Enigmagnetic: my observation was not about whether a given region was a melting pot or not but about whether there is intolerance or not. I do not know whether rural areas are now more or less rascist than big cities in America. There is possibly a trend which makes cities more tolerant in general. But this doesn't have anything to do with my comparison between Europe, the UK and Ireland, and the US.

Enigmagnetic: my observation was not about whether a given region was a melting pot or not but about whether there is intolerance or not. I do not know whether rural areas are now more or less rascist than big cities in America. There is possibly a trend which makes cities more tolerant in general. But this doesn't have anything to do with my comparison between Europe, the UK and Ireland, and the US.

I see, but what I simply tried to point out is that neo-conservatism and American imperialism doesn't decrease or increase tolerance everywhere. It may be true of what you've seen and that's why i said you had a good point because I could see that happening overseas but I don't think it applies everywhere.

I believe what Enigmagnetic is saying is fairly straightforward.

The rural areas that are less diverse and possibly less tolerant with rich histories of racism (such as the southern states) voted for the man currently in office. The highly - urban, more diverse, and possibly less intolerant regions ( think: the majority of the west coast and nearly all the northeastern coast ) voted for the Democratic counterpart. This suggests your theory of the neo-conservativism and American imperialism being the high road taking one further away from racism, vandalism, and intolerance incorrect if one believes the constituents voted for an individual who is truly representative of their ideology...but hey, that's what happens when you leave common sense at the wayside while traveling the supposed divine road of neo-conservativism.

I am curious - in what area did this incident with the protestors occur? I don't know if this McDonalds you visited was in Germany or the states.

You state: "I find it odd and very disturbing that in Germany left-wingers and Neo-Nazis have found their common enemy", where do you support your claim with evidence? How are the left wingers and Neo-Nazi's connected by a common enemy? I don't see it in the text - feel free to expound upon this.

Some parting words from our flagship neo-con:

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." — George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

You state: "I find it odd and very disturbing that in Germany left-wingers and Neo-Nazis have found their common enemy", where do you support your claim with evidence? How are the left wingers and Neo-Nazi's connected by a common enemy? I don't see it in the text - feel free to expound upon this.

the reason you prolly missed it was cuz it didnt ooze forth til comment #14:

Both groups protested the war, and for the same reason: because it was the allies vs a fascist dictator.

to which my first response was: how is it that crackheads in ireland can afford mcdonalds. then i remembered he said he hadda free coupon.

anyone who truly believes the protests against the administration's foolish refusal to stabilize afghanistan in order to indulge itself in iraq (with the same kinda immediate gratification one would expect from a three-year-old), really needs to get off the pipe.

"I am curious - in what area did this incident with the protestors occur? I don't know if this McDonalds you visited was in Germany or the states."

According to my article it was Dublin, Ireland.

It's the McDonald's in Swan Centre, Rathmines, Dublin 6. I live just up the road.

"How are the left wingers and Neo-Nazi's connected by a common enemy?"

Look up some Neo-Nazi Web sites and see what they have to say about the President. There were also very frequent news reports about demonstrations in Europe where (specific) pacifists (those pacifists who let their voices be heard only when the US fight a dictatorship) and Neo-Nazis demonstrated side-by-side.

Look up some Neo-Nazi Web sites and see what they have to say about the President. There were also very frequent news reports about demonstrations in Europe where (specific) pacifists (those pacifists who let their voices be heard only when the US fight a dictatorship) and Neo-Nazis demonstrated side-by-side.

extend this specious reasoning (specific pacifist??? like whom?) and anyone who doesn't support the bush administration wholeheartedly is a neo-nazi? people from all across the spectrum have been and remain appalled by bush's rush to war in iraq.

you shoulda titled this: when did nazis become the pope? (since war opponent john paul ll's departure, it would be confusing tho.)

or, maybe, when did trotskyites become republicans?

personally i can think of a lot worse things for nazis to become than left-wingers.

i think what you really meant to ask was 'when did left-wingers become nazis?'

have another rock and a happy meal.

Kingbee,

I clearly have not communicated well enough. I specifically mentioned left-wingers and Neo-Nazis as two groups who at the moment share a common enemy. Why does this make them the same? It does not, necessarily. My point is only that the worst of the Neo-Nazis is the same that is the worst about left-wingers.

Had I titled this differently, I would have made a different point. Since the point I wanted to make was already in my mind, I obviously didn't title it differently. Did this come to your mind at any stage?

And had I asked the other way around, I would have implied that all left-wingers are Nazis. They are not. What I discovered was not that all left-wingers agree with Neo-Nazis, but that all Neo-Nazis agree with the left-wingers on this issue.

In my next article I specifically mentioned how it was not communism but pan-nationalism what made the Soviet-Union evil. The reason is simply that I do not think of left-wingers per se as the opponents, rather the specific pacifists among them. (I did specify what the "specific" refers to).

It isn't true that people from all across the spectrum have been appalled by the 12-year "rush" to war. It is in fact impossible. Neo-cons are, by definition, not appalled. You will in fact find that opposition to Bush's policies come from two camps: the left and Neo-Nazis. I am currently investigating and trying to explain what exactly these groups have in common.

I have so far found that they unfortunatelty share quite a bit, but it isn't "socialism" or "statism" or anything like that. It's a deeper philosophical difference.

Reply #22 By: Citizen Andrew J. Brehm - 4/28/2005 7:23:43 AM

--Don't bother, there are those on this site who occasionally do not read the entire reply or article before they burst into rage,etc...

I specificallt mentioned left-wingers and Neo-Nazis as two groups who at the moment share a common enemy

yeah and republicans and neo-nazis share a common attraction towards the planet's massive body of matter. gravity isn't what one normally considers an interest or an agenda. i'm sure most republicans dislike al sharpton as much as neo-nazis but that doesnt mean they share a common enemy.

your field survey of three people atta mcdonalds hardly forms the basis for any type of reasonable specific conclusion, much less a sweeping generality of the type youre proclaiming.

I did specify what the "specific" refers to

i'm not aware of any group of pacificists who only speak out when the us attacks dictators. names, please and some sorta evidence you didnt just pull that outta your ass.

will in fact find that opposition to Bush's policies come from two camps: the left and Neo-Nazis. I am currently investigating and trying to explain what exactly these groups have in common

it's all part of a plot...i'd back off if i were you before it's too late. better hide the crack in your freezer too.

Kingbe,

you are becoming more impolite, which leads me to believe that your motivation is not to clarify misunderstandings but to provoke.

But let me try to clarify a few things anyway:

1. I did not only "survey" three people in front of a McDonald's. If you have somehow missed the major demonstrations against the Iraq war over the last few years, then I am sorry for assuming that it was widely known, but the problem of Neo-Nazis joining forces with the so-called pacifists is a rather real one. And in fact some left-wing organisations have tried to distance themselves from the Neo-Nazi component. What they haven't realised is not that association with Nazis is bad, but that they do, in fact, agree with the Nazis on this.

2. Point me to a series of large scale demonstrations against any current war that doesn't involve the USA or Israel and I will admitt that these pacifists are indeed objective pacifists and not specific to certain kinds of wars. For myself I have neither seen nor heard of any major demonstrations against the Sudanese government (the slaughtering in Sudan arguably kills more people then the invasion of Iraq did) or indeed any other current war. Has the world suddenly become peaceful apart from the US and Israel?

3. I don't know about a plot. But I remember that 25 years ago the so-called pacifists did not demonstrate against Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait, but they did demonstrate against the US liberating it. If that is not selective pacifism, then I don't know what us. And I'm afraid I was one of the "no blood for oil" types then. But I was 14 years old then, and as I have said in the article, I was drawn toward neo-conservatism by advocates more tolerant than the left-wingers at the McDonald's. I don't think it's a plot, but I do think that it is a certain philosophy that makes people oppose using force to remove dictators but not the dictators. (I don't consider quiet disagreement an actual opposition. In my experience quiet opponents is all the support a fascist dictator needs.)

The problem with those who travel too far Right into Fascism (i.e. Nazi), is that they really end up on the far left (i.e. total Government control).

We have had a few discussions back in Oct. about this subject. If you got the time Andrew, go back to the Oct. Bloggs and take some of the "Where are you on the spectrum tests" that bounce around back then. You may be surprised how closes Hitler and Stalin was. It was just the PR, used by both that made them seem so far apart.

Right = Less Government Control
Left = Total Government Control

your motivation is not to clarify misunderstandings but to provoke.

and your headline wasnt intentionally provocational?

What they haven't realised is not that association with Nazis is bad, but that they do, in fact, agree with the Nazis on this

im still stunned by the incredible conclusion leaping youre doing here. you totally dismiss the possibility that one might have totally valid reasons for being against the war--without there ever having been nazis.

to put it another way, if the nazis decide the sky is blue--and assuming they arent colorblind--should you determine there is truly a blue sky, is it reasonable to announce that youre agreeing with the nazis?

Point me to a series of large scale demonstrations against any current war that doesn't involve the USA or Israel and I will admitt that these pacifists are indeed objective pacifists and not specific to certain kinds of wars

well that sorta limits that one huh? go back a few years--nobody hadda problem with the us goin after the taliban and bin laden.

For myself I have neither seen nor heard of any major demonstrations against the Sudanese government (the slaughtering in Sudan arguably kills more people then the invasion of Iraq did) or indeed any other current war

oh i dunno...think its maybe cuz the sudan isnt terribly responsive to negative public opinion. the time to protest (and prevent) what's happening in the sudan woulda been before the brits decided patch it together. only since there mighta been nazis happy to see the empire being dismantled...

But I remember that 25 years ago the so-called pacifists did not demonstrate against Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait, but they did demonstrate against the US liberating it.

more like 15 years ago. since you're from germany (i presume) you've not been in a position to find your country committing you to war--justified or not. nor have you lived thru several decades of having your government lie to you as to the reasons for having done so.

I don't think it's a plot, but I do think that it is a certain philosophy that makes people oppose using force to remove dictators but not the dictators

and where does that put people who provide dictators with weapons of mass destruction as long as it works to their advantage?

Right = Less Government Control Left = Total Government Control

that makes anarchists rightwingers?

"You may be surprised how closes Hitler and Stalin was."

No, I wouldn't be. I just wrote an article titled "Pan-Nationalism" which outlined how Hitler and Stalin were led by the same basic philosophy.

Alas, that philosophy is not at all left-wing.

"and your headline wasnt intentionally provocational?"

Where did I say that it wasn't? You have to understand that there is a difference between a provoking headline and an insulting discussion style.

"and where does that put people who provide dictators with weapons of mass destruction as long as it works to their advantage?"

In the UN security council, using the French seat?

"what's happening in the sudan woulda been before the brits decided patch it together."

So I assume that your point is that Sudan would nott be Arab if it hadn't been for the Brits? Even though Sudan was part of the Arab and later Ottoman empire before the Brits even existed as a people?

"im still stunned by the incredible conclusion leaping youre doing here. you totally dismiss the possibility that one might have totally valid reasons for being against the war--without there ever having been nazis."

That's probably because you have, as you have clearly shown, simply not bothered to read or understand my point. If there are valid reasons for being against the war, then I fear these reasons would also apply to any other war. Yet there were few demonstrations against Sudan's war against its Christian population or Saddam's invasion of Kuwait 15 years ago.

I'm not saying that pacifists are Neo-Nazis, I am saying that those pacifists who only protest against democratic antions fighting fascist dictatorships share at least one belief with Neo-Nazis. And I believe that it is this one belief which makes them both so dangerous. You can disagree with that, but I'm afraid you seem to be more eager to attack me rather than my point.

So I assume that your point is that Sudan would nott be Arab if it hadn't been for the Brits? Even though Sudan was part of the Arab and later Ottoman empire before the Brits even existed as a people?

another good reason not to assume. when residents of what's now sudan were still nubians, the brits were living in brittania. it was britain that made the southern sudan subservient to arab north. your confusion may explain your misperception of the problem there now as arab vs christian.

I am saying that those pacifists who only protest against democratic antions fighting fascist dictatorships share at least one belief with Neo-Nazis.

you're very disingenuously ignoring the support that your beloved neocons provided--and continue to provide even now--to fascist dictators in nicarauga, guatemala, honduras, and el salvador.

That's probably because you have, as you have clearly shown, simply not bothered to read or understand my point.

nice try. i read it and understood exactly what kinda scam you're trying to launch. what's amazing me is this: the normal objective of propaganda is to convince others..you appear to have outslicked yourself into actually believing your own nonsense. kinda funny in its own bizarre way.