« Kelo chickens continue to roost | Main | Not a bad idea »

A question about the Paris riots

Is it safe to conclude that a national policy of playing kiss-ass with Islamist fanatics and militant Arab nationalists has proven ineffective at engendering goodwill among the Arab/Muslim population?


Well obviously, they simply haven't kissed enough ass.

Like many, I expect they'll simply break down and appease via more government programs...and though I've never been a big fan of the French, I really hope to be proven wrong in that expectation.

I would be more than willing to trade the Bush Administration for whatever France has for government leadership, at least for the rest of Bush's term.

I am sure with the Bush camp expertise in setting up gulags for torture, obliterating hard won rights to silly things like trials and actually being charged with some kind of crime before one is imprisoned for life, and Bush's eagerness to put the military to work directly agaist the country's citizens, he and his band of lying theives could for sure solve the problem of a bunch of out of control darkies.

The French executive branch we would inherit would not be able to do much with stalwart worthies of the like of Tom Delay valiantly protecting against any attack on Big Oil profits or the rights of drug companies to kill everyone with impunity. We would have blessed gridlock.

No question about it, appeasement didn't work in WW II and there is no reason to believe it CAN ever work under in ANY situation.

The CIA has always run secret "interrogation sites" and has always dealt with "freindly regimes" willing to engage in various types of "torture" on its behalf - nothing wrong with any of that.

What the U.S. Military and various U.S. Intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA, etc) do that is "extra-legal," or outside the bounds of the American justice system is something best not discussed and debated by citizens with a fraction of the facts.

That is why these things are always done outside the boundaries of the United States, thus outside the scope of our legal system.

The Bush administration has dealt with Islamo-fascism far too politically correctly, in my view. We are in a World War against Islamo-fascism/Islamo-cultism, which is, for better or worse, a growing portion of the Muslim world.

Hillary Clinton, to her credit stands with that part of the Democratic Party that is pro-war in Iraq and pro-Patriot Act here at home.

Problem for the Democrats is, why should we switch to a pro-war Democrat like Hillary, when Bush is as good on that score and much better on domestic issues like tax policy?

Thankfully, Liberals like Bailey Hankins are few and far between...even among Democrats.

I love it!!! Burn the whole country to a cinder. When they cry for help spray them with gasoline.

Heh, I wondered how long it would take one of you whining neocons to call me a Liberal. Bush is much better on domestic issues and tax policy? Are you fully awake, or are you in a Rush Limbaugh hillbilly heroine induced fog?

Bush has bankrupted this country. He is destroying the middle class to support handouts to the wealthy and big business. When Big Oil gouges, he gives them middle class tax money to build free refineries. He took middle class tax dollars by the tens of billions and handed it out, no bid, to Halliburton. There has never been a so openly corrupt and criminal presidency. Bush is bought and paid for.

If you think it is GOOD that a politician supports the Patriot Act, which is the most illegal and unconstitutional piece of crap ever passed in the last 200 years ... ah, just go back to sleep, dummy.

Y'know, Ken, the French attitude you hear in the news represents the government and the snotty classes, not the average guy on the street.

But by all means, let 'em burn down Versailles.

By the way, I'm enjoying watching France burn.

Whats your problem guys? Why you hate France so much? Chirak was absolutely right to try to block Bush from starting this disastrous Iraq war. The only bad thing is that he failed.

I think that the Islamic fanatics are becoming more and more of a danger to all countries of the western civilization, including France. Bush disastrous mistakes clearly contributed to that. Instead of going after the terrorists who attacked us on 911, he started the war in Iraq. This war has only had two outcomes so far:

1. More than 2000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead.

2. The recruitment of terrorists by islamic fundmentalists has increased.

And you guys still still admire Bush and enjoy and have fun with the damage the islamic lunatics are doing in France. Sorry, but thats pathetic.

Blue wind, where were the French when we wanted to bomb Libya for their terroist acts? In denial? They are reaping what they've sown. Burn baby burn!

More importantly, when are the French going to apologize for Vietnam? DOn't know what I'm talking about? That entire area was a French colony, until the uprisings in the north. We went over there to help facilitate them being able to get their troops out, and in the process, became stuck ourselves. They owe us for that. They owe us a blood debt for WW1, 2, and Vietnam. All that helping us in the revolution has been paid back with interest a thousand times over. They owe us, and they do not deserve the respect given them by the world. While it is painful to see chaos such as this anywhere, hopefully Fance will take it as the wakeup call they've so badly needed for so long.

Bailey Hankins, you're not only a Liberal, you're an idiot as well.

Supply Side Economics saved most likely this country from a second Depression.

After the Tech Bubble implosion (Spring 2000), the NASDAQ crashed, dropping by more than half, from 5100 to under 2500 in a few short months...putting the lie to the "new economy" that was to be "not solely based on profit."

That NASDAQ implosion infected the DOW and America was in full blown recession when Bush took office in January 2001.

You can argue that the tax cuts weren't deep enough, BUT no one can argue that they weren't both (1) across the board, as tax rates were cut for everyone and (2) effective, so far as they went - a far worse crisis was averted and a deep recession was turned around in a very short time.

You can also argue that the tax cuts don't go far enough. The call by Bill Archer and others to simply scrap the IRS and the hideous tax on productivity/income and repalce it with some form of consumption based tax, like the NRST, would be the far better way to go, BUT you CAN'T rationally argue that raising taxes, or even increasing the "progressivity" (higher percentages for higher incomes) would be anything other than disastrous.

Blue Wind, why don't you simply sing out the French National Anthem?

F*#k the French, at least F*#k the Liberal elite that govern and run that god-forsaken country.

As far as the Islamo-fascist menace goes, NOTHING the Bush administration did "made that any worse." In fact, they've crippled al Qaeda's leadership and decimated the ranks of the Islamo-fascists in the Mid-East.

Problem is, al Qaeda is only the tip of the iceberg. Islamo-cultism/Islamo-fascism has ben a worldwide menace for over fifteen years and has been growing for over thirty. Remeber when there were still people arguing that 9/11/01 was a crime committed by a criminal gang and NOT an "act of war" by the Islamo-cultists financed and supported by various rogue Mid-Eastern states? How goofey does that view look now?

Suffice to say, we (America) cannot live peacefully with Islamo-cultism even if that group honestly and earnestly sought real peace.


They're IN OUR WAY! That's why.

They're blocking access to a potential 1.2 Billion customers and are trying to reduce our access to Mid-Eastern oil.

Forget terrorism, those above two things alone are worth going to war and eradicating that scourge for.

The current Intafada in France shows the real face of Islamo-cultism. These are not al Qaeda operatives, they're merely youths weaned on Muslim fundamentalism/cultism.

France has a hopeless, bankrupt culture, one that does not allow for upward mobility and avoids rewarding education and entrepreneurialism, as well as one that is radically secularist...in fact, it has a lot in common with the ideals of most American Liberals. So F*#k the French and their moribund culture and Vive Le Pen and France's snarling hard Right, cause that's who's gonna replace Chirac.

Who do you blame for American riots? Islam again?

I tend to think that poverty and discriminatory practices lead to riots everywhere. Do you think France did not engage in discriminatory practices or that the riots didn't start in poor neighborhoods? Think again.

It may be satisfying to point at those riots and say, "Ooo, goody, France is burning," but it is also ignorant and solves nothing for anyone. We have problems here, folks, and the problems in France don't make our problems any smaller or us anymore right about anything. I love this country, and I support it, but I'm with Bailey on the Patriot Act and also on the fiscal irresponsibility of our administration and Republican Congress, which believes in "borrow and spend" government. We are in some trouble, so warming your heart by the glow of a fire in Paris seems, well, something only cold-hearted and, frankly, wrong-headed people would do.

You dont know the facts well. First of all, Chirak is NOT a liberal. He is a CONSERVATIVE. Liberals in France are the socialists who are not in power. Chirak is just rational. In contrast to Bush.

Regarding your comment "Vive LePen", is almost the same like saying "Vive Le fasiscm". LePen is a well known fascist and a Nazi apologist. Do you really like that guy???? I thought you dont like fascists.

I agree with you in one thing. That Islamic fundamentalism is a great threat to civilization. However, Bush's approach has been completely disastrous. I am also not sure that Bush has the moral authority to speak in defense of democracy. Many of the actions of his administration are simply anti-democratic.

Blue Wind, are you aware that the only reason that "rational" Mr. Chirac is not being prosecuted for involvement in such scemes as vote rigging and embezzlement is that French law guarantees him immunity while he is president?

The second he is out of office he faces criminal charges.

But I guess that manipulating the system and extorting the French citizens qualifies as "rational", right?

Or maybe he's just rational because he's a vocal opponent of President Bush.

So tell me, Blue, how do you feel about George Galloway?

The truth is, Blue Wind, that there is no "Conservative" tradition in Europe as there is in America, that's why they are in the unfortunate position of always balancing between extremes - the rabid Socialists or "Economic terrorists" as I like to call them, on the one side, and the radical Right, championed by the likes of Le Pen on the other.

Moreover, Chirac had no "moral" or "principled" stand on Iraq. France, Germany, Belgium and Russia all had various illicit and under-the-table, sweetheart deals in place with Saddam's Iraq and they didn't want to lose those in order to stand up for what was right - eradicating Islamo-cultism.

The causes of America's riots?

Not poverty?

No, not racism either.

If they were caused by poverty, you'd expect to see people invading food stores, not liquor stores and sneaker outlets.

Not "racism" (whatever that made-up construct means) either, at least not in any traditional sense.

Sure, one could argue that the riots in L.A. after the King verdict were "racially motivated" - black bigotry against whites and Asians, but that riot wasn't participated in, or even supported by anything close to a majority or even sizable portion of the blacks in L.A.

For the most part, the rioting in L.A. and in other cities post-various Sports victories are carried out by small, but heavilly armed and highly motivated bands of thugs, doing what thugs generally do. No high principles, no hidden meanings, just goons being goons.

The French "riots," a polite word, considering that it's an out-and-out rebellion of sorts, IS being both participated in and supported by a seeming majority of the African and Arab youth in the regions around Paris.

Europe, like America has abandoned it's original economic model. Just as America has abandoned free markets, Europe has abandoned anything like Socialism, and both in favor of Corporatism, the economy favored by many fascists.

Though to be fair, modern Corporatism is replete with semi-open markets and more opportunities for entrepreneurial people than any form of "State managed economy" has ever been able to muster.

The likes of Haider (Austria) and Le Pen (France) may be right about one thing at least, (though Haider is also correct on the importance of free markets), and that one thing is, that European culture cannot long survive this ongoing Third World invasion.

Hopefully Europe comes to its senses in time and thwarts this invasion with massive deportations and mandated "assimilation programs" for those few educated and useful immigrants left in the wake of the needed deportations.

Again, you are using euphemistic words like "radical right" for people who are well-known fascists and NAZI apologists. Le Pen is a big time fascist, while Haider is essentially a Nazi, who strongly believes that the holocaust never happened. How can we talk seriously when you quote people like that? They are a disgrace to Europe and to the civilized world. Chirac is a conservative, albeit different that American conservatives. He is by no means a socialist or liberal.

George Galloway's word is as reliable as George Bush's. They both lie big time.

Sadly, both Le Pen & Haider have been proven right about the extremely detrimental effects of massive Third World immigration to their respective countries and neither has proposed anything other than what amounts to a sensible solution - massive deportations, which is a far better alternative than the inevitable anti-European war being fomented by this ill conceived influx of people, largely unsuited for a First World economy.

Jorge Haider supports free markets, the ONLY true alternative to fascism/Corporatism. Socialism is no alternative, as it is (1) cut from the very same totalitarian cloth (ie National SOCIALISM & Soviet SOCIALISM and (2) both unworkable and socially worse, in that it's essence is, as Milton Friedman once proclaimed, "economically perverse."

The greatest threat to the free world today is the Leftist/Socialist leanings of the so-called "Liberals" in its midsts. The second greatest threat to the free world today is Islamo-cultism and the virulent international terrorism that is its trademark. Both must ultimately be destroyed and completely discredited.

"Again, you are using euphemistic words like "radical right" for people who are well-known fascists and NAZI apologists." (BlueWind/BW)

BW, here again, you throw around the terms "fascist" and "socialist" as though, (1) one was perhaps better, or at least more noble than the other and (2) as though they are, or ever were, in opposition to each other politically, when neither of those things is the case.

Hitler, a Socialist who is often called a "fascist," by those who tend to find less fault with an even worse and more Left-wing tyrant, Joe Stalin, had a pact with that same fellow traveler Joe Stalin, until the invasion of Poland. Moreover, America's Jeffersonian traditions are rooted in (1) Private property rights and the free market economy that respects those rights, (2) Draconian limitations on government action and (3) what today is called "radical individualism" by even America's so-called "Liberals," which to date remains the ONLY political movement that is antithetical to both Socialism and Fascism.

In France, Le Pen is known for advocating tough law enforcement policies, including possibly the reinstatement of the death penalty (YEAH! I'd support THAT); strong restrictions on immigration to France from countries outside Europe (HEY! I'd support THAT as well); and withdrawal or at least far greater independence from the European Union (WoW! Again, I support THAT). "He (Le Pen) claims that most of the French political and media class is corrupt and out of touch with the real needs of the common people." Man, Le Pen sounds like a pretty run-of-the-mill Conservative American, reading that.

Sure, he's gotten into trouble for among other things physically assaulting a Socialist legislator and has defended the Vichy (pro-Nazi) French, BUT our own Pat Buchanan (PJB) has been similarly and certainly in Buchanan's case WRONGFULLY smeared as some kind of anti-Semite for a few ill-timed and untoward utterances.

Overall, in my view, PJB is too important a figure in American Conservatism for me to take issue with any of those, perhaps ill-conceived utterances. His stances are 95% dead on, in my opinion and those who'd seek to undermine those many brilliant positions by insinuating his defense of such unpopular causes as the charges against John Demunjiak (the man falsely accused of being "Ivan the Terrible") negates the efficacy of his other views, is as inane as me arguing "Because Hitler supported gun control (which of course, he did) than only a Nazi would support any form of gun control."

We generally don't do that with ideas and ideals linked to nefarious Socialists like Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Castro (for instance "wealth redistribution, the graduated income tax, a strong centralized government, etc) so why should we allow it to be done to the likes of PJB, and even Le Pen and Haider?

If Haider's Freedom Party were truly "anti-Semitic," would it be the case that in Israel, one of the senior leaders of a Zionist-Left party defended Jorge Haider's Freedom Party? The fifth slot in its Knesset list is MK Roman Bronfman. "Bronfman is an intelligent, sharp-witted man who is meant to represent new immigrants in the Meretz mosaic. Bronfman is... a passionate supporter of Jorge Haider's Austrian Freedom Party."

Now, it's a fact that Haider favors a virtual ban on immigration into his nation, and he campaigned against the European Union's eastward expansion out of fear that migrants will flood into Austria, the end result being (so he believes) the disruption of Austrian culture. This is one of the primary reasons he was widely condemned in the mainstream media of the United States and Europe as a "racist," whatever that artificial construct is supposed to mean.

But with that in mind, consider the following statement by Jewish Middle East analyst, Mitchell Bard, made in Ohio's most important newspaper, THE PLAIN DEALER. "Most Israelis have argued that Israel cannot remain a Jewish state or a democracy if it incorporates the occupied territories, because Palestinians would alter the nations demographic balance. The result would be a binational state in which Arabs would wield substantial power." In more straightforward terms, most Israeli Jews view Palestinians from the occupied territories as a threat to Israeli society.

The feelings for Palestinians expressed by most Israeli Jews and Israeli consul-general Ashbel are very similar to those Haider has expressed in regard to Eastern European and non-white immigrants.

Whereas the former look upon Palestinian Arabs as unassimilable aliens and a threat to Israeli society, the latter views non-Germanic immigrants as a disruptive force within the Austrian nation.

In Israel, anyone who condemns the widely held view described above is considered a "rabid anti-Semite," so what are those who consider Haider's and Le Pen's very similar views on immigration into Europe, but anti-European...and being of European descent myself, an anti-European is much more vile, much more dangerous and much more hateful than an anti-Semite.

I'd expect any self-respecting Jew to feel precisely the reverse.

Is hard to understand how you can think like that. LePen is a fascist and a Nazi apologist. Haider has said that the holocaust never happened and that Hitler had many good qualities. Haider is a NAZI by any measure, and a disgrace, no matter what you say. Calling Hitler a "socialist" is also remarkable. If you read history carefully, you will realize that the only reason the Nazi party was called National-socialist had to do with its original roots. There were originally some socialists in the Nazi party that were purged by Hitler. The only one from the nazi leadership that had a socialist past was Goebels, but he also turned together with Hitler against the socialist component of the Nazi party in the 30s. Far before world war II began.

If you sincerely believe that Haider and Lepen are not antisemetic, you have a problem. These people have spoken positively about the Nazi monsters, including Hitler. They are both very dangerous for democracy and civilization. They are as antisemetic as the islamic lunatics. No difference.

Blue, I'm not a fan of Le Pen by any means, but I think that to call him a "Nazi apologist" is a bit over the top. If you can justify this claim with documented links, then please go ahead. Otherwise, I think you're engaging in a bit of hyperbole.

You are wrong. LePen is a Nazi apologist. I am attaching a link below referring to Lepen calling Nazi occupation "not particularly inhuman".


This has been also reported in the BBC news and it is well established fact that happened recently (January 2005). As JMK also admitted, LePen in the past has defended the Vichy (pro-Nazi) French. There are probably other examples that I dont remember now. If all that does not make him a nazi apologist, what would?

I am glad that you apparently agree at least that Haider is a Nazi and that both Lepen and Haider are clear-cut antisemites. They are both disgusting. Just talking about them is nasueating.

Well yes, Le Pen is without doubt a virulent anti-Semite and a loathsome individual. That's not quite the same as being a Nazi, however, although some of the quotes you point out do indicate a disturbing tendency towards holocaust revisionism.

As I said above, neither Le Pen nor Haider are great guys, BUT (1) that much is superfluous in relation to some of the ideas they espouse and (2) in Haider's case, even the ADL's own White Paper on him, ended by saying that "...Haider is neither a nazi nor an anti-Semite, but many of his associates certainly are..."

That's about as clean a bill as I can imagine any Conservative getting from the ADL, which has also, attacked American Conservatives like PJB.

As I said, and this is irretuable, the inane attemtpt to link, say free market economics, which IS undeniably THE ONLY political philosophy antithetical to ALL totalitarianism - both Socialism and Fascism, to "Nazism" by calling some of its proponents "Nazis," or "Nazi-sympathizers," compels those who claim that to acknowledge that since gun control, a strong central government and the graduated income tax were all supported by the likes of Hitler and Stalin themselves, then those ideas, in fact, virtually ALL of the ideas and ideals that compose contemporary Liberalism are similarly tainted by that even more direct link to Nazism/Communism and Hitler & Stalin.

So let us not go there.

Suffice to say, I'm willing to argue the demerits of the the centralized state, the graduated income tax, and gun control without resorting to linking them to Hitler & Stalin in a silly attempt at the "Appeal to the Man," (ie. If Mao supported that, it can't be anything but evil"), but I must insist on reciprocity.

So, whether or not either Le Pen or Haider are good or bad guys, or whether they are in fact National Socialists, Democratic Socialists or Communists, or supporters of any other nefarious ideology, that does not change the fact that they are absoultely correct on the issue of IMMIGRATION to Europe and at least in Haider's case, on the efficacy and necessity of free markets.

Since, to date, your only argument against the immigration and free market economic positions of these two people is based on the logical fallacy I noted above called "The Appeal to the Man," it appears you're unable to support your pro-immigration and anti-free market viewpoints.

If I were to accept and thus adopt your method of argument, it would rationalize my advancing my own agenda in this way; "Since Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams and the rest of America's Founders supported free markets, private property rights, extremely limited decentralized government, the right to bear arms and radical individualism, while both Hitler and Stalin supported a strong centralized state, the state managed economy, the graduated income tax, gun control and individual subordination to the state, then the views championed by today's American Liberals more closely resemble those advanced by Hitler and Stalin, while those espoused by most Conservatives today are closer to those adavnced by America's Founders, so it's clear who is right and who is wrong...who is good and who is evil."

Now true as all that may be, it's NOT really a proactive argument in favor of something, but a negative or defensive argument against the opposed ideology. Such arguments are generally less compelling.

The reality is that Supply Side/free market economics works and more freedom/personal responsibility (individualism) is always healthier and more desirable than less individualism and more government control. It's also true that massive Third World immigration is disatrous to First World nations because the vast majority of these people come ill equipped to contribute to a First World economy and either fail, or in many cases, refuse to assimilate into the more advanced culture.

That is why the anti-immigration and pro-free market views espoused by what many on the Left call "the radical Right" are irrefutable, especially in light of the anti-French uprising now going on in France and the utter failure of the Command Economy in all its many variations.

Once again, that as I noted before, "The feelings for Palestinians expressed by most Israeli Jews...are very similar to those Haider has expressed in regard to Eastern European and non-white immigrants.

"Whereas the former look upon Palestinian Arabs as unassimilable aliens and a threat to Israeli society, the latter views non-Germanic immigrants as a disruptive force within the Austrian nation.

"In Israel, anyone who condemns the widely held view described above is considered a "rabid anti-Semite," so what are those who consider Haider's and Le Pen's very similar views on immigration into Europe, but anti-European...and being of European descent myself, an anti-European is much more vile, much more dangerous and much more hateful than an anti-Semite."

Now that's true regardless whether the likes of Haider and Le Pen are "Nazi sympathizers," "Communist sympathizers" or any other kind of "Socialist sympathizers.

You say that the ADL does not think Haider was is a Nazi or antisemite. Thats simply not true.
I quote from the ADL site a reference to Haider:

"Haider has a long public record of defending the policies of Nazi Germany and of justifying individual actions during those years. Haider has utilized terminology reminiscent of the Nazis, announcing, for example in October 1990 a "final solution to the farm question." Upon his election to the leadership of the Freedom Party, Haider rejected comparisons with the German Nazi Party, saying "The Freedom Party is not the descendant of the National Socialist Party. If it were, we would have an absolute majority."

The guy is a big-time Nazi. As I said, accepting any opinions and suggestions from fascists and Nazis like LePen or Haider is completely unacceptable. They are as bad as the islamic fundamentalists.

Actually BW, I quoted "...Haider is neither a nazi nor an anti-Semite, but many of his associates certainly are..." from the "Conclusion" section of the ADL's White Paper on Jorge Haider, but as I've insisted, good, bad, Nazi, Commie or indifferent, accepting that both Le Pen & Haider are indeed "bad guys," does NOT in any way taint or invalidate any/every idea they endorse.

Yet that seems to be your position here, that the increasing anti-immigration sentiment in France, Germany and other European nations is somehow tainted because some of its proponents may be "bad guys,"...perhaps even "Nazi sympathizers," if not out-and-out "Socialists."

Hey! I'm with you on hating Socialists of any denomination...I despise ALL totalitarians and especially the so-called "Democratic Socialists," because they are more dangerous for dressing up a vile, anti-human philosophy, one drenched in economic terrorism in the language of altruism and love of community.

Be that as it may, occasionally good ideas are championed by odd messengers. Haider may well be a "bad guy," even worse than the ADL portrays him, BUT there's no denying that his free market stance is brilliant, politically courageous and undeniably the right course for Europe's future. Ditto, the strong anti-immigration sentiment that Haider, Le Pen and others bring to the table.

The current anti-European rebellion now going on in France and threatening Belgium is proof positive of the ill effects of massive Third World immigration into First World nations. Most of those immigrants lack either the requisite skills needed to be useful in a modern First World economy and most lack the motivation to assimilate and become "Europeanized."

Severe restrictions on all immigration into Europe and massive deportations seems like the better alternative to the all out ethnic war that seems inevitable given the dynamics of a massive influx of low skilled, non and all too often anti-European Third World peoples, whose own cultural norms often clash with those of the modern West.

So as I said at the outset, though the resurgence of the European "Radical Right" may be ultimately harmful, even dangerous, at least in the long run, the French people's calls for mass deportations and severe restrictions on immigration to their country may well bring that back, UNLESS some correct-thinking mainstream politician co-opts this issue from the likes of Le Pen.

Look, there are some very valuable lessons the rest of the world can learn from France's current crisis. One is the obvious one that massive Third World immigration to First World nations is ultimately disastrous (that means the end of all that "brotherhood of man" bullcrap) and another is that the ridiculous notion that "acts of terrorism, even when supported and sponsored by various rogue states, are stiil basically 'crimes' and NOT acts of war," is done. The rebellion in France simultaneously validates the Bush Doctrine and eviscerates the arguments against the Patriot Act here in the U.S. and its British equivalent.

We strongly disagree. Haider is a Nazi and LePen is a fascist and there are no good ideas I want to hear from them. They are both big time antisemites, and I dont trust anything people like that say. Hitler was as xenphobic then, as they are now. What you say makes no sense.

What you’re saying here is, “Any ideas or ideals advanced by repulsive characters have no validity.”

OK, now if that’s the case, then any form of gun control, the graduated income tax, the strong centralized state/federalism, the modern welfare bureaucracy and virtually everything espoused by contemporary American Liberalism/European Socialism is null and void, because all of those things have been advanced by some of the most vile monsters in human history.

All you need to do is consider what was the greatest abomination of the horrific 20th Century? I’m certain we’d come to agree that it was, by far, “The Communist Menace,” with Mao murdering appx 100 million victims and Stalin a close second with appx 70 million victims.

Then consider that all of the above were advanced by those two brutal, thuggish tyrants and to top it all off, gun control, progressive taxation and the modern welfare bureaucracy were all advanced by Hitler as well – Hitler continued and expanded upon Bismark’s Welfare State in Germany after taking power.

So you can see where, by using your own “logic,” such as it is, that those things I enumerated above are far more tainted, due to their DIRECT association with some of the most loathsome and repulsive creatures in human history, as opposed to say, the naturally occurring and growing anti-immigration and pro-free market sentiment bubbling up in Europe, despite the fat that they have been espoused by a couple of people who may or may not (they both claim not) be, in your words, “Nazi sympathizers,” or “Nazi apologists.”

You see? It’s the difference between a DIRECT link and an INDIRECT link. While gun control, progressive taxation, the modern welfare state, and a strong centralized state or federalism have all been espoused directly by the likes of Mao, Stalin & Hitler, the current, populist anti-immigration and pro-free market positions gaining popularity throughout Europe are merely tainted indirectly, by people who MIGHT be “apologists” or “sympathizers,” though even they openly deny that they are that.

You see? Those things are not even espoused by people who’d proudly proclaim their status as pro-Nazis, or pro-Communists.

Now if you doubt that virtually ALL of contemporary American Liberalism/European Socialism has been espoused DIRECTLY by the likes of Mao, Stalin & Hitler, just read a little more on the subject and if you doubt that their traditions are continued in the minds and hearts of both American Liberals and European Socialists today, then just read anything by Roderick Wallace (especially “A Plague on Your Houses”) a very Left-wing social scientist, who rails against the deliberate and overt racial bigotry carried out by one of the stalwarts of New York Liberalism, Robert Moses, who deliberately cut through neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx to deliberately segregate blacks and Hispanics and who designed the overpasses along Long island’s highways so low that buses from NYC couldn’t pass underneath them.

And that same tradition was carried out by two of NYC’s most Liberal Mayors, Abe Beame and John V Lindsey who both used the Rand Institute to create false reports using doctored numbers in order to justify closing Fire Companies in some of the busiest and conveniently blackest neighborhoods in NYC during the 1970s.

If you’re at all serious about championing this anti-racism, you seem to, then you must come to recognize that you’re backing the wrong horse on that issue BW. Please, at least don’t kid yourself about that.

Post a comment