, so quick to flutter their eyelashes around “terrorist” and “holocaust denier” and then at other times they just won’t come out and play.
“BBC soft soaps Holocaust denier” – blogs Adloyada, referring to this BBC article about David Irving. I quite agree with the view of the sociologist quoted in the BBC article that the law should not be used to silence the likes of Irving (although when he brings a libel case to intimidate and silence a critic and then loses, I laugh loud and long) – but that’s not the issue. The issue is, as Adloyada says that he isn’t a “holocaust denier” as the BBC sidebar repeatedly puts it, he is a Holocaust denier. We don’t have to wait for a court to tell us this; it is quite clear to anyone who has read any substantial portion of his output – but even if we did, a British court has unambiguously ruled that he is not only a Holocaust denier but has actively lied about and distorted historical evidence in order to further his Holocaust denial.
As Adloyada also points out, there are a few other points in the BBC article that could do with some scare quotes. Irving is not an “academic” and he is not “engaging.” On my own account I rather felt that the description of Irving as a “gentleman”, even if offered as one of two alternative futures, would have been better employed at some editorial distance.
There is a more profound question discussed in Adloyada’s post: that the Western media seems to have accepted a line pushed by the Iranian state-controlled media among others, namely that Holocaust denial is an offence against the Jewish religion. But that is a matter for the advanced class.
UPDATE: I see that as I was writing this post, Laban was writing another – concerning the Adloyada post just above the one I quote. The coincidence is not that great. There is a common theme to the two stories concerned.
Why is Irving is described as “the Briton” in the BBC’s piece? Is this some attempt to create some patriotic support to a “Briton” battling away in a foreign land?
PM this evening.
Irving case covered and the red-herring comparison to the Danish cartoon issue dragged out.
NOTE TO PM: israelis didnt burn the british embassy down and call for the killing of all Britons because Irving is a “briton”
radio 4 – 6pm. leads on david irving story. (does anyone really *care* ?)
Someone tell this stupid reporter that “insulting Jews” and Holocaust-denial are not the same thing. The latter is a criminal offence in two EU countries; the former is not even a criminal offence.
And while you’re at it, do tell her that Holocaust-denial is not an imprisonable offence in 23 of the 25 EU member states, despite her assertion that Europe might be accused of “double standards”.
The BBC is obsessed with this story.
Subject: In tonight’s programme
From: Newsnight
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:20:51 +0000 (GMT)
IRVING
David Irving has pleaded guilty, at a trial in Vienna, to charges of denying the Holocaust. But should you really have laws that ban certain
views of history?
Evidently the BBC is ready to accept that Allah is the only true God, and Mohammed is his prophet.
World gone mad…
Coverage of the Irving sentence:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm
Asked how many Jews were killed by Nazis, he replied: “I don’t know the figures. I’m not an expert on the Holocaust.”
But he claimed to be an expert and wrote several books!
The piece ends on a (for the BBC) hopeful note:
He said it was “ridiculous” that he was being tried for expressing an opinion.
“Of course it’s a question of freedom of speech… I think within 12 months this law will have vanished from the Austrian statute book,” he said.
Over my dead body!
But he claimed to be an expert and wrote several books!
Biodegradable, I don’t see any published books on the subject
http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/index.html
Perhaps you are talking about “fake” books?
well -ones things for sure. thanks to the publicity , his site will get lots of hits.
Actually Archduke, the reaction to Irving is so very reminiscent to that of Salman Rushdie. Heaps of indignation, complete and utter ignorance as to his historical ouevre, heaps of abuse (John Snow on C4 calling him “loopy”, etc.) I have the sneaking suspicion that none of these journalists have ever bothered to read a single work of his, or turned a single page. I haven’t heard anybody cite one of his historical works yet. But look how everybody (including bloggers) jump up on their internet hobby horses and shoot from the hip. Given the proximity to the recent anniversary one would have thought a mention of his work on the bombing of Dresden, or what about his book on” The German Atomic Bomb”? No lets all behave as if he never wrote such things. Truly only a “loopy” historian could ever win praise from a Nobel Prize winner such as Werner Heisenberg. How about Michael Frayn’s play on Niels Bohr ‘Copenhagen’ partly based on Irving’s book? No, it seems he has become as risible a figure as Abu Hamza for the media. They don’t even notice he has a pen in his hands, it might as well be a hook. It’s a sorry day for British historians. At least Lipstadt and Richard Evans said that they were against this sentence.
This sentence is truly outrageous. Voltaire, historian of Charles XII, would be turning in his grave. What sort of signal does this send Iran? Indeed, the wider Islamic world. We (The Europeans) are truly grand hypocrites!
As I have said, I oppose the criminalisation of holocaust denial. But saying that Irving has received praise from a Nobel prize winner cuts no ice with me: there are some very odd folk who have won Nobel prizes. And praise from Heisenberg on any other subject than physics cuts no ice with me either. To say that his moral status vis a vis the Nazis is governed by an uncertainty principle is putting it kindly.
I’ve read some of his stuff – The Destruction of Dresden made his name 35 years back and has stood the test of time.
But I’m old fashioned enough to want to judge history as history. If what he’s currently writing is crap then presumably historians can shoot it down. Remember what AJP Taylor said about his (Taylor’s) History of WW2 ?
I paraphrase :
“Some people have accused me of giving comfort to those who want to rehabilitate Hitler. This seems a comtemptible argument to use against a work of history. For my part I would even record facts in favour of the British Government, if there were any to record”. He added ‘joke’ after this sentence.
I think that Irving is very much aware of his own historical uncertainty even when it comes to facts. And I’m sure some would say with a hint of schadenfreude that its all rather fitting justice for somebody who is a holocaust denier. However, IMHO in his wider ouevre he has shown himself a master of original German historical sources.I don’t want to repeat Voltaire again. This is an outrageous day for academic freedom of speech
“In 1981 the German authorities in Haigerloch opened a museum on the site of the last experimental atomic pile built by Heisenberg’s team. They asked me for technical assistance and the unique photographs in the book, many of which had been provided to me by Michael Perrin (later chairman of Burroughs Welcome group in London), who headed the MI6 team which dismantled the pile and investigated the scientists. The museum’s brochure paid full credit to me for my pioneering work in writing the first history of the project; many years later, in 2001, the German left wing and the Verfassungschutz (Office for the Protection of the Constitution) insisted that all reference to my name be removed from the brochure and museum.”
http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/VirusHouse/index.html
“This sentence is truly outrageous. Voltaire, historian of Charles XII, would be turning in his grave. What sort of signal does this send Iran? Indeed, the wider Islamic world. We (The Europeans) are truly grand hypocrites!
chris | 20.02.06 – 8:20 pm ”
indeed. i’m incredibly uncomfortable with the whole affair, much as i dont like his holocaust denial.
it gives the IslamoNazis far more ammunition now. and the stupid Austrians have just walked right into it.
I’m afraid I can sense a smidgeon of schadenfreude coming from the mainstream media, but not as a result of Irving’s imprisonment.
That article, linked by Natalie, hints at it: we ‘Europeans’ are hypocrites when it comes to ‘freedom of speech’; we insult Muslims but bang up historians who deny the Holocaust. What double standards we ‘Europeans’ have, eh?
The BBC and the UK media can now bathe in their own self-righteousness because THEY showed ‘respect’ and didn’t publish the cartoons.
Why is Irving is described as “the Briton” in the BBC’s piece?
Probably to contrast him with “The Austrian” that Irving is convinced was blameless throughout the 1933-45 period.
When I said, “To say that his moral status vis a vis the Nazis is governed by an uncertainty principle is putting it kindly”, by “his” I meant Heisenberg’s.
it gives the IslamoNazis far more ammunition now. and the stupid Austrians have just walked right into it.
archduke
Really ? Those ever-so rational Muslims ? They will have to burn down the Japanese embassies next since they have never apologised for the Rape of Nanking or the butchery in Hong Kong
Enough please about Irving. The man is quite despicable and the uses to which he puts his scholarship are worse. To quote Adloyada (http://adloyada.typepad.com/adloyada/): “the judge at the libel trial Irving brought to try and silence Professor Deborah Lipstadt found that he had repeatedly falsified and distorted historical evidence. And that the purpose of his doing so was to exonerate Hitler and the Nazis, to deny the Holocaust and to vilify the Jews as a people.”
Unfortunately the BBC is using Irving’s trial (which is of very little general interest in the UK) as a diversionary tactic from the real and immediate threats to the West exemplified by the failure of the BBC (and the rest of the UK media) to stand up and be counted with the Danes. Rather, the BBC confuses the issue by conflating prohibition of holocaust denial (in Austria and Germany: not the UK although this isn’t emphasised by the BBC) with the possibility of “double standards” towards Islam in the publication of the cartoons. Whatever Irving’s stated and published views, he doesn’t go around in fear of his life as do the cartoonists or as Rushdie did. I fear that what we will get in the UK is a law prohibiting Islam denial – a ban on denying the “truth” of Islam: in one sense (cf Jack Straw’s comments on the cartoon affair) we already have it.
The Destruction of Dresden made his name 35 years back and has stood the test of time.
Really ? He’s not too hot on numbers though – exaggeration is an art form
rick-> we’ve had the islamofascists calling europe hypocritical because of holocaust denial laws, and calling for as a result, “islam denial laws” as umbongo calls them.
thats why i think its a bit of an own goal – the islamofascists will now be jumping up and down pointing at Austrian/German laws as being biased in favour of the “joooos” and them having no protection for their “prophet”.
and Irving really is a nasty piece of neo-fascist scum. but the timing could have been a bit better with this court case, what with all that cartoon rage.
I fear that what we will get in the UK is a law prohibiting Islam denial – a ban on denying the “truth” of Islam: in one sense (cf Jack Straw’s comments on the cartoon affair) we already have it.
umbongo
Grand historical irony then- both Irving & Straw went to the same public school in the 1950s
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Germany/docs/Straw221297.html
Umbongo is spot on.
Yes, it is a criminal offence publicly to deny the Holocaust in Austria. This is Austrian domestic law and it seems to be something of an anomaly, but it is a law nonetheless. That said, if I went to Saudi Arabia and publicly denied that the Crusades had taken place, I should very likely be in hot water. But that is neither here nor there – there are no real parallels to be drawn here.
But the following statement has to be repeated, if only for the benefit of BBC journalists and political Islamists: it is not a crime to insult someone.
Holocaust-denial may be insulting to Jews but if you deny the Holocaust in Austria you will not be banged up for ‘insulting’ Jews. You will be banged up for Holocaust-denial.
The quote from the Arab League bloke unwittingly confirms this. The BBC obviously thinks it is being clever by inserting and highlighting this quote but in actual fact it is confusing matters, probably deliberately, to highlight ‘European’ double standards.
This is silly. I could mock European disapproval of those countries who still use capital punishment by pointing out that piracy in the Port of London is still an offence punishable by death. It may not be enforced but it is still the law in the UK, isn’t it? Double standards, surely? And the UK is in Europe so this is evidence of European hypocrisy, ja?
Yes, mine is a crap argument but so is the one put forward in the BBC article.
But I am sure the BBC will defend this article with another one of its “well, it’s all about perception” or “this is how it will be seen in the Middle East” rebuttals.
Natalie Solent,
I thought it was a good quantum joke.
In order to show people that Hitler and the nazis are really bad, and to ensure that this TYPE of thing does not happen again, there is a paradox.
If you demonise the Nazis to much, it is impossible for people to reconise them in their modern day life. However if you dont you either get called a Nazi yourself, or you simply dont get your message across.
It is unlikely that the next Nazi movement in Europe will start with millitary parades and funny Hindu signs. It is more likely to start with red roses and lotts and lotts and lotts of prolonged properganda. Then the rapid increase of unregulated undemocratic pan-European institutions. Followed by civil-war organised to break out in specific places. This will result in the breakdown of civil-order, and economic dislocation. At this time the next leader of Europe will emerge, and not a jack boot in sight.
Have anyone in mind?
Socialists demonise Nazism to a unrealistic level for a reason. That is just to distract you from their own acrid smell.
On Newsnight tonight, the reporting on arch-holocaust-denier David Irving labelled him “right-wing” – deliberately associative and despicably so. I am right-wing: I define myself as right-wing because I support free-speech, capitalism, Israel etc and because I oppose socialism, the EU, the BBC and PC etc. The BBC’s attempt to lump a neo-nazi sympathiser in with me is pathetic and it shows just how dangerous that lying corporation really is.
Letts try this again because some people have not quite got the message
The Nazis were NOT RIGHT WING
Their is tottaly nothing watsoever, I mean as oposite as it is possible to be between Classic Libertarianism and National Socialism.
Got it.
If any one can come up with even one thing the same. I promiss to shoot myself.
Please remember we have had socialists in this country for a long time. Communism was considered to be Left Wing in Europe. A lott of socialists in 1939 were pasifist until Germany broke the pact with the Soviat Union. Then Nazism became opposite to communism, which then had to be Right Wing.
Would it suprise anyone that the main protaganist of this approach was the BBC? Would it supprise you also that George Orwell, who was working for the BBC at the time, came up with the idear? To help motivate left wing pasifists.
That last bit might just be a plausable lie but I did read it somewhere.
Gary
like nu labour, authoritarian socialists become more and more fascist over time in order to enforce deeply unnatural and dehumanizing policies, it can only ever end in tears.
Paxman, expressing the same sort of sympathy for Irving (“ageing eccentric”) that he shows for C. B. Fry, laconically:
“Shouldn’t he be free to say whatever he wants?”
I might be naive, but if Irving was a “political activist” as claimed on Newsnight by Prof. Ceaserani, and not a historian, what political party in England was he active in? He wasn’t exactly like Jörg Haider strutting his stuff on the political scene was he? I don’t know many politicians who have written over 30 books.
“One of the reasons the English have never been much interested in either fascism or communism is that they have a very sensible scepticism about what the state can achieve.”(Paxman, The English, A Portrait of a People, 2000, p.138)
Nazis, communists, fascists or whatever: it doesn’t matter because they seek to suppress or eliminate anyone who either disagrees with them or doesn’t fit their model. The question of which of them is right-wing/left-wing is a circular debate.
Socialism and its sibling, political correctness, are unnatural and require great enforcement, and the indoctrinated manpower to do so. Likewise, the BBC wouldn’t exist unless its very existence was imposed upon its increasingly unwilling contributors, and enforced. Opposition to the BBC is a genuine right-wing stance because none of the ideologues who support the previously cited dogmas can consider biased, state-run broadcasting to be inherently bad.
The continual argument about whether the Nazis were left wing or right is fueled by the fact that National Socialism derived its philosophy from the nineteenth century utopean movement-as did communism, socialism, the Labour Party and for that matter most Liberal as opposed to liberal thinking. It was the inevitable result of intellectuals deciding how a ‘perfect’ society should operate and then forcing that pattern on the rest. In a sense, Gary Powell’s assertation that NuLabour resembles the Nazi Party is perfectly accurate. The philosophy is identical although the aims may differ.
Interestingly, the only markedly successful society set up on utopean principles is the USA, but then the designers of the Constitution saw utopia in NOT being told what to do.
Anyone misguided enough to see any merit in the work of “historian” David Irving should watch these two extraordinary interviews on Australian TV with Deborah Lipstadt – who was sued for libel by Irving because she pointed out that he was a Holocaust denier.
Lipstadt recalls that at one point in the trial, when Irving was addressing he judge, he called him “my fuehrer.”
As the lady pointed out, that was quite a revealing moment.
Anyone misguided enough to see any merit in the work of “historian” David Irving should watch these two extraordinary interviews on Australian TV
Bryan
Rather than watch TV, why not attempt to read one of his books? Irving has never written a book on the holocaust. I suggest the one on the German atomic bomb and then try to cite him as an historian in inverted commas.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/index.html
It’s rather like saying don’t read Rushdie, he has no merit as a “novelist” watch an interview with an Iranian ayatollah instead who has pronounced a fatwa- with no disrespect to prof. Lipstadt in this analogy. It really is a subject that is marginal to his historical oeuvre. I noticed that the BBC Today team this morning invited along Lord Janner to gloat & express his pleasure at the sentence. Irving has always spoken of Lord Janner as [deleted] But not an entirely unpredictable choice for the bbc. Paxman showed himself to be in a class of his own interviewing Elmar Kresbach last night on bbc 2 Newsnight.
Edited By Siteowner
Natalie
I thought you were on holiday for a fortnight.
xxx
No, just a week with travel time at both ends. Can’t keep away from you guys for long. – NS
Edited By Siteowner
Bryan, I’m not sure of your nationality, but no one is claiming he is a Jewish historian, a 20th century Flavius Josephus. Is it possible that you are upset that he has written about “British” themes- I’m thinking of his “The Destruction of Convoy PQ. 17″ or, on the legendary dambusters, the 617 squadron,”The Night the Dams Burst”, or, his latest tomes on Winston Churchill? Regardless of this Austrian trial, and charges of holocaust denial, it’s patently absurd to deny that he has no merit as an historian! I am convinced that you have not read these works, and my argument would be you show just as much hysteria and bias as those who condemn to death the writers of the Mohammed cartoons without ever having seen them. Why don’t you admit you haven’t read him, and then reflect on what your condemnation means in the context of freedom of speech?
The Today prog interviews Jack Straw this morning on his visit to Iraq. The whole purpose of his visit is to stress on all the politicians milling around over the formation of the new Government that there must be inclusion. Evidently the US and Britain are insisting that the Ministers in charge of the army, police and internal security must be seen as neutral rather than strongly partisan towards the Shia or the Kurds. A better sense of inclusion of the Sunni is essential to secure internal peace, to de-fang the Iraqi insurgents so that the Al Q terrorists can be faced down.
So what questions are put to jack Straw to explore this critical issue, for which so much Coalition blood and treasure has been spilt ? No questions whatsover. Instead, he is questioned about a bunch of errant British squaddies.
No, of course the BBC is not obsessive !
When they came to change the subject, did they talk about the huge threat of Iraq, how to deal with it ? Did they talk about Darfur, where massacres continue and NATO needs to step in ? Did they talk about the crisis in Nepal.
Heck no. The next and only other topic the Foreign Secretary was grilled on was Gitmo.
The BBC has descended into the slime.
Really ? He’s not too hot on numbers though – exaggeration is an art form
Rick | 20.02.06 – 9:59 pm | #
Fallersleben wasn’t too hot identifying works by Goethe either, but you wouldnt refer to him as a “poet”
And did they discuss the nuclear threat of Iran ?
Of course not.
Did they discuss the recent eye-popping hints by Iraq that they want to join NATO?
http://www.inthebullpen.com/?p=4216
Or that Kurdistan is to all intents and purposes now an independent state :
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001060.html
Did the BBC mention that the Kurds are offering money to any Arab Christian in the rest of Iraq to relocate to their area?
(read that link above)
And did the BBC ever ask the question, why?
(google for attacks on Christians in Iraq)
Of course , you’d never learn any of this from listening to the Today idiots prattling on with their agenda-driven “news”.
“Heck no. The next and only other topic the Foreign Secretary was grilled on was Gitmo.”
much as i dont like the guy (“man of straw”), when that crap happens , i really feel sorry for the chap.
Its infantile , secondary school journalism – they are interviewing the FOREIGN SECRETARY for chrissakes.
you know – a chap who might have some interesting geopolitical , big global issue stuff to talk about.
“If any one can come up with even one thing the same. I promiss to shoot myself.” – Gary Powell.
Gary, the offer is just too tempting. I simply point you in the direction of the wikipedia article on “Fascism and ideology”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology
Yes, I know it’s wikipedia and therefore can be edited by anyone, but some of you lot are more than happy to link to other blogs as “proof” of your points. The article contains the following choice quotes:
“Despite important differences from other right-wing ideologies, fascism is often considered to be a part of “the Right.” This is somewhat parallel to the customary inclusion of Marxism-Leninism (and, in particular, that of the Stalinist Soviet Union and Maoist China) in “the left.” Nonetheless, fascism differs significantly from other politics that are usually classified as right-wing, and most right-wingers (even many far right groups) reject any association with it. Most left-wingers (even many communists) similarly reject any association with Stalinism and Maoism.”
“Benito Mussolini himself was originally a socialist, though he disavowed his ties by the time he was leading the fascist party and many of his old comrades were the first targets of his political police.”
“The DAP, which later became the Nazi Party, was formed in response and in opposition to a brief Communist revolt in Bavaria. While the Nazis opposed individualism and laissez faire capitalism, vigorous opposition to Communism and Social democracy was a founding and continuing tenet of National Socialism”
“The fascist view of the role of the state is sometimes said to exemplify why fascism would be placed on the right, rather than the left.”
“Griffin, Eatwell, Laqueuer, and Weber are reluctant to call fascism simply a right-wing ideology. Yet in their lengthy discussions they observe that generally fascism and neofascism ally themselves with right-wing or conservative forces on the basis of racial nationalism, hatred of the political left, or simple expediency.”
“According to these scholars, as well as Payne (1995), Fritzsche (1990), Laclau (1977), and Reich (1970), there are both left and right influences on fascism as a social movement, and right-wing ideology should not be considered part of the “fascist minimum”; nonetheless fascism ultimately attracts support from the political right, especially after attaining state power.”
“Fascists themselves often rejected categorization as left or right-wing, claiming to be a “third force” (see international third position and political spectrum for more information). However, the only relevant self-proclaimed fascist party in modern world, the Italian Social Movement called itself “National Right”.”
“In contemporary politics, neofascists and neonazis are said to be far-right. Authoritarian conservatives such as supporters of the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet or supporters of the military juntas that ruled much of Latin America in the 1970s are also said to be far-right”
“Hannah Arendt asserts that fascism, Nazism and Stalinism are all forms of totalitarianism, and that “totalitarian movements use socialism and racism by emptying them of their utilitarian content, the interests of a class or nation.” (The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt, page 348). Similar views have also been espoused by Karl Popper and others. However, neither Arendt nor Popper challenged the prevailing perception of communism being on the left and fascism on the right.”
“According to the David Nolan’s Nolan chart, “fascism” occupies a place on the political spectrum as the capitalist equivalent of communism, wherein a system that supports “economic liberty” is constrained by its social controls such that it becomes totalitarian.”
–
These are just selections from the article – I urge you to read the whole thing. It’s well-considered, balanced, and presents both sides of the argument (Hayek gets a good airing).
Now go get that gun…
It’s rather like saying don’t read Rushdie, he has no merit as a “novelist”
I slogged through The Satanic Verses and I think describing Rushdie as a ‘novelist’ is stretching things slightly.
PS You may be interested to note that this article – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4734648.stm – describes Irving as a Holocaust denier. In the headline. Without quotation marks.
Chris,
No, I’m not hysterical and I’m as unlike an ayatollah as it’s possible to be. And, far from hiding anything, I would have acknowledged that I haven’t read Irving if anyone had asked me. In fact, I’ve never bought a book of his, never gone onto his site and don’t have the slightest interest in doing so.
I base my repugnance of the man mostly on evidence uncovered during the Lipstadt libel trial by minds far greater than mine. They did all the groundwork. They uncovered Irving’s distortions, omissions, inventions, falsifications and downright lies regarding the Holocaust.
I also find him repugnant because he said of Lipstadt, in an attempt to intimidate her, that she should have been the one to be taken out of the line and shot. And because the judge in the libel case found, “He is an active Holocaust denier. That he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.”
And I also find him repugnant because, faced with jail, he lied, yet again, claiming that he had changed his mind about the Holocaust because of “new evidence.” The man is a coward.
As far as freedom of speech goes, I reiterate that there are laws against libel. And what Irving has spent a lifetime doing is far more serious and damaging than libelling one or two people.
If he’s your hero, you’re on the wrong website.
And my nationality is none of your damn business.
“Fascists themselves often rejected categorization as left or right-wing, claiming to be a “third force”
NuLabour a “third way in politics” (Tony Blair).
Mmmmmm……
Chris writes, regarding David Irving,
“…my argument would be you show just as much hysteria and bias as those who condemn to death the writers of the Mohammed cartoons without ever having seen them. Why don’t you admit you haven’t read him, and then reflect on what your condemnation means in the context of freedom of speech?”
“Just as much”, eh? I haven’t heard Bryan or anyone else wishing to condemn Irving to death. In fact, so far as I recall, everyone here has argued against using the law in any way to silence or punish Irving.
I’ve read a fair bit of Irving’s stuff. Started off OK, went crazy. Always a risk when you obsess on the Third Reich. My personal theory is that he is really a pliant creature. Believes whatever the strongest character around him tells him to believe.
Gary:
Put the gun down and read this website.
http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think/fascism.html
It might save your life.
oh god – here we go with more idiotic
Nazism = Communism nonsense.
“They promote the abolition of property” – so Franco’s Spain, Mussolinis Italy and Nazi Germany ALL abolished private property?
come off it.
“Children are torn away from their families.” – WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Read up about the German family under Nazi Germany. In fact mothers were encouraged to stay at home.
The only time when you had special “breeding” was for the S.S. – for the average German, it didnt happen – in fact they were given tax benefit etc etc to just have more kids.
The ideals of the German family (and the “Volk”) was crucial to the Nazi philosophy.
“The dissolution of the family” – oh for gods sake. have any of these idiots read anything about fascism?
So, Franco’s Catholic Spain was a figment of my imagination?
I’m not a Nazi, and I’m not a Communist, but i know the huge difference between the two.
They are both coerced collectivists (i.e. they feel that people have to be FORCED together), instead of come together naturally.
That’s why I try not use to use right-wing, from the outcome of Russia and Old-Europe’s economic experiment “correct wing” is my preffered term.