Category: Uncategorized

DU asks: Are you willing to entertain the possibility that this may be the Iraq version of the Tet Offensive? That the resistance might just have staked everything on this uprising and we put it down that they will be broken?

I’m certainly open to the possibility. It’s not that I’m impressed by the savagery of the resistance or anything, after all, as much as it grieves me greatly that a single Marine should be lost, this was hardly the first day of Tarawa. But I am not at all sure that lowering the boom, so to speak, is likely to work greatly against a populace against which numerous booms have been lowered for decades. Remember, the jihad considered Afghanistan a win against the Soviets, never mind that they probably lost 20-1 casualties there, possibly even higher. And if you’re accustomed to your neighbors being fed to plastic shredders, I’m not sure the notion of being arrested and being fed well by the Americans is particularly frightening.

I’m also not impressed with the Bush administration’s idiotic notion of keeping Iraq together in this bizarre forced embrace of bitter enemies. If they had any real desire to make the situation work and bring freedom to Iraq, they’d carve it up according to tribal and religious zones and allow each group complete independence. Of course, the administration is not seriously dedicated to freedom and self-determination for Iraqis, but it’s a pleasant-sounding fiction. I don’t know precisely what their goals are, but democracy and free self-determination are clearly not two of them.

From the Mogambo Guru: For the first time in a long time, two things happened at the same time. First, I wasn’t lashing out at a cruel world when I woke up, and the second thing is that Foreign Custody Holdings at the Fed decreased last week. In fact, it went down by a whopping $16.8 billion. I will pause a minute while you rub your eyes in disbelief at both of these revelations, as I think I speak for us all when I say that we are all dumbfounded that the Mogambo even HAS any mood other than “bad” or that foreign central banks would not want to continue to fund the appetites of a consumption-addled bunch of financial and economic dimwits like us Americans. What in the hell could they have been thinking?

The banks, since we are speaking of a real dimwitted bunch of losers, soaked up $18.2 billion of government debt in the same week, taking their holdings of that toxic asset to a new, all-time record, which indicates that their supply of smarts has hit a new all-time low, in a kind of symmetrical yin-yang banking thing. But then again, I am sure that you remember that the whole history of macroeconomic crises is always the result of banks acting like greedy morons, and that this sordid history lesson goes all the way back to caveman days, when the First National Bank of Og financed the Great Depression of the Thirteenth Year of the Rule of King Ga the Merciless, and I am sure that I do not have to recount for you the terrible aftermath, wherein all the mastodons, well, why go into that unpleasantness all over again?

And the banks are starting to increase their reserves too. Worried about a potential run? Probably not, since a bank can’t go bust these days, not as long as we have Ben Bernahnke’s magic printing press backed by the full faith and confidence of the federal government.

Here’s what I don’t understand about what I consider to be the horrendously bad idea to occupy Iraq. Given the failed French colonization of Algeria, the failed Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the failing Russian occupation of Chechnya, why does anyone believe that an American occupation of Iraq is likely to be any more successful? Yes, I’m aware of the success of the Japanese and German occupations, but in case you hadn’t noticed, there are significant differences between those two cultures and Arabic culture. We won the war – which I believe was justified by virtue of Hussein’s repeated violations of the 1991 ceasefire – but once Baghdad had fallen and Hussein was in our hands, our job was done.

In the last six years, the Russians have killed almost ten percent of the Chechnyan population, and yesterday they still lost almost as many troops as we did in fighting the bloodiest battle of the Iraqi occupation to date. Does anyone seriously think that the USA is going to be willing wipe out 2.2 million Iraqis in an attempt to pacify the country? I don’t believe that for a second, and yet the Chechnyan example indicates that even that might not be enough. Iraq is not exactly a country unaccustomed to suffering savage butchery.

It is a foolish, foolish thing to stake national prestige on changing the hearts and minds of another culture. In order to successfully extricate our forces without creating significant doubts about our military power, it will now probably be necessary to topple another regime before declaring victory and bringing our troops home as we should have done once Baghdad had fallen and Hussein was in our hands. I imagine Iran is the next target, since Israel is going to hit them soon before their nuclear production facilities go online if we don’t do anything first.

And before Bane, Rat Spleen and company start leaping all over me with unfounded accusations of martial cowardice and dovishness, I’d ask them to answer one question. If we’re not as ruthless as the Russians and the French, and their greater ruthlessness did not suffice to pacify other Arab nations, how and why do you expect this occupation to end well? And what is your metric, at what point would you be willing to admit that the occupation has failed and the troops should come home?

One of history’s most repetitive lessons is that there are limits to what can be accomplished through military power. As governments since the days of Nero have learned time and time again, you cannot force people to think and behave as you wish if they prefer to die. You can only kill them, and in doing so, you invariably sow the seeds of your own destruction.

The Romans maintained their dominance for so long by constantly sowing discord among their enemies, keeping them off-balance and invading primarily when a leader appeared and gathered enough power to pose a danger to the empire. As Roma moderna, we would do well to imitate them in this regard.

Someone get all that stuff to the CAVE, will you? Do we have one yet? Anyhow, just copy all that stuff and throw it in there and I’ll clean it up later. I’m not really in the mood to deal with it now, as I’ve got a car in the shop to repair the damage inflicted after getting hit while parked at the gas pump and Arsenal got knocked out of the Champions League by bloody Chelsea after losing in the FA Cup to United.

If they blow the Premiership now, I’m going to think about switching my allegiance to Scunthorpe or something.

Also, LD has something going at voxday.tribe.net. Check it out, even via RSS if you like. It should allow for more in depth conversation for those who wish it, although I rather like the Haloscan limits since it keeps things to the point. If you want something to go further in depth, you can always email me and request it to be posted. Except for Resispa, I’m a little frightened of what he might come up with if given half the chance.

AA began: ideologically the Nazi party was more right-wing than left…. The Nazi party did implement socialist programs, though many were gone by the end of the war because they didn’t have the money to keep them going. That doesn’t make them socialist, and the pluralism, egalitarianism, etc. that are central to the democratic party’s platform are hardly mirrored anywhere in the Nazi party’s platform. The opposite, right-wing alternatives are.

After this thesis came under severe pressure, he subsequently wrote: …covering them all, we see that there are some specific similiarities with Republicans, some vague similarities to democrats and socialists, and some things that don’t resemble either side of the political spectrum in America today. And: I cited all 25 and went through them. Since few of the 25 were even associated with the Democratic party, and those that were, were vague, this whole post baffles me.

Meanwhile, I had written “Over a third of the 1920 Munich Manifesto precisely matched goals put forth by the American Democratic party, and that percentage more than doubled if one eliminates the historical aspects of the Nazi platform that simply have no application today.”

This prompted him to assert: The American Left is not mirrored in the Nazi manifesto, and neither is the Left, even if they both share qualities and aims with it. In fact, many of the aims are consumate with our Constitution. Actually, I think the Democratic party shared fewer than 7 (of the 25) by itself… Final tallies: Democrats: 7 Socialists: 14 Communists: 14 Republicans: 17 Libertarians: 6

At which point, I went through, point by point, and assessed where the various ideologies stood with relation to the National Socialist program. Which prompted him to reassess again and write: Doing percentages here is strange, but if we make these into percentages, Republicans are half Nazi, Communists 2/3, Libertarians less than 1/3, Democrats a little less than 1/2, and Socialists a little more than 1/2. Of course, in reality, none of these ideologies share the nastiness of Nazism, the total disregard for life, the all-encompassing power of the state, etc.

Care to tell us again how your views aren’t changing, how you’re boldly standing your ground? The only significant difference now between your latest assessment and mine is that you’re still trying to disguise the Democrats’ Nazi tendencies despite having to double your original count. I, too, had the Communists most similar and the Republicans at almost 50 percent. But not only are a number of your mutating assessments still incorrect – the idea that Democrats, (not to mention Socialists), don’t support government-controlled media is risible, I’ll take that seriously when they get rid of NPR, the NEA and “campaign-finance reform” – but your original assertion that the National Socialists were right-wing is again blown away by your own calculations.

Furthermore, the National Socialist annual percentage rate of domestic democide was .138, which is much lower than the AVERAGE annual rate of Communist domestic democides at .769, which not only includes famous killing fields such as the People’s Democratic Republic of Kampuchea and the People’s Republic of China, but also post-WWII Poland and Czechoslovakia. You’re right, they didn’t share the Nazi disregard for life, they far exceeded it.* But why let small things like historical facts get in the way of your baseless assertions?

AA is beginning to remind me of the guy who refuses to believe that his girlfriend is having an affair with another man. “But, she said she loves me,” he argues, with a heartbreakingly serious expression. “Democrats say they believe in individual freedom, ergo it must be true! Socialists say they only want to help everyone, therefore it’s got to be true!” And I’m forced to try to keep from rolling my eyes in disbelief as I tell him – just as I told a too-innocent friend of mine a few months ago – that sometimes people say things that simply are not true.

*true, the Nazis had a vicious 1.59 percentage rate of foreign democide, but this is not easily compared with the Communist and other Socialist regimes, since those bloodstained governments are usually too busy killing their own people to conquer foreign lands And even that rate pales before the 4.131 foreign democidal rate achieved by Indonesia for a much longer period of time in the murderous years between 1965 and 1987.

Here are the ten pillars of the Communist Manifesto, measures which Marx himself admitted were “despotic inroads on the rights of property” and “appear economically insufficient and untenable”, but were necessary and unavoidable in order to make “further inroads upon the old social order”.

I have analyzed these as well, from the point of view of the following four political ideologies: National Socialist, Democratic, Republican and Libertarian. Since there are only 10 points, each is assigned a value ranging from zero to 10, otherwise, the analytical process is much as before.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

None of the four ideologies examined are willing to go to this extreme. National Socialists are the most openly enthusiastic about commandeering private property, while Democrats and Republicans have claimed 31.1 percent of the nation’s land for the government between them. Democrats, however, are greater proponents of property use regulations. Libertarians oppose government ownership of land.

6 (6) National Socialists

5 (5) Democrats

4 (4) Republicans

0 (0) Libertarians

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

This one is not very difficult. I haven’t done much research on National Socialist tax rates, but knowing their overall philosophy of the State I’ll give them a conservative 5. If anyone has solid information, please let me know. Democrats score a perfect 10, Republicans favor lower taxes in general, but will usually raise them as well rather than cut spending. Libertarians oppose all income taxes.

10 (15) Democrats

05 (12) National Socialists

06 (10) Republicans

00 (00) Libertarians

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Certainly these were not recognized in the case of Jews and enemies of the Nazi State, as proved by property that is still getting back to its rightful heirs sixty years later. I’ll need to dig up their inheritance laws too. Democrats are much stronger proponents of the estate tax, whereas this is one tax that the Republicans have actually managed make progress towards abolishing. Libertarians oppose inheritance taxes.

05 (20) Democrats

07 (19) National Socialists

00 (10) Republicans

00 (00) Libertarians

I’ll finish this later, as I have to see a television set about a soccer game. But you can have a look at the rest of the Communist platform and draw your own conclusions in the meantime.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

I have analyzed the foundational platform of the historical National Socialist German Workers Party and characterize how each of the following four political ideologies can be compared to it: Communist, Democratic, Republican and Libertarian. I have assigned a value from zero to four to each of the 25 points, depending on how closely the position of the ideology parallels that of the Nazi program. In cases where a point had multiple aspects, I simply attempted to look at each aspect separately, then add the total.

This analysis does not attempt to account for motivations. In a Senate of 100 senators, each may have a different reason for voting for a specific bill, but in determining a senator’s ideological rating, one does not speculate as to why he voted for the bill, all that matters is his vote. Specific actions always take precedence over general pretensions.

1. We demand the union of all Germans, on the basis of the right of the self-determination of peoples, to form a Great Germany.

The key words here are forced union and right of self-determination of PEOPLES, plural, as well as a nationalist concept. Communists support forced union and collective group identification, but not self-determination. Democrats support forced union, collective group identification and self-determination. Republicans support forced union and self-determination, but not collective group identification. There is, however, a nationalist flavor that modern Democrats and Communists abjure and Republicans tend to favor. Libertarians support none of the above, favoring free association.

3 (3) Democrats

3 (3) Republicans

2 (2) Communists

0 (0) Libertarians

2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in its dealings with other nations, and abolition of the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

The second half is irrelevant to all four ideologies, but there is both a notion of collective rights as well as same strong sense of involuntary national identity mentioned above.

2 (5) Democrats

2 (4) Communists

1 (4) Republicans

0 (0) Libertarians

3. We demand land and territoryfor the nourishment of our people and for settling our surplus population.

Democrats and Republicans alike support military intervention on behalf of national economic self-interest, Republicans a little more strongly. Communists favor world revolution by conquest if necessary; the rationale is different but the policy is the same. Libertarians do not support this.

3 (8) Democrats

4 (8) Communists

4 (8) Republicans

0 (0) Libertarians

4. None but members of the nation may be citizens of the State. None but those of German blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation. No Jew, therefore, may be a member of the nation.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans seek any serious limitations on citizenship or immigration although a branch of the Republicans would support some. Both parties strongly support Israel and the Jewish people. Communist nations are viciously opposed to Israel and have historically targeted Jews, though without the single-minded ferocity of the Nazis. Communists have never suggested limiting citizenship. There is a collective race consciousness here that is shared by Democrats.

2 (10) Communists

1 (09) Democrats

1 (09) Republicans

0 (00) Libertarians

5. Anyone who is not a citizen of the State may live in Germany only as a guest and must be regarded as being subject to the Alien Laws.

This is pretty standard for both major American ideologies, although I must recognize the love Democrats harbor for illegal immigrants. Libertarians tend to favor open door policies, although not as strongly as other philosophical tenets.

4 (14) Communists

4 (13) Republicans

3 (12) Democrats

1 (01) Libertarians

6. The right of voting on the leadership and laws of the State is to be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand, therefore, that all official positions, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, the provinces, or the small communities, shall be held by citizens of the State alone. We oppose the corrupt parliamentary custom of filling posts merely with a view to party considerations, and without reference to character or ability.

I don’t know of any ideology that seriously argues for the right of non-citizens to vote; this is irrelevant for comparative purposes. Communists, Republicans and Democrats all strongly favor filling posts with views to party considerations, albeit the American parties do so far less stringently than do the one-party Communists, nor do they apply them to the mass of the bureacracy. Libertarians would fire everyone and abolish the posts, regardless of party.

4 (18) Communists

2 (15) Republicans

2 (14) Democrats

0 (01) Libertarians

7. We demand that the State shall make it its first duty to promote the industry and livelihood of the citizens of the State. If it is not possible to nourish the entire population of the State, foreign nationals must be excluded from the Reich.

Democrats strongly support both government management of the economy as well as individual welfare, but not corporate welfare. Republicans strongly support government management of the economy and corporate welfare, but not individual welfare. One could make a deeply cynical comment about the Communist position here, but we’ll resist the temptation. The latter half is massively irrelevant to the United States of Adiposity.

4 (22) Communists

3 (18) Republicans

3 (17) Democrats

0 (01) Libertarians

8. All further non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany subsequently to August 2, 1914, shall be required forthwith to depart from the Reich.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats support racial-based immigration laws, but Democrats are more strongly against them. However, there is again the collective race consciousness shared by modern Democrats. The strong government control of immigration is shared by Communists, but not the racial flavor.

3 (25) Communists

1 (19) Republicans

1 (18) Democrats

0 (01) Libertarians

9. All citizens of the State shall possess equal rights and duties.

All four strains believe in equal rights, but it is the duty towards the state aspect that is the salient point here, indicating that the State’s rights supersede those of the individuals living in it. Democrats believe this more strongly than Republicans, who are often accused of being indifferent to their social responsibilities. Duties to the State is, of course, central to Communist ideology.

4 (29) Communists

4 (22) Democrats

2 (21) Republicans

2 (03) Libertarians

10. It must be the first duty of every citizen of the State to perform mental or physical work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the framework of the community and must be for the general good.

Again, the State and the collective are elevated over the individual. However, citizens are required to work, which Democrats do not support despite the Clinton-era reforms.

4 (33) Communists

3 (25) Democrats

1 (22) Republicans

0 (03) Libertarians

11. Abolition of incomes unearned by work. BREAKING OF THE THRALDOM OF INTEREST.

Democrats regularly decry those who “unfairly” prosper, supposedly at the expense of others. They have not yet begun to propose legislation to abolish such incomes, however. Republicans and Libertarians alike oppose this vehemently, while Communists agree completely.

4 (37) Communists

2 (27) Democrats

0 (22) Republicans

0 (03) Libertarians

12. In view of the enormous sacrifice of life and property demanded of a nation by every war, personal enrichment through war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand, therefore, the total confiscation of all war profits.

Communists don’t support profit of any kind. Democrats don’t like “excess” profits of any kind, and also call regularly for legislation against arms dealers. Republicans and Libertarians are both generally opposed to confiscation of profit.

4 (41) Communists

2 (29) Democrats

0 (22) Republicans

0 (03) Libertarians

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been amalgamated.

Democrats do not support nationalization of all businesses, only some. Republicans continue to support existing national monopolies such as the Post Office. Communists wish to nationalize everything, whereas Libertarians would privatize the Marines.

4 (45) Communists

2 (31) Democrats

1 (23) Republicans

0 (03) Libertarians



14. We demand that there shall be profit sharing in the great industries.

Democrats support the minimum wage, require steep social security and health care contributions from the employer and are favorable towards forced distribution of private property. Republicans likewise, but less enthusiastically. Communists want to share out not only the profit, but the entire industry. Libertarians, as usual, oppose completely.

4 (49) Communists

4 (35) Democrats

2 (25) Republicans

0 (03) Libertarians

15. We demand a generous development of provision for old age.

Democrats and Republicans alike support Social Security, but it was a Democratic entitlement passed over Republican opposition. Furthermore, it is Democrats who oppose Republican attempts to modify it in any way and are constantly telling the elderly that Republicans want to slash their benefits. Communists support, Libertarians oppose.

4 (53) Communists

4 (39) Democrats

2 (27) Republicans

0 (03) Libertarians

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, immediate communalization of the large department stores and their lease at a low rate to small traders, and that the most careful consideration shall be shown to all small traders in purveying to the State, the provinces, or smaller communities.

The notion that the state is even capable of creating and maintaining a social class is a fundamentally socialist notion on several levels. This also smacks not only of the Keynesianism of both American parties, but also of the Democratic hatred for Walmart. Communists believe that the bourgeiosie should be executed; they have as little in common with the Nazi concept here as do the Libertarians.

0 (53) Communists

3 (42) Democrats

2 (29) Republicans

0 (03) Libertarians

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the confiscation without compensation of land for communal purposes, the abolition of interest on land mortgages, and prohibition of all speculation in land.

Republicans, Democrats and Communists alike support the confiscation of land for communal purposes, although their level of enthusiasm varies. Only Communists would abolish interest – although Greenspan appears to be trying – and Democrats are far more supportive of zoning and government management of land than are Republicans.

4 (57) Communists

2 (44) Democrats

1 (30) Republicans

0 (03) Libertarians

18. We demand ruthless war upon all those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Sordid criminals against the nation, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

Far too extreme for any American philosophy, although Democrats buy into the notion of a common interest that supercedes individual rights. Republicans favor the death penalty, Democrats largely don’t. Communists support, Libertarians oppose.

4 (61) Communists

2 (46) Democrats

1 (31) Republicans

0 (03) Libertarians



19. We demand that the Roman law, which serves the materialistic world order, shall be replaced by a German common law.

The Libertarians score some Nazi points! Both Republicans and Democrats favor admiralty law, which is the equivalent of Roman law here, and have actively worked to remove the English common law from the US legal system. The Communists are violently opposed to common law, while the Libertarians support it strongly.

0 (61) Communists

0 (46) Democrats

0 (31) Republicans

4 (07) Libertarians

20. With the aim of opening to every capable and industrious German the possibility of higher education and consequent advancement to leading positions, the State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education. The curriculum of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. Directly the mind begins to develop the schools must aim at teaching the pupil to understand the idea of the State. We demand the education of specially gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

Ah, yes, the public schools. Both Republicans and Democrats are actually more extreme than the Nazi platform, which only called for the education of elite children at state expense. Communists support, Libertarians oppose.

4 (65) Communists

4 (50) Democrats

4 (35) Republicans

0 (07) Libertarians

21. The State must apply itself to raising the standard of health in the nation by protecting mothers and infants, prohibiting child labor, and increasing bodily efficiency by legally obligatory gymnastics and sports, and by extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of the young.

Democrats believe that the State is responsible for individual health, Republicans have lately begun to embrace this concept with the Medicare entitlement. Democrats are enthusiastic about government youth programs, while only the Communists make sports obligatory.

4 (69) Communists

3 (53) Democrats

2 (37) Republicans

0 (07) Libertarians

22. We demand the abolition of mercenary troops and the formation of a national army.

Regardless of the question of mercenary troops meaning militia, (I believe it does), only the Libertarians are opposed, at all, to a national standing army, but even they are open to a small defensively oriented professional army augmented by a large national militia as in the case of Switzerland.

4 (73) Communists

4 (57) Democrats

4 (41) Republicans

2 (09) Libertarians

23. We demand legal warfare against conscious political lies and their dissemination in the press. In order to facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand that: (a) all editors, and their co-workers, of newspapers employing the German language must be members of the nation; (b) special permission from the State shall be necessary before non-German newspapers may appear (these need not necessarily be printed in the German language); ( c ) non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers, and the penalty for contravention of the shall be suppression of any such newspaper, and immediate deportation of the non-German involved It must be forbidden to publish newspapers which are damaging to the national welfare. We demand the legal prosecution of all tendencies in art and literature which exert a destructive influence on our national life and the closing of institutions which militate against the above-mentioned requirements.

Democrats strongly support government-funded media as well as government limitations on the media. See the Equal Time bills and McCain-Feingold for details. Republicans support the latter to a lesser extent. Except for flag-burning, Republicans do not support government censorship, they support the ending of government funding, which is not at all the same thing, but Democrats support legal prosecution and closing of institutions which offend those groups they wish to protect. Communists support, Libertarians oppose.

4 (77) Communists

3 (60) Democrats

1 (42) Republicans

0 (09) Libertarians



24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the moral and ethical feelings of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent recovery from within only on the principle: THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST

This is qualified religious liberty, with the State elevated over the Church. There is a mention of Christianity, but also a strongly worded repetition of the theme that the common interest supercedes all. Democrats very much support this qualified religious liberty as well as the common interest, and at least when running for office, claim to be Christian. Republicans are less supportive of such qualifications and the notion of common interest, Libertarians reject both that as well as the State’s right to interfere with private religion at all. Communists do not recognize religious liberty, but very much agree on the common interest front.

2 (79) Communists

4 (64) Democrats

2 (44) Republicans

0 (09) Libertarians

25. That all the foregoing requirements may be realized we demand the creation of a strong, central national authority; unconditional authority of the central legislative body over the entire Reich and its organizations in general; and the formation of diets and vocational chambers for the purpose of executing the general laws promulgated by the Reich in the various States of the Confederation. The leaders of the Party swear to proceed regardless of consequences – if necessary at the sacrifice of their lives – toward the fulfillment of the foregoing Points.

That’s easy enough. Strong, central national authority. Deified by Communists, yearned for by Democrats, supported by modern Republicans and hated by Libertarians.

4 (83) Communists

4 (68) Democrats

3 (47) Republicans

0 (09) Libertarians

In conclusion, I believe the facts support my assertion that the Communists and National Socialists were very closely akin philosophically, that the policies and platform of the modern Democratic party are ideological cousins to the historical National Socialist program, that the Republican party has more in common with the National Socialists than many of its members would like to think, and that Libertarian ideology is the only political philosophy in direct and consistent intellectual opposition to Communism and National Socialism.

I certainly welcome any comments or logical criticisms of my analysis, however, I wish to see firm and articulated reasoning with factual support, not nebulous assertions that fail to directly address the relevant issues. Violators will not be prosecuted, however, they will be mercilessly mocked.

As I’ve stated in the past, arguing with leftists is an interesting challenge. Since their intellectual foundation built on conceptual sand, their arguments are constantly shifting and mutating. Not only do they abjure and outright mock the very notion of logical consistency – the inevitable hobgoblin quote is one of about ten common to every leftist – but they tend to be far more interested in scoring momentary style points than they are in actually winning any debate. My theory is that this is because they so seldom actually win debates with any but a completely overmatched opponent.

Thus, arguing with even the most educated leftist is rather like fighting a hydra, and like Hercules, requires one to be prepared to cauterize each tangential argument by destroying it entirely instead of merely lopping it off with a quick dismissal. I hope this Left-Wing Nazi debate with AA has been instructive, in that it has revealed many of the petty dishonesties and devious maneuvers to which even the most honest and well-meaning leftist is forced to resort in order to maintain a semblance of his base position. Please note that this is nothing personal; I am no more personally involved in this than I was when physically beating down a lesser belt in the dojo, and I very much admire AA’s unusual willingness to examine the relevant facts of the matter in this and other cases.

Consider how much ground has shifted under AA’s feet since he first took issue with my assertion that the National Socialists were of the Left. He made some hasty assertions and after being shown how they pointed to a contrary conclusion, has tried to shift the argument from easily verifiable platforms and policies to nebulous generalizations. In the process, he attempted to conflate Republican policies with contradictory conservative philosophy while simultaneously separating extant Democratic policies from parallel left-liberal concepts, and tried to use modern Republican support to obscure to the fundamentally left-wing nature of specific programs. He has tried to completely redefine the political spectrum in such a manner as to render it utterly meaningless – how does one measure pluralism on an idealistic-pragmatic scale? – and either revealed a total ignorance of libertarianism or been shamefully dishonest in his characterization of it.

Finally, and apparently aware of the complete failure of his rapidly mutating argument to hold any water, AA retreats to the usual left-liberal ground of claiming that the issue is inane and irrelevant.

Meanwhile, I must point out that I have not shifted my positions or definitions one iota, nor altered my argument in the least. The National Socialists were left-wing extremists, with platform and policies that predominantly fall in between the Communists to the left, and the American Democratic party to the right. In the event that anyone regards the numerous flaws in AA’s meta-argument as insufficient proof, later today, I will provide a detailed analysis of the Munich Manifesto and the ten pillars of the Communist Manifesto and compare them to Democratic, Republican and Libertarian policies and philosophy.

Right-of-Center bloggers asked 171 bloggers which contemporary right-wing figure they’d like to have to dinner. To my chagrin, not only did none of the 46 respondents see fit to invite me out for a bite and a chat, but just to add insult to injury, I didn’t even get asked to vote. But I choose to regard this as an indication that my rapid rise to intellectual Internet stardom lies before me. I am 100 percent upside. Oh, who am I kidding. I don’t actually care. Anyhow, the list is below. I think I’d probably have to go with Ann, but if Space Bunny put up a fuss, I think it would be Thomas Sowell, followed by John Derbyshire and Victor Davis Hanson. But best of all would be to go drinking with Rumsfeld, PJ and the White Buffalo.

Honorable Mentions: Clarence Thomas (4), Arnold Schwarzenegger (4), Colin Powell (4), PJ O’Rourke (4), James Lileks (4), Charles Krauthammer (4), Sean Hannity (4), Rudolph Giuliani (4), Larry Elder (4), Steven Den Beste (4), George Bush Sr. (4), Neal Boortz (4)

18) Karl Rove (5)

18) Glenn Reynolds (5)

18) David Horowitz (5)

18) Christopher Hitchens (5)

18) Newt Gingrich (5)

18) Dick Cheney (5)

16) Walter Williams (6)

16) William Buckley (6)

12) Margaret Thatcher (7)

12) Dennis Miller (7)

12) Laura Ingraham (7)

12) Milton Friedman (7)

10) Victor Davis Hanson (8)

10) Mel Gibson (8)

8) Jonah Goldberg (10)

8) Ann Coulter (10)

7) Mark Steyn (11)

5) Rush Limbaugh (12)

5) Tony Blair (12)

4) Thomas Sowell (13)

3) Donald Rumsfeld (18.5)

2) George W. Bush (21.5)

1) Condi Rice (25)

AA takes the time to go through the Munich Manifesto and characterize each of the 25 points, stating along the way: 15. This is Social Security, something both Democrats and Republicans support. 16. Not at all Democratic, and not really Socialist, either. This was basically a way of redistributing the company’s wealth to citizens.

AA, by your own – inaccurate – count, you’ve got four things assigned to Republicans/right wing alone. You’ve got seven assigned to Socialists/extreme Communists/Democrats alone. And this does not even involve putting Social Security on the left – which it is, as the historical Republicans and modern libertarians oppose it – and includes accepting your bizarre notion that forced distribution of corporate wealth to labor is not socialist.

By your own freaking count the Nazis are left-wing! I am forced to ask the question, are you even listening to yourself?