Glazov exposes the Left

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Could I just point out that many right-wingers extolled the virtues of Adolf Hitler right up until the onset of the Second World War (and more than a few immediately afterwards.)

Despite the increased persecution of German jews, culminating in Kristallnacht, Hitler was held up by the right as the kind of leader every country should have. This was not mere self-interest, it was exactly the same kind of idealisation of a dictatorship that Glazov accuses the 'left' of in the cases of Mao and Stalin.

In another example, the mujahideen in Afghanistan were held aloft as moral 'freedom fighters' by the right during the Soviet invasion and even funded and trained by the CIA. These same 'freedom fighters' later became the despicable bogeymen known as the taleban - funny that! Watch The Living Daylights some time for a ludicrous extolling of these insane zealots.

So I am sorry, while examples of leftists supporting despicable regimes because of their political slant may be easier to find, the right is by no means immune from the disease. Confirmation bias exists on both sides.

[al-rawandi]

Could I just point out that many right-wingers extolled the virtues of Adolf Hitler right up until the onset of the Second World War (and more than a few immediately afterwards.)

Despite the increased persecution of German jews, culminating in Kristallnacht, Hitler was held up by the right as the kind of leader every country should have. This was not mere self-interest, it was exactly the same kind of idealisation of a dictatorship that Glazov accuses the 'left' of in the cases of Mao and Stalin.

In another example, the mujahideen in Afghanistan were held aloft as moral 'freedom fighters' by the right during the Soviet invasion and even funded and trained by the CIA. These same 'freedom fighters' later became the despicable bogeymen known as the taleban - funny that! Watch The Living Daylights some time for a ludicrous extolling of these insane zealots.

So I am sorry, while examples of leftists supporting despicable regimes because of their political slant may be easier to find, the right is by no means immune from the disease. Confirmation bias exists on both sides.

XC, as for the Mujahideen they were freedom fighters of sorts. The Russians invaded Afghanistan in an imperial onslaught that was repelled under the banner of Islamic resistance. The Taliban grew out of the Deobandi sufi movement and can't be attributed to US support. It is a common mistake of certain anti-American elements of the left to accuse the US of creating both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. This is false and doesn't give credit to the efforts of Muslims to establish such a movement under the banner of Islam for the exclusive benefit of Islam.

Please find me a quotation that shows a western politician or academic extolling the virtues of Hitler the way someone like Chomsky did of the Hanoi regime.

[Chinaski]

Lindbergh was full of it, for example.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Please find me a quotation that shows a western politician or academic extolling the virtues of Hitler the way someone like Chomsky did of the Hanoi regime.

In fifteen years that have followed this resolve, he has succeeded in restoring Germany to the most powerful position in Europe, and not only has he restored the position of his country, but he has even, to a very great extent, reversed the results of the Great War.... the vanquished are in the process of becoming the victors and the victors the vanquished.... whatever else might be thought about these exploits they are certainly among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world.

It is not the Germany of the first decade that followed the war- broken, dejected and bowed down with a sense of apprehension and impotence. It is now full of hope and confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life without interference from any influence outside its own frontiers. One man has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic and dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, a resolute will and a dauntless heart.

I have never met a happier people than the Germans and Hitler is one of the greatest men. The old trust him; the young idolise him. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country.

He has a supreme intellect. I have known only two other men to whom I could apply such distinction - Lord Northcliffe and Lloyd George. If one puts a question to Hitler, he gives an immediate, brilliant clear answer. There is no human being living whose promise on important matters I would trust more readily.

When I said that Herr Hitler's action was right and inevitable, the storm of abuse that was about to burst on me was suddenly checked by Mr. Lloyd George saying exactly the same thing. It is inconceivable that a single vote should be cast against him.

I could go on.

[Arse]

I remember reading an essay by George Orwell about the complicity between the right in Britain and the pre-war stages of Italian fascism and German Nazism. However, I cannot be bothered to look up online sources for George Orwell essays, and given that al-Rawandi thinks I invent imaginary Saudi Arabians, I expect he will think I have invented imaginary George Orwell essays too....so let's take a more contemporary and accessible source.

Who started WWII in Europe? The real facts are Russia and Germany invaded Poland which was the business of no other countries. That caused two wars, one between Poland and Russia and another between Poland and Germany. However Britain and France created a propaganda ploy to soothe the ignorant masses by signing a treaty with Poland one week before those wars started.

With this political cover they were able to sell the idea that their declarations of war upon Germany but NOT on Russia were in some manner sacred obligations enforced by the almighty. However the treaties were freely chosen and not obligations as it was a free choice to honor the treaties which were not honored for failure of war on Russia.

Those DoWs were freely chosen and made by Britain and France. That they made not have liked imagined consequences of not starting WWII in Europe is also the choice of those governments to only make war on Germany and not Russia which negates the entire idea of a treaty obligation.

Now that is the real history no matter how many times it has been repeated that Hitler started the war in Europe.

And as to the issue of moral equivalence between the Russian, British and French empires they had enslaved nearly 1/4 of the world's population and proud of it. Of course in those days non-Europeans were benighted savages who were stubbornly ungrateful for the benefits of civilization heaped upon them by Europe at the point of a gun.

In fact during the war the Hindus were particularly repulsive in failing to accept the need for some 10 million of them to die of starvation in a famine so that there would be no diversion from the war effort to protect their British benefactors. Ghandi was pissed enough to cite that as his reason to conclude Britain would not leave Hindustan unless forced to do so.

There is a lot more sanitized and propagandized that has been fed to children over the years. I see no reason not to spell it out like it was. No one is paying me to perpetuate a feel-good version of history. Facts are facts. Opinions of facts are opinions not facts.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtop ... &start=250

[al-rawandi]

I remember reading an essay by George Orwell about the complicity between the right in Britain and the pre-war stages of Italian fascism and German Nazism. However, I cannot be bothered to look up online sources for George Orwell essays, and given that al-Rawandi thinks I invent imaginary Saudi Arabians, I expect he will think I have invented imaginary George Orwell essays too....so let's take a more contemporary and accessible source.

Who started WWII in Europe? The real facts are Russia and Germany invaded Poland which was the business of no other countries. That caused two wars, one between Poland and Russia and another between Poland and Germany. However Britain and France created a propaganda ploy to soothe the ignorant masses by signing a treaty with Poland one week before those wars started.

With this political cover they were able to sell the idea that their declarations of war upon Germany but NOT on Russia were in some manner sacred obligations enforced by the almighty. However the treaties were freely chosen and not obligations as it was a free choice to honor the treaties which were not honored for failure of war on Russia.

Those DoWs were freely chosen and made by Britain and France. That they made not have liked imagined consequences of not starting WWII in Europe is also the choice of those governments to only make war on Germany and not Russia which negates the entire idea of a treaty obligation.

Now that is the real history no matter how many times it has been repeated that Hitler started the war in Europe.

And as to the issue of moral equivalence between the Russian, British and French empires they had enslaved nearly 1/4 of the world's population and proud of it. Of course in those days non-Europeans were benighted savages who were stubbornly ungrateful for the benefits of civilization heaped upon them by Europe at the point of a gun.

In fact during the war the Hindus were particularly repulsive in failing to accept the need for some 10 million of them to die of starvation in a famine so that there would be no diversion from the war effort to protect their British benefactors. Ghandi was pissed enough to cite that as his reason to conclude Britain would not leave Hindustan unless forced to do so.

There is a lot more sanitized and propagandized that has been fed to children over the years. I see no reason not to spell it out like it was. No one is paying me to perpetuate a feel-good version of history. Facts are facts. Opinions of facts are opinions not facts.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtop ... &start=250

I didn't say you invented Saudis I said you were an ignoble middleman we could do without. A large difference I am afraid.

[Arse]

I don't really care what you think of me.

I posted a piece of extreme right wing propaganda, along with its source. How is it any different to leftist propaganda?

[al-rawandi]

I don't really care what you think of me.

I posted a piece of extreme right wing propaganda, along with its source. How is it any different to leftist propaganda?

It doesn't differ much. What's your point? This was never about rightist propaganda, I never disputed such propaganda existed, in fact I gave some examples myself, I believe. This was about the prevalence of leftist infatuation with murderous tyrants.... and if we take Glazov's point of departure... in the post WWII era, or more importantly after Communism stepped on the main stage as a serious player.

But if you wish to keep flailing away at strawmen then don't let me interrupt. As for what I think of you, well it is really irrelevant, but I have noticed those who DO care often are the first to protest they don't.

[charlou]

What we think of each other is not relevant, it's what we think of the issues being discussed that matter in the serious discussion forum. Unless invited, there's no need to even make comments about each others' person when discussing topics from our various points of view.

[al-rawandi]

Please find me a quotation that shows a western politician or academic extolling the virtues of Hitler the way someone like Chomsky did of the Hanoi regime.

In fifteen years that have followed this resolve, he has succeeded in restoring Germany to the most powerful position in Europe, and not only has he restored the position of his country, but he has even, to a very great extent, reversed the results of the Great War.... the vanquished are in the process of becoming the victors and the victors the vanquished.... whatever else might be thought about these exploits they are certainly among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world.

It is not the Germany of the first decade that followed the war- broken, dejected and bowed down with a sense of apprehension and impotence. It is now full of hope and confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life without interference from any influence outside its own frontiers. One man has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic and dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, a resolute will and a dauntless heart.

I have never met a happier people than the Germans and Hitler is one of the greatest men. The old trust him; the young idolise him. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country.

He has a supreme intellect. I have known only two other men to whom I could apply such distinction - Lord Northcliffe and Lloyd George. If one puts a question to Hitler, he gives an immediate, brilliant clear answer. There is no human being living whose promise on important matters I would trust more readily.

When I said that Herr Hitler's action was right and inevitable, the storm of abuse that was about to burst on me was suddenly checked by Mr. Lloyd George saying exactly the same thing. It is inconceivable that a single vote should be cast against him.

I could go on.

This got me thinking XC, so I tried to think if there was a difference.... and there is. Once Nazi Germany became a threat to peace in Europe and to Britain especially I don't think these men had much praise for Hitler. Certainly they praised him in the above passages, but I doubt they rooted for him to win and conquer Britain in WWII. I think this is the critical difference here, and especially with regards to post WWII conflicts. The leftists ROOTED for the Viet Cong, they hoped they would kill and expel American soldiers. This is the critical difference here.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

This got me thinking XC, so I tried to think if there was a difference.... and there is. Once Nazi Germany became a threat to peace in Europe and to Britain especially I don't think these men had much praise for Hitler. Certainly they praised him in the above passages, but I doubt they rooted for him to win and conquer Britain in WWII. I think this is the critical difference here, and especially with regards to post WWII conflicts. The leftists ROOTED for the Viet Cong, they hoped they would kill and expel American soldiers. This is the critical difference here.

Hm. OK. I take that point BUT in that example, the Vietcong were only trying to eject US troops from their own country, they weren't planning on invading the USA afterwards. So I don't see the two situations as exactly comparable.

Right wingers in Britain and the US played apologist to Hitler when he annexed Austria and many in America continued to do so when he invaded Poland. Britain was drawn into a conflict that effectively made supporting Hitler publicly a case for internment, or for charges of treason but in the US there were many that sought to stay out of the conflict altogether and there was still support for Hitler among some quarters. I couldn't find quotes when I quickly googled the other day but I certainly have seen them - right up until the eve of Pearl Harbor there were US politicians and intellectuals that believed that Hitler would be good for Europe in the long run and stated so publicly. Certainly there were voices high up in the US military that saw Hitler as an essential counter to the communist threat of Russia and supported him on those grounds - especially in the period between Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor.

I promise to have a look for such examples if I remember (which is pretty much like saying wish in one hand...) but please remind me if I don't.


To change tack a little, my contention has always been that there is little to choose between dictators of left or right once they attain the kind of ultimate power held by Hitler or Stalin. Given the choice, I would not have been able to choose a lesser of those particular two evils. There is no true political persuasion once things get to that point, merely a ruthless leader(ship), powerful armed forces, a large, ruthless, intrusive police force and a subdued populace.

I will agree that the left have probably been the more guilty of apologising for such regimes; after all, the left has not been around for anything like as long as the right. Marxist experiments never really kicked off until the 1917 revolution in Russia and many of those enamoured of the ideals of Marx were desperate to see them succeed, enough so to overlook the failings of allegedly socialist states, attributing any and all atrocities to Western propaganda.

My contention is not that Glazov's central claim about Leftist apologists for brutal regimes is in any way wrong, merely that it was not a universal failing of all leftists, nor was it a failing that was unreflected in the similarly deluded of the right. His book (which I freely admit I haven't read and don't intend to if I'm honest) therefore presents a biased, black and white view of a situation with many shades of grey from what I know of it.

Feel free to quote me passages from it where he admits that by no means all leftists were 'believers' guilty of apologising for brutal, ostensibly left-wing regimes, or where he admits that rightists make similar apologies, and I will admit I might be wrong about his bias.

Either way, I don't believe that he 'comprehensively destroyed' the left. Frankly, the left did that to itself decades ago. Communism is as outmoded and unpopular among intellectuals in the developed world as national socialism is. What we are left with, on both sides, are less extremist camps with sufficient common ground for compromise and cooperation to be possible. Sure there are a few nutters kicking around at both extremes but they garner little popular support. The only place that such extremist politics still hold sway is in the poorer, less developed countries.

[al-rawandi]

This got me thinking XC, so I tried to think if there was a difference.... and there is. Once Nazi Germany became a threat to peace in Europe and to Britain especially I don't think these men had much praise for Hitler. Certainly they praised him in the above passages, but I doubt they rooted for him to win and conquer Britain in WWII. I think this is the critical difference here, and especially with regards to post WWII conflicts. The leftists ROOTED for the Viet Cong, they hoped they would kill and expel American soldiers. This is the critical difference here.

Hm. OK. I take that point BUT in that example, the Vietcong were only trying to eject US troops from their own country, they weren't planning on invading the USA afterwards. So I don't see the two situations as exactly comparable.

Right wingers in Britain and the US played apologist to Hitler when he annexed Austria and many in America continued to do so when he invaded Poland. Britain was drawn into a conflict that effectively made supporting Hitler publicly a case for internment, or for charges of treason but in the US there were many that sought to stay out of the conflict altogether and there was still support for Hitler among some quarters. I couldn't find quotes when I quickly googled the other day but I certainly have seen them - right up until the eve of Pearl Harbor there were US politicians and intellectuals that believed that Hitler would be good for Europe in the long run and stated so publicly. Certainly there were voices high up in the US military that saw Hitler as an essential counter to the communist threat of Russia and supported him on those grounds - especially in the period between Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor.

I promise to have a look for such examples if I remember (which is pretty much like saying wish in one hand...) but please remind me if I don't.


To change tack a little, my contention has always been that there is little to choose between dictators of left or right once they attain the kind of ultimate power held by Hitler or Stalin. Given the choice, I would not have been able to choose a lesser of those particular two evils. There is no true political persuasion once things get to that point, merely a ruthless leader(ship), powerful armed forces, a large, ruthless, intrusive police force and a subdued populace.

I will agree that the left have probably been the more guilty of apologising for such regimes; after all, the left has not been around for anything like as long as the right. Marxist experiments never really kicked off until the 1917 revolution in Russia and many of those enamoured of the ideals of Marx were desperate to see them succeed, enough so to overlook the failings of allegedly socialist states, attributing any and all atrocities to Western propaganda.

My contention is not that Glazov's central claim about Leftist apologists for brutal regimes is in any way wrong, merely that it was not a universal failing of all leftists, nor was it a failing that was unreflected in the similarly deluded of the right. His book (which I freely admit I haven't read and don't intend to if I'm honest) therefore presents a biased, black and white view of a situation with many shades of grey from what I know of it.

Feel free to quote me passages from it where he admits that by no means all leftists were 'believers' guilty of apologising for brutal, ostensibly left-wing regimes, or where he admits that rightists make similar apologies, and I will admit I might be wrong about his bias.

Either way, I don't believe that he 'comprehensively destroyed' the left. Frankly, the left did that to itself decades ago. Communism is as outmoded and unpopular among intellectuals in the developed world as national socialism is. What we are left with, on both sides, are less extremist camps with sufficient common ground for compromise and cooperation to be possible. Sure there are a few nutters kicking around at both extremes but they garner little popular support. The only place that such extremist politics still hold sway is in the poorer, less developed countries.

The most important point you made was that rooting for Hitler in Britain in 1942 would get you thrown in prison. Now there really wasn't much of that going on in the Vietnam era. No one was going to jail for supporting the murderous Communists in Vietnam. Let's leave aside the fact that these communists purged councils of Trotskyists.

No one in Britain was saying "He we deserved these air raids because we were mean to the Germans after WWI", yet leftists in the US often said this about 9/11, "the chickens have come home to roost" etc... There is little difference in ultimate goal between Nazism and Islamism, save the tint of the dogma.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

This got me thinking XC, so I tried to think if there was a difference.... and there is. Once Nazi Germany became a threat to peace in Europe and to Britain especially I don't think these men had much praise for Hitler. Certainly they praised him in the above passages, but I doubt they rooted for him to win and conquer Britain in WWII. I think this is the critical difference here, and especially with regards to post WWII conflicts. The leftists ROOTED for the Viet Cong, they hoped they would kill and expel American soldiers. This is the critical difference here.

Hm. OK. I take that point BUT in that example, the Vietcong were only trying to eject US troops from their own country, they weren't planning on invading the USA afterwards. So I don't see the two situations as exactly comparable.

Right wingers in Britain and the US played apologist to Hitler when he annexed Austria and many in America continued to do so when he invaded Poland. Britain was drawn into a conflict that effectively made supporting Hitler publicly a case for internment, or for charges of treason but in the US there were many that sought to stay out of the conflict altogether and there was still support for Hitler among some quarters. I couldn't find quotes when I quickly googled the other day but I certainly have seen them - right up until the eve of Pearl Harbor there were US politicians and intellectuals that believed that Hitler would be good for Europe in the long run and stated so publicly. Certainly there were voices high up in the US military that saw Hitler as an essential counter to the communist threat of Russia and supported him on those grounds - especially in the period between Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor.

I promise to have a look for such examples if I remember (which is pretty much like saying wish in one hand...) but please remind me if I don't.


To change tack a little, my contention has always been that there is little to choose between dictators of left or right once they attain the kind of ultimate power held by Hitler or Stalin. Given the choice, I would not have been able to choose a lesser of those particular two evils. There is no true political persuasion once things get to that point, merely a ruthless leader(ship), powerful armed forces, a large, ruthless, intrusive police force and a subdued populace.

I will agree that the left have probably been the more guilty of apologising for such regimes; after all, the left has not been around for anything like as long as the right. Marxist experiments never really kicked off until the 1917 revolution in Russia and many of those enamoured of the ideals of Marx were desperate to see them succeed, enough so to overlook the failings of allegedly socialist states, attributing any and all atrocities to Western propaganda.

My contention is not that Glazov's central claim about Leftist apologists for brutal regimes is in any way wrong, merely that it was not a universal failing of all leftists, nor was it a failing that was unreflected in the similarly deluded of the right. His book (which I freely admit I haven't read and don't intend to if I'm honest) therefore presents a biased, black and white view of a situation with many shades of grey from what I know of it.

Feel free to quote me passages from it where he admits that by no means all leftists were 'believers' guilty of apologising for brutal, ostensibly left-wing regimes, or where he admits that rightists make similar apologies, and I will admit I might be wrong about his bias.

Either way, I don't believe that he 'comprehensively destroyed' the left. Frankly, the left did that to itself decades ago. Communism is as outmoded and unpopular among intellectuals in the developed world as national socialism is. What we are left with, on both sides, are less extremist camps with sufficient common ground for compromise and cooperation to be possible. Sure there are a few nutters kicking around at both extremes but they garner little popular support. The only place that such extremist politics still hold sway is in the poorer, less developed countries.

The most important point you made was that rooting for Hitler in Britain in 1942 would get you thrown in prison. Now there really wasn't much of that going on in the Vietnam era. No one was going to jail for supporting the murderous Communists in Vietnam. Let's leave aside the fact that these communists purged councils of Trotskyists.

No one in Britain was saying "He we deserved these air raids because we were mean to the Germans after WWI", yet leftists in the US often said this about 9/11, "the chickens have come home to roost" etc... There is little difference in ultimate goal between Nazism and Islamism, save the tint of the dogma.

I wasn't actually discussing the differences between nazism and islamism. Merely pointing out that right wing apologists do exist and that Hitler apologists existed in your country up until the point at which the USA entered the second world war.

That some leftists made such comments regarding 9/11 is despicable but I would disagree strongly that they are in any way representative of modern left-leaning thought. May I remind you that there are prominent holocaust deniers among the far-right, as well as neo-nazi groups such as C18 that venerate Hitler. I would never claim that these tossers represent the mainstream rightist POV - but that is exactly the kind of claim being made against the left in Glazov's book as far as I understand it.

[al-rawandi]

This got me thinking XC, so I tried to think if there was a difference.... and there is. Once Nazi Germany became a threat to peace in Europe and to Britain especially I don't think these men had much praise for Hitler. Certainly they praised him in the above passages, but I doubt they rooted for him to win and conquer Britain in WWII. I think this is the critical difference here, and especially with regards to post WWII conflicts. The leftists ROOTED for the Viet Cong, they hoped they would kill and expel American soldiers. This is the critical difference here.

Hm. OK. I take that point BUT in that example, the Vietcong were only trying to eject US troops from their own country, they weren't planning on invading the USA afterwards. So I don't see the two situations as exactly comparable.

Right wingers in Britain and the US played apologist to Hitler when he annexed Austria and many in America continued to do so when he invaded Poland. Britain was drawn into a conflict that effectively made supporting Hitler publicly a case for internment, or for charges of treason but in the US there were many that sought to stay out of the conflict altogether and there was still support for Hitler among some quarters. I couldn't find quotes when I quickly googled the other day but I certainly have seen them - right up until the eve of Pearl Harbor there were US politicians and intellectuals that believed that Hitler would be good for Europe in the long run and stated so publicly. Certainly there were voices high up in the US military that saw Hitler as an essential counter to the communist threat of Russia and supported him on those grounds - especially in the period between Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor.

I promise to have a look for such examples if I remember (which is pretty much like saying wish in one hand...) but please remind me if I don't.


To change tack a little, my contention has always been that there is little to choose between dictators of left or right once they attain the kind of ultimate power held by Hitler or Stalin. Given the choice, I would not have been able to choose a lesser of those particular two evils. There is no true political persuasion once things get to that point, merely a ruthless leader(ship), powerful armed forces, a large, ruthless, intrusive police force and a subdued populace.

I will agree that the left have probably been the more guilty of apologising for such regimes; after all, the left has not been around for anything like as long as the right. Marxist experiments never really kicked off until the 1917 revolution in Russia and many of those enamoured of the ideals of Marx were desperate to see them succeed, enough so to overlook the failings of allegedly socialist states, attributing any and all atrocities to Western propaganda.

My contention is not that Glazov's central claim about Leftist apologists for brutal regimes is in any way wrong, merely that it was not a universal failing of all leftists, nor was it a failing that was unreflected in the similarly deluded of the right. His book (which I freely admit I haven't read and don't intend to if I'm honest) therefore presents a biased, black and white view of a situation with many shades of grey from what I know of it.

Feel free to quote me passages from it where he admits that by no means all leftists were 'believers' guilty of apologising for brutal, ostensibly left-wing regimes, or where he admits that rightists make similar apologies, and I will admit I might be wrong about his bias.

Either way, I don't believe that he 'comprehensively destroyed' the left. Frankly, the left did that to itself decades ago. Communism is as outmoded and unpopular among intellectuals in the developed world as national socialism is. What we are left with, on both sides, are less extremist camps with sufficient common ground for compromise and cooperation to be possible. Sure there are a few nutters kicking around at both extremes but they garner little popular support. The only place that such extremist politics still hold sway is in the poorer, less developed countries.

The most important point you made was that rooting for Hitler in Britain in 1942 would get you thrown in prison. Now there really wasn't much of that going on in the Vietnam era. No one was going to jail for supporting the murderous Communists in Vietnam. Let's leave aside the fact that these communists purged councils of Trotskyists.

No one in Britain was saying "He we deserved these air raids because we were mean to the Germans after WWI", yet leftists in the US often said this about 9/11, "the chickens have come home to roost" etc... There is little difference in ultimate goal between Nazism and Islamism, save the tint of the dogma.

I wasn't actually discussing the differences between nazism and islamism. Merely pointing out that right wing apologists do exist and that Hitler apologists existed in your country up until the point at which the USA entered the second world war.

That some leftists made such comments regarding 9/11 is despicable but I would disagree strongly that they are in any way representative of modern left-leaning thought. May I remind you that there are prominent holocaust deniers among the far-right, as well as neo-nazi groups such as C18 that venerate Hitler. I would never claim that these tossers represent the mainstream rightist POV - but that is exactly the kind of claim being made against the left in Glazov's book as far as I understand it.

There are Holocaust deniers in some circles on the right, but very extreme right. Do you consider Sean Penn the extreme left? He is one person who has given voice to a number of unsavory opinions regarding everything America. The point I was making was there were Hitler apologists prior to US involvement indeed... this was a period of isolationism essentially, but they clammed up when we got into the war. The leftists continue to root for the terrorists.

[al-rawandi]

Mea Culpa,


I watched an interview with Jamie Glazov on *retch* CBN, and he was a disappointment. I still think he made some interesting points and documented them well, but ultimately he gets an epic fail as a human being.

I still would say that there is a certain phenomenon that occurs on the left, but Glazov was very unfair. I am simply underwhelmed by the man.

Here is the link if anyone wants to watch it, there is another link in that youtube page for the second half of the interview. I almost puked when he tried to tie it to atheism, the man doesn't even know what atheism is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO7IVl4-JFw