perfidy

I see nothing wrong with space exploration. It seems to be a natural consequence of human technological evolution. I get the sense from the previous posts, however, that it would be quite expensive for the government, maybe too much so, and also private investors. 

So here's a possible solution. Perhaps if the government did not go to war every couple of years while simultaneously cutting taxes, it would have more money for space exploration. What if the government did away with capitalism altogether? Then money would be no object. Of course they'd have to convince all the other countries to get rid of capitalism as well. 
 

Senor dos Pesetas, 

Would you consider yourself a dyed in the wool hardcore Federalist who accepts all precepts of the Federalist party? Or, given your usual political makeup, would you call yourself a cafeteria Federalist? Do you accept or dismiss the following precepts? 

1. The wealthy are the natural rulers of society. Therefore suffrage must be restricted to those who own substantial property. Popular votes for the Presidency are utter foolishness.
2. The government should support and promote native commerce and industry through protectionist tariffs.
3. The government should protect the interests of the wealthy over the poor.
4. France sucks and England rocks.
5. A National Bank is a necessity for American financial stability.
6. The Bill of Rights is at best a necessary evil to placate our opponents, and at worst opens the door to mob rule.
7. Strong central government is an absolute necessity.
8. Loose constructionism of the Constitution.
9. Dueling with Aaron Burr is extremely dangerous. Duel at your own risk. 
    

Perhaps, "to Hitler" can be a sufficient infinitive form of the verb. A definition could go along the following lines:

Hitler, v. 1) To usurp a party and reconfigure it to suit the needs of the usurper. 2) To engage in the annexation of nearby sovereign nations on the pretext that they belonged to you in the first place, eg, "Hussein Hitlered Kuwait in 1990." 3) To engage in acts of genocide, eg, "Milosevic Hitlered the Kosovars." 4) To adorn oneself with strange facial hair. See also, Goering.

Goering, v. 1) To wear tutus and eat whole bakeries. 2) To blame acts of arson at important government buildings on rival political parties and make them illegal. See also Goebbels.

Goebbels, v. To prearrange an act of arson and then be lucky enough to find a rival party member has beaten you to it, then set up that rival party member. EG, "Cheney Goeringed the Capitol building and the Democratic party when, unbeknownst to him, Rumsfeld had Goebbelsed it already, and then they Hitlered Canada."

Bucketman, with all due respect, I feel it necessary to point out that the use of the term Mohammedan is archaic. More importantly, followers of Islam regard the use of the term as offensive. I do not seek to scold you for this. I recognize it is an oversight, and merely wish to indicate that the term Islamic, or better yet, Muslim, are the best ways to go. Perhaps it is silly, but your posts would indicate that the United States must enter this new terrain in Middle Eastern foreign policy in the spirit of cooperation with its people, especially Muslims. To that end, it's better to use the word Muslim as an adjective. 

Just who is next? And other tangents 

I believe that widening the war to Iran and Syria would be a tremendous mistake at this point. As someone whose maternal grandmother was Lebanese Maronite Christian, I have serious qualms about the rule of al Assad. His father occupied my grandmother's country, and to my knowledge, Syria maintains a military presence there. He has some nerve bragging about his campaigns in Lebanon. Al Assad is a bastard, like his dead father. Of course, the Israelis still have troops hanging around the south, and not long ago, seemed to think they could bomb Beirut whenever they felt like it. To be fair, within the Lebanese context, they both suck. 

But that's neither here nor there. I maintain that Hussein posed no significant threat to the United States, and that the war cannot be justified on those terms. The notion of liberating Iraq, the way I see it, only came after many people weren't buying the weapons and threat to the U.S. argument, so the administration changed its tune. It's an excuse, not a causal factor. Rumsfeld and Cheney had no problem with Hussein gassing Kurds before; I don't think they really have a problem with Hussein's treatment of his citizenry now. The administration has not really told the truth about why it is fighting this war. I don’t believe that it is about oil; it is political. But beyond that, the administration has not been forthcoming. 

But that is also beside the point. The war against Iraq has inflated the possibility of terrorist attacks. A war against Syria and Iran will inflate it further. I fail to understand how a war against Iraq, which created a greater possibility for further attacks, simultaneously lowered the likelihood of attacks. Oh, right, after Hussein was deposed, then the threat was lowered. But he didn't pose a threat in the first place. It's enough to give me motion sickness.

There are other ways to deal with Syria and Iran than war. Iran has a significant population of moderates. Why doesn't the United States attempt further dialogue with them? Why did our President just slap them with an axis of evil label, alienating moderates? Can't we work with those who would listen rather than calling them evil and shooting them? Steve, you indicate that the prospect of further war is dodgy, and that encouragement of democratization is possible. I couldn't agree more. But to make sure I'm clear, we can't make people be democratic or republican by holding a gun to their head, or shooting them. Dialogue and diplomacy with moderates and reformists is infinitely preferable to war. You also correctly point out that Saudi Arabia is probably the biggest problem. You bet it is. But the United States thus far has been committed to assisting the Saudi monarchy and helping to preserve a system that does everything you said it did, plus it stones women to death for adultery. The U.S. will have to withdraw its support for that monarchy? Is the administration willing to do that? I doubt it, but we'll see. 

Again with the Nazis?

Steve, Steve, Steve. First, Vichy administered Syria during World War II, not Germany. Vichy was a puppet state of Germany, but don’t you think if Germany ruled it directly the campaign in Egypt would have gone quite differently? Iraq was in the British sphere of influence during the war, not France. Any colonial administration of Iraq was performed by the British, not the French. 

The Ba'athist party thus did not stem from German influence during the war. It was an anti-colonial nationalist movement directed against British influence in Egypt, Iraq, and elsewhere. It was also an anti-colonial nationalist movement against French influence in Syria. If it was influenced by German nationalism, then it was also influenced by every other nationalist movement in history. 

Secondly, it was a pan-Arabist movement with the ultimate goal of uniting the Middle East under a single government. Egypt and Syria briefly played with that one, until they realized they couldn't get along. But how was that a product of German influence? I'll keep it short for now. Further discussion can be engaged at your discretion. 

Conclusion: on the left, Hussein's removal, and widening the war 

Steve, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were engaging in generalizations of the European and American left for purposes of brevity. But I will nevertheless weigh in with some of my own views. As a teacher of history, I have never hesitated to be honest with my students about Stalin. I give them the numbers. I mention Robert Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow, which argues that Stalin artificially engineered the Ukrainian famine. I do not excuse the mass slaughter of innocents under anyone just because they claimed to be Communist. I reiterate: it was only a claim because they never launched the global revolution of class war. Anything less was not Communism in the strict letter of Marxist/Engelsian prophecy. 

Some other people, who paint themselves as leftists, have excused Stalin, Mao, and others. I have argued with them, stating that there was no excuse. I can remember one jug-head at a conference a couple of years back who will remain nameless. He argued that the USSR could not be industrialized without mass slaughter. I asked, who gives a shit about industrialization if it has to be accomplished that way? The preservation of human life unfettered by oppressive government with a roof over every head, clothes on every back, and food on every plate are the goals, not lip service to bullshit, bastardized, half-baked, "I can't believe it's not Marxism" so-called falsely asserted Communism blown out the asses of functionally illiterate imbeciles like Stalin and Mao who looked at the pictures in the Classic Comics edition of The Communist Manifesto. But human life is the main thing for our purposes. 

To that end, is the removal of Saddam Hussein a good thing? Ultimately, probably, unless somebody worse comes along. But even with a more democratic government, how free will Iraqi citizens be with American tanks and troops occupying their country? Was it the place of the United States to remove him? You argue, yes, it is. I'm not so sure. Is the United States going to attack every oppressive regime? Will we fight Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, and Britain? The UK is still occupying the north of Ireland, and has engaged in human rights violations against Catholics there. Let's go to war with Britain. So what constitutes an oppressive regime? Who's going to decide that? Could we end up with a global witch hunt? We're on a slippery slope, and widening the war to Syria and Iran will only increase our velocity. Cheney and Rumsfeld and the other neo-Reaganites got their war. Enough.

This government web site here, counsels citizens on matters relating to terrorist attacks, and how Americans might be prepared in the event of an attack. Duck and cover! For a further explanation of the government's preparation advice, check out this site here. Be prepared. (Second link was dead. -ed.)

This is indeed a serious problem. Unfortunately, there isn't much anyone can do other than writing to people in Congress and voting against those who support it. The civil liberties of Americans and those residing in the U.S., as I stated in a previous post, have been consistently whittled away during my lifetime. Like all humans before us, however, we are all subject to injustices due to circumstances beyond our control. Once the reps have gotten their letters and the votes cast, it's just a matter of finger crossing and hopes for the best. Once again, I lack optimism on this, as well as most other issues. I, as Johno indicated, am the kind of person who contributed money to perhaps the sort of organization that would fall on the wrong side of things under Patriot II. 

Iraq and political goals 

A recent report on PBS Frontline outlined the causal factors and what political goals do exist for the Iraq war. According to the report, members of George Bush the elder's government, who referred to themselves as neo-Reaganites, wanted to seize Baghdad and eliminate Saddam Hussein in 1991. They were checked by Bush the elder, who pursued the limited goal of expulsion from Kuwait. Now, some people who sought the removal of Hussein, such as the current Vice President Richard Cheney and current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, are back in power and employing the attacks of 11 September 2001 as an excuse to remove Hussein from power. I reiterate though, there are no real links between al Qaeda and Hussein. The Ansar camp recently taken is in Kurdish, nominally U.S. controlled territory, spitting distance from the Iranian border. It seems more likely that if any governments supported the Ansar camp, it was probably Iran and not Iraq. 

Maybe After the passage of Patriot II Johnny will have to put his two cents in from a cell. We can carry on discussions by tapping through the wall to each other in Morse code, as in Darkness at Noon. 

SARS, the Iraq war, Patriot II, it all makes things look pretty bleak these days. 
 

Johno, thanks for supplying the link to the article on De Genova, who called for the defeat of American forces in Iraq, and the deaths of American soldiers. Dr. Foner's response to De Genova's remarks, disavowing them, was appropriate. De Genova is perhaps engaging in fashionable anti-Americanism, part of a new radical chic. 

Calling for defeat of the American forces serves no purpose, and is antithetical to the goals of a peace movement. It only alienates American moderates, and possibly anti-war veterans. Just as the four Iraqi citizens who died in the first night of air attacks on Baghdad, American troops have families. It is equally tragic when American soldiers die in combat, or at the hands of suicide bombers. One of the reasons that I oppose this war is because no one should have to die to remove a leader who posed no significant threat to the United States. It should be up to the Iraqis themselves to decide what they want to do about their leadership. It is not the place of the United States to dictate who runs foreign countries; there has been quite enough of that in America's past. 

No good can come of such rantings as those offered by De Genova. He'll only make people angry, and create more support for the war. He also reminds me of people who shoot abortion doctors to preserve life, though that's a weak analogy at best. The goal of an anti-war movement should be to increase the numbers of those who oppose the war, not to increase the numbers of those who support it. But what's most important here is that nothing is served by anyone's death in Iraq. Blood is red, country of origin notwithstanding. 
 

Returning to Johno's previous question about what to do about student athletes, I'd say it is a problem. It's a problem for student athletes in Division 1 in that athletics does take a lot of time away from academic study. It makes studying and completing assignments much more difficult. The seasons are long, especially for basketball, and it consumes a lot of a student's year. So what are the options? Well, obviously, seasons could be shorter. Of course, universities might carp about this because tournament play and bowl games are advertising opportunities and money-makers. But they can still have their post-regular season play, just limit the amount of time it takes. If that means fewer games have to played during the NCAA tournament, so be it. It might also help to return to more geographically restricted divisions. That would reduce time on the road for college athletes.

The other problem occurs with economically disadvantaged athletes. Universities kind of pull a bait and switch, in my opinion, with some athletes. Universities offer a free ride on tuition in exchange for participation in sports. Well, that's good for disadvantaged athletes who might not have otherwise have the opportunity for higher education. But when they're broke, they are tempted to take gifts that the NCAA does not permit. In some cases it might well be greed. But a friend of mine recently mentioned a story about one college athlete, who came from a very poor family, and didn't even own a jacket. A booster apparently bought the kid a jacket, the NCAA said that was not permitted, and I don't remember if the kid had to leave the team, lost his scholarship, or anything like that. But for the kid to even get in trouble because someone bought him a jacket so that he wouldn't be so cold outside is screwy.

So, disadvantaged student athletes with scholarships get free tuition, but free tuition doesn't cover everything. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to grant disadvantaged student athletes stipends, if circumstances justified it. But that might be unfair to disadvantaged students on other scholarships without stipends. That problem might not have a solution. But at the very least, the NCAA could reduce the length of seasons and the amount of geographic travel to give student athletes more time to be students.

At this stage, only a fool would insist that the United States military waging the war on Iraq wants to kill civilians at this stage. But as the lines between civilian and combatant become increasingly blurred, such as in the recent news of a suicide bombing that killed four American troops, there is no guarantee that will continue. We, that is, American citizens on the home front, cannot be assured that American troops will never attack Iraqi civilians, thinking them guerillas, as they did in Vietnam. Are we sure that there will not be a Mai Lai (sp?) massacre in Iraq? We cannot be sure that it will not happen, we cannot be sure that it will happen. It is useless to debate mights and maybes. Suffice to say, the possibility for higher civilian casualties exist if the U.S. military decides that everyone is a combatant. But that has not happened yet as far as we know, and it might not happen at all. The possibility, however, is something of which to be aware. 

As to the civilian casualties that have occurred, I am uncomfortable with a shrugging of shoulders. To argue that there were only four civilian casualties after the first air attacks on Baghdad is problematic. I seriously doubt that the living relatives of those four dead Iraqi civilians shrugged their shoulders, and said, "Oh, well, my father/mother/brother/spouse whatever is dead, but hey, it's only four people." The reality is that this war has and will continue to kill Iraqi civilians. Granted, the U.S. military is trying to avoid those casualties, certainly in high numbers. There have not been high numbers of civilian dead, but there have been and will be more civilian dead. I disagree that Americans should pat themselves on the back because they've only killed a few people and not a lot of people. Death is always a tragedy, in numbers large or small. 

The counter-argument to my counter-argument may be that a small number of Iraqi civilians have died to prevent another great loss of life in the United States. But there is no evidence to even remotely suggest that Iraqi government or Saddam Hussein himself was at all involved in the attacks of 11 September 2001. The vast majority of participants were Saudi Arabians, who were religious fundamentalists that despise and detest Hussein's secular Ba'ath government. Has the CIA or even the FBI established any coherent links between Hussein and the 11 September 2001 attacks? I have heard President Bush insist that there are strong links between the al Qaeda network and Hussein, but people can just say anything. I reiterate a previous question: exactly what threat did Iraq pose to the United States? My opinion is that we have probably made it more likely, with the invasion of Iraq, that the United States risks further large-scale attacks. Now even more people of the near east are mad at the United States, and others may be radicalized. 

It would be fair to ask, "but Mr. Windy Mike, if there are no solid links between Hussein and al Qaeda, how has the U.S. subjected itself to greater risk?" There are a few scenarios. For example, near easterners who found al Qaeda's fundamentalism distasteful might now be convinced that al Qaeda was right when they accused the United States of trying to occupy the whole of the Middle East. Military action often results in the radicalization of moderates. To draw a parallel, after the Bloody Sunday massacre of 1972, the ranks of the provisional Irish Republican army swelled, and people lost faith in the Northern Irish Civil Rights movement, because moderates were radicalized. Some people in the north of Ireland became convinced that it was impossible to deal with Britain. Apparently, the only thing the British understood was the power of the gun. 

Perhaps, moderate near easterners who have requested fair dealing with United States will similarly become convinced that moderation is useless. Maybe moderate near easterners, who have requested a fair hearing on the Palestinian question, who have asked that the United States withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia, will decide that Uncle Sam is either deaf or ignorant. "If Americans march in with guns," says the moderate near easterner, "maybe guns are all they understand, and maybe guns are the only way to convince them of our position." As I said before mights and maybes are just that, but it is clear that the vast majority of near easterners probably dislike the United States and its Middle Eastern foreign policy intensely. They won't like us more now that the United States has invaded and attacked another Middle Eastern country, Ba'athist secular government notwithstanding. Once more, did that Ba'athist secular government pose a significant threat to the United States? How? To my knowledge, none of these weapons have mass destruction have yet been found by U.S. forces. 

So, exactly why is this war being fought, and exactly why did those four Iraqi civilians have to die, in addition to others? A small number of civilian casualties, and not a large number of civilian casualties, sanitizes the fact that people who probably never even once considered attacking an American have died by American hands. Just because the numbers are small and not big does not change the fact that people have died. Saying, "Oh, well we only killed a few people and not a bunch," is nothing to be proud of. To be fair, Mr. Steyne did not write that he was proud of civilian deaths in small numbers. But for the living relatives and friends of those Iraqi citizens who died, relative numbers don't mean a damn thing. They only know that someone they loved died in a war.

Informal empire, or hegemony, if you will, is maintained not as much through government (if at all) but through corporations. American informal empire/hegemony is achieved through American corporate enterprise.

1) Stupendous Idiocy
Yeah, pretty naive alright. As someone of middle eastern descent myself, if only 25%, I can still clearly state that there are plenty of middle easterners, just like American white folks, who are none too fond of people of sub-Saharan West African descent. That is intentionally opaque.

2) Republicanism
Okay, fine, but we should move toward as democratic a government as possible. Is this a Clinton dig? If so, bear in mind, he was the best Republican president since Eisenhower.

3) Expectations
Okay, more media than guv'ment. Fair enough.

4) Patience
Bring your A game on that one. You're in my house ... yo. Ain't nuttin but a H thang.

McCain has an interesting perspective truly. It occurs to me that politicians might not be so confident of their decision for war if they are still trying to sell the war to the people. If that's not it, then just what is McCain up to? 

It also appears as though this war is not living up to the expectations of said politicians. My, my, but the Iraqis are not all surrendering in mass numbers. Did they really expect Hussein to just give up? The administration has made errors in judgment here. First, they should not have counted on a coup, because it's not going to happen. Two, they should not have counted on Turkey permitting passage to open a northern front. At the moment, most of the armor that would have gone through Turkey hasn't even made it ashore due to rerouting. Proper planning prevents poor performance, and so far the command structure might well have dropped this ball. For the sake of uniformed Americans, this should have at least waited until the armor arrived. Of course, the whole deal was a mistake in my opinion. 

Back to McCain, I say Americans have a lot of nerve thinking they can tell Iraqis how to run a democracy. The current president lost the popular vote and the election was decided in the courts. That doesn't sound democratic to me. Perhaps contest entries will consider a Constitutional amendment to rectify the situation, hmm? 

Steve, any thoughts on my explanation of Communism and the origins of Fascism and Nazism? I was expecting more discussion. 

Talking to hear my head rattle, WCM 
 

If the term hegemony is more acceptable than empire, I'll let it go at that. The United States has a hegemony rather than informal imperialism. But I'll make my final statement on this that American hegemony looks an awful lot like British informal imperialism. 

I have previously conceded that some parts of the world voluntarily adopt aspects of American culture. I was not insisting that western European nations have had McDonald's forced on them. I hope I've made that clear. 

Communism and the Origins of Fascism and Nazism 

Steve, you can read this when you get back from the shower. I'm sure you'll survive. I'm going to get fairly specific with this, so here it is. This is going to be quite extensive, but I'll ask you to please read it in its entirety when you have the time. I might suggest printing it out in lieu of reading it onscreen. 

According to strict Marxist letter of the law, the Bolsheviks in Russia could not be socialist because they had not yet experienced the bourgeois overthrow of the feudal aristocrats and the institution of a market economy. Lenin realized this, and instituted the New Economic Policy, which was essentially a market economy. It was still in place when Lenin suffered his stroke, thus he never instituted a socialist economy. Stalin later abandoned Marxist doctrine whole hog when he declared the legitimacy of socialism in one state. According to Marx, the worker's revolution that achieved the final stage of the dialectic had to be global. Anything less was not Communism. Since the global worker's revolution never happened, Communism never happened. Leaders who referred to themselves as Communist were liars. 

Economic planning in the Third Reich was not exactly centrally planned. Having worked as a Teaching Assistant on the second half of western civilization courses (C. 1700-present) twice, and having taught the course myself as an adjunct once, not to mention the slew of European, German, and Russian history courses I've taken as a college student and graduate student, this is what I've found. Adolf Hitler followed Benito Mussolini's economic strategy, known as Corporatism. Corporatism organized similar branches of industry into cartels, hence there was a steel cartel, an automobile cartel, a railway cartel, etc. Under Corporatism, the Fascists and Nazis maintained private ownership of the means of production, which flies in the face of Marxist doctrine. According to Marx, ownership of the means of production is transferred to the workers after the global revolution. Stalin and his ilk were fake communists because they transferred the means of production to the state, not the workers. "All power to the Soviets [worker's councils]" was a mantra of the Russian Revolution, upon which the Bolsheviks and later Stalin never made good. Corporatism also maintained that goods produced by cartels were dictated by the Party and thus the national leadership, whereas Marx asserted that the workers would have complete control over the means of production, including what goods were produced. This is as centrally planned as the Fascist/Nazi economies ever got. 

As to the comparisons you have drawn between Nazis and Communists, who I deem fake Communists, I must respectfully point out that they are partially on and partially off the mark. Nazis hated Jews not only because they were not German, but also because Nazis were crazy. I’m sure you accept this and even implied it. But fake Communists claimed that they hated Jews because Jews engaged in bourgeois nationalism that was antithetical to the spirit of internationalism required by socialism and Marxist doctrine. This is a case of fake Communists paying lip service to Marxist doctrine, when in fact they hated Jews, like the Nazis, because they were crazy and as a holdover of Tsarist era Russian/Georgian/Belorussian, etc. anti-semitism There were actual Communists who remained committed to global revolution, such as Leon Trotsky, however, who were opposed to Jewish identity because it represented bourgeois nationalism. Trotsky, whose mother named him Lev Davidovitch Bronstein (I'm sure you can do the math), epitomized this position. In 1903, when questioned by Vladimir Medem, "You consider yourself either a Russian or a Jew?" Trotsky responded, "No, you are wrong. I am a Social Democrat and only that." (Nora Levin, The Jews in the Soviet Union Since 1917, volume 1, 10). 

Fake Communists believed that everyone should become Communist then die. I prefer the Soviet uniforms because the Nazi culture of death emblazoned on their SS uniforms creeps me out. 

I must respectfully disagree with your father, who is certainly a most eminent historian who I was honored to meet, on the subject of Fascism/Nazism as an evolution from the left. I'm sure you'll understand that even upstart historians such as myself often disagree with established, eminent historians such your father. In this case, it is not done from vitriol or malice but purely professional. 

Fascism and Nazism grew out of several factors. They include but are not necessarily limited to disaffected populations who lost faith in humanity, those who were disgusted by the hedonism of inter-war popular culture, the collective shell-shock of Europe following the trauma of World War I, the economic dislocation of the inter-war years, the yearning for stability among Italian and German people, and the weakness of the Italian monarchy and Weimar republic. To say that Fascism and Nazism are a result of socialism, I respectfully submit, is monocausal. I have yet to hear a monocausal explanation that I deem valid, and that includes the Marxist interpretation of history. Perhaps it was not intended as a monocausal explanation, but it is certainly an oversimplification. 

Perhaps your father's position stems from the fact that many argue Mussolini was a Socialist. I must respectfully disagree. He was a member of the party, but did not believe in what the Socialists believed. Mussolini was a Syndicalist, not a Socialist. He was dismissed from his position as editor of Avanti!, a Socialist newspaper, in 1914, and dismissed because he supported an international war, specifically the Great War, of course. As Marx argued, war between nations is illegitimate; it does not advance the proletariat in their struggle to achieve control. International war benefits only the bourgeois masters of the Proletariat. Thus, class war is the only just war. I submit, Mussolini was a nationalist Syndicalist, not an international socialist. 

Hitler was no Socialist. I reiterate, the presence of the word Socialist in the National Socialist German Worker's Party was due to its founding members, the Strasser brothers, who were left of center. When Hitler seized control of the party he left the word Socialist in the title, but eventually expelled all left of center members of the party. He also molded the party according to his own vision, which consisted of a Corporatist, not Socialist economic strategy. I reiterate again, as Socialism is international, the title National Socialist is mutually exclusive. 

It is actually easier to describe Fascism and Nazism as what they were not, rather than what they were. Fascism was anti-Socialist, anti-Communist, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-international free trade capitalism and banking.So, how could Fascism and Nazism have been Socialist/Communist anti-Socialists and anti-Communists? Nazis battled Socialists and Communists in the streets of Weimar Berlin. Mussolini ordered his Squadristi to attack Socialists and Communists, and destroy their offices, newspapers, and homes. 

The base of support for both Fascism and Nazism, in addition, did not come from Socialist or Communist sympathizing urban proletariat, rural agricultural laboring classes, or even left-wing intellegentsia, but from people who feared and hated Socialism and Communism. Fascism and Nazism were supported by traditionally right-wing people who weren't reactionary monarchists, such as violent war veterans, disaffected members of the middle classes and highly skilled laborers, wealthy people who feared Socialism and Communism as threats to their wealth, and yeoman farmers. Thus, the base of support for Fascism and Nazism came not from Socialists but from traditionally conservative (as opposed to reactionary monarchist) elements of the German and Italian populaces. 

But the Nazis and Fascists were not really right-wing, or even just conservative either. All this is prologue to the argument of another established historian, Robert O. Paxton. In his work, Europe in the Twentieth Century, Paxton argued that Fascism, while erroneously considered a right-wing political and economic practice. Paxton wrote that, Fascism was not simply the far right. The terms right and left were first applied to politics during the French Revolution. They belong to the political vocabulary of nineteenth-century struggles over popular sovereignty, individual liberties, and property. With fascist movements, we find ourselves in a strange landscape where familiar signposts like right and left do not give very precise directions (232). 

I therefore refute the thesis that Fascism was an outgrowth of Socialism. That is not the case. I will follow this post with a brief bibliography of sources I have consulted. While many of them are convenient surveys, they are nonetheless quite reliable. The Otto Friedrich is a bit dodgy on some things, but fairly reliable as to the Nazis, and I have corroborated what he wrote with other sources. I will add that my last 10 years in dogged efforts to learn this information has assisted immeasurably. Many thanks to historians Glenn Sharfman, PhD, Hiram College; Bernard Weiss, PhD, Duquesne University, and Steven Vardy, PhD, Duquesne University. 

Bibliography 

De Jonge, Alex. Weimar Chronicle: Prelude to Hitler. New York: New American Library, 1978. 

Flood, Charles Bracelen. Hitler: The Path to Power. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Press, 1989. 

Friedrich, Otto. Before the Deluge: A Portrait of Berlin in the 1920s. New York: Perennial, 1995 (reprint). 

Levin, Nora. Paradox of Survival: The Jews in the Soviet Union Since 1917, Volume 1. New York: New York University Press, 1988. 

Paxton, Robert O. Europe in the Twentieth Century. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1997. 

Stromberg, Roland N. Europe in the Twentieth Century. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1992. 

Suny, Ronald Grigor. The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Hey guys, 

Many thanks to the Bucketman for opening a debate on the present and discussion of the past viz-a-viz empire. Thanks to Johnny for keeping it going. 

The first question is, does China in the fifteenth century constitute an empire because of its cultural influence elsewhere in Asia? This brings in the matter of derivative civilizations. The way I see it, Korea and Japan constituted derivative civilizations of Chinese civilization in that they were the product of East Asian peoples ethnically related to the Chinese, who voluntarily adopted aspects of their culture. Hence, they are derivative civilizations, not a product of cultural imperialism. The fifteenth century is too soon, tenth at the latest. As I am oriented toward European, British, Irish, American, and American ethnic history, I'll provide the testimony of an expert in support of my argument. I'll offer two quotations. According to Edwin O. Reischauer's Japan: The Story of A Nation, 

Japan nonetheless is culturally a daughter of Chinese civilization, much as the countries of North Europe are the daughters of Mediterranean culture. The story of the spread of Chinese civilization to the peoples of Japan during the first millennium after Christ is much like the story of the spread of Mediterranean civilization to the peoples of North Europe during the same period. But the greater isolation of the Japanese from the home of their civilization and from all other peoples meant that in Japan the borrowed culture had more chance to develop along new and often unique lines (7). 

I'll add that Highland Scottish culture is derived in an even more direct fashion from Irish culture. Highland Scots are the product of migrants from Ireland to Scotland. Even as late as the sixteenth century Gaelic and Gallic were so similar it is roughly analogous to a present-day American conversing with a present-day English person. Currently Ulster Gaelic and Scottish Gallic retain a high degree of similarity. The Irish were not engaging in imperial adventures against the Scottish, but Highland Scots and their culture are derivative of the Irish and their culture. Rome itself was in many ways a Hellenistic culture derived from Greece, and that occurred less through imperialism than voluntary admiration. Athens had colonies in Sicily, but not on the boot. These examples possess similarities with the situation in regards to China and other Asian cultures. 

So back to Japan. As to the origins of the Japanese themselves, Reischauer asserts that, “

the Japanese are closely related to their neighbors in Korea and China; but like all modern peoples, they are the product of extensive racial mixture (9). 

Thus, I take the position that the Japanese voluntarily adopted Chinese culture. You could argue that for the U.S. in many cases as well; Europeans constantly mimic American popular culture while simultaneously criticizing us for being boorish louts with no sense of culture. But in other cases, American cultural imperialism is a product of American economic imperialism. People in Thailand making Nikes for 3 cents a day are presented with a picture of American prosperity that they cannot themselves achieve, but American companies urge them to buy American products. Continuing the Thai example, corporate insensitivity was so much that Pepsi mis-translanted their slogan, "Choice of a new generation," to "Pepsi resurrects your dead ancestors."

I'll help Johnny out a bit with the admittedly opaque statement, if that's alright. Nations can have empires, nations can refrain from imperial exercises, but nations can also engage in imperialistic exercises that exist outside the realm of formal empire through cultural or economic rather than political and military dominance. Rome possessed such an empire, but the world has changed a great deal since the classical period, and definitions must be adjusted to incorporate change over time. Britain possessed an empire both formal and informal. If this assertion is doubted, I will carry out my previous threat to supply a bibliography. America possesses an empire that is more informal in nature than formal. We have thus seen change over time. Anachronistic definitions do not suit the present; the present is different than the past. That is not to say that formal imperialism has vanished, but it is growing increasingly archaic and atavistic. 

Finally gentlemen, thank you for reminding me that I still love history, despite the best efforts of the forces of evil in academia (IE postmodernists) to crush my spirit and swallow my soul.

Mr. Buckethead, 

To piggyback on your quick points, if I may. It's pretty clear that Castro is bad news. See? There's one lefty for the count. 

As to the National Socialist German Worker's Party issue, I must point a couple of things out. I'm sure this has occurred to you as well, but I would like to state for the record that the Nazis were a long way from being socialists of any stripe. While the original incarnation of the party, under the Strasser brothers, mostly, was oriented toward left of center politics, the fact that the word National preceded the word socialist in the party titled negated the whole thing. Socialism at that time was an international economic philosophy, and I might add, not a political system. For that matter Josef Stalin, Mao Ze Dong, Pol Pot, and their ilk were a long way from being Communists. Be that as it may, President Bush is not a Nazi; that's absurd. I hope you'll notice that despite my war opposition and despite the fact that I disagree with his policies and practices, I have done my best to refrain from ineffective and discourteous ad homonym (sp?) criticism. Thus, I will say, President Bush mispronounces the word nuclear as nucular. I'm not convinced that he does it deliberately to appear folksy.
The security craze sucks, alright. Good grief. I can walk out of my building and get shot by a gang-banger or hit by a car. Hell, don't most accidents occur in the home? I could electrocute myself changing a light bulb. Safety is never a guarantee, people. Hear, hear, Buckethead! 

The University of Michigan Law School issue is thorny, but here's why I think their point system really is doing something wrong. The University has asserted that it is in the best interest of society to discriminate against white males. In fact, their point system, as I understand it and I could be wrong, also discriminates against Asians. Huh. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that discriminating against anyone, for any reason, is never in the best interests of society. The problem is that the academic realm is not a meritocracy, it is an aristocracy in which pedigree is more important than ability. Since there is no king of academia, academic aristocrats let others in the clubhouse through their own creation of new peerages. There are other more complicated issues surrounding the controversy, but that's the only one I've thought through enough to take a stand. Can I tell my students about this site? They might enjoy it.

Hey ho, Operation: Iraqi Freedom. Good grief. What's next? I've got a few additional suggestions myself. How about Operation: Kick yo’ ass, bitch! That would certainly get the attention of white suburban teenagers. What a demographic! Women are a huge demographic, they need to get them on board, too. How about, Operation: Protect the Freedoms of Women Abroad to Make Them Just like Americans? Soccer moms love Operation: Minivan. Or Operation: Never Discipline your Children, Instead let them run around, scream, and annoy people in public places? Metalheads are a neglected demographic, in my opinion. Operation: Speak English or Die? The original satiric nature of the title might be lost on today's Metalhead. 

But why do that, when you can keep the same Operation: Iraqi Freedom title and add corporate sponsorship? How about the Amazon.com Operation: Iraqi Freedom? The Bank One Operation: Iraqi Freedom. How about the New York Stock Exchange Operation: Iraqi Freedom? The Motorola Operation: Iraqi Freedom? It could be just like sports stadiums, and the government could raise additional revenue by selling the naming rights of the war! What a concept! It's free market capitalism and atavistic ass-kicking rolled into one! Like a football game! 

Hey, we have to teach the Iraqis to be good free market capitalists anyway. Let’s start right away! 
 

Greetings, 

There is no new information about the war, and I have completed tomorrow's lecture, so I have returned. In reviewing previous posts on the matter of empire, I've had a few additional thoughts. 

Let's start with the war and Iraq. The United States is, if successful, going to dictate an awful lot about policy in a new post-Hussein Iraq. Assuming things roll out according to plan (I reiterate, that doesn't happen often), Hussein will be removed and a representative government installed. Depending on how much influence the United States exercises, it may or may not follow along imperialistic lines. If the U.S. dictates what kind of government Iraq will have, that's skirting the edge, and more than a little arrogant, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's an imperial exercise. Imperialistic at most. The imperialism that follows would probably be more cultural and economic in nature, and that is what informal empire is all about. By cultural, I mean western media, clothing, products, Blue jeans and Beatles tapes, not to mention Mickey D's, essentially. Of course, the Iraqis might not mind that none too much. Hussein himself is not so anti-western as some might believe. He wears suits, except in war time, when he wears western style military clothing. But in the suit, he'd blend right in to a Lebanese American wedding in Toledo. 

Which leads me to another thing, piggybacking on a previous Bucketman point. Hussein is the kind of leader who, in times past, was precisely the type the United States liked. He was secular, ruthless, and more western than the leaders of neighboring states. The Bucketman has reminded us (although I said the same thing during my lecture on Tuesday, prior to seeing the post) that there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests. Even so, I would very much like an explanation from the government as to exactly why Hussein went from ally to enemy in so short a time. I heard today that Rumsfeld himself was adamant about keeping Hussein in power even after the nerve gas attack incident or incidents. Maybe that's not true, but I'd like to hear more about it from a reliable source, and I mean published material or corroborated documentation. I am, after all, in a direct educational line of descent from Von Ranke, so let's see the documents. Beyond that, I want the government now, many of whose members were also affiliated in some way with the Reagan administration that backed Hussein, to explain itself. What changed your mind? Was it just the invasion of Kuwait? Did the U.S. cut him off? Why? Why, Mr. Big hat funny pants Uncle Sam, did you go to war against people carrying weapons with made in the USA stamped on them in 1990? Why are we really going to war with them now? Was it okay for him to nerve gas people before or do God knows what, but it's not okay now? What's really going on here? I think there's a lot we're not being told, and I want to know what it is. We should aspire to a more democratic government, and secrecy is anathema to democracy. So let's have it. 

While I had the war on TV, shots were fired here in the neighborhood. Irony, yeah? All wars foreign and domestic.

Gentlemen, 

Points of clarification always seem a necessity to me after a post. Let's begin. 

1) Scare quotes. I will respect sensibilities and will refrain from the use of scare quotes. 

2) Frustration. The frustration to which I referred was with the utter uselessness of dissent, not the members of our cyber-panel. Nor was I claiming that I had been attacked, nor was I expecting one. I just didn't want to leave the impression that I intended to be less than civil. Neurotically so, perhaps. As to my frustration with the futility of dissent, like I said, I and anyone else can oppose, oppose, oppose, and decisions have already been made. Objections are irrelevant. It is the way of the world, but it bugs me. On a similar topic, the Bucketman's optimism is duly noted viz-a-viz representative republics. But in my short lifetime I have seen so many governmental abrogations of individual rights and liberties, such as the de facto dismissal of the Fourth Amendment, that my pessimism makes me wonder just how representative the American republic will be in the future, and whether or not it will even be a republic. 

I often used to say that America needs its lunatic fringe, as they are really the protector of individual rights, but they have been increasingly marginalized. The ACLU is often perceived as an aggregate of clowns and fools when they attempt to protect those rights. Given the current outbreak of war, my pessimism forces me to ask, will we be revisited by the Alien and Sedition Acts? Iraqi nationals have already been detained. On the other hand, Daschle really blasted the President, and unlike the Democratic-Republicans of the Federalist era, specifically Matthew Lyon, he has not been imprisoned. So we'll see, but I'm never optimistic. No, I'm not a Libertarian, because I am virulently opposed to laissez faire capitalism, but I am a great-great-step-grandchild of the Enlightenment. Postmodernists would call me a racist and an elitist because of that, and they can stick it up their ass. I think what I think and I don't care so much what side that puts me on. According to academic perceptions, for example, I'm a right-wing extremist. Funny how that happens. 

3) Israel. I'll ask for clarification within my clarification. Is your perspective, Mr. Buckethead, that the Palestinian state or the Palestinian people or both are what you describe? I will respond with the assertion that however you perceive the Israeli state, in contrast, I see them as a occupying force who routinely murder and abuse the subject people they conquered. Granted, that’s what happens to subject people, just ask an American Indian, but that doesn't make it right. Many Israelis, particularly those I've heard interviewed on NPR, state that they are the legitimate authority in Palestine because they fought for and conquered the country. One young lady, I distinctly recall saying in the course of an NPR interview, "This is our country. We fought for it." I found her statements curious considering she had recently arrived there from Brooklyn. But there are other, longer-standing residents who echoed her sentiments. That is a might makes right argument, and under that stipulation, the Palestinians are justified in doing the same thing in attempting to reconquer the country. 

4) Empire. Dictionary definitions are all fine and good, but there are other factors. The historiography of British Imperialism (a topic of my recently passed comprehensive exams) clearly demonstrates a debate on the nuances of formal versus informal empire. I could easily supply a decent bibliography on the subject, but that's probably a story for another time. The United States is on its face a formal empire in that the entirety of it was conquered and seized from the indigenous peoples. It is more loosely a formal empire in that the United States has overseas possessions, such as Puerto Rico and American Samoa. They don't seem to mind too much, and it's a very benign formal empire, but a formal empire nonetheless. The United States possesses an informal empire in terms of the economic control it exercises over many parts of the world. That is much less benign. 

Okay, I'm going to pay more attention to the war show on TV. Plus, I need to write a lecture for tomorrow. Take it easy, gents.

Have read and greatly appreciate the last couple of posts. That is they make me laugh. Shall we open up a debate on the coming war? Too bad, I'm firing the first shots. Metaphorically speaking of course. I have several objections to the coming war, or at the very least, things that make me very uncomfortable, and I will list them. 

Objection 1: Level of threat. Exactly what threat do Saddam Hussein and Iraq pose to the United States? As I understand it, the al Samoud missiles Hussein claims (yes, I'll certainly concede that it is a claim) he has been destroying have a maximum range of 93 miles. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the United States about 4,000 miles from Iraq (give or take)? He's going to have to tweak those missiles somethin' fierce for them to reach the United States. 

Objection 2: What if this were us? Okay, there are geopolitical legal issues. Hussein has, in all likelihood, not abided by the UN resolutions President Bush, Ari Fleischer, and other government boyos have been touting as cause for war. But here's the thing. Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, but then doesn't the United States? I mean, what if, oh say, France, or possibly the Norwegians, said, "Hey Mr. Uncle Sam with your big hat and funny pants! You have weapons of mass destruction, and we want them destroyed or we will go to war!" Come on. Americans would laugh until they soiled themselves. We do have such weapons, including the "nucular" variety (I'm sorry but I just can't get past that). We have chemical and biological weapons. Maybe some, who would support this coming war, would respond, "Yes, but we never used them on anyone else." I beg to differ. Ask the Japanese about the use of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps this imaginary person would say, "Well that was a war, and Japan attacked us, but we never used chemical or biological weapons." Again, I beg to differ. Tear gas is a chemical weapon. It has been used on the American people by American government agencies, primarily local police, many times. It will probably be used on those who protest this war as well. 

Objection 3: Exit Strategy. Whatever comes of this, it will probably be bad news. The conquest and occupation of Iraq is going to cost a lot of money, and our economy is poor. The government is not in such great fiscal shape, thanks to the tax cuts President Bush and Congress have implemented. Granted, war has a way of stimulating economies, but we can't blow people up just to get McDonald's back in the black. If the United States removes Hussein, we could easily open the door to a much more anti-American government in Iraq than Hussein's. Perhaps the next government will actually attack the United States, not just Kuwait or the poor Kurds. 

Objection 4: What is this Iraqi terrorism connection of which you speak? I find it difficult to believe that these "links" between al Qaeda and Hussein's government actually exist. Perhaps Hussein has harbored al Qaeda fugitives, but I've got news. That might be true of the Republic of Ireland as well. If President Bush and his government wish to go to war with everyone who harbors, in any way, al Qaeda members, are U.S. marines going to invade Connemara? The clearest links between Hussein and any "terrorist" organization are found in Palestine. Isn't that more of an issue for Israel? 

Well there you are. I've got serious qualms about this war. I expect the fur starts to fly now. Johnny Two-Cents and Buckethead, thank you for the forum.

Well, there were quite a few posts from you, and I read each. A few things to which I'll respond. First, about al Qaeda and the Republic of Ireland. I did write that the Republic of Ireland might be harboring al Qaeda members, not for sure. The source for that are members of the Taoiseach's government who stated in fall of 2001, at that the outset of the "fer us or agin' us" statement on foreign policy. Ireland has always had a very liberal policy when it comes to dissidents and activists of various sorts, adding a nod and a wink. So it's possible, that's all I meant. 

Secondly, this whole thing is a gamble, no matter how you slice it. Mr. Buckethead has offered an optimistic vision with military success followed by political success. But as I tell my students, few things ever go precisely according to plan. I'm not saying that the optimistic vision won't pan out, it might, but if it doesn't? What if the Iraqi troops and general staff don't fold? What if it does come down to street by street and house by house urban warfare in Baghdad? All the military technology in the world could get bogged down. You've got to go in with infantry in that situation, and that's where things can get very, very ugly. Even if the initial military campaign is quick and decisive, what about the occupation? More U.S. troops will probably die at the hands of suicide bombers during the occupation than in combat. The U.S. could be perceived as an illegal occupation force in Iraq, and could be further isolated diplomatically. 

Continuing on the pessimism theme, and on to the inapplicability of the Golden Rule to foreign policy. It's my opinion that the American empire is in decline, because the minute that internal borders have been compromised, it's only a matter of time. It's pretty clear that most people in the world hate the United States. Whether they're justified or not, if the U.S. empire goes down quickly, other countries are going to be looking for some payback. Maybe other countries can't attack us now and dictate things about our weapons, but that day might come, and we just might have to pay the piper. You can call me Chicken Little, and that's possible, but you never know. It does, in part, depend on how you look at it. I don't think other nations and their citizens are going to quietly applaud if the United States eliminates Hussein. They see us as arrogant, not a preserver of global harmony. We're throwing our weight around. 

As to the Palestinian problem meriting our attention, it does. But not in the way the United States has gone about it. The United States government has played favorites with Israel. We've been a bad Mom. A good Mom would say, "Both of you shut up, and sit down. I don't care who started it, knock it off." But we continue to favor the Israelis, while they allow American murder suspects from Maryland safe haven. 

Of course, back to previous topics, these are all mights and maybes and worst case scenarios. They might not even be germane to the subject. But frankly, I won't be participating in anti-war demonstrations. Not because I think the war is a-okey dokey, quite the contrary. I can object to this war until I'm blue in the face, and so can anyone else. The fact is, nobody is going to listen. This decision was made a long time ago at the highest levels of government, and come hell or high water, it's going to happen. There's nothing me, or anyone else in this country, can do anything about it. Nice "republic" we have here. I don't mean this as a personal attack on anyone else's opinion, I hope it isn't perceived that way, but I'm getting awfully frustrated.