Skip to main content

What the Heck is a Paleoconservative and Why You Should Care
By Dan Phillips | View comments
Paleoconservatism is informed by certain philosophical presumptions that differ markedly from the presumptions of neocons and most modern conservatives.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/12/08/what...why-you-should-care/

Have you ever noticed how enthusiasts of all sorts frequently speak a language that is completely unintelligible to the rest of us? For example, computer geeks . . . err . . . enthusiasts have their own language as do gear heads . . . err . . . hot rod enthusiasts. Wonkish political obsessives like me are guilty of the same thing, I am afraid. I don’t know a gigabyte from RAM or a header from a flathead, but I can rattle off the various shades of conservatism in Rainman-like fashion.

I was reminded of this tendency recently when I published an article on paleoconservatism and abortion. The article was originally published at Intellectual Conservative, and later published at several mainstream, GOP-oriented conservative websites. It made some very controversial assertions so I expected to get feedback. Well I did. Most of it was positive. Some of it was not. But what surprised me was that most people weren’t taking issue with my controversial assertions. Instead, many seemed to be unfamiliar with the term paleoconservative. I was surprised because my article appeared on conservative oriented political websites. I assumed paleoconservative would be a term familiar to those who frequent such websites. Well you know what they say about assuming. I was also disappointed. That many conservative internet surfers didn’t know what a paleoconservative is is an indication that my side seriously needs a marketing campaign.

As a result, I have decided that a little Conservatism 101 is in order. I will attempt to explain the origin and history of the movement now called paleoconservatism, and how it differs from “regular conservatism,” for lack of a better term. But perhaps more importantly, what does this movement have to offer us that regular conservatism does not?

First of all, this is a topic about which a book could easily be written, and
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

It's an interesting subject but one I don't have time for right now. I barely have enough time to keep up with the few threads I am in.

Politics defines our lives and we should discuss why we believe what we believe.

I think the discussion is pretty thoughtful, that's the real problem for me at this time. Because of an injury to my shoulder I am limited in my computer time and this subject is too complicated and requires a lot of thought, research and writing.

Perhaps if it comes up again at another time I will be more prepared for it, but thanks for the information pba.
I think the subject might be "over the heads" for many on this Forum. I admit that I disn't really know the term or the history and see it is interesting. I saved the link to investigate it later, when I have time to think about it and study.

It's sad that the comments here have to descend into name calling. But sadly I see people learn it from the corporate media and it's loud mouth and arrogant "pundits" and shock jocks that bully people instead of discuss subjects
________________________________________________

interventor:

I've explained several time that a paleoconservatice is more of the William F. Buckley type. Neo-conservatives designate mainly , ex-liberals who became conservatives. "Mugged by reality!" Neos tend to be more Wilsonian than paleos. Leftist use Neocon as a code word for jew.

________________________________________________________________________________________________



When I read that today's "neocons" were former liberals I have to wonder. Maybe they are right when they say they were "mugged by reality" and there is truth in it. But we are all "mugged by reality" and some of us still think clearly and did not become hard hearted. I think they probably were not all that liberal in the first place.

I disagree with you saying that "leftist use Neocon as a code word for Jew." The left's criticism of Israel is political. Some of the criticism of neocons is because of their commitment to Israel over US interests and peace and justice. It is critical of Israelis aggression and ethnic cleansing. Israel was founded on terrorism and ethnic cleansing and colonialism and it continues today.
There is plenty of "Fertilzer" from Palestinian graves.

The land was Arab since the 7th century, a historical fact. The country of Israel was destroyed by the Romans and the Jews expelled, ancient history.

The Arab majority and a small Jewish minority lived together in peace until the 1880's European Zionists claimed it and came it took it with violence and terrorism.

Except for their withdrawal from the tiny strip of Gaza Israel has never renounced it's claim to all of Palestine and continues to build it's illegal settlements in the West Bank, land that is legally Palestinains which Israel stole in their 1967 invasion.

Though Israel withdrew from Gaza it still surrounds it and has prevented it freedom.
Israel was sparsely populated, as noted by Mark Twain in his writings.

When the origial war broke out, Arab leaders ordered the Arab inhabitants to evacuate so the Arab national armies could destroy the small Israeli force. Israelis dropped leaflets on departing Arab columns begging them so stay.

Arab armies got licked. Arab leaders kept the arabs as refugees in Gaza (then Egyptian territory) and the west bank (then Jordanian territory) as hostages to fortune. Not one Arab country has allowed Palestinians to permanently settle in their nations and apply for citizenship.

Jews were treated as dhimmis prior to the war,severely taxed, beaten if they walked on the sidewalk, forbidden weapons, fobidden to repair their temples withour permission, forbidden to worship at the site of the Second Temple.

The Israelis have made the desert bloom. The Palis have turned valuable land into an open sewer.
That is the standard propaganda put out by the Israeli propaganda machine, but it's a lie. Arabs have been the majority people in the region since the 7th century. The territory Mark Twain was referring to was closer to the Syrian border. Early European Zionists found the land populated and cultivated and wrote about it saying they would have to drive the Arabs from the land as their ancestors did.

Arabs and Jews lived together in peace for centuries until the European Zionists of the 1880's claimed the land and came to take it. They began organizing terrorist groups and carrying out terrorist acts in the 1920's. They drove the British from the region with terrorism. They were known for their terrorism even killing a UN official who was trying to broker a peace deal.

The BBC monitored all Arab radio transmissions and communications, Arab leaders never told the inhabitants to leave, they told them to stay put. They had lived there for centuries and were not leaving. They did not believe the UN had the right to give the land to European Jews who were only a minority in the land. Palestinians were driven out by Israeli terrorist groups as reported by the BBC before the actual date of the partition. The Israeli groups also seized land outside the partition as they claimed all of Palestine and still do today. Over 400 Arab villages were destroyed and Israeli military archives report that in every case atrocities and war crimes were committed by Israeli forces. No Israeli government has ever renounced the claim to all of Palestine or even recognized a Palestinian State.

The truth was reported by the BBC and some honest Israeli journalists. I.F. Stone was a Jewish American who reported the truth. In the 1990's a new wave of Israeli historians and journalists began to investigate and reported the truth. They are referred to as the New Historians.

This is a site by "Jews For Justice in the Middle East" that covers some of the truth.

Origin Introduction

http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Quote:
I.F. Stone was paid by the Soviet politburo to write their bidding.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

LOL

I.F. Stone was one of the best jouranists of his time who did real investigative jouranlism.
He was highly critical of US corporations and government and exposed their lies and crimes.

His famous motto is "Governments Lie" and he meant all governments.

Your response is typical of the right wing. When you can't answer the facts use slander.
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo142:
I think the subject might be "over the heads" for many on this Forum. I admit that I disn't really know the term or the history and see it is interesting. I saved the link to investigate it later, when I have time to think about it and study.

It's sad that the comments here have to descend into name calling. But sadly I see people learn it from the corporate media and it's loud mouth and arrogant "pundits" and shock jocks that bully people instead of discuss subjects
Pogo, I have to agree here, Not just over my head, but HUH time. There are a lot of commentators out there who are trying to find a way to get precise words to describe Political positions. And most of them are inventing words. Rather than describing acts. Bush is a "neo Conservative." He defines the word, the word does not define him. The contrasts are matters of degree. a democrat(small "d") is someone who believes the people should govern by consensus. A republican (small "r") Believes that the government should begin at the grass roots. Both believe that government should be by the people. It is actually one of the major reasons both Democrats and Republicans look alike. Both believe in government by consensus.

Liberal (small "l") means trusting the consensus to reach a just solution, and Liberal (capital "L") believes in REQUIRING a just solution. Conservative (small "c") believes that justice is what the consensus makes it, and Conservative (capital "C") believes in using power to enforce the consensus. The also tend to believe that the consensus is not changeable...it is to be conserved. So when the consensus was that the races should be kept separate Conservatives were willing to kill to maintain the status quo. Liberals were willing to to liberate the unjustly treated, or to change the consensus.
We have been through this before. The Venona Papers are not reliable and have basically been discredited and are not take seriously at all. They were probably another creation by the CIA which supposedly proves depite real evidence every liberal was a Soviet agent and every republican witch hunt to be validated. One day they will produce papers that prove every liberal is on bin Laden's payroll.

I.F. Stone's work stands today as a model to serious investigative journalist.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Karl Leuba:

Pogo, I have to agree here, Not just over my head, but HUH time. There are a lot of commentators out there who are trying to find a way to get precise words to describe Political positions. And most of them are inventing words. Rather than describing acts. Bush is a "neo Conservative." He defines the word, the word does not define him. The contrasts are matters of degree. a democrat(small "d") is someone who believes the people should govern by consensus. A republican (small "r") Believes that the government should begin at the grass roots. Both believe that government should be by the people. It is actually one of the major reasons both Democrats and Republicans look alike. Both believe in government by consensus.
Liberal (small "l") means trusting the consensus to reach a just solution, and Liberal (capital "L") believes in REQUIRING a just solution. Conservative (small "c") believes that justice is what the consensus makes it, and Conservative (capital "C") believes in using power to enforce the consensus. The also tend to believe that the consensus is not changeable...it is to be conserved. So when the consensus was that the races should be kept separate Conservatives were willing to kill to maintain the status quo. Liberals were willing to to liberate the unjustly treated, or to change the consensus.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I am beginning to see that all this stuff about dividing people up into different categories and such is just part of a strategy that the corporate Class or as FDR called them, the "Economic Royalists, " use to keep the people divided. All this stuff about "Red States and Blue States," over hot button issues is nonsense. We are being robbed blind.

Actually they use to say that the basic difference was that Democrats were the working people that used the government, of the people, to help solve peoples problems. While Republicans were the wealthy class who wanted no government interference so they could exploit the less intelligent ones. It changed in the 60's when LBJ and the democrats backed civil rights and Nixon played the race card with his "Southern Strategy." Which was actually the brain child of Kevin Phillips who was a leading figure through Reagan's term also but has disavowed W and these republicans as destroying the country.
As to conservatism:

Conservatism bases itself upon human experience, careful observation of human nature, and built-in protection from the worst of such experiences. Unlike, principles and philosophies dreamt up by Zeropeans and forced upon mankind, including commutarianism, syndicalism, socialism, national socialism, fascism, communism.

The founding fathers based the Constitution upon their experience and the lessons learnt from history. The Constitution incorporated Roman law, Greek philosophy, English representative government, the Swiss Confederation, the Venetian Republic, and the Scottish (not the French) Enlightenment.

The first Congress established the position of chaplain. Religion had a place in public and private life, but not a role of primacy. Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell loomed as a specter over the founders’ shoulders, as an example of revolution gone wrong, both secular and religious.

Careful implementation, slow and careful change that results in a human system, not a system that forces man into a mold are the hallmarks of conservatism. Communism, based upon principles from the minds of men, tried to make the New Soviet Man. Tens of millions slaughtered to no avail, traditions swept away, families decimated, with no result but the old Russian drunk and mass graves across Europe and Russia. Fascism and National Socialism made man a cog in the wheels of State. The results ground down the individual and left behind human abattoirs. Solutions that are anti-human only result in misery, suffering and mass murder.
The Venona Papers are only considered valid by the right wing because it backs up every witch hunt they carried out. I am not sure they are relevant to this Thread. I mentioned Stone as a Jewish person who wrote about the crimes of Israel which have been documented by other sources, including Israeli historians. Stone was also critical of The Soviet Union.

The left is accused of being anti Semitic because it criticizes Israelis crimes and ethnic cleansing. Jewish critics like Noam Chomsky, Norman Finklestien and Rabbi Michael Lerner are also called "Self Hating Jews" or dupes or whatever slander the Israeli lobby and the right wing can conjure up. That's why I provided a site by Jews for Justice who are another Jewish group that are outspoken, write articles and appear at demonstrations protesting Israelis crimes.

The US and the corporate media lie and present Israel as an innocent victim because it is part of the US Mideast military strategy of controlling the region and the oil. It is a western outpost in the Mideast. This is all for another thread but I brought it up to answer your comment about being anti Semitic.

As Far as conservative vs Liberal

Liberalism is also based on human experience just as much as conservatism. We can fight all day over definitions and I have no time for it. They are beliefs and are not economic systems, you can have liberal or conservative socialist, communists and Capitalists.

Conservatives want to keep the Status Quo and LIberals are open for changes. As we evolve we learn more about ourselves and our society. Liberals support individual liberties.

The Founders based their writings on the fact that all people have inalienable rights which the government is instituted by people to protect. A very liberal idea.

Capitalism at the hands of European and American colonialism and imperialism has killed more people and brought more wars, suffering and misery around world for centuries then anything. It continues today. The reason alternatives to Capitalists were founded was because of the inequalities and misery Capitalism produces.
quote:
Capitalism at the hands of European and American colonialism and imperialism has killed more people and brought more wars, suffering and misery around world for centuries then anything. It continues today. The reason alternatives to Capitalists were founded was because of the inequalities and misery Capitalism produces.


You can't be serious. How many people did Stalin kill? How about Mussolini, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Ill, and Castro just to name a few. No capitalism there, just socialism and communism. The people gave the government infinite power, the power corrupted the government and people were killed by the millions. That's the system you want for our country and I thank God the majority of people here have more common sense.
Mussolini was a fascist and not a socialist. He, like Hitler, was backed by wealthy elite's and also carried out a war against working people. Pol Pot was not really a communist but based his government on an ancient Cambodian ruler and system.

Communism doesn't mean dictatorship. It is an economic system. Stalin imposed a dictatorship in Russia and it's Sattiles.

I support Socialism, like in democratic Sweeden and programs throughout democratic Europe.

Salvador Allende was freely elected in Chile and supported a representative government. He was brutally over throw and thousands killed by a CIA orchestrated coup. Thousands of Nicaraguan civilians were killed by US sponsored Contras. The Sandanistas were freely elected, twice, and allowed elections and free speech.

Over 70,000 people were killed by Death Squads and the military in the 1980's under the capitalist US sponsored regime in El Salvador, Guatemala also. The US has carried out coups and backed murderous military regimes in every country throughout South and Central America since the 1880's. We also did the same in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Europeans and Americans carried out a near genocide of Native Americans, both North and South America since Columbus. Europe also did the same in Africa. King Leopold of Belgium killed millions in the Congo. Slave plantations and massacres killed untold millions on every continent for a couple hundred years. All for Capitalism. Not counting the poor who died in western countries for lack of money.

It all continues today.
quote:
Mussolini was a fascist and not a socialist. He, like Hitler, was backed by wealthy elite's and also carried out a war against working people.


Fascism came from socialism as I've already proven. He and Hitler rose to power by using propaganda and convincing the working poor that they could make life better for them. The wealthy elite actually thought Hitler as a joke, he wasn't one of them and they really wanted nothing to do with him.

Socialism creates large governments and takes away individual freedoms. If that's what you want, move to Sweeden.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Mussolini was a fascist and not a socialist. He, like Hitler, was backed by wealthy elite's and also carried out a war against working people.


Fascism came from socialism as I've already proven. He and Hitler rose to power by using propaganda and convincing the working poor that they could make life better for them. The wealthy elite actually thought Hitler as a joke, he wasn't one of them and they really wanted nothing to do with him.

Socialism creates large governments and takes away individual freedoms. If that's what you want, move to Sweeden.



Nash, if you really believe the B.S.you just said then no wonder you're a right wing nut from the right! Watch the video!



"America: From Freedom To Fascism." You need to be informed on so please watch!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=txo8nGAcWEQ
Rational Fascism
http://www.michaelparenti.org/RationalFascism.html

Rational Fascism


Excerpted from Chapter 1 of Blackshirts and Reds

Plutocrats Choose Autocrats

Let us begin with a look at fascism’s founder. Born in 1883, the son of a blacksmith, Benito Mussolini had an early manhood marked by street brawls, arrests, jailings, and violent radical political activities. Before World War I Mussolini was a socialist. A brilliant organizer, agitator, and gifted journalist, he became editor of the Socialist Party’s official newspaper. Yet many of his comrades suspected him of being less interested in advancing socialism than in advancing himself.

Indeed, when the Italian upper class tempted him with recognition, financial support, and the promise of power, he did not hesitate to switch sides. By the end of World War I, Mussolini, the socialist, who had organized strikes for workers and peasants had become Mussolini, the fascist, who broke strikes on behalf of financiers and landowners. Using the huge sums he recieved from wealthy interests, he projected himself onto the national scene as the acknowledged leader of i fasci di combattimento, a movement composed of black-shirted ex-army officers and sundry toughs who were guided by no clear political doctrine other than a militaristic patriotism and conservative dislike for anything associated with socialism and organized labor. The fascist Blackshirts spent their time attacking trade unionists, socialists, communists, and farm cooperatives.

After World War I, Italy had settled into a pattern of parliamentary democracy. The low pay scales were improving, and the trains were already running on time. But the capitalist economy was in a postwar recession. Investments stagnated, heavy industry operated far below capacity, and corporate profits and agribusiness exports were declining.

To maintain profit levels, the large landowners and industrialists would have to slash wages and raise prices. The state in turn would have to provide them with massive subsidies and tax exemptions. To finance this corporate welfarism, the populace would have to be taxed more heavily, and social services and welfare expenditures would have to be drastically cut--measures that might sound familiar to us today.

But the government was not completely free to pursue this course. By 1921, many Italian workers and peasants were unionized and had their own political organizations. With demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, factory takeovers, and the forceable occupation of farmlands, they had won the right to organize, along with concessions in wages and work conditions. To impose a full measure of austerity upon workers and peasants, the ruling economic interests would have to abolish the democratic rights that helped the masses defend their modest living standards. The solution was to smash their unions, political organizations, and civil liberties. Industrialists and big landowners wanted someone at the helm who could break the power of organized workers and farm laborers and impose a stern order on the masses. For this task Benito Mussolini, armed with his gangs of Blackshirts, seemed the likely candidate.(2)

In 1922, the Federazione Industriale, composed of the leaders of industry, along with representatives from the banking and agribusiness associations, met with Mussolini to plan the “March on Rome,” contributing 20 million lire to the undertaking. With the additional backing of Italy’s top military officers and police chiefs, the fascist “revolution”—really a coup d’etat—took place. Within two years after seizing state power, Mussolini had shut down all opposition newspapers and crushed the Socialist, Liberal, Catholic, Democratic, and Republican parties, which together had commanded some 80 percent of the vote. Labor leaders, peasant leaders, parliamentary delegates, and others critical of the new regime were beaten, exiled, or murdered by fascist terror squadristi. The Italian Communist Party endured the severest repression of all, yet managed to maintain a courageous underground resistance that eventually evolved into armed struggle against the Blackshirts and the German occupation force.

In Germany, a similar pattern of complicity between fascists and capitalists emerged. German workers and farm laborers had won the right to unionize, the eight-hour day, and unemployment insurance. But to revive profit levels, heavy industry and big finance wanted wage cuts for their workers and massive state subsidies and tax cuts for themselves. During the 1920s, the Nazi Sturmabteilung or SA, the brown-shirted Stormtroopers, subsidized by business, were used mostly as an anti-labor paramilitary force whose function was to terrorize workers and farm laborers. By 1930, most of the tycoons had concluded that the Weimar Republic no longer served their needs and was too accommodating to the working class. They greatly increased their subsidies to Hitler, propelling the Nazi party onto the national stage.
Business tycoons supplied the Nazis with generous funds for fleets of motor cars and loudspeakers to saturate the cities and villages of Germany, along with funds for Nazi party organizations, youth groups, and paramilitary forces. In the July 1932 campaign, Hitler had sufficient funds to fly to fifty cities in the last two weeks alone.

In that same campaign the Nazis received 37.3 percent of the vote, the highest they ever won in a democratic national election. They never had a majority of the people on their side. To the extent they had any kind of reliable base, it generally was among the more affluent members of society. In addition, elements of the petty bourgeoisie and many lumpenproletariats served as strongarm party thugs, organized into the SA stormtroopers. But the great majority of the organized working class supported the Communists or Social Democrats to the very end.

Meanwhile a number of right-wing parties coalesced behind the Nazis and in January 1933, just weeks after the election, Hindenburg invited Hitler to become chancellor. Upon assuming state power, Hitler and his Nazis pursued a politico-economic agenda not unlike Mussolini’s. They crushed organized labor and eradicated all elections, opposition parties, and independent publications. Hundreds of thousands of opponents were imprisoned, tortured, or murdered. In Germany as in Italy, the communists endured the severest political repression of all groups. Here were two peoples, the Italians and Germans, with different histories, cultures, and languages, and supposedly different temperaments, who ended up with the same repressive solutions because of the compelling similarities of economic power and class conflict that prevailed in their respective countries. In such diverse countries as Lithuania, Croatia, Rumania, Hungary, and Spain, a similar fascist pattern emerged to do its utmost to save big capital from the impositions of democracy.(4)

1. Among the thousands of titles that deal with fascism, there are a few worthwhile exceptions that do not evade questions of political economy and class power, for instance: Gaetano Salvemini, Under the Ax of Fascism (New York: Howard Fertig, 1969); Daniel Guerin, Fascism and Big Business (New York: Monad Press/Pathfinder Press, 1973); James Pool and Suzanne Pool, Who Financed Hitler (New York: Dial Press, 1978); Palmiro Togliatti, Lectures on Fascism (New York: International Publishers, 1976); Franz Neumann, Behemoth (New York: Oxford University Press, 1944); R. Palme Dutt, Fascism and Social Revolution (New York: International Publisher, 1935). 2. Between January and May 1921, “the fascists destroyed 120 labor headquarters, attacked 243 socialist centers and other buildings, killed 202 workers (in addition to 44 killed by the police and gendarmerie), and wounded 1,144.” During this time 2,240 workers were arrested and only 162 fascists. In the 1921-22 period up to Mussolini's seizure of state power, “500 labor halls and cooperative stores were burned, and 900 socialist municipalities were dissolved”: Dutt, Fascism and Social Revolution, 124. 3. Earlier in 1924, Social Democratic officials in the Ministry of Interior used Reichswehr and Free Corps fascist paramilitary troops to attack left-wing demonstrators. They imprisoned seven thousand workers and suppressed Communist Party newspapers: Richard Plant, The Pink Triangle (New York: Henry Holt, 1986), 47. 4. This is not to gainsay that cultural differences can lead to important variations. Consider
Both fascism and nazism are varients of socialism, one only has to read he speeches of Benito and Adolf to realize the vehement hatred they expressed for capitalism. That they both attacked other varients of socialism is no surprise. Communists and socialists killed each other with near the abandon they attacked capitalist. I would say ask Trotsky, but he got the point.
Pogo,

"The Venona Papers are only considered valid by the right wing because it backs up every witch hunt they carried out."
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Their provenance is well known and proven. The facts of the papers correlate with KGB files opened after the death of the USSR. That they backup many "witch hunts" only proves the existence of the sons of witches. Unlike Walter Duranty, who missed the entire slaughter of millions, we did not.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

interventor

Noam Chomsky denies the existence of the Killing Fields of Cambodia and still speaks of Pol Pot as an innocent. He has also expressed doubts about the severity of the Holocaust. to even quote him as a source is an obscenity.

Both fascism and nazism are varients of socialism, one only has to read he speeches of Benito and Adolf to realize the vehement hatred they expressed for capitalism. That they both attacked other varients of socialism is no surprise. Communists and socialists killed each other with near the abandon they attacked capitalist. I would say ask Trotsky, but he got the point.

Their provenance is well known and proven. The facts of the papers correlate with KGB files opened after the death of the USSR. That they backup many "witch hunts" only proves the existence of the sons of witches. Unlike Walter Duranty, who missed the entire slaughter of millions, we did not.

________________________________________________________________________________________________


I don't know how Chomsky got into this conversation but Chomsky never denied the "killing fields" of Cambodia, only the number of deaths. The US claimed something like 4 to 6 million were killed. Chomsky pointed to studies that showed it was closer to the one million figure. He never defended Pol Pot at all. He pointed out that Pol Pot based his regime on an ancient Cambodian Empire and the Cambodian uprising was like the French Revolution where the poor rose up and brutally overthrew the wealthy oligarchy. It was the US over throw of it's leader, Prince Shianouk and the installing of the corrupt and repressive General Lon Knol and the heavy and indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Cambodia by the US that turned the people against the government and as British Journalist John Pilger says, "paved the way for the Khmer Rogue to take power."

We are doing the same in Afghanistan right now and we see the rise of support for the Taliban in retaliation.

Chomsky's main point was the US inflated the numbers in Cambodia as propaganda to justify the Vietnam War while at the same time it backed Indonesia's invasion of East Timor and it's brutal repression and slaughter of a third of it's population. A small Island that didn't even really have an army, so it could steal it's oil reserves.

As far as I know Chomsky never questioned the number killed in the Holocaust but only supported the Jewish Professor Norman Finklestiens book "The Holocaust Industry" on how Israel and it's lobbied used and manipulated the Holocaust to Israelis advantage and create a one sided debate.

Chomsky has also defended the right of Holocaust Deniers to write and speak freely. There are laws in Germany and Austria and maybe some others, making it a crime to deny the Holocaust.

Fascism has nothing to do with Socialism. Both Hitler and Mussolini were backed by the wealthy and destroyed the unions while profits for the rich boomed. Their speeches, like Bush's, may sound like they are for working peoples interest but their policies are not. Actions speak louder then words.

Capitalists have been warring with each other, and the rest of the world, especially undeveloped countries, for a couple of centuries.

The Venona Papers were not verified by the KGB and the KGB never opened their files to the US. This goes back to the 1990's and I would have to take time to research this but as far as I remember they were discredited. They supposedly broke codes but it was only partial and named hundreds of Soviet Spies in America, which was the bases for the witch hunts, purges and blacklisting in America during the 50's. A disgraceful time which the right wing tries to justify with nonsense.
The Venona papers were considered so sensitive, they were NOT USED in the hunt for reds within the US. That is why people like McCarthy got away with false accusations. Or, in the later House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC) which contributed to their errors in prosecuting many parlor pinks and relatively harmless, but vocal leftists.
"Fascism has nothing to do with Socialism."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From the 25 points of the NSDAP personally authored by Hitler,

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm
11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
16. ...the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople...
17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sounds like an anti-capitalist stance to me.
Yes, I understand your point but it's not what he said but what he did. As any politican he promised to help the working people but I posted an excert from an article by Michael Parenti on what happened. Both Hitler and Mussolini destroyed workers unions, as the famous quote points out and had a war on working people. The wealthy capitalists prospered.

I have even heard a woman who grew up in Germany under Hitler talk about it. Hours got longer, pay stagnated and prices rose. Her father complained and they took him away.

There is a quote by Mussolini on how Fascism is Corporatism but I don't have time to try and find it now. We see the same happening in America today. As capital increases among the wealthy and the corporate class workers rights are diminished and our standard of living is declining. A police state is being built under the guise of National Security.

It's Fascism.
quote:
Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.


That's exactly what socialism is. The government controls business.

Here's a quote for you, I'm paraphrasing. The more power a government has to do things for you, the more it has to do things to you as well.
It should be called "corporatism" because Fascism serves the corporations. A democratic socialist government serves it's people because it's controled by the people. Corporations are not democratic.

The more control corporations have the more they control the people, as we see today.
They control our government, our media, our health system and our lives.

In Fascist Germany and Italy the corporations and wealthy prospered but the people suffered. In Sweden and other European countries that have socialist programs the people benefit and the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×