>    basic rights, such as freedom of speech, press, and assembly.
>    He established a brutal dictatorship through a reign of terror. This
>    created an atmosphere of fear, distrust, and suspicion in which people 
>    betrayed their neighbors and which helped the Nazis to obtain the
>    acquiescence of social institutions such as the civil service, the
>    educational system, churches, the judiciary, industry, business, and 
>    other professions.

    The "proof" points above are the recipe of the left.  With a little
    modification (substitute "Stalin" for "Hitler", "Communist" for "Nazi")
    and you have a description of Stalinist Russia.

    
          -< Bottom line:  Hitler's Nazis were left wing socialists >-
    
    Boy, bet the skinheads will be surprised to find out that they are a
    bunch of left-wing, flaming commie pinko liberals.

    < agagagagagagag.

>          -< Bottom line:  Hitler's Nazis were left wing socialists >-
>    
>    Boy, bet the skinheads will be surprised to find out that they are a
>    bunch of left-wing, flaming commie pinko liberals.

    It wouldn't be the first time that a group had a fundamental
    misunderstanding of what their founding fathers believed in.

    I realize that you said this in jest, but 
        1.  They weren't communists; they were socialists.
        2.  They weren't liberal; they were left-wing totalitarianists.
        3.  While they can be pinko, it's only if left they've been in the
            sun too long. :^) 

    -- Dave

    while in austin, two more black churches were burnt to the 
    ground.  this brings the total to 31.  the churches were 
    located in a town called greenville (i believe), north of
    dallas.

    .41
    
    This kind of hatred chills me.

    RE: .41

    Maybe I missed it, but how does this relate to the the Nazi's?

    -- Dave

    the KKK believes in White Supremacy.

    i've ruled out the girls scouts and bird watchers of america.
    
    i haven't ruled out right-wingnuts yet.  call it an assumption
    on my part.

    One thing this does prove...right wing extremism cannot be connected to
    Christianity.

    hardly, jack.  to these people the only good christian
    is a white one.

    It is though, you may not like it, but it is.

>    while in austin, two more black churches were burnt to the 
>    ground.

Where did these churches spend their time when they weren't in Austin?

    Anyone can call themselves Christian nowadays, whether they are or not.
    The Label doesn't make the product pure.

    .49
    
    i've been sacked.

    On the news this AM:
    
    The New Black Panthers have vowed to execute anyone caught burning a
    black church...
    

 Well, that oughta take care of the problem.




 Jim

    RE: .45

>    i haven't ruled out right-wingnuts yet.  call it an assumption
>    on my part.

    Just curious, have your ruled out atheists or left-wingnuts yet?

    RE: .47

>    hardly, jack.  to these people the only good christian
>    is a white one.

    Which "these people" are your referring to?  The Nazis were not, and
    are not Christians.  From http://www3.stormfront.org/ns/nsprinter.html,
    the "National Socialist primer":

        "Many rightly view National Socialism as a reemergent manifestation
        of the pre-Christian Aryan cosmology."

    it further states:

        "National Socialists realize the present dominant paradigm, based
        upon Judaic thought, blasphemes the Creator's Will."

    Note that Christianity is based on Judaic thought -- without Judaism,
    Christianity wouldn't exist.


    As a side note, the religious beliefs of the KKK is not as well
    defined.  There are KKK "sects" that do claim to be Christian.  My
    grandfather, an avowed racists, refused to join the KKK because they
    required a belief in a "supreme white diety" (which conflicted with his
    atheistic beliefs).  The "sect" that he was interested in/being
    recruited towards did not believe that Jesus (a Jew) was God, and
    therefore were not Christians.

    -- Dave

    |Just curious, have your ruled out atheists or left-wingnuts yet?
    
    left-wingnuts?  i'm not familiar with any in this country.
    perhaps you could name a few famous ones?  and their organizations?
    
    here's some right-wingnuts and their organizations to give you
    an idea of what i'm looking for:
    
    Tom Metzger, White Aryan Resistance
    Dave Holland, Southern White Knights
    Richard Butler, Aryan Nations
    
    

I can get right wingnuts at a local hardware store.  Where do you get wingnuts
with left-handed thread?

>I can get right wingnuts at a local hardware store.  Where do you get wingnuts
>with left-handed thread?


 below the equator?

    I looked for some examples Oph, but they all seemed to be dead, usually
    after serving long prison sentences, generally imposed a very short
    time after the gumment became aware of their views.  Odd eh?

    
    
    	re: .55
    	
    	you're not aware of any left-wingnuts in this country? c'mon! How
    about the animal rightists out shooting hunters? How about the
    tree hugging extremists out vandalizing construction sights? Ever hear
    of Ted Kosinski???
    
    	no left-wingnuts my arse...
    
    jim

    Left-windnuts would also include the Nazis.  Without knowing for
    certain (and not having the time to look up right now), I believe that
    the Black Panthers are also left-wingnuts.

    -- Dave

    i don't consider animal rightists left-wing.
    or environmental extremists.  why do you?
    what is it in their political philosophy that
    leads you to believe they are left-wing?

    |Left-windnuts would also include the Nazis.
    
    that's a bowl of dog doo.

    re .55
    
    There was a proliferation of "radical" groups in the late 60's and
    early 70's that would qualify as leftist. 

    .63  
    
    how about now?  are there any now?  (1996)

    .64  Go search the web and report back.  Seems all sorts of nutters
    can't resist the temptation to go public with their wares.

    .65
    
    |Go search the web and report back.
    
    i asked dave first.

I tried to find a source for left-handed wingnuts using AltaVista, but I failed.

    
    Left-handed wingnuts?  Sound like the sort of thing Soviet Russia
    specialized in. 

    RE: .62

>    |Left-windnuts would also include the Nazis.
>    
>    that's a bowl of dog doo.

    I've already given plenty of evidence that the Nazis are left wingnuts. 
    I encourage you to engage in some critical thinking as to why the
    (false) myth arose that they were right-wingnuts.  Be sure to take into
    consideration the socialist leanings of FDR and the need to paint
    Hitler as the ultimate evil while distancing that ultimate evil from
    FDR's economic and philosophical point of view.


    RE: .66

>    |Go search the web and report back.
>    
>    i asked dave first.

    (a)  I already pointed out that I don't have time to research the Black
    Panthers position (got to get to a customer site).

    (b) You never did ask (unless there's another Dave in the discussion
    that I missed).  I was not the one that entered about the left-wing
    extremists animal rights/tree-huggers.  But just as an aside, if
    "pro-business" is right wing, then the anti-business animal right
    terrorists and tree-spiking tree-huggers would be left wingnuts.


    RE:  Sacks

    My mother had a bicycle built in Britain that used left-wingnuts.

    -- Dave

    i still haven't ruled out right-wingnuts yet in connection
    with the burning of the black churches.

    RE: .70

>    i still haven't ruled out right-wingnuts yet in connection
>    with the burning of the black churches.

    Well no kidding.  I don't think anybody has.  However, have you
    legitimately ruled out left-wingnuts or does that go against your own
    personal biases?

    -- Dave

    I heard one of those churches was allegedly burned down by a 13-year old 
    white girl.  She may have been involved in satanism (I'm just quoting what 
    I've heard).  She was raised in a good, church-going family, from what the
    reports indicate.
    
    Authorities believe that race was not the motivation behind the
    burning.  They said that the motivation may have been hatred of
    religion (perhaps this was her way of rebelling from her parents?).
    
    Sounds like a troubled child to me, no matter what the reasoning.
    
    
    -steve

    .71
    
    |However, have you legitimately ruled out left-wingnuts or does that
    |go against your own personal biases?
    
    are you saying that one should consider the black 
    panthers as possibly being responsible for the church
    burnings?  and that way one wouldn't be biased? 
    
    sorry, too much of a stretch for me.

    
    
    	incredible bonnie. You are asked to consider that left or right
    wingnuts could be responsible for something and then come up with "gee,
    should I consider the black panthers"? Pretty weird logic you use...
    
    
    jim

Fascists and Nazis, people, Fascists and Nazis!

    jim, dave is implying that i am being biased by assuming
    that there is more of a chance of right-wing nuts being
    involved in the church burnings than there is left-wing
    nuts.  if that's biased, then i base my bias on recent 
    history.  
    

    Fascists and Nazis and wyngnutz oh my!

    
    Three come to mind.
    
    Sarah Brady, HCI.
    Morris Dees, Southern Poverty Law Center.
    Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam.
    
    Left wingnuts. Twisted the wrong way.

    .78
    
    Sarah Brady?  So gun control is related to left-wing
    philosophy?  How?
    
    Morris Dees fights the Klan so he's left-wing?  Well, 
    perhaps.
    
    Why do you consider Farrahkhan left-wing?  What left-wing
    tenets does he espouse?

 Z   Sarah Brady?  So gun control is related to left-wing
 Z       philosophy?  How?
    
    You will find most of the gun control freaks are from the left wing
    liberal stance in this country.  
    
    I believe it was Adolph Hitler who said, "The best way to gain control
    is to take the guns away from the people."  Now I ask you Bonbon...who
    are the control freaks in this country?

    >Why do you consider Farrahkhan left-wing?  What left-wing tenets does
    >he espouse?
    
    Uhm he hates white people? 
    
    
    

    |Uhm he hates white people?
    
    uhm, how in the world does that make farrahkhan
    left-wing?

    RE: .73

>    are you saying that one should consider the black 
>    panthers as possibly being responsible for the church
>    burnings?  and that way one wouldn't be biased? 

    Did you study logic under Conlon?  I really expected you to be a more
    thinking individual.  How did you make the leap that the Black Panthers
    are the only left wingnuts around?

    By the way, the bias that I was referring to was a bias that "if it's
    evil, it must be a right-wingnut"; a bias that makes you blind to the
    left-wingnuts (which I guess you've already admitted to).

    -- Dave

    .82
    
    Well, I've always heard it declared the right wingers are usually white
    and KKK is considered right wing... so... 
    
    using logic here, which sometimes work and sometimes doesn't. :-)

>    Morris Dees fights the Klan so he's left-wing?  Well, 
>    perhaps.

There's nothing wrong with the SPLC opposing the Klan.

If that were the sole direction of their effort, you wouldn't see any
complaints.

About 13 mos. ago I entered a note in here somewhere (can't find it now)
regarding a left-wingnut in Dees' employ from the SPLC who made a commencement
speech at USL in Lafayette, LA when #1 daughter got her MS in Bio.

Said wingnut's theme was that it was treasonous to not be behind the OFFICE
of THE PRESIDENT, and HIS CABINET 100% in all things and that's why we had
the OK City disaster to deal with - the only solution was to give mindless
support to Wa. DC.

Morris Dees ain't just a KKK opponent. He's a left wingnut.

    
    who the hell cares if the church burners are left wing or right wing.
    Fact of the matteris, there are dozens of church burnings going on,
    down South. Catch the little arsonist weasels, and throw their butts
    in prison.

 The Rev Jesse Jackson says it is people who say such racist things as
 "welfare cuts" and "end to quotas" who are driving the white extremists
 to burn these churches.


 Jim

-1 who could miss that connection?     :?

    
    >who the hell cares if the church burners are left wing or right wing.
    
    I agree Mark. But some need to use these terrible situations
    to further their political agenda.

    .84
    
    |Well, I've always heard it declared the right wingers are usually
    |white and KKK is considered right wing... so...
    
    oh.  so that makes farrahkan a left-winger.  i see.
    
    |using logic here...
    
    where?

If Farrakhan were left-wing, wouldn't his followers wear tie-dyed t-shirts
instead of bowties?

    re: .41
    
    Greenville is Northeast of Dallas and a lot of Greenville has been
    burning down recently, mostly vacant buildings, etc.  It would appear
    that they have an arson problem rather than a racial hate problem.
    
    Bob

 Z   The Rev Jesse Jackson says it is people who say such racist things as
 Z   "welfare cuts" and "end to quotas" who are driving the white
 Z   extremists to burn these churches.
    
    Hasn't this guy fallen into obscurity yet????

    Watched cross fire last night. Jesse Jackson was REALLY stretching the
    point about the environment being set up such that blacks are
    considered a burden (welfare) and dangerous (crime), and that creates
    an environment where the scum are bold enough to do this type of stuff.
    
     Two things that struck me as an outsider looking in.
    
     1. In the same time frame that 30 black churches were burnt, well over 100
    	white churches were burnt.
    		- What's with this church burning stuff anyway ? They
    		  claimed on the show that the majority were robbers trying
    		  to cover their tracks. If this were true why don't house
    		  robbers do the same thing ? The logic (if you can call it
    		  that) is the same.
    
     2. The fact that people so easily catagorize a church as "black" or
    	"white". 
    		- I have never heard a church described as a "race" church
    		  in Canada (in the news any way). Can anyone on the inside 
    		  (America) see that this is a form of self imposed
    		  segregation, and that it cannot be healthy for the long
    		  term outlook on race relations ? If you can't even pray
    		  to **the same God** together, what hope is there that you
    		  can live together outside the church ?
    
     Sorry if this is an unwelcome observation.
    
    							Derek.

    .92
    
    this could very well be.  
    
    i also read that someone had carved K-K-K in 
    huge letters in a putting green not far from 
    the churches.  this was discovered shortly 
    after the burnings.  probably just a malicious 
    prank.

    On a putting green?!?!?!?  Blasphemous bastidges!  
    

    re: .94
    
    1.  Church burning in considered to be a "hate" crime.  It is
        done in an attempt to intimidate a group or cause them to 
        move to a different place to worship.  
    
    2.  Some of these churches (as a worshipping body and, in some
        cases as actual buildings) have been in continuous existance
        since the civil war days.  Many of them were classed as 
        "predominently black" congregations. I don't think it's a question of 
        black and white people praying together, I think it's more 
        of a question of the demographics of the neighborhood that determine 
        the membership mix.  
    
    A large number of the churches which have been burned are in
    South Carolina, which is the only state that flies the Confederate
    flag from the statehouse.  Evidently they have a number of racial
    problems there.
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    
    

    if my memory serves me right:
    
    5 in South Carolina, 5 in Louisiana, 5 in Tennessee.
    These states were the "leaders" in the burnings.

    BTW:
    
    On the leading morning talk shpw, after days of arguments from
    the Panthers, the City Council members, etc.,  some guys calls
    up here in Dallas and says essentially "Hey, I don't know about
    you, but I run a home plumbing business with my wife.  I've
    got one guy who works for me.  I'll volunteer 2 days of my time
    to help rebuild the church in Greenville.  Anyone else want to
    match my offer?"
    
    The station was flooded with calls.
    
    The guy who made the initial call had more sense than any of the
    politicians or rabble-rousers will evere have.

    
    .79
    
    Bonnie,
    
    The first 2 are left wing because they expect the government to fix
    their or their congregation's perceived problems.
    
    In the case of Farrakhan, he just blames everyone, including the
    government, for his or his congregations' perceived problems.
    
    I suppose terms are in order:
    
    Left wing  - blaming you problems on others.
    Right wing - taking resposibility for your own actions.
    
    I suppose under those definitions, Libertarians would be right-wing
    extremists.
    
    ;^)

       |I suppose terms are in order:        
    
       |Left wing  - blaming you problems on others.    
       |Right wing - taking resposibility for your own actions.
    
       such elegant simplicity.  the light is either on or off.
       thank you for your in-depth descriptions of the american
       political landscape.

    
    ...just like your description of those right-wing groups.  Those left-
    wingers, hey, they're just so righteous.

    .102
    
    please point me to my description of right-wing groups.
    i can't seem to locate it.

    
    To whit : 740.55 "left-wingnuts?  i'm not familiar with any in this
                      country."
    
    Are you serious ?

    .104
    
    that's my description of right-wing groups?

Right-wing - blame yourself

    Implicitly, yes.

    how mysterious.  obfuscatingly so.

The words "make your own damn fortune" rang in my mind, as written in another
note by a Frequent Contributor, yet in the past 6 weeks I've learned such
interesting facts as:

	o Charges of 'front running' by investors - essentially insider trading
	  from a major investment firm.

	o an expose of an insurance/investment firm that denied selling 
	  worthless stock to investors for years

	o a story about a Maine candidate -- preaches family values yet won't
	  even be indicted for statutory rape charges stemming from an
	  incident in Alabama several years ago

So much for the blanket condemnations.

    
      Funny, in my hardware store, they don't separate the wingnuts
     into two bins for handedness.
    
      Reminds me of the two-ethnic-carpenter joke.  One is picking up
     nails, examining, throwing about half away.  First : "What are you
     throwing out half the nails for ?"  Second : "Well, a lot of these
     have the heads on the wrong end." First : "You idiot !  Those are
     for the other side of the wood !"
    
      bb

It always intrigues me how, the stock market can shudder on reports of lower
unemployment figures...or fertilizer futures in Rangoon...yet blissfully sails
along when cheating and theft is uncovered in its hallowed environs.

Just shows to go ya, there's always more to learn.

Ok, back to our regularly scheduled program.

re: my .85

>About 13 mos. ago I entered a note in here somewhere (can't find it now)

I found it. It was 47.395.

> regarding a left-wingnut in Dees' employ from the SPLC

I mispoke here - it was Dees himself, not one of his lackeys.

    Jack,
    
    Did you ever get the text of the speech?
    
    Bob

No, I did not, but I'm going to try to see if I still can from USL.

    really Bonnie, a little more substance in your notes would go a long
    way in making u more believable...

    
    
    Riiiiiight.  Someone can clam that the Nazis, who killed over 30million
    Communists are in fact the same end of the political spectrum as
    communists.  Bonnie suggests that the church burnings (if politically
    motivated and if a concerted action) are probably the work of right wing
    fanatics.  And Bonnie is less credible?

| <<< Note 740.116 by SMURF::WALTERS >>>



| Someone can clam that the Nazis, 

	Now that would have been an interesting way to have gotten rid of them. 

   oph is one of the most credible people i done ever met.

    I'll clam up then.

    .115
    
    |really Bonnie, a little more substance in your notes would go a long   
    |way in making u more believable...
    
    oh, help me, ronald.  show me the light.  you sheik of substance,
    you.

  .120  <snicker>

    Remember the clam that ate Robin...The Boy Wonder?
    
    That's what right wingers would do to communists!

    and another sheik appears on the scene...

    You could give them a fair sheik, ob-one.

    RE: .116
    
>    Riiiiiight.  Someone can clam that the Nazis, who killed over 30million
>    Communists are in fact the same end of the political spectrum as
>    communists.  

    The above demonstrates an amazing lack of understanding of history.
    Remember that Hitler had the SA eliminated even though they were his
    bed partners (and someone with a little knowledge of history may pick
    up on the pun).

    Stalin's great purge was of fellow communists, on the same end of the
    political spectrum.  Communist China had more than one military tiff
    with other communist countries, even though they were on the same end
    of the political spectrum.  Cambodian communist Pol Pot was at
    (military) odds with more than one communist, even though they were on
    the same end of the political spectrum.

    Just because someone is on the same political spectrum doesn't mean that
    they don't want to kill each other/go to war against each other. 
    There's always the matter of implementation and personality differences
    (not to mention ethnic differences which may lead to war and ethnic
    cleansing between two countries on the same end of the political
    spectrum).  Also note, Hitler's design on the USSR was for the
    strategic resources needed to keep his war machine going.

    -- Dave

    Get some prozac, Dave.

    So should this note be re-titled "Communists, Fascists & Nazis: the
    Extreme Right Wing"?
    
    -Stephen

    Try the "Everyone but me is extreme right wing note".

    re: .116
    
    Didn't Stalin, a *communist*, murder more of his own citizens than
    even Hitler may have?
    
    The hypothesis that the two converge may be based on the reasoning
    that each can accomadate regimes that have the capability to commit
    such atrocities in the 1st place, i.e. totalitarianism.
    
    						Tony

    If you want to stick to such a simplistic notion of a continuum
    definition then you could make such an association.  Why not follow it
    through with:  "As the Communists under Stalin were *allies* of the US
    in the fight against Naziism, then the US is also a FasNazCom regime".
    
    This convieniently enables us to do away with all differentiation
    between systems of government, ideologies etc., etc., by lumping every
    major system together under one label - by virtue of a few convenient
    similarities between the systems. 
    

    Yes, Stalin was responsible for the deaths of countless Russian
    citizens.  Tenfold compared to that of Adolph Hitler.  And yet,
    Nuremburg chose not to try Stalin and his gang for the atrocities in
    Russia and what turned into Eastern Europe.
    
    -Jack

    RE: .130

>    Why not follow it
>    through with:  "As the Communists under Stalin were *allies* of the US
>    in the fight against Naziism, then the US is also a FasNazCom regime".

    I'm glad that you finally decided to add something intelligent
    (implying that I agree that it's stupid to say that people/countries
    are on the same political idealogical wavelength simply because they
    are allies).  

    Unfortunately, you took a counter stance in .116 where you implied that
    because the two (Nazi Germany/Communist USSR) were enemies at the end
    of WWII they must be on different ends of the political spectrum (that
    or I misread your .116 in which case I would appreciate a clarification
    of .116).

    -- Dave

    |I'm glad that you finally decided to add something intelligent
    
    dave, please.  you're beginning to sound like ROCUSH.

    Excellent point Jack.  And of course, as the Nurmburg tribunal was
    largely an Allied powers show with US and British prosecutors and
    judges, that makes us completely complicit with the terrors of the
    communist regime.  More evidence that we are really part of the
    FasNazCom ideolog continuum, and not separate from it.
    
    Now we just have to explain the odd ideological occurrence of the
    Spanish Civil War, where Fascists supported by Nazis fought to oppress
    the Spanish people, who were only aided by countless thousands of
    Communist and Socialist volunteers.  Even Hemingway heard of it.
    
                                                       

    RE: .133

>    |I'm glad that you finally decided to add something intelligent
>    
>    dave, please.  you're beginning to sound like ROCUSH.

    I thought about taking that part out, but the general lack of substance
    of his replies combined with the Prozac comment...  Oh well, I guess my
    expectations for a good, honest discussion were too high.

    -- Dave

    
    Pathetic, Flatman.  Truly pathetic.  I've eaten things with more
    intelligence than you.  Come to think of it, they had more intelligence
    coming out the other end.    

    RE: .134

>    Now we just have to explain the odd ideological occurrence of the
>    Spanish Civil War, where Fascists supported by Nazis fought to oppress
>    the Spanish people, who were only aided by countless thousands of
>    Communist and Socialist volunteers. 
    
    It's really not that hard to explain.  Opportunism makes for strange
    bedfellows.  Ho Chi Mien betrayed a number of leaders of Vietnamese
    independence movements to the French.  He didn't do this because he
    liked the French and agreed with them ideologically, but because the
    French were convenient for eliminating others that might challenge his
    (future) position of being the leader for an independent Viet Nam.

    If the premise that all people of the same idealogy are friends and
    all people of different idealogy are enemies, then either Hitler or
    Stalin must have changed ideologies from the beginning of WWII when
    they were allies to the end of WWII when they were enemies.  Obviously
    the premise is faulty.

    -- Dave

    It's not often I agree with dave, but in this case, he is right on
    target.
    m

    substantive.

If you look at the "line" of politics you find it isn't.  If, starting from
centerism you go right you go through conservatism to fascism/Nazism and reach
a point where the idea "we are the only ones that are right and everyone else
deserves to die!".  Similarly, start at centerism and go left through various
stages of liberalism and through socialism and to communism you also find that
politics are "we are the only ones that are right and everyone else deserves to
die!".   You find it isn't a line, it's a circle.

Actually the problem is that politics isn't a single line of left-right,
"us vs. them".  There are many dimensions.  The minimum useful is 2, not
1 (left-right).  Plot economic control/freedom on one axis, and personal
liberties on another.  You'll find that fascism and Stalinist communism are
very much the same on the personal liberty scale, that is, none.
They are very different economically, with Communism everything owned and
run by the state and Nazism/fascism allowing for private enterprise.

Plot things with economic control on a left-right scale and personal liberties
on an up down scale.  High economic control (state ownership) puts both
Communism and theoretically pure socialism on the far left.  Pure capitalism on
the far right.   With no personal liberty both Communism and fascism are on the
bottom of the liberty scale.  The US before the growth of the Fed government
would be near the top of the liberty scale, but is much lower now. 
Libertarians are very high on this scale.  (Theoretically pure) socialism is
very high as well.

So draw a square with the corners marked:  Bottom right, Nazism/fascism.
Bottom left, Stalinist communism.  Top right, libertarins.  Top left, ideal
socialism with personal liberty.

Plot your favorite politicians.  You'll notice that Bill Weld falls a
distance from the Radical Religious Right, but also a distance from the average
Democrat.  Observe how Hitler and Stalin are very different in some ways and
very much the same in others.

    
    .137
    
    According to your .37 there is no ideological difference between
    Stalinist Communism and Nazi Fascism.  You brush over the example of
    the Spanish Civil war because you have not the slightest inkling what
    it was about and bring up Vietnam - which doesn't even support your
    case.
    
    Truman initially supported Ho Chi Minh because the position of the US
    gov't was that they did not favour French re-colonization over
    independence.  Ho was locally popular and not seen as too bad a choice
    - Studied at Boston (Hahvahd, I think) and funded himself washing
    dishes at the Park Plaza hotel.   However, when the "wrong" people
    started to gain control, the US reverted to supporting a French puppet
    dictator (colonial fascism) over true democratic independence.  
      
    The US made a deal with France over Indochine, largely ignoring the
    struggle for social justice, sovereignty and democracy that gave Ho Chi
    Mihn his mandate.
    
    Maybe you're right Dave.  The fact that the US is usually unable to
    tell the difference between fascism and communism really means that
    there is no difference.
    
    Sources:  Herring '86, Karnow '83.
      

    re .140
    
    Excellent note!

    Wafflefartz, you agree with Flatman because he makes you feel
    comfortable with right wing fundamentalism. 

    RE: .140

>Plot things with economic control on a left-right scale and personal liberties
>on an up down scale.  High economic control (state ownership) puts both
>Communism and theoretically pure socialism on the far left.  Pure capitalism on

    Agreed.  Note that the National Socialist Party (Nazis) were
    socialist, and therefore by the above, left wing.


    RE: .141

>    According to your .37 there is no ideological difference between
>    Stalinist Communism and Nazi Fascism.  

    I never said there were NO ideological differences; however they were
    both derived from Marxism and therefore have an ideological basis in
    common.  Analogously, the belief system of Catholics and Protestants
    are derived from a common source, but that doesn't mean that there are
    no differences.

>    You brush over the example of the Spanish Civil war 

    Not completely.  I read you question in terms of "try and explain
    this," which was quite easy to do in terms of politics making strange
    bedfellows.  The Ho Chi Mihn example was tied in to show that the
    obvious enemy (the French for independence minded Ho, the fascist
    Franco for Hitler) can become a useful tool/ally, and the obvious ally
    (other Vietnamese wanting independence for Ho, the Spanish socialist &
    communists for Hitler) become an enemy.

>    Maybe you're right Dave.  The fact that the US is usually unable to
>    tell the difference between fascism and communism really means that
>    there is no difference.

    Again, I've never said that there is no difference between fascism and
    communism, and I have never stated that there was no difference between
    Nazism and communism.  I have merely pointed out that the Nazis were
    socialist with an ideology derived from Marxism and thereby left wing.

    -- Dave

re .143:

>>Plot things with economic control on a left-right scale and personal liberties
>>on an up down scale.  High economic control (state ownership) puts both
>>Communism and theoretically pure socialism on the far left.  Pure capitalism on
>
>    Agreed.  Note that the National Socialist Party (Nazis) were
>    socialist, and therefore by the above, left wing.

Really?  Did they confiscate property from all citizens (confiscation of Jewish
property and strategic wartime industries don't count) to be owned and run by
the state?  Did they implement a "from each according to their ability, to each
according to their needs" policy?  Were collective farms established?  Were
private businesses forbidden?  Could a person own their own house?

    RE: .144

>Really?  Did they confiscate property from all citizens ...

    <sigh>  I didn't say they were communist, I said they were socialist. 
    What you described (confiscation of property from all citizens and the
    rest) is communism, not socialism.  At its root, socialism does have
    centralized economic planning and government control of key industries,
    all of which the Nazis did.  

    -- Dave

re .145:

Pure socialism includes ownership of means of production by the state.

Communism is an extension of socialism that includes "dictatorships of the
proletariat" and other Marxist/Leninists idealogies.

| <<< Note 740.137 by HIGHD::FLATMAN "[email protected]" >>>

| It's really not that hard to explain. Opportunism makes for strange bedfellows

	I know what you mean... sometimes this happens to.... oh... never mind.

    
    .140 Succinct.  However, there's a vast difference between you or I
    plotting a graph based on a set of definitions and asking someone else
    to rate their own beliefs and ideological standpoint based on either
    our definition or their own.  I doubt the vast majority of Germans
    would readily agree that they were in totalitarian thrall - at least
    not until the latter years (and perhaps not even then).   If you ask
    people to self-rate you'll find that the emergent model is one of a
    triangle where people rate their beliefs as diametrically opposed to
    other extremes, moving the centre in their own direction.
    
    And this, after all, is what it is about - systems of belief.  The
    reason I cited the Spanish Civil war is that it was one of the first
    litmus tests of political ideologies that emerged out of the break up
    of traditional governments and orders in Europe.  The baffling outcome
    was not that people would get killed for these beliefs - that happens
    all the time under the most paltry pretences of difference.   The
    difference was that people would willingly *die* for such beliefs. 
    Stalin also feared the belief - not the behaviour.  The victims of
    Yalta suffered because Stalin believed they may be ideologically
    contaminated by being under Nazi control.  Ironically, they probably
    came back even more convinced of their own separate ideology as a
    result of being persecuted for it.
    
    Fast forward to the Gdansk shipyards and you have socialist trade
    unionists under Lech Walesa facing the guns of the communists.  Not so
    they could dump all things socialist as fast as possible (they didn't) 
    but so they could express how *much* different their ideology is from the
    perverted socialism that was Soviet communism.
                      
    There are two fundamental problems with the line and the circle.  First
    you have to accept that whatever you think of the other systems, many
    people fervently believe that their ideology is correct, centrist, and
    "good" (not dysfunctional, extreme, and evil).  The other problem is
    that the map will always be a topological design, where relative
    position is preserved but the perceived distance between points will
    always be "as far as I can possibly position myself from the other
    guy". 
    
    The other problem is the definitions.  The Communists did not
    "confiscate property from all people" in Russia.  The vast majority of
    Russian peasants owned bugger all and worked a feudal peasants for a
    tiny minority of their fellow Russians.  Opportunities for middle class
    self advancement were rigidly controlled by the aristocracy and subject
    to arbitrary taxation.   They really did have nothing to lose but their
    chains.  If Britain declared a communist government tomorrow
    confiscation of 95% of the wealth in that country would affect a tiny
    5% of the population.  Would you argue that Britain has a centrally
    planned and government controlled economy? On the basis of the figures
    it certainly seems that way.   Similarly, the captains of industry in
    Germany probably felt a heck of a lot freer under Hitler than they did
    under the old order, particularly as economic planning included the
    free labour provided by Todt and the pick of resources.             
    
    The only use these labels serve is to underline the differences between
    them and us - to make "them" the bogeyman and give our masters
    justification for controlling us.  And we like it that way.
    
    

    Glenn:
    
    U R a nut, and u know it!!!

    Bonnie:
    
    I do hope this note wasn't your opus...if it was, then it speaks
    volumes about you.
    
    Ron

    
      Well, as a matter of fact, Stalin and Hitler DID sign up on the
     1939 partition of Poland.  Molotov and Ribbentrop negotiated it,
     and the invasion was timed to coincide, with the demarcation line
     agreed in advance.  A year later, Hitler welshed on the deal,
     which came as a big surprise to Uncle Joe.
    
      bb

    And Poland ended up being partitioned anyway by agreement between
    the Allies: US, Britain, France, and Russia.

    re: .148
    
    Did any of your reply actually disagree with 0.140's method of
    assessing a political system?
    
    It seemed like your reply had to do with people's perceptions of
    their own and other political systems.  People's perceptions, being
    subjective, are often not as objective as the method in .140 so this
    doesn't nullify its validity, does it?
    
    If so, isn't it possible that you are both right?

    Perception is much of the problem with modelling.  Behaviour is the
    rest.  The model that defines communism as an extremist totalitarian
    form of government has a hard problem predicting how and why a free and
    democratic Russia has a communist parliament.  It has an even harder
    problem explaining the strong showings of the communists in recent
    presidential elections.

    
      The words "extremist" and "totalitarian", like "racist", are
     so devalued as to be mere synonyms for "bad".  Like most aesthetics,
     they reveal nothing about the noun of which they are modifiers,
     but rather something about the speaker.  So, in the US, Republicans
     and Democrats call each other "extremists", which simply means,
     "the speaker disagrees with the group named".
    
      Given the poor economy in Russia, it should come as no surprise
     that whatver parties are "out" will gain.  That's just normal
     politics, and has little to do with ideologies.
    
      Those who think socialism of one sort or another a good or bad
     system are unlikely to be persuaded by either rational argument
     or economic experience in some far-off place.  But let the economy
     or society where they live collapse, and even fanatics for or
     against the socialist scheme may change their tune.
    
      In the USA, socialism will never be called socialism even when it
     is clearly adopted - people are horrified of "socialist medicine",
     but don't even notice that we have "socialist secondary schools",
     and have for a century at least.  We just don't call them that.
    
      bb

	Doesn't this discussion belong in the Marge Schott topic?

    .155
    
    If it's simply semantics, give me an example of an elected "fascist"
    dictatorship such as that of Galtieri, Franco, or Pinochet.

    
      What would qualify as "election" for you ?  Probably nothing.
     It's pretty bizarre to suppose Hitler and Mussolini were not
     selected by the populations of their countries.  I'd say the
     same for Mao.  I have no idea if Stalin bothered to "get elected".
     Would it matter ?
    
      bb

One thing that really struck me as funny.  After the fall of the Soviet
Union hard line Communists in Russia were often referred to in the Boston
Globe as


...right wing extremists..

Still trying to decide whether it's bias (call anyone espousing a totalitarian
system as "the right") or (re-)defining "the right" to mean "we want to go
back to how things were a few years ago".

    .159
    
    you're right, mike!  that whooshed right by me.

just for the sake of historical accuracy, Hitler did
not get rid of the SA. 

What Hitler did was do in uncle Ernst which, in effect
left the SA and the SS without a leader. Lutz was appointed
SA chief and Himmler was appointed to head the SS. Now
that both organizations were under separate leadership
each of them weren't as large a threat. 

A third organization which attempted to become a force
was the Feldernhalle headed by uncle Herman, but it never
really caught on so he moved on and continued to suck up
to uncle Adolph.

you're welcome...

    
    don't forget about the Nachdierdamist (sp) a very secret organization.

    nach or dier, you are the one!
    whether it's you inside the bunker,
    or under the gun!
    
    whether you're left of me
    or right...
    it's no matter darling what's you're wing!
    i think of you!
    nach or dier!

    Mark, did you mean the Nachtrichtendienst (sp?)    

    
    <----- precisely, old chap. never could spell that word.

 ZZZ    Mark, did you mean the Nachtrichtendienst (sp?) 
    
    Is that like a German Nutritionist?

Auschwitz Weight Watchers?

Nachrichtendienst just means Intelligence Service.

The U.S. Army Hospital in Heidelberg is located in Nachrichten Kaserne.

/john

    
    How extreme of you, Jack.

    Speaking of Nazi's! See where Hilary has been seeing beyond reality?
    Looks like she is contacting former first ladies, and civilrights
    leaders. Perhaps she has talked to Elvis? Wish someone would ask her.
    

    I wonder if Hillary used Nancy Reagan's psychic. Nah. Probably decided
    to replace her with "our own people." :-)

>     <<< Note 740.172 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "plus je bois, mieux je chante" >>>

>    I wonder if Hillary used Nancy Reagan's psychic. Nah. Probably decided
>    to replace her with "our own people." :-)

	Jean Houston (or however it's spelled), who says there was nothing
	"psychic" about the meeting(s) she had with Hillary.  No spooks,
	no seances, etc.  Just Hillary picturing Eleanor and thinking about
	what advice Eleanor might have for her.  BFD.

    >BFD.
    
     I completely agree. There's little story to this story, iffen you axe
    me.

    The odd thing about this story involves taking a step back and
    wondering why it would be so widely (and almost derisively) reported
    by their adoring media.
    
    Chris

    "It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to
    realize that his own ego is of no importance to the comparison with the
    existence of his nation, that the position of the individual ego is
    conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole." 
    
    Adolph Hitler, October 7, 1933
    ----------------------------------------------
    
    There is no question about it folks, this is collectivism, or socialism
    as we now term it politically.  Under this philosophy, all life became
    relative.  It became a convenient tool to exterminate people at
    Auschwitz and it has become quite a convenient tool in our society as
    well.  
    
    Right wing is a misnomer.  Facism and the like are left wing
    ideologies.
    
    -Jack  
    

The Revival of Fascism

by James Hooper

The revival of fascism is a greater threat than most observers realize. In its
various guises--ultra-nationalism, neo-fascism, post-fascism, proto fascism,
or some other form -- it now endangers democracy in many countries. Unless
recognized and checked in time, the rise of fascism will undermine hopes for
democratic expansion and improved security in the post-Cold War international
order.
Extreme nationalist parties have scored unprecedented post-war success in
Western Europe. Some have attracted broader constituencies through
sophisticated propaganda that downplays their extreme nationalist roots and
exploits mainstream concerns about immigration and corruption. But the goal
shared by all European extreme nationalist leaders is political legitimization
as responsible, democratic politicians. The public-policy issue for the U.S.
is to determine the standard to be met by such leaders before deciding whether
to accept them as legitimate democratic partners.
The Balkans provide a grim reminder that the hard-knuckled fascism of the
1990s can induce political psychosis in societies where it takes hold and
historical amnesia in leaders who have the capacity and responsibility to
resist it. Serbian President Milosevic used classic fascist means to define
and pursue national aims: dictatorship, aggression, seizure of territory by
force, destruction of pluralism and democracy, concentration camps, genocide,
and reliance on diplomacy as bluff, gamble, and institutionalized duplicity.
By modeling a violent and intolerant style of politics for a new generation of
European political activists, he projects the power and discipline the fascist
myth can invoke.
Russian ultra-nationalists benefit from Serbian fascism. While extreme
nationalist groups have not gained executive power in Moscow, they have seized
and distorted the democratic political agenda. If fascism moves from agenda
setting to office holding, the U.S. and Europe will be faced with a threat
more dangerous than Soviet communism. The issue for Western policy-makers is
to determine whether concessions to self-professed Russian democrats on
important matters of principle and policy contain or embolden the
ultra-nationalists.
In Asia, Japanese ultra-nationalism is an incipient but containable threat.
China is a different matter. As noted in Bernstein and Munro's book The Coming
Conflict With China, "early twentieth-century fascism," rather than democracy,
is one possible outcome of China's political transition. The inability of
China's repressed democrats to play an active role in the transition
significantly weakens the democratic cause there and shifts the burden of
responsibility to advocates of democracy abroad who have a stake in
influencing the outcome.
What is to be done? The first step is to recognize that democracy is imperiled
when the aim of politics becomes the process of defining enemies, especially
when the enemy is pluralism. For example, to forestall additional defections
by their own supporters, some otherwise democratic parties have begun to
advocate firmer measures to trim the numbers of and social services provided
to immigrants and refugees. In this way, the agenda of fascists begins to
shift the policies of democrats.
The irony of fascism is that its recognized hostility to multiculturalism
gives it a genuinely cross-cultural appeal. Fascism is equally accessible to
Chinese leaders seeking an integrative nationalist ideology in the waning days
of communism, to Hutu leaders pursuing tribal dominance, to Russian and Hindu
ultra-nationalists to Iraqi Baathists, to Austrian neo-fascists; and to U.S.
militiamen, skinheads, and racists.
The most pressing need at the moment is to acknowledge the global nature of
the problem and ensure that policy-makers are properly informed about it. This
will stimulate debate that takes account of the regional diversity and
differing implications of the challenges fascism poses. And from this will
come a better perspective for framing practical public-policy decisions that
reflect the U.S.'s strategic interests, democratic values, humanitarian
concerns, and commercial goals.

The author is director of the Program for the Study of Contemporary Fascism
and Democracy at the Balkan Institute, Washington D.C.