The problem with those who travel too far Right into Fascism (i.e. Nazi), is that they really end up on the far left (i.e. total Government control).

We have had a few discussions back in Oct. about this subject. If you got the time Andrew, go back to the Oct. Bloggs and take some of the "Where are you on the spectrum tests" that bounce around back then. You may be surprised how closes Hitler and Stalin was. It was just the PR, used by both that made them seem so far apart.

Right = Less Government Control
Left = Total Government Control

your motivation is not to clarify misunderstandings but to provoke.

and your headline wasnt intentionally provocational?

What they haven't realised is not that association with Nazis is bad, but that they do, in fact, agree with the Nazis on this

im still stunned by the incredible conclusion leaping youre doing here. you totally dismiss the possibility that one might have totally valid reasons for being against the war--without there ever having been nazis.

to put it another way, if the nazis decide the sky is blue--and assuming they arent colorblind--should you determine there is truly a blue sky, is it reasonable to announce that youre agreeing with the nazis?

Point me to a series of large scale demonstrations against any current war that doesn't involve the USA or Israel and I will admitt that these pacifists are indeed objective pacifists and not specific to certain kinds of wars

well that sorta limits that one huh? go back a few years--nobody hadda problem with the us goin after the taliban and bin laden.

For myself I have neither seen nor heard of any major demonstrations against the Sudanese government (the slaughtering in Sudan arguably kills more people then the invasion of Iraq did) or indeed any other current war

oh i dunno...think its maybe cuz the sudan isnt terribly responsive to negative public opinion. the time to protest (and prevent) what's happening in the sudan woulda been before the brits decided patch it together. only since there mighta been nazis happy to see the empire being dismantled...

But I remember that 25 years ago the so-called pacifists did not demonstrate against Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait, but they did demonstrate against the US liberating it.

more like 15 years ago. since you're from germany (i presume) you've not been in a position to find your country committing you to war--justified or not. nor have you lived thru several decades of having your government lie to you as to the reasons for having done so.

I don't think it's a plot, but I do think that it is a certain philosophy that makes people oppose using force to remove dictators but not the dictators

and where does that put people who provide dictators with weapons of mass destruction as long as it works to their advantage?

Right = Less Government Control Left = Total Government Control

that makes anarchists rightwingers?

"You may be surprised how closes Hitler and Stalin was."

No, I wouldn't be. I just wrote an article titled "Pan-Nationalism" which outlined how Hitler and Stalin were led by the same basic philosophy.

Alas, that philosophy is not at all left-wing.

"and your headline wasnt intentionally provocational?"

Where did I say that it wasn't? You have to understand that there is a difference between a provoking headline and an insulting discussion style.

"and where does that put people who provide dictators with weapons of mass destruction as long as it works to their advantage?"

In the UN security council, using the French seat?

"what's happening in the sudan woulda been before the brits decided patch it together."

So I assume that your point is that Sudan would nott be Arab if it hadn't been for the Brits? Even though Sudan was part of the Arab and later Ottoman empire before the Brits even existed as a people?

"im still stunned by the incredible conclusion leaping youre doing here. you totally dismiss the possibility that one might have totally valid reasons for being against the war--without there ever having been nazis."

That's probably because you have, as you have clearly shown, simply not bothered to read or understand my point. If there are valid reasons for being against the war, then I fear these reasons would also apply to any other war. Yet there were few demonstrations against Sudan's war against its Christian population or Saddam's invasion of Kuwait 15 years ago.

I'm not saying that pacifists are Neo-Nazis, I am saying that those pacifists who only protest against democratic antions fighting fascist dictatorships share at least one belief with Neo-Nazis. And I believe that it is this one belief which makes them both so dangerous. You can disagree with that, but I'm afraid you seem to be more eager to attack me rather than my point.

So I assume that your point is that Sudan would nott be Arab if it hadn't been for the Brits? Even though Sudan was part of the Arab and later Ottoman empire before the Brits even existed as a people?

another good reason not to assume. when residents of what's now sudan were still nubians, the brits were living in brittania. it was britain that made the southern sudan subservient to arab north. your confusion may explain your misperception of the problem there now as arab vs christian.

I am saying that those pacifists who only protest against democratic antions fighting fascist dictatorships share at least one belief with Neo-Nazis.

you're very disingenuously ignoring the support that your beloved neocons provided--and continue to provide even now--to fascist dictators in nicarauga, guatemala, honduras, and el salvador.

That's probably because you have, as you have clearly shown, simply not bothered to read or understand my point.

nice try. i read it and understood exactly what kinda scam you're trying to launch. what's amazing me is this: the normal objective of propaganda is to convince others..you appear to have outslicked yourself into actually believing your own nonsense. kinda funny in its own bizarre way.

Kingbee, I don't believe that Britain is to blame for Arab expansionism.

And as for Nicaragua or the rest of the Americas, I have not even addressed any of that. So why bring it up as if if I was somehow wrong about it?

As for me launching a "scam", I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about. You might have read all I wrote, but you CERTAINLY did not understand much of it. You repeatedly brought up issues that have either not been part of what I wrote (like my opinion regarding "neocon" involvement in Nicaragua) or that I must be a "crackhead" (because I saw Nazis and pacifists demonstrate together).

You are trying not to discredit my point, but my person. And that, my friend, is an ad-hominem and a logical fallacy. If you have ANYTHING to say regarding why so-called pacifists demonstrate against democratic countries fighting fascists but not against fascists fighting absolutely anyone, I suggest you keep quiet. I certainly won't reply to you any more. There is no point in doing so.

Reply #28 By: Citizen kingbee - 4/29/2005 1:46:04 AM Right = Less Government Control Left = Total Government Control that makes anarchists rightwingers?

Yes, they are the true right wing. Same with the survival nuts too. Ruby Ridge, Tim McVaey, Free Range Ranchers of the west are all the real Right wingers. The radio talk show host Micheal Savage is by far more of a Right Winger then say Rush.

The only reason anarchists show up to left wing events is to cause trouble. Trouble that they hope, will not only see the left wingers crushed, but the Government weakened. Communist are the natural enemy of the anarchist. Governments tie both groups together in their PR so that they can use the anarchist's violence to justify the crackdown on the left wingers.

Also Neo-Cons are not as far to the Right as you think (almost leftist in some respects). The History of who the orginanal Neo-cons where/are would shock you.

I'll see about posting some remarks this weekend on the Neo-Cons.

Andrew, I wonder what you and other JoeUsers think of the article comment by Simon Walters in The Mail On Sunday (London August 20)):

Quote: A senior Downing Street source said that, privately, Mr Blair broadly agrees with John Prescott, who said Mr Bush's record on the issue (Road map, Middle East peace),was "crap".
The source said: "We all feel badly let down by Bush . We thought we had persuaded him to take the Israel-Palestine situation seriously, but we were wrong. How can anyone have faith in a man of such low intellect?" Unquote

I'd have blogged on this but it invites comment in the light of Andrew's article. Also, I wonder where the papers come up with these sources?

To the point: Is Bush taking the Middle East seriously?

The real question is the premise: Should Bush take the middle east seriously? Why should we care of the Palestinians are happy? What is so significant about Israel/Palestine where so much effort should be made about it?

that makes anarchists rightwingers?

I always thought anarchism meant 'without rulership'. It is still possible to have systems in place that facilitate daily life, systems that may well be considered by some as left, central or right.

Anyway, that was my understanding of anarchism.

"One of the reasons I left Germany is because I didn't want that any more. I left a country where synagogues are always guarded by the police for a country where synagogues are only occasionally vandalised when a few idiots paint swastikas on them, presumably to protest Jewish barbarism or something like that."

As I'm sure you are aware, Ireland has never had a Jewish population of any significant size, so to praise the Irish for a lack of anti-Semitism is a moot point.

Whereas in Germany, the Jewish population has tripled in the past fifteen years, a fact which can only cause the deepest joy.

As I'm sure you are aware, Ireland has never had a Jewish population of any significant size, so to praise the Irish for a lack of anti-Semitism is a moot point.

You probably realise that what is an intellectual exercise for you is a fact of life for me. I don't care about the why, I care about the what.

Also, the United Kingdom has always had a Jewish population of a somewhat significant size, yet the holocaust happened on the continent. And what makes the British more anti-Semitic now doesn't seem to be the number of Jews, but the number of (so-called) Muslims among their population.

A minor point is perhaps that the Irish, in contract to the Germans, confront foreigners as newcomers rather than strangers. I have seen little "they take our jobs" here, while such complaints are as common in Germany as they are silly and wrong.

Whereas in Germany, the Jewish population has tripled in the past fifteen years, a fact which can only cause the deepest joy.

That is reason for joy. But I do not plan to return to the continent. I simply don't see how it can save itself.


But be that as it may, I think I should announce that I blog more in the coming weeks. I have more to tell from Israel, the country where synagogues, mosques, and churches stand next to each other, and where I felt quite at home (apart from the heat).