Paul Gottfried is quite right that terms must be precisely defined and correctly categorized (though good men can disagree about the definition and the category).  “Fascist” is among such terms. John Lukacs goes even further in distinguishing Fascism from Naziism.  Mussolini’s movement, unless I’m mistaken, wasn’t even racialist or Judeophobic. The correct category for all these terms, save “Edwardian”, is “extremist nationalist”.

To build on what Gottfried has said, equally foolish is to call Hamiltonians “Fascists” ("Hobbesan" or “statist-captitalists” would be closer) or “Cultural Marxists”. Doubtless there are superficial analogies, as Gottfried points out the the superficial analogy between Nazi Anti-Semitism and Judeophobic statements of some Muslims. In depth, Hamiltonianism and Fascism are different ideologies, albeit both rather wanting.

The term “Islamofascism” is as false a word as “Islamophobia” or “anti-semitism”, relics of Cultural Marxist conditioning where words in the end mean nothing.

Wow. I didn’t know the book was aimed at paleoconservatives by name. That is actually a good thing. An indication that NP thinks we are gaining traction.

Alas we’ll never gain much traction if the
establishment Left continues to cooperate with the
neocons in keeping us out of the public discussion.
This unspoken alliance concerns me far more than
anything published by Norman and his kept hacks.

Paul Gottfried’s comments upon the ignorance of the book reviewers of a new Podhoretz piece are well placed. However, I suspect that these reviews are not the result of the reviewers inability to see the flaws in Podhoretz’s reasoning and his shoddy and deceitful twisting of facts, but is rather the result of a changed job description.
A book reviewer’s job in these days of media conglomerates is not a critical analysis of a new book, but rather a PR essay that promotes a book, if it is in line with the interests of his employer, and denigrates it, if it is contrary to the views of the publisher/owner of the reviewer’s journal.
Since Podhoretz’s book is a propaganda piece, solely designed to inflame the American public to wage war on behalf of Israel’s interests, certainly any reviewer who works for a Jewish owned publication or where the ownership has an interest in the military industrial complex, will be promoting this book with a good review, if he wants to keep his job.

Paul Gottfried:
“Alas we’ll never gain much traction if the
establishment Left continues to cooperate with the
neocons in keeping us out of the public discussion.”

At least Paleocon ex-CIA man Michael Scheuer has got a lot of media exposure recently, even if it did take Osama bin Laden’s personal endorsement!

the pastor gone rabbi john hagee thunders “islamofascist” from his pulpit with the energy of a hitler preaching to his followers.
he parades israeli ambassadors and ex ambassadors on his program preaching the hatred of islamist to the christian flock he pretends to pastor using the name of christ the lords messiah.
he parades ex muslims who have converted to christianity claiming that they were ex terrorists which even if true, they ought to stop the preaching of death and killing in the name of one who never advocated it...fascism has come to america and it is as chris hedges has said using the cross as its symbol to form a front using patriotism to murder men and women in the middle east whom christ died for.

u.s christians are in a bit of a sticky wicket as they used to say, and the rest of america have no idea what is taking place right under their noses.

Sid can’t seem to get anything right.  Lukacs has made the point that Hitler didn’t hesitate to make war on Anglo-Germanic-Nordic peoples, e.g., Holland, Norway, Great Britain. Lukacs notes that Hitler praised the Japanese, Chinese and Arabs, thinking more highly of these races than of Germanic/Nordic ones (mostly because he thought them more ruthless and brutal in pursuit of their collective interests).  If one were to compare the views of Winston Churchill on race or related issues (Indian independence) versus the actual views of Hitler, the later would appear to be a liberal and the former the “racist” under current conceptions. 

So, Lukacs makes the point that it wasn’t “racialism” that typified Nazism, but rather radical nationalism.  Lukacs is of course wrong in viewing the actual Nazis as nationalists, but he is correct in countering the myth of Nazi racism.

Gottfried is of course correct that the Neocon attacks on Paleos are not going to give the Paleos traction. If anything, the Neos attack those to their right to ensure that the Mainstream Left, including the Mainstream Media will continue to privilege the Neos over the Paleos are the only permitted public face of the “right” in America. 

This situation can only change if Paleos obtain financial backing to create their own Major Media presence.  Think of a major daily newspaper, and or TV network that allowed Paleos the same kind of access that Fox News Channel allows Neos or that CNN or MSNBC allows those on the left (or the New York Post, Wall Street Journal and New York Times in the print media).  Paleos could distinguish themselves from low grade characters such as Rush by concern over both the environment as well as the economic well being of the middle and working classes.  Add to that the Paleo position of keeping the USA out of most foreign wars/conflicts, and a significant number of those not on the right might be attracted to the Paleo banner.  Note also that the Paleos have been the only consistent opponents of Open Borders and Amnesty, positions that would attract large numbers of potential followers across the political spectrum.

Mussolini was insistent that fascism was an Italian product not intended for export.  Also the Boer War wasn’t Edwardian; it was late-Victorian, though the younger gentry were Edwardian rather than Victorian in outlook.  Picky, picky, picky!

One problem for Paleos is lack of mutual contact.  I’m British.  The US Neocons have extensive training systems for training British Conservatives as neocons, especially the young - qv the Young Britons Foundation.  Whereas UK Paleocon journalist Peter Hitchens (writes for Mail on Sunday, brother of Christopher, opposite politics) told me over lunch that he had tried to contact William Lind, head of the Free Congress Foundation’s Center for Cultural Conservatism, over Lind’s work on cultural Marxism, only to be told that Lind didn’t do email!

Actually, Dr Gottfried, if you’re reading this, it occurs to me that Peter Hitchens would surely be interested in talking to you re your own work such as The Strange Death of Marxism.  If you’d be willing to talk with him perhaps you could email me your email address at , or contact him directly at

Peter’s bio is here:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2006/02/peter_hitchens_.html

To say the Nazis weren’t racialists and racists and to say that Lukacs said they weren’t is too risible for reply. Coming up: a version of holocaust denial that will say 6 million Jews were killed because ol’ Adi didn’t like begals. 

Back to the topic: I know Islam isn’t Fascism. I know that Islam isn’t a undifferentiated religion. I know that the breakup of the Ottoman Empire wasn’t pretty (and Woodrow the Worse we have to blame for this and most of the misery of the last century). And I’m willing to believe Adriana on Islam and sex.  Other than that, frankly, the wells are so poisoned that I really don’t know what to believe about Islam.

As usual, Sid is wrong.  Here is John Lukacs himself, from page 208 of The End of the Twentieth Century and the End of the Modern Age: 

At this point we must realize that Hitler himself was an extreme nationalist rather than a racist.  He himself expressed this in one of his least known, yet most telling, long speeches to a group of generals and officers on 26 May 1944:  “We have a Volk that should not be seen as identical with race…the bourgeois kept telling me:  Volk and Race are one and the same.  No!  Volk and Race are not the same:  Race is an ingredient of the blood, the kernel, but the Volk is formed not by one race, it is formed by 2, 3, 4 or 5 different racial kernels.” Hitler had no compunction or hesitation about allying himself with Japanese, Chinese, Rumanians, Arabs, against Nordic Aryan peoples:  Norwegians, Dutch, English.  There was a racist element in his thinking (as there is an almost every nationalist), but his governing obsession, the one against Jews, was something other than biological.  On one occasion he referred to Jews as less a physical than a “spiritual race.”

I guess that makes sense since Hitler himself was of the ‘Alpine’ rather than ‘Nordic’ race.  Also he preferred Classical Romano-Grecian cultural to that of the ancient Germans and was rather contemptuous of Himmler’s paganism.  Although he was pro-Arab and pro-Muslim he was reluctant to offend Mussolini by overtly allying with the Arabs, which would have dented Mussolini’s plans for an African empire.  Eventually of course the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem did join with the Nazis and helped recruit Muslims for Muslim SS charged with genocide duty against Slavs in the Balkans.

Trotskyites have been slinging around the fascist charge for the
last 50 years, reminds me of my years in YAF back in the 7o’s.

It’s amazing that the same people who were my political opponents
in 1974 during the Vietnam era, are now runnning the Republican
Party, and setting American foreign policy agenda.

If someone had told me this back then, I would have called them crazy.

“Race is an ingredient of the blood, the kernel, but the Volk is formed not by one race, it is formed by 2, 3, 4 or 5 different racial kernels.”

And this isn’t racialism?  And this isn’t eugenics? And this isn’t the breeding of a Meister- und Herrenrasse?  Does Spade think folks here are illiterates?

Red Philips advises me that such folk as Spade are so very rare and so transparently cranks as to be of no menace. Given that Spade’s claim of Adi not being a racialist claim is contracted by the very quote Spade offers, I think Red might be right.

Racialism and nationalism are two peas in a Mendelian pod.

Oh Sid, you are a very bad liar and your spin is even worse.  But I guess now you will have to find other authors than Lukacs to distort to support your Neoconism.

Here is a much more interesting explanation of the origin of the evil Hitler than the myth of his racism. 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_7_18/ai_83553874/print

Was Hitler’s homosexuality Nazism’s best-kept secret? . - fair comment - The Hidden Hitler - book review

Nathaniel S. Lehrman
Adolf Hitler’s homosexuality has been demonstrated beyond question by German historian Lothar Machtan’s massively researched new book, The Hidden Hitler, which shows homosexuality’s central role in Hitler’s personal life.

But the crucial role within the Nazi movement of the most vicious and lawless types of homosexuality, which Machtan also shows, is even more important than Hitler’s personal preference. In 1933, six months after Hitler took power, the distinguished Jewish author Ludwig Lewisohn described what Machtan confirms, that “the entire [Nazi] movement is in fact and by certain aspects of its avowed ideology drenched through and through with homoerotic feeling and practice.”

I wish people would look up definitions and stop bastardizing the language. Following definitions come from the Oxford English Dict. 20 volumes. /// Racism mean “acknowledging that there are differences amongst the races.” /// Racialism means that “some races are superior to others”. /// The ancient Greeks and the Romans had both racism and racialism.  They thought themselves superior to other races and acknowledged racial differences. The Jews have been racialists. But all this is NOT the core of Nazism. Nazism/Fascism is a mass revolutionary movement first and foremost, leveller and democratic! Osama Bin Laden is not a progressive, is not a democrat, is not a ideologue or a demogogue. I fail to see any “facism” in Islam. They are just trying to protect their societies from the decadent, secularized Marxist West. /// Why paleo conservatives are attacked is because we are the last of the traditionalists/nationalists.  We hold to the old order.  We are the enemy of the neo-cons and the Left. Paleo-cons are not “hot” for Israel---thus our ostracism.

Lothar Machtan’s work, The Hidden Hitler, is most impressive for the way that he builds the circumstantial case for Hitler’s homosexuality until it is overwhelming.  He proves the truism known to most police investigators that a thorough enough circumstantial case can be more persuasive than eye witness testimony or even some forensics.  But Machtan is also careful not to overstate his thesis.  He does not contend that Hitler’s sexual vices or those of other Nazis are the key or even the most important fact to understanding Hitler or Naziism.  Homosexuality, per Machtan, is chiefly useful for understanding some of the internal dynamics and politics of the movement.

Linsay Wheeler, quoting dictionary:
Racism mean “acknowledging that there are differences amongst the races.”

That’s a pure cultural-Marxist
(re)definition, though.  Everyone knows the implication of ‘racism’ is ‘race hatred’ and ‘racial supremacy’, not a neutral belief that races differ - which they obviously do, otherwise we couldn’t even describe them or formulate the concept.

I spent last night pondering three questions:
i. Why are Real Conservatives excluded from radio, television, and the press, as Paul Gottfried has observed?
ii. Why are the postings on this website by racialists, fascists and fascist apologists, Judeophobes, and extremist nationalists – hereafter the Far Right – so transparently stupid, with a parade of all the logical fallacies, or nothing but emotional ranting, hate mongering, and pathetic clowning?
iii.  Is Red Phillips correct that the Far Right is not a menace because of its insignificance?

Then deep in the dead of night it hit me. The Far Right responders on this site are most likely disguised Hamiltonians (“Neocons”) and Cultural Marxists who have infiltrated this website to discredit it.

Follow my logic:
a. The Far Right is both a minuscule minority (as Red Phillips correctly observes) of cranks, and also below the mark of respectability, and correctly so.
b. By filling this Real Conservative website with a large amount of Far Right filth and idiocy,
c. then Real Conservatism is thus made to seem to be also a minuscule minority of cranks, and also below the mark of respectability.  Call it the old tactic of guilt and denigration by association.

My backing:
1. It’s an extremely easy and effective strategy.
2. Most people can only think of politics, incorrectly, as a line going from Left to Right, and thus Real Conservatives would be closer (they aren’t) to the Far Right, and thus would become the Far Right by proximity.
3. Notice how the Real Conservatives here usually use their real names, and the putative Far Right posters use fake names, initials, or spell names in an odd way.  Were I to publish on Stormfront, I’d do the same.  Granted, I think there are distinguished and prominent members of the former Paleoconservative movement of the 90s who post under a Greek or Roman name to draw the attention away from him and her and toward his and her argument.  I don’t have a problem with that.  But the infiltrators from the Hamiltonians and the Cultural Marxists have every reason to use a fake name – names that can’t be checked. 
4. Notice also other idiosyncracies by such posters: the use of all lower case, blatant illiteracies such as “alot”, etc.  (Lest I appear pharisaic, I freely confess to my share of typos, and my orthography is so bad that some must think I’m really Dan Quayle.)
5. The supposed Far Rightists’ arguments are so transparently fallacious, or no evidence or argument is offered at all, that one might well believe that the poster doesn’t believe what he is saying, and wishes to make the rest of us look quite stupid. 
6.  Or the posers of Far Right views use the fallacy of Appeal to Authority, and “back” their arguments with pseudo-science or claiming that respectaable scholars (such as John Lukacs) support their views—all transparent tactics.
7.  Rather than offer a point-by-point refutation, they abuse with hate speech and derision Real Conservatives who post here and demand that we be removed.
8.  And my guess is that these Hamiltonian and Communist impostors of Far Right sentiments flood the mailbox of the TTD editor(and the editors of other Real Conservative sites) with demands that we Real Conservatives be removed, or whine of how “irked” they are, and with the threat of withholding funding (though I assume Taki pays for this site out of his own pocket).
9. And there are certain analogies between the Far Right on one hand and on the other Cultural Marxism and Hamitonianism: the omnipotent centralized state, the use of coercion; the obsession with race, ethnic identity, nationalism, and the irredentist claims of nations; welfare (be it for the Lumpen-proletariat or for corporations; and the use of underhanded methods, the same use of code words (“Islamofascism”), and the refusal to answer or debate or acknowledge Paleolibertarian and Real Conservative arguments (note the silence that greats the work of Thomas Dilorenzo, and not just by Hamiltonians and Cultural Marxists).  Indeed, in Germany, lots of NDP members are former SED members, and the NDP is strongest in the former GDR areas.
10 Note how they call Real Conservatives, with no evidence, “Neocons” and “Neoconism” or “Cultural Marxist”, much in the manner of Robert Welch, so as to drive out Real Conservatives and to make the Far Right view dominant – and thus discredit the Real Conservative movement.

My argument is a conjecture.  I would ask, Is it a reasonable and likely one?

So, Paul Gottfried, is it any wonder that we Real Conservative don’t appear on C-Span Booknotes, or that the John Randolf Club and the League of the South convention aren’t covered on C-Span?  If we are, wrongly, identified with the Far Right, then who wants on his program Klansmen, National Alliance Nazis, David Duke, Holocaust Denial advocates, promoters of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as genuine, assorted fascists, Aryan Nation/Stormfront extremists nationalists, or the ultra-nationalist promoters of irredentist claims of nations with whom The USA hasn’t the slightest interest?

Now, what is to be done?  Red Phillips says, “give it a rest”; in other words, just ignore the Far Right.  Maybe he’s correct.  Another approach:  The German Social Democrats, in the Bad Godesberger Programm, sharply distinguished themselves from the Far Left, denounced the Far Left, purge themselves of the Far Left, and said they were not ever remotely close to the Far Left.  The Christian Democratic Zentrum did the same to the anti-democrats and opponents of civil rights in their Soester Programm.  I urge the sponsors, writers, responders, and editors of The American Conservative, Chronicles/Rockford, and this website to do the same with the Far Right, and abjure racialism, eugenics, Judeophobia, retribalizaton (Richard Sennett’s term), and all the rest of the Far Right’s program.  Issues such as immigration, gun rights, Western Culture, Christian and Jewish Values, civil and human rights, etc. can be talk about without the Far Right’s jackboot thump!

Sid:
“...League of the South convention aren’t covered on C-Span”

I noticed on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website yesterday that they count the League of the South as a Hate Group, along with the likes of Aryan Resistance and other Neo-Nazi groups.  Which probably explains why you don’t see them on C-Span.

Mr. Cundiff, am I somehow missing out on your subtle sense of humor or are you really presenting some kind of super-elaborate conspiracy theory here?

Simon Newman: bingo!  And the Far Rightist postings give the SPLC Cultural Marxists all the ammo they need!

Kirt Higdon:  Of course the more credible explanation is that that minuscule minority of Far Right cranks really are the true identity of the posters, and they are just trying to make us think there are more of them than in reality.  I consider my explanation credible, if not plausible, all the same. Were I a Cultural Marxist or a Hamiltonian, what better tactic could I use to discredit Real Conservatives?

Sid the Sister has exposed himself in hs insane rant.  What Sid/Sister is saying is that groups such as the SPLC, ACLU, ADL etc. have the moral high ground.  All conservatives must do is play to the tune of these groups, and all will be well.  So for example, if only Mel Gibson had changed his movie, the Passion of the Christ, to suit the demands of such groups, all would’ve been well and said groups wouldn’t have predicted that the movie would cause pograms etc. 

For the Sidster, the fault is never on the Left, its always on the Right, except when he wants to use someone like Hillary to scare folks on the Right to accept someone like Rudy.

Isn’t Sam Spade a delight!

Sid:
“that that minuscule minority of Far Right cranks really are the true identity of the posters”

I have occasionally noticed what appear to be cultural-Marxist trolls posting on conservative websites, notably when Steve Sailer opened his blog for comments.  The idea seemed to be to get a rise out of the genuine posters and thus ‘expose their racism’ or somesuch.
Most of the occasional racist/Nazi type posts here though look to me like semi-literate sad cranks, but genuine.

I agree with Sam Spade though that cultural Marxist outfits like SPLC certainly don’t operate in good faith and don’t need to rely on fake blog posts for their guilt-by-association and other slanders.

Thanks, Simon, for the information.  Intellectuals, ideologues, and party hacks try to imitate the the police in the arts of the agent provocateur, the sting operation, and False flag operations. 

Then we have cranks and the gullible listeners. Some folk will believe anything. “American Blood has been shed on American Soil!” “The Rebels have fired on Fort Sumter!” (forget that it was a tax office and there was one casualty: a mule). “Remember the Maine!” “We must make the Mexicans to be good men!” “The Germans are eating Belgian children!” “The Huns killed all those souls on the Lusitania!” (forget that it was carrying munitions, munitions that exploded and blew out the bottom of the ship). “We have a destiny to fight the War of Righteousness, the war to end all wars, the war to make the world safe for democracy!” “Them perfidious Japs done attacked innocent Pearl Harbor!” (forget about a silly Gringo colony called The Philippines 1/2 way around the world).  “You’re a nervous Nelly if you don’t support the containment of Commies in Vietnam!”. “So-Damn Insain’s gonna get nukes!” “Dr. Milton Eisenhower is a Commie agent!” “Sid’s a member of the SPLC!”

-- File all the above under Grimm’s Fairy Tales.

Sidster, you are lying again.  I never said you were a member of the SPLC.  I said that you operate from the position that such an organization and its ideology has the moral high ground. 

What is interesting is that Simon’s description of how Left Wing trolls operate is very much how you Sid operated when you posted at Chronicles in response to Pat Buchanan’s essay on the Color of Crime, attacking Pat of course.  It just so happens that the SPLC also attacked Pat for that column.  Gosh, I’m sure its just so unusual for you to end up allied with the SPLC.  Its as shocking as Claude Rains discovering gambling going on at Rick’s Cafe.

Sid the ADL, ACLU,and the SPLC are anti
Christian hate groups far worse than anything I have seen from anyone, I have ever seen on this site.Why don’t you talk about Zionist racism in Palistine for once as it is about to get us into a World War 3.

Sam only knows old tricks:
-- reference or quote out of context,
-- no way the reader can see the context,
-- asserted association ("Mr. Joseph Welch, do you know that Fred Fisher was a member of the Communist Party” “I have a list of 50 SPLLC members in the Paleocon movement!")
-- distortion of another’s argument, or omission
-- guilt by association or very tangential analogy,
-- denial what what one earlier clearly said, putting words in another’s mouth,
-- playing the prophet,—Robert Welch Red-baiting and Red Scare tactics,
-- ad hominem,
-- red herring,
-- non sequitur,
-- no evidence, no argument,
-- the false dilemma fallacy ("if you’re not my racialist-nationalist-fascist] position then your a Communist"),
-- and just plain lies (e.g. that I operate out of the position of the SPLC). 
We’ve see it all.  Red Phillip’s right. We’re wasting our time with Sam.  Let’ just say Joseph Welch said, and then drop it.

Jack, regarding the organizations you have listed, there might be some truth in what you say. I just need evidence of their Anti-Christian views.  That our culture, at least the media and the universities, are anti-Christian I have no doubt.

As for Zionism, my view is that this just isn’t a USA interest; let’s get out of that part of the world, and leave it at that.

Thats right Sid, leave the middle east and bring home all the troops from the rest of the world as well, viva Ron Paul.The three groups mentioned ACLU,ADl,and the SPLC love to smear opponents as fascists and antisemites which seems to be a problem for you as well.You paint with too broad a brush, with all due respect.

Thanks, jack.  However much folk like Sam Spade reinforce by fears, your broad brush charge may be true.  I’ve been the victim of the same.

The Sidster is still lying and smearing.  Note that the Sidster never uses the term “Neocon”, except when denying that he is one.  Instead, he calls the Neocons “Hamiltonians”, even though Neoconism has nothing to do with Hamiltonians.  To compare the two distinct ideologies, check out Russell Kirk’s quick summary of Hamilton in the Conservative Mind. And check out below what Red Phillips really thinks of the Sidster.

26Red Phillips

The sad thing is that Sid doesn’t recognize that he is carrying water for the left-wing PC crowd. He fancies himself a defender of taint free conservatism.

I say we declare a truce, because this is growing tiresome. I’ll leave it alone if Sid will

45Red Phillips
Sid,

I hear they have an opening for Director of Obfuscation at the Sky is Green Institute on the beautiful campus of PC University. You should apply. You would be perfect for the job.

Paul Gottfried’s blog of Sept.19 is a gem because it’s so perfectly on target. Neo cons will continue to prevail, as he writes, and we shall continue to be irrelevant because the liberal powers that be choose to ignore us.
Ironically, I don’t mind at all. Throughout history, great wrongs took a hell of a long time to be reversed. One day, when Paul and others like him, and I include myself in this, will no longer be around, we will get our due. America, like Rome, will have lost its power through overstretch, misguided immigration policies, and the AIPAC-funded elimination of patriotic politicians. The Roman empire opened its borders to barbarian immigration, transforming its society, the army and the very government of the empire. The neocons are the Goths of Roman times, working from within, like Alaric. Gottfried is a great man who shall be appreciated long after he’s gone.

Taki, your analogy between America and Rome comes very
close to the truth, but not quite close enough.  When
Rome collapsed, it was the almost total collapse of
Western civilisation.  But America does not represent
Western civilisation like the Roman Empire did.  Western
civilisation was almost incapable of surviving the collapse
of Rome, but it can certainly survive the collapse of America.
That ought to be reassuring for those of us who identify
principally with our ancient civilisation, although it ought
to alarm entities such as AIPAC for whom the collapse of
American power will mean their own.  But the collapse of
the West?  No, that is not contingent on what happens to
the American Empire - or if anything, the collapse of
the American Empire might be necessary for the West’s
survival.