Dear Loudmouth.

What made be begin to think objectively about Hitler’s political orientation, was a book by a German/French (Sudetenland) soldier who fought in Russia in the Wehrmacht. The book was “The Forgotten Soldier” by Guy Sajer, and in it he said that he could not understand why he was fighting to destroy a political system that was practically identical to Germany’s.

I began to realise that the differences between Fascism and Communism were almost non existent. The Soviets were certainly less racist than the Germans, but then they possessed an Empire which included dozens of different ethnic groups, so they had to be. And the Soviet method of dealing with ethnic minority nationalism by forced deportations, was more humane than the German method of simply mass murdering anybody they considered an untermenschen.

On the political level, the only minor difference between Fascism and Communism is that Soviet Socialism was supposedly Internationalist, while German Socialism was intensely nationalistic towards Germany. But the Soviet Union could also be intensely nationalistic about the “motherland.” While on the economic level, the Soviets demanded total control over the means of production, while the German Nationalist Socialists considered that private ownership of factories and farms was more efficient. With the entire Socialist world now embracing this private ownership of the means of production, the question begs, could a country like China , which is racist, intensely nationalistic, and has now accepted that private ownership of the means of production is more efficient than State control, be considered a Fascist state?

Anyhoo, I have lived through a time when educated, and supposedly intelligent young people advocated a system of government which is a screaming nightmare out of 1984. When it finally collapsed, one would have thought that they would finally grow a brain. But here they are today, still thinking it is “smart” to go into bat for Islamofascists David Hicks.

LEGO,

Interesting that you should note what Sajer said - I'm reading Vassili Grossman's 'Life and Fate' and he makes very much the same point. And in his short stories, published as 'The Road', he very artfully starts out in what you think is a description of an aspect of one system, only to discover that he is writing about that aspect of the other. Scary !

So your question:

"With the entire Socialist world now embracing this private ownership of the means of production, the question begs, could a country like China , which is racist, intensely nationalistic, and has now accepted that private ownership of the means of production is more efficient than State control, be considered a Fascist state?"

I fear to answer. I wouldn't say that China is a fascist state yet, but it's on the road to it. Since we learnt in our youth that 'fascism means war', China may be still a few steps away from fascism. A few short steps.

Yes, that baffles me, that Islamism embodies such an obviously extreme right-wing philosophy, yet some on the Left seem to support it uncritically. Perhaps some on the extreme Right do too, I don't know. Perhaps many on the Left haven't understood the essentially forward-looking philosophies engendered by the Enlightenment, engendered painfully over centuries, and write off anything developed in any Western country as something to be opposed, because it may have given rise to, or accompanied, capitalism, the develoment of democracy, equality, market systems or internationalism/globalism.

But yes, having known adherents to many Left branches of the various schisms, I have come to the conclusion belatedly that many latch onto Marxism or Leftism or whatever very much as a religion: never to be questioned, timeless, having all the answers and - most crucially - giving them licence to do anything in its name, very much the pure and Utopian end justifying the most devious and brutal means. That religious attitude even seems to involve an abdication of notions of right and wrong, of good and evil, of kindness and cruelty.

[TBC]

Sorry folks, that reference to Vassili Grossman (1905-1964): he was the Soviet Union's chief war correspondent, historian, novelist and short story writer. He covered the Battle of Stalingrad from the inside, and was amongst the first to write about the Nazi extermination camps. Hounded by the Soviets after the War, his master-work 'Life and Fate' (1961) has never been published in Russia.

[Cont.]

So perhaps the identity that some on the Left feel with Islamism is not so incomprehensible: different goals, same means, same devaluing of 'Western' morals. An infantile disorder perhaps, something older heads may not be fundamentally able to understand, but there you go, we have to put up with it.

Hence the support of some on the Left for terrorist trash like Hicks.

To summarise:

* torture is immoral and illegal;

* if one voluntarily goes overseas to work with terrorist groups and takes up arms in their cause, then one is a terrorist;

* everybody deserves the full justice of legal defence and a prompt and fair trial;

* if one is found guilty of offences, then one does the time.

Meanwhile, in Libya, people actually are fighting for justice and democratic rights ......


Joe

So Arjay, would this equation hold true that:
If 911 = fake inside operation,
then fundamentalist wahabi militant = good and safe for exposure of Western public and thus our obligation to rescue?

This is the broad picture that nobody seems to be getting.

My take on the Hicks case is that it is actually irrelevant whether he is a good person or a bad person or whatever - the real issue is that he was tortured illegally, was abused and denied legal rights. Those in the Australian government that just refused to recognize the injustices commited against Hicks and who actually sought to promote their own agendas on the back of this are the same people we entrust to uphold our laws and our democracy. This is a disgrace. As far as I am concerned my rights are indistiguishable from Hick's or anybody else's, and so it is actually the rights of all of us which were abused in Guantanamo, not just David's.

Dear Loudmouth

It appears to be the accepted wisdom that Nazism is “right wing”, but I disagree. The differences that supposedly make Fascism and Communism different appear to be minor, subject to circumstance, and to have disappeared entirely with the present “Socialist” governments now infesting the Earth. Like “Fascist” Germany, China is racist, (tick), anti democratic (tick), authoritarian (tick), and allows private ownership of the means of production (tick). The idea that “Fascism means war” is simply an empty slogan, and the people of Tibet might disagree that China is not warlike and expansionist.

But getting back to Hicks. It has been accepted that for a couple of hundred years that the police look after internal criminals, while the army deals with foreign enemies. However, we are now living in a new age where the enemies of our people now live among us (courtesy of multiculturalism) while their leaders live in anarchic overseas failed states. And these terrorist leaders possess their own private armies with anti aircraft guns and anti tank mines. Combating such enemies within the state using a legal system set up to deal with common criminals instead of suicide bombers, is entirely inappropriate.

Externally, the nature of war has changed yet again. Terrorists are not soldiers and they are not criminals. Extending to terrorists the same legal rights we would bestow upon common criminals, or even POW’s, is as inappropriate as using cavalry against machine guns. When dealing with implacable and sadistic enemies like the Japanese army in WW2, who recognised no civilised rules of war at all, allied armies had no compunction in resorting to methods that people living peaceful lives of leisure would today consider to be war crimes.

It is time to take the gloves off again.