Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Dennis Prager :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism?
by Dennis Prager
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Why is it that when people want to describe particularly evil individuals or regimes, they use the terms "Nazi" or "Fascist" but almost never "Communist?"

Given the amount the human suffering Communists have caused - 70 million killed in China, 20-30 million in the former Soviet Union, and almost one-third of all Cambodians; the decimation of Tibetan and Chinese culture; totalitarian enslavement of North Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Russians; a generation deprived of human rights in Cuba; and much more -- why is "Communist" so much less a term of revulsion than "Nazi?"

There are Mao Restaurants in major cities in the Western world. Can one imagine Hitler Restaurants? Che Guevara T-shirts are ubiquitous, yet there are no Heinrich Himmler T-shirts.

This question is of vital significance. First, without moral clarity, humanity has little chance of avoiding a dark future. Second, the reasons for this moral imbalance tell us a great deal about ourselves today.

Here, then, are seven reasons.

1. Communists murdered their own people; the Nazis murdered others. Under Mao about 70 million people died - nearly all in peacetime! - virtually all of them Chinese. Likewise, the approximately 30 million people that Stalin had killed were nearly all Russians, and those who were not Russian, Ukrainians for example, were members of other Soviet nationalities.

The Nazis, on the other hand, killed very few fellow Germans. Their victims were Jews, Slavs and members of other "non-Aryan" and "inferior" groups.

"World opinion" - that vapid amoral concept - deems the murder of members of one's group far less noteworthy than the murder of outsiders. That is one reason why blacks killing millions of fellow blacks in the Congo right now elicits no attention from "world opinion." But if an Israeli soldier is charged with having killed a Gaza woman and two children, it makes the front page of world newspapers.

2. Communism is based on lovely sounding theories; Nazism is based on heinous sounding theories.

Intellectuals, among whom are the people who write history, are seduced by words -- so much so that deeds are deemed considerably less significant. Communism's words are far more intellectually and morally appealing than the moronic and vile racism of Nazism. The monstrous evils of communists have not been focused on nearly as much as the monstrous deeds of the Nazis. The former have been regularly dismissed as perversions of a beautiful doctrine (though Christians who committed evil in the name of Christianity are never regarded by these same people as having perverted a beautiful doctrine), whereas Nazi atrocities have been perceived (correctly) as the logical and inevitable results of Nazi ideology.

This seduction by words while ignoring deeds has been a major factor in the ongoing appeal of the left to intellectuals. How else explain the appeal of a Che Guevara or Fidel Castro to so many left-wing intellectuals, other than that they care more about beautiful words than about vile deeds?

3. Germans have thoroughly exposed the evils of Nazism, have taken responsibility for them, and attempted to atone for them. Russians have not done anything similar regarding Lenin's or Stalin's horrors. Indeed, an ex-KGB man runs Russia, Lenin is still widely revered, and, in the words of University of London Russian historian Donald Rayfield, "people still deny by assertion or implication, Stalin's holocaust."

Nor has China in any way exposed the greatest mass murderer and enslaver of them all, Mao Zedong. Mao remains revered in China.

Until Russia and China acknowledge the evil their states have done under communism, communism's evils will remain less acknowledged by the world than the evils of the German state under Hitler.

4. Communism won, Nazism lost. And the winners write history.

5. Nothing matches the Holocaust. The rounding up of virtually every Jewish man, woman, child, and baby on the European continent and sending them to die is unprecedented and unparalleled. The communists killed far more people than the Nazis did but never matched the Holocaust in the systemization of murder. The uniqueness of the Holocaust and the enormous attention paid to it since then has helped ensure that Nazism has a worse name than communism.

6. There is, simply put, widespread ignorance of communist atrocities compared to those of the Nazis. Whereas, both right and left loathe Nazism and teach its evil history, the left dominates the teaching profession, and therefore almost no one teaches communist atrocities. As much as intellectuals on the left may argue that they loathe Stalin or the North Korean regime, few on the left loathe communism. As the French put it, "pas d'enemis a la gauche," which in English means "no enemies on the left." This is certainly true of Chinese, Vietnamese, and Cuban communism. Check your local university's courses and see how many classes are given on communist totalitarianism or mass murder compared to the number of classes about Nazism's immoral record.

7. Finally, in the view of the left, the last "good war" America fought was World War II, the war against German and Japanese fascism. The left does not regard America's wars against communist regimes as good wars. The war against Vietnamese communism is regarded as immoral and the war against Korean (and Chinese) communism is simply ignored.

Until the left and all the institutions influenced by the left acknowledge how evil communism has been, we will continue to live in a morally confused world. Conversely, the day the left does come to grips with communism's legacy of human destruction, it will be a very positive sign that the world's moral compass has begun to correct itself.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Dennis Prager's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Very true!
The reason Nazism is so often used as a pejorative vis-a-vis communism is that the American left, while not supporting communism per se, nevertheless holds a certain degree of appreciation in their hearts for the alleged goal of communism, namely, "fairness" and "equality" and "egalitarianism."

Look at it this way -- what do people say about a Christmas gift? "It's the thought that counts." Well, to the Left, it's the (well-intentioned) thought behind communism that counts, hence their aversion to criticizing the ideology.

And few lived through communism
Many still remember the sights and sounds of Nazism because they lived through it. They saw or lived through the Holocaust. Legions of brave American soldiers and civilians and those of other countries died defeating Nazism on fields of battle and elsewhere. But how many of us lived through and saw first hand the attrocities of communism? It has not had a chance to become a vile and DIRECT part of US history until we let it infiltrate our colleges and politic like it has in the past few decades. Just wait and see what happens when people experience it for themselves in their own lives instead of just reading about it in a text book. Like they say, there are no atheists in a foxhole.

Its about socialism, all else is moot
The left feels that the collective is the fairest form of government and that personal freedom is the worst. This also explains why they embrace Islamic facism even though the atrocities are ongoing. If Mr. Prager thinks it is odd that the horrors of communism are not compared to Nazism, what about comparing the horrors of Islamic facism to American foriegn policy? How often are we called a terrorist nation? The left lives in a utopian world and refuses to remove the rose colored glasses.

YOU MISSED A REASON
Dennis. We are constantly propagandized that Nazism is extreme right wing. Actually, Nazism is just one more leftist agenda. The Nazis were national socialists. The major difference between them and the communists is that the communists were international socialists. A lot of third world countries bought into the international concept, but they soon found out just like the animals in Animal Farm, that some animals were more equal than others.

Our leftists will never give up their their concept of Nazism, it's their cover story, and they will never give up their delusion that they are not communists themselves.

The reason is simple Dennis
The murdering nazi's were wiped out and the communists are in charge today.

One can safely criticize the nazi's, he will pay hell for criticizing the little communist Obama and his entourage in DC and the Media

Che Guevara T-Shirts
I always ask a person wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt "Why not a Hitler shir?"

Satan's disguise.
The devil's greatest trick is to convince the atheists he doesn't exist. By using communism as a way to enslave hundreds of millions of godless lemmings ,the atheists have no transcendent resource to draw from. Their souls are empty and they only look to put other people on the pedestal to lead them out of the fog. Their higher purpose is a charade of superficial non-sense to make them feel good about themselves. If they maneuver themselves into a powerful position they can use their platform to deceitfully draw others into accepting peasanthood.

The one issue I have...
...with this column is the idea that the Holocaust was an unsurpassable evil, a common theme in Prager's writing. I do not deny that the Holocaust happened, that some 6 million people died, that it was systematically imposed and carried out on one deranged man's orders, and that it was an evil of unimaginable magnitude, but to call it unique, unsurpassed, or unsurpassable is to fall into the Left's trap of ignoring communism's evils.

The one thing that differentiates Nazi attrocities and Communist attrocities is that the Nazi attrocities are well documented in the West. If we spent the proportionate amount of time on the Communists compared with the time we spend on the Nazis in school, Hitler's evil would seem mild compared with that of Stalin, Mao, etc. The Communist murder WAS systematic, it was simply handled differently and did not necessarily target a particular population (unless you count suspected political enemies as a population.)

In the end the Nazi Holocaust, and the Soviet purges, and the Chinese "Great Leap Forward", and the Cambodian genocide all amount to the same thing: murder on a grand scale for political expediency. And such is the expected result for godless societies.

The biggest reason
The biggest reason that Nazism wins the battle for "Most evil philosophy" is that Nazism has one face to associate with the catastrophes it wrought: Adolph Hitler. Sure, you have Goebbels, Goering, Hess, Himler, Mengele, Rommel, etc. but without Hitler, none of them matter. Communists have Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kims, Castro, Guevarra, Deng, Khruschev, Brezhnev, Ho Chi Minh, and others, and while Stalin and Mao stand out as the two most infamous, the rest could stand alone without them and Communism would be just as evil.

It'll be hard to change the left
Especially when they believe in the tenets of communism and bring it to the highest levels of government(currently in the WH)and also to the highest levels of education. No matter the level of your communism you are still a communist. If you are an eighth, a quarter, or a half commie, or maybe you just believe in stealing anothers money and spreading their wealth around you are still a communist. If you are any of these things you are a communist; a democrat, a liberal, a progressive, a greenie, a universal, a european socialist, part of a socialist democracy, a marxist, or just a full blown Stalin communist.

Eighth reason
The Communists have better public relations guys. Having academia and the media on youe side is very helpful.

Two more reasons
I can think of one more reason, in fact two, why communism still enjoys a measure of attractiveness to a group of Americans - liberals - than Nazism does to ANYONE: first and foremost, the unabashed atheism that is at the heart of communism.

Since American liberals today are pretty much secular people who have less and less use for God, any philosophy with an atheistic foundation will by virtue of that fact alone have some appeal to them, its record in practice notwithstanding.

True, in PRACTICE, the Nazis effectively had no more use for people of faith than communists and persecuted them as surely as the communists did; the first concentration camp, Dachau, had a special section reserved specifically for Roman Catholic clergy called the Priests Compound.

But the communists are much more spiritual soul-brothers to today's American liberals than the Nazis by virtue of the communists' blatant rejection of the existence of God; it's as central to their belief system as any other tenet. And that's why liberals can still find a soft spot in their hearts for communism that they can't find for Nazism.

The second reason: when one thinks of Nazis, the kind of people one tends to think of as holding that belief are the whitest of white people. Whereas many communists have been black and Asian - in short, NON-WHITE. Nazism is too closely associated with the most Caucasian of Caucasians for it to be able to have much appeal to many Americans today who have been brainwashed to think that white people are the scourge of the earth.

Because communist china makes our goods
Because Communist China makes all the products we use. They're also the ones who buy the majority of the debt we keep increasing.

huh?
Prager is deluded if he thinks there are a lot of people on the left who idealize Communism. I've never seen anyone with a poster, or t-shirt of Mao or Stalin.

Prgaer is sill living in the cold war.

By the way, you righties have been telling yourselves that Obama is a "radical leftist".

If that's so, why did Obama opt for a more free-market solution to the financial crisis, rather than nationalizing the banks?

Some radical, that Obama.

Socialism kills too
Today's Obama Socialism plans to control the population with universal health care. It will kill millions so there will be less "carbon" and a more "natural" sustainable environment.
Enjoy your pain.

StandsHisGround
Communists are Liberals and to these Moral Degenerates it is feeling that matter, NOT FACTS! Also the LIE that Nazism was EXTREME Right Wing has taken root and is parroted as FACT.

Mussolini, The Progressive Darling - I

In 1923 the journalist Isaac F. Marcosson wrote admiringly in the New York Times that “Mussolini is a Latin [Teddy] Roosevelt who first acts and then inquires if it is legal. He has been of great service to Italy at home.” The American Legion, which has been for nearly its entire history a great and generous American institution, was founded the same year as Mussolini’s takeover and, in its early years, drew inspiration from the Italian Fascist movement. “Do not forget,” the legion’s national commander declared that same year, “that the Fascisti are to Italy what the American Legion is to the United States.”

In 1926 the American humorist Will Rogers visited Italy and interviewed Mussolini. He told the New York Times that Mussolini was “some Wop.” “I’m pretty high on that bird.” Rogers, whom the National Press Club had informally dubbed “Ambassador–at–Large of the United States,” wrote up the interview for the Saturday Evening Post. He concluded, “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government: that is if you have the right Dictator.” In 1927 the Literary Digest conducted an editorial survey asking the question: “Is there a dearth of great men?” The person named most often to refute the charge was Benito Mussolini—followed by Lenin, Edison, Marconi, and Orville Wright, with Henry Ford and George Bernard Shaw tying for sixth place. In 1928 the Saturday Evening Post glorified Mussolini even further, running an eight–part autobiography written by Il Duce himself. The series was gussied up into a book that gained one of the biggest advances ever given by an American publisher.

Mussolini, Progressive Darling - II

Perhaps no elite institution in America was more accommodating to Fascism than Columbia University. In 1926 it established Casa Italiana, a center for the study of Italian culture and a lecture venue for prominent Italian scholars. It was Fascism’s “veritable home in America” and a “schoolhouse for budding Fascist ideologues,” according to John Patrick Diggins. Mussolini himself had contributed some ornate Baroque furniture to Casa Italiana and had sent Columbia’s president, Nicholas Murray Butler, a signed photo thanking him for his “most valuable contribution” to the promotion of understanding between Fascist Italy and the United States. Butler himself was not an advocate of fascism for America, but he did believe it was in the best interests of the Italian people and that it had been a very real success, well worth studying. This subtle distinction—fascism is good for Italians, but maybe not for America—was held by a vast array of prominent liberal intellectuals in much the same way some liberals defend Castro’s communist “experiment.”

While academics debated the finer points of Mussolini’s corporatist state, mainstream America’s interest in Mussolini far outstripped that of any other international figure in the 1920s. From 1925 to 1928 there were more than a hundred articles written on Mussolini in American publications and only fifteen on Stalin. For more than a decade the New York Times’s foreign correspondent Anne O’Hare McCormick painted a glowing picture of Mussolini that made the Times’s later fawning over Stalin seem almost critical.

IF YOU WENT solely by what you read in the New York Times or the New York Review of Books, or what you learned from Hollywood, you could be forgiven for thinking that Benito Mussolini came to power around the same time as Adolf Hitler—or even a little bit later—and that Italian Fascism was merely a tardy, watered–down version of Nazism.

Phylo -- Obama's radicalism ..
"By the way, you righties have been telling yourselves that Obama is a 'radical leftist'.

"If that's so, why did Obama opt for a more free-market solution to the financial crisis, rather than nationalizing the banks?"

The above speculation assumes that the current "solution" is intended to succeed, which is not at all a safe assumption, given the stated desire not to "waste a good crisis". At this point in time, outright nationalization of the banking system might generate a revolt. Should the current plan "fail", then Mr. Obama can sorrowfully tell the people he exhausted other measures, and oh-so-regretfully must nationalize.

FDR & Fascism - I

On May 7, 1933, just two months after the inauguration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the New York Times reporter Anne O’Hare McCormick wrote that the atmosphere in Washington was “strangely reminiscent of Rome in the first weeks after the march of the Blackshirts, of Moscow at the beginning of the Five-Year Plan.…America today literally asks for orders.” The Roosevelt administration, she added, “envisages a federation of industry, labor and government after the fashion of the corporative State as it exists in Italy.”
With our knowledge of the horrors of the Holocaust and World War II, we find it almost impossible to consider such claims dispassionately. But in the 1930s, when everyone agreed that capitalism had failed, it wasn’t hard to find common themes and mutual admiration in Washington, Berlin, and Rome, not to mention Moscow. Nor is that a mere historical curiosity, of no great importance in the era following democracy’s triumph over fascism, National Socialism, and communism. Since then we have been warned about many crises and many enemies, and we have come to accept a more powerful and more intrusive state than existed before the ’30s.


Throughout the ’30s, intellectuals and journalists noted “areas of convergence among the New Deal, Fascism, and National Socialism.” All three were seen as transcending “classic Anglo-French liberalism”—individualism, free markets, decentralized power.


FDR & Fascism - II

As early as 1912, FDR himself praised the Prussian-German model: “They passed beyond the liberty of the individual to do as he pleased with his own property and found it necessary to check this liberty for the benefit of the freedom of the whole people,” he said in an address to the People’s Forum of Troy, New York. American Progressives studied at German universities and “came to appreciate the Hegelian theory of a strong state and Prussian militarism as the most efficient way of organizing modern societies that could no longer be ruled by anarchic classical liberal principles.”

Intellectuals worried about inequality, the poverty of the working class, and the commercial culture created by mass production. (They didn’t seem to notice the tension between the last complaint and the first two.) Classical Liberalism seemed inadequate to deal with such problems. When economic crisis hit—in Italy and Germany after World War I, in the United States with the Great Depression—the anti-liberals (classical) seized the opportunity, arguing that the market had failed and that the time for bold experimentation had arrived.

Roosevelt himself called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.…Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state” based on the “demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest.”


FDR & Fascism - III

Roosevelt summoned the nation: “If we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army.…I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”

That was a new tone for a president of the American republic. Hitler and Roosevelt were both charismatic leaders who held the masses in their sway—and without this sort of leadership, neither National Socialism nor the New Deal would have been possible. This plebiscitary style established a direct connection between the leader and the masses. Mass rallies, fireside radio chats—and in our own time—television can bring the ruler directly to the people in a way that was never possible before.

To that end, all the new regimes of the ’30s undertook unprecedented propaganda efforts. Program and propaganda merged in the public works of all three systems.


FDR & Fascism - IV

In 1973 one of the most distinguished American historians, John A. Garraty of Columbia University, created a stir with his article “The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression.” Garraty was an admirer of Roosevelt but couldn’t help noticing, for instance, the parallels between the Civilian Conservation Corps and similar programs in Germany. Both, he wrote, “were essentially designed to keep young men out of the labor market. Roosevelt described work camps as a means for getting youth ‘off the city street corners,’ Hitler as a way of keeping them from ‘rotting helplessly in the streets.’ In both countries much was made of the beneficial social results of mixing thousands of young people from different walks of life in the camps. Furthermore, both were organized on semimilitary lines with the subsidiary purposes of improving the physical fitness of potential soldiers and stimulating public commitment to national service in an emergency.”


Georgetwin
Totally agree with you on BOTH of your points. In fact, regarding your second point, it amazes me to this day how many leftists still parrot the lie that the Roman Catholic Church, and many Protestant churches, were in bed with the Nazis - despite the fact, as I pointed out in my first post, that the first Nazi concentration camp has a special section just for Roman Catholic clergy, and imprisoned other prominent Christians as well, such as Deitrich Bonhoffer. And communism fits perfectly into the liberals "feelings not facts" mindset.

Another reason I think communism still has far greater favor in the mind of liberals today than Nazism is something I've said more than once on this site in past days: as far as I'm concerned, nowadays most American liberals are little more than commissars-in-training.

In fact, I've thought of a THIRD reason Prager didn't mention why communism still enjoys favor today in spite of its atrocities while Nazism is condemned: Nazism came up in an industrialized, capitalistic nation, while communism has taken hold in countries that ALREADY had widespread oppression and impoverishment (excepting the Eastern European nations that were forcibly put under the communist boot, I guess). The fact that communism only CONTINUED, if not EXACERBATED, the oppression and impoverishment the nations it was imposed on is something that is of no consequence today to leftists. So Nazism has the association in the mind of liberals today, however wrongly, with capitalism, while communism has the association with the toiling masses, and the fact that communists oppressed the very people - workers - they claimed to be working on behalf of doesn't even register with them.

Re: A Rose by Any Other Name
"Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism?"

Because the Commies had more "charming leaders", i.e Hugo Chavez; Pol Pot; Mao, Castro; Lenin, Stalin, etc.

Denise
I discovered another one:

Hitler brushed his teeth twice a day, and SO DID ROOSEVELT! Obviously, they are the same person. Did anyone ever see them in a room together?

Huh?
"That is one reason why blacks killing millions of fellow blacks in the Congo right now elicits no attention from "world opinion." But if an Israeli soldier is charged with having killed a Gaza woman and two children, it makes the front page of world newspapers."

Dennis can't even bring himself to say, "if an Israeli soldier kills a Gaza woman and two children..." Very revealing.

Americans under surveillance
Hope that no one is Anti-Abortion, a war protester, a Ron Paul supporter, a member of a third party, or a member of the Campaign for Liberty. If you are you may be "on the radar" of the U.S. Government.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/23/fus ion-centers-expand-criteria-identify-militia-members/

Here is a link to the report

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13290698/The-Modern-Militia-Movem entMissouri-MIAC-Strategic-Report-20Feb09-

Americans under surveillance
Hope that no one is Anti-Abortion, a war protester, a Ron Paul supporter, a member of a third party, or a member of the Campaign for Liberty. If you are you may be "on the radar" of the U.S. Government.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/23/fus ion-centers-expand-criteria-identify-militia-members/

Here is a link to the report

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13290698/The-Modern-Militia-Movem entMissouri-MIAC-Strategic-Report-20Feb09-

Phylo
You live in a different world than the rest of us.

We the taxpayers now own the banking industry. It has begun to be nationalized. And it will continue under O. O does not believe in anything to do with free markets. He SAYS he does, but his actions disprove it.

For one, if O was for free markets, he would have stayed in Community Organizing and not have moved to government. He left community org because he was not effective. He felt that only government could solve the problems that he was trying to solve.
This type of philosophy does not admire free markets.

Hmmm
Between Charles and Denise, it is apparent that Dennis's latest column has really drawn out the kooks.

Obama is proving Rep. correct ...
on his proposed army...

"We're not looking for a fight. That will come later, when we have an army."

The volunteers are part of Organizing for America, the same grassroots, national network credited in large part with Obama's quick rise from obscurity to president.

http://www.al.com/birminghamnews/stories/index.ssf?/base/ne ws/1237709752152800.xml&coll=2



Similar to...

Hitler's SS Brown Shirt "Army"

... the SS grew in size and power due to its exclusive loyalty to Hitler... the SS carried out the killing, torture and enslavement of approximately twelve million people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel#The_SS_during_Wo rld_War_II


Obaminaion-news
Also today in Obamanation news:

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies...http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302830_pf.html

Remember what history teaches us about fascism...

Recap fascism 101: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Economic_policies

Fascist governments nationalized some key industries, managed their currencies and made some massive state investments.[citation needed] Fascist governments introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of economic interventionist measures.[123]




Isaiah
You wrote:

"Dennis can't even bring himself to say, "if an Israeli soldier kills a Gaza woman and two children..." Very revealing."

Have someone explain the Dennis' article for you, and then try to discriminate the details of same to include the context.

Blacks killing other blacks in the Congo is not an issue among the pseudo-intellectuals on the left. The Israeli soldier only has to be "charge with" and he is considered a demon by the same leftists.

Now work on your critical thinking skills.

You must be an affirmative action poster. Don't worry, we'll help you out whenever possible.

Isaiah
You make a list of kooks, and Warrior's anti-semitic rant doesn't make the list?

Isaiah
I'd call it "kooky" for any American not to be concerned at Obama's blatant attempts of fascism.

Lot's of unconcerned kooks here today I'd say.

Isaiah

Obviously, you don't know much about history because the writings upon which I drew are the product of numerous mainstream historians.

Of course, I didn't go into Woodrow Wilson, whom I am sure that you much admire, since imprisoned 150,000 dissenting Americans.

Absolutely, no one is saying that they espoused the exact same views on everything. On the contrary, they vehemently disagreed on many things. Alas, control over the economy and the populace were not those where divergent opinions can be found.

Lastly, what, pray tell, do you make of the Progressive's love affair and hero worship of Mussolini? There is no way around it regardless of the contortions that one may wish to engage. Take Columbia University, do you really believe that such an institution would have named a building after Mussolini and stuffed it with furniture provided by Il Duce, if they did not support him?

Lon, reply #29...you blew it
Lon,

I really need folks to read your comment on consequences:

"Would he (Prager)agree that people who oppose abortion should favor Democrats because abortion rates fall under Democratic administrations and raise (sic) under Republican ones?"

Are you actually suggesting that Democratic administrations have some causative impact on the number of abortions, lowering the number of abortions? Please fill me in on your undoubted reasoning that freedom of choice LOWERS the number of abortions.

Sorry to take this good discussion on an excellent article way off thread. I apologize.

However, I really, really need to learn from Lon how I will help other women from recklessly, selfishly ending a life by voting for Democrats.

As for the true thread, Denise excellent posts. And the truth is today's society needs to SEE a movie, or a Youtube video, or some text messages or a routine on The Daily Show or a discussion on The View or an Oprah show or...

I think you can catch the drift. Are you under the impression that more than ~20-25% of Americans know WHO Stalin was? History? Do you think more than 20% of people aged 20 something even read 1 book in a year?

The problem America faces is more serious than knowledge that Nazism and Communism are both inevitably Fascist in application.

PHYLO AT 9:18
If that's so, why did Obama opt for a more free-market solution to the financial crisis, rather than nationalizing the banks?

Is that supposed to be a well reasoned logical rebuttal? If so, then this response will probably be above you, but nonetheless I will try.
1) He already to a degree has. You may be unaware of this if you have been cut off from any source of news for the past six months or so, but some companies such as Wells Fargo have actually been conscripted into accepting bailout funds (Talk about fascism).
2)Free market solution? Really so he has kept his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution and vetoed all the illegal bills emanating from Congress to take the money of private citizens and give it to others. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is very clear that revenue is only for the purpose of fulfilling the enumerated powers following, and "bailouts" certainly isn't one.
3) At present Obama and the other leftists have not accrued enough usurped powers to themselves to nationalize the banks, making your argument empty and specious.
4) The Constitution was not enacted to take away private ownership, but to ensure an environment whereby individuals through strengthened states could have the greatest freedom to prosper. Try reading it.

StandsHisGround
Think back to Gorbachev, Brezhnev, etc. During that era, whenever you saw video from Russia, the Ruling Elites would be attired in Custom Tailored Suits, the people were attired in RAGS! Yet Liberal Loons BELIEVE that the people are better off under a Communal System DESPITE its MASSIVE Failures ANYWHERE it has been tried INCLUDING among the Pilgrims

Isaiah
Ok, I will argue with you on your level. Am not. Are too. Am not. Are too.

Phyllo: Really?
"If that's so, why did Obama opt for a more free-market solution to the financial crisis, rather than nationalizing the banks?"

Really? The U.S. government owns 80% of all Citibank stock & therefore "controlling interest" in all future business decisions. How about the US government buying $1 tillion in "toxic assets" in return for bank stock? What part of majority stock holder= "bank nationalization" don't you understand?

Please tell that you have the word "Arts" & not "Science" printed on a degree.

Lon
I actually thought that Warrior's weird rant was another one of Denise's. Thanks for the correction there.

warrior: Reality
Communism is a Jewish ideology, written by Marx and implemented in Russia by Jews like Trotsky, Kaganovich, Yagoda and funded by Jews worldwide.

Please remove you nose from your "dog-eared" copy of the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", renounce your anti-Semitic myopia & return to reality. If communism and its daughter ideology of Stalinism are Jewish ideologies, then why did Stalin & his minions consider "Zionism" a crime punishable by being sent to die in the gulags?

Denise
Missed my point, I see. The reason people criticize Hitler (and I can't believe I even have to explain this) wasn't that he was "charismatic" or that he called for discipline in the name of the common good. I might be misreading this, but I think the whole mass murder thing kind of has something to do with the revulsion most feel toward him.

Jo
Your response just makes me sad. Not everyone who disagrees with you is some kind of evil monster. And it's a disgraceful thing how our educational system and media have failed you (and others of your ilk) so badly.

Isaiah...proof?
I thought I would help to bring this discussion to your level and challenge your post as follows:

"Hitler brushed his teeth twice a day, and SO DID ROOSEVELT! Obviously, they are the same person. Did anyone ever see them in a room together?"

Please reference your sources for this. Quick, Google hygiene Roosevelt and Hitler. I want to check the link.

Kooks
Isaiah writes:- 10:44 AM EST
Hmmm
Between Charles and Denise, it is apparent that Dennis's latest column has really drawn out the kooks.
==================

Its why everyone can expect to see you on this thread

Georgetwin
Strange, isn't it, how liberals think a communal system, despite its many failings throughout history, beats every other system - even though liberals themselves have as little inclination as anyone to want to share what THEY have with anyone else and as little inclination as anyone to make ANY sacrifices for the "common good". Al Gore's supposed concern for the environment, for example, doesn't seem to stopped him from living in a house that has several times the "carbon footprint" as the abodes you and I and the vast majority of our fellow Americans call home sweet home.

All these well-off liberals, like those in the Hollyweird crowd, who have made themselves self-appointed homeless advocates and spokesmen: how many examples do we have of these people taking the homeless they profess to be concerned about INTO THEIR OWN HOMES?!

On the first Saturday of October 1997, I attended the big Promise Keepers gathering on the Capitol Mall that day. The day before, for attendees who arrived early in DC and who had trade-union skills (electrical, carpentry, masonry, plumbing, etc.), Promise Keepers was going to have these men go do fix-up work in the Washington DC public school system, whose schools were in such a state of disrepair that a month into the school year, many of them were still closed. PK had to confine its efforts to just ONE school, not because it changed its mind, but because a Washington DC judge, ironically named Kay Christian, stopped them.

When I read about this, I thought: trade-union bosses, like blacks, are staunch Democrats. Why the heck couldn't these union leaders show their concern for their black Democratic brethren by mobilizing their members to go to DC and do, as a volunteer effort (just like PK was going to do), the very same fix-up work liberals were stopping PK from doing? For that matter, why aren't they doing that TODAY? Where is liberals' communal spirit when it's NEEDED?

Phylo
Do you understand what a free market is?

The definition of a free market is ZERO interference from a Government. That means no taxpayer money, no regulations, no interest rate manipulations, nothing. A business that can't go from open to close without directly or indirectly interacting with a Government agency is not a free market.

The US Code of Federal Regulations is a 10,000 page document that every and all companies that operate in America have to follow. These are rules arbitrarily created by Executive branch employees (read Presidents on down) to actively control business the way they see fit. Banking currenly takes up about 500 pages of the monster.

We are NOT a free market. Using taxpayer money is NOT a free-market solution.

If Obama is a free market supporter, then I'm a robot sent from the 31st century to wipe out humanity.

Talent Scout
Oh, burn! You got me. You're so clever.

In all honesty, do you really believe that Obama is trying to be a fascist dictator? Or that Mussolini is a darling of the left (!)? Or that Obama is spying on you because of your political beliefs?

I really have to question the sanity of most of the contributors to this discussion.

Warrior
You are a sad human being. Mao and his successors were Jewish? Kim Jong-il? Lenin? Stalin? Castro? Oh, and all these "Jews" in power persecuted and killed all the other millions of Jews in the Soviet union so nobody would get wise to them? In the initial Bolshevik Revolution the low estimate of Jews killed is 75,000, and perhaps as high as 150,000. During WW II 2 million Soviet Jews were killed in concentration camps, many who had been deported there, as well groups from 10,000 and above were often mass executed.

StandsHisGround
YOU NAILED IT!

Look at Rangel, Cummings, etc in the House of Reps. Their districts were ghettoes BEOFRE they were elected, they have been RE-ELECTED time and again by the inhabitants of these ghettoes and their districts will be ghettoes AFTER they leave office.

Isaiah
Your posts seem to be in response to thoughts in your own head. Nothing in this article had anything to do with supposed spying by Obama. Try making a cogent argument, perhaps someone will take you seriously, instead of an argument looking for a fight.

Demosthenes
Hide behind your labeling and name calling. If you have studied at all you know your question is a BS question written by a BS artist for the purpose of redirection and obfuscation. Facts are facts and you cannot refute the truth so go spread your fraternity house puke somewhere else. Stalin had 3 Jewish wives and his daughter Svetlana had 3 Jew husbands--you are right, they really hated Jews--except those they slept and propagated with. Most researchers now believe Stalin was a Jew from Georgia that changed his name to promote his secular Communist image.

Cap and Com
What a den of capitalists I've entered. I wonder how many of you would be such staunch advocates of capitalism if Karl Marx had not said "religion is the opiate of the people" and forever tainted communism with atheism?

One more reason for Prager.

When capitalism fails it is spectacular. When communism fails, who can tell? It looks the same as communism succeeding.

German Nazism
German Nazism is the personification of the evil that can be done by a nation gone mad. Germany one of the most well educated, Christian nations bought into sick dreams of one madman.


Look at the facts . . .
There is a hidden component of nazi extermination that has not been brought out. German zionist were looking for those who would emigrate to Palestine to establish the Jewish state. There were very few takers, as German Jews considered themselves part of the social fabric in Germany and generally wanted no part of emigration. The zionist agenda was to help make life uncomfortable for Jews so that they would emigrate. SECRET DEALS were made between zionist "leaders" and the nazi government. The book "51 Documents Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis" by Lenni Brenner offers details into this sordid past. I would also recommend books by Professor Norman Finkelstein.
As there was much social unrest during the Weimar republic days, communism was blamed on Jews. There may have been some basis in fact to support this; Jews were perennially marginalized in many countries and would have seen communism as a preferable system. This in no way justifies "anti-semitism"; it is merely a quest for the TRUTH.

Isaiah

Only a brown shirt socialist fascist would turn a blind eye to what Obama is telling us in his own words.

But that would explain YOUR education now wouldn't it? What programming Indoctrinate-University have your gone to?? Harvard, Yale - Beserkly?

The Universities are giving a whole new definition to "educated fool".


Bleeding heart
When Capitalism fails? It hasn't yet, there is not one case in recorded history of a market free from government interference that has failed. Please don't try and say that what we have here in America is capitalism. We have the Fed setting interest rates, farmers being told how much to grow, imposed hiring practices, imposed wages, government competition through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, imposed business practices such as CRA, set aside contracts (favoring one group of people over another), legalized extortion (what happens when the legal system doesn't have loser pays), etc. etc.
Communism has succeeded. Wait, wait. ROTFL. Where? Whereas there is not one recorded case in history of Capitalism failing, the opposite holds true for Communism, in that there is not one case of it succeeding. Please forgive me for my violations of your fantasy with reality.

Liberal leanings
Why is it that most celebrities seem to advocate the communist cause? These same celebrities are the most materialistic people on earth with their megamansions, yachts, cars, etc. Don't they realize that under communism they would be the first to go?

Bleeding Heart Liberal
Not every capitalist is necessarily a believer in God, you know. There ARE some atheistic capitalists. Some atheists who come to THIS board profess to be capitalistic in political philosophy.

And there's nothing stopping ANYONE (such as yourself, for example) from coming up with a NEW philosphy of communism that ISN'T tainted by atheism. Of course, to anyone who would to try to sell such a new version of communism, we'd want to see that its apostles THEMSELVES live by what they want others to adopt.

Why do you think so many of the conservatives who come to this board have such little regard for the professed belief system of liberals? Because among liberals each of us knows personally, and especially those in the public spotlight, we see a Grand Canyon-sized chasm between what they profess to BELIEVE and how they actually LIVE. I've already cited one example in a prior post: the gulf that exists between Al Gore's supposed concern for the environment and how he himself actually LIVES.

But I'll give you credit for the last paragraph of your 12:15 pm post; that part of your post, at least, makes a reasonable argument.

Totalitarians
This is a subject that i have given some thought to, why are communists not regarded as evil as national socialists?
I have a couple of more points to add to this article:
1) The holocaust was very well documented, soviet gulags were not. you can't downplay the effect of pictures, some say they are worth a thousand words.
2) the US unfortunately were allied with the communists in world war 2.
3) hitler launched a war of aggression, stalin really did not (warsaw pact notwithstanding).

"The Good War"
When western Europe was rolled over and Great Britain attacked, leftists were in the steets demanding that we not get involved. They shut up, for the most part, especially of our numerous neutrality violations after Russia was attacked. Many on the right were isolationists and didn't want to get involved either, but by The Great Socialist deliberately antagonizing the Japanese (over OIL no less, the US was given grounds to enter the war on the side of the communists.
That is why they call it "The Good War."

Dennis
One more reason: FDR liked Stalin. The country was told he was our uncle Joe. Take the Yalta meeting as a example. Not until Trumen was pres. did we start to learn of his evil. The thing is that communism, and fascist, and nazis all came from the left end of the political spectrum. Not untill they went national did the communists have issues with them. Like wise the leftest/progressives in the USA were also big fans of all three movements.
Kirk

I have trouble
calling Trotsky and Lenin Jews. They MAY have been born of Jewish mothers, but sometimes it takes more than that. For all their lives they rejected and defiled Jewish teaching and I can't blame any Jew who rejects them and feels compelled to rend his coat in disgust of them.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

Lenard
I don't know how you could have missed this, but I was talking about posters on this forum. Look at CharlesLPKY's post.

Jo
You nailed me (I'll forgive the misspelling). But education isn't a bad thing, even if it leads you to believe things that contradict your prejudices.

Bleeding Heart Liberal
When capitalism fails it is spectacular. When communism fails, who can tell? It looks the same as communism succeeding. BHL

================================

Capitalism can't fail anymore than nature can fail. Unless it is injected with socialism. Which is the root cause of our current problems. Social lending legislation.


Communism always fails and when it does people suffer.


OBAMA, APPEASEMENT AND WORLD UPHEAVAL
Everywhere the question is being asked "Is Barack Obama a patriotic American?" The answer is no, he is not, at least not as the word is commonly understood as one who loves his country above all earthly things. For before all else Obama is a "world citizen," a humanitarian idealist whose loyalty is to the good of humanity before the interests of our country-the interests that he swore to "uphold and defend" in his bungled oath of office. In Obama's mind our capitalist democracy is a danger to the world and poorly serving it: poorly serving its peace, its security, its environment and climate, its poor, oppressed, downtrodden peoples. America, in short, is no longer a good world citizen and must be saved from itself and radically changed; saved from the small-minded, patriotic, warmongering nationalist Right; saved from the sins of greed, profit seeking, self-centeredness and individualism; saved from men like Joe the Plumber and the menacing Rush Limbaugh. In short, we must be saved from the old America of Ronald Reagan and John Wayne and join the New Age of enlightened world servers if humanity and our imperiled planet is to survive.......

Click my name and read the rest of "The Obama Doctrine of Appeasement and Signs of World Upheaval."





Communism is a Ruse for Slavery
Communism is nothing but a creative way to enslave people. Forget the nonsense about working for the common good of the nation, workers having rights and sharing the wealth and all the rest...Communism is voluntary enslavement.

Traditional slavery requires the purchase of slaves or conquering people and enslaving them. Both are costly and require vigilance to maintain the oppression.

But if you can get people to voluntary walk through the door of slavery by promising them jobs, decent housing, medical care and education, it is far easier to accomplish and you will acquire alot more slaves. Once they're enslaved (yet they don't know it) you fill their heads with all the crap about working together and building a stronger nation and prosperity for all, etc. and continually preach to them about all the sacrifices they must make to make it all happen.

Meanwhile, the slave-owners have an entire nation of people working for them as they live the lifestyles of the rich and famous.

Take a look at Castro. He convinced the Cuban people of the wonderful life he promised and they voluntarily became his slaves. Cuban kids work the cane fields, like Blacks in the cotton fields. The Cuban people have their accomodations, just like Black slaves had their quarters. The Cubans are not allowed to leave the island, just like the Blacks were not allowed to leave the plantation. And Fidel is rich, just like the plantation owners.

The only difference between Castro and the plantation owners, is that Fidel has more slaves than all the plantation owners combined. He got his slaves from the ruse of: Communism.

Ape Hollow Speaks
There are so many things wrong with your post it's hard to know where to begin. You've got your definition of a patriot all wrong; only on mouth-breather sites is anyone asking if Obama is a patriotic American, since he clearly is; the rest of your post is just whining drivel.

It's good you guys are keeping yourselves occupied with your psycho fantasies; it keeps you out of the way so the real work of America can be accomplished.

The government gives a free market
"The definition of a free market is ZERO interference from a Government"

That was Bush's mistake, believing that a free and fair market would just magically form if he, the referee, swallowed his whistle and ran off the court.

The _ONLY_ way to have a free market is with government support, lots and lots of hard work.

A real life outdoor food market will only work with rules, police, and courtrooms available to settle disputes.

Isaiah at 1:09
Isaiah as I said earlier you are an argument looking for a fight, facts be damned. Charles LPKY never even hinted at this monitoring having anything to do with Obama. You CHOSE to make this inference. You also ignored Denise's citing of the historical record concerning leftists infatuation with Mussolini, and you have yet to make any factual, reasoned argument, relying only calling people kooks, poorly defined statements, and, again, arguments that fail to directly deal with statements made here or in the article. Either you are unwilling to actually examine what is said, or you lack the reasoning skills needed to actually do so, as the "the pro from dover" already pointed out at 11:03.

Nancy
Choice by itself does not lower abortion, although the kind of respect for women that choice is a part of helps. But conservatives, for reasons they can best explain, favor showing their opposition to abortion by opposing money for sex education that works and for making contraception available to poor people. And these conservative programs when put in place drive up the demand for abortion, which not surprisingly increases the number of abortions.

Presumably the point of these measures is not to drive up the number of abortions. The advocates of the policies are, no doubt, well meaning. But their policies consistently have the effect of leading to more abortions. Above Prager is arguing that we should not care about intentions, only results. But the results are pretty consistent.

The effect is more pronounced because the other thing that reduces the number of abortions is women feeling they are in a position to raise children, even unplanned ones. But conservatives tend to oppose programs that would help the women raise their children, from opposing allowing welfare plans for providing money for such mothers, to regressive tax plans that increase poverty rates. The result is that one of the safer predictions is that democratic administrations will have better results as far as decreasing abortion rates go.

I hope this helps clear up the confusion. Railing against things, and even making them illegal, are less effective methods of reducing things than reducing the demand for such things is.

My politally incorrect view
Hitler came to power because the Rothschild based banks in Germany were inflating the currency to infinity and destroying the economy (pretty much the same as is happening here). By nationalizing the banks and ending the counterfeiting, Germany went from the most destitute to the most powerful country in Europe in only 5 years. This made Germany the bankers greatest threat worldwide and must forever be villified for daring to oppose the tyranny of the international banking elite. On the other hand, Communism is the ideal method for the elite to subjugate the world while appearing to help the very people they hope to enslave. It was Paul Warburg and the Chase Manhattan Bank that financed the Bolshevik revolution to begin working toward that goal. Beware the bankers.

Reason #5
Prager says "Communism won, Nazism lost"

What universe does Prager come from where Communism won? The only Communist countries left are Cuba and North Korea--all they've won is everyone's pity and sanctions.

Just because Prager needs to write a column a couple of times a week doesn't excuse him from saying stupid things.

Bleeding Heart Liberal
"When capitalism fails it is spectacular. When communism fails, who can tell? It looks the same as communism succeeding."

May I ask your age because no one, who is over 30 or 35 could possibly forget the CATASTROPHIC failure of Communism?

Do you remember the fall of the Berlin Wall? It was covered on every television station and in every newspaper in the world, except, of course, Communist China, North Korea, etc.

Do you remember in 1985, when Gorbachev introduced Perestroika or Glasnost? Do you remember the August Coup in 1991? What about when the USSR declared itself to be insolvent later in the same year?

To say that the failure of communism is not ascertainable is revisionist history at its best.

Isaiah
LOL!

Berserkly was misspelled on purpose. As in Berserk.

Guess that went right over your highly educated head.

Insightful article,
Mr. Prager you've earned you pay on this one.

Thanks

Seigfried
The _ONLY_ way to have a free market is with government support, lots and lots of hard work. seigfried

==================

Correction:

LIMITED government support.

And the lack of regulation was NOT the problem this time - it was too much regulation forcing banks to loan high risk.

david - IL
Why is it that most celebrities seem to advocate the communist cause? These same celebrities are the most materialistic people on earth with their megamansions, yachts, cars, etc. Don't they realize that under communism they would be the first to go? David
=================================

Communism also had ruling elites.

The ruling elites allowed friends, family, celebrities and others who supported them to keep their wealth.

Opposition was stripped of wealth.

Sid
So Hitler's rise had nothing to do with the uber-punitive measures contained within the Treaty of Versailles, and the resentment this caused?

Nazis and Communists
(1) The Germans' own penchant for organization and record keeping made it possible after the war to document and spread the truth about Nazi evil and atrocities.
The History Channel is jokingly referred to as the "Hitler Channel: All Hitler, All the Time." Why? They air so much of the available material.

(2) Nazis were masters of political theater. There was an entire intimidating "look" to Nazi uniforms, equipment and architecture, designed to inspire awe in followers and fear in their foes. Aspects of those styles are emulated by dictators, to this day.

(3) The primary target of Nazi persecution were an educated, articulate people who have since prospered in the United States, and been able to effectively tell that horrible story.

(4) Left wing elements in the U.S. (like Bella Abzug and many academics) were apologists for Stalin and Communists. They, unlike Holocaust deniers, were at least partially successful in muting the deserved exposure of Communist crimes and atrocities.

Lenerd
Someday you'll learn that kooky statements don't deserve a dissertation-length rebuttal. If Denise were denying the moon landing (which for all I know she does) I wouldn't bother arguing it. Likewise with the crazy "rightwing extremists are really leftwingers" argument.

Isaiah
Ahh. Got you. So because you say one way or the other what the truth is, that makes it the truth, the facts be damned. Here's some truth for you Isaiah, you are intellectually limited, historically ignorant, and unwilling (see foolish) to budge in the face of facts. If these facts were not true, you would be able to go beyond merely labeling someone as a kook, and make a reasoned, factual rebuttal.

Bruce
I also did a double take on that line. But Prager is a product of the Cold War, so it is not surprising that his thinking is still stuck at the time in which the communist threat had not yet been defeated. It is true that Communism, by holding on so long managed to avoid the Stalin death counts coming out when they were fresh.

Lon
So Communism hadn't be "defeated" until after Prager's formative years, and he's stuck in a time warp? Communism never "won" except in making us divert more resources than necessary to worrying about them, and therefore held us back from what we could have built/achieved otherwise. It's funny to read what those like Prager said at the time about how Communism was hopeless and doomed and was a self-defeating system, but then they advocated treating it like it was going to win and was really better--the walk didn't match the talk.

Anyway, Communism never "won" and wasn't going to, so Prager isn't only bad at the walk he's bad at the talk.

Prager missed the biggest reason
Whenever people on TH attempt to define Fascism, they omit the single most important factor in the definition: fascism is radical, violent, ANTI-COMMUNIST ultra-nationalism. Fascism would not have existed except as a reaction to Communism. Mussolini was a Communist before he started the fascist thing; the Nazis started out fighting the Communists, taking an ultra-nationalist position against the Communist internationalists; Franco's Nationalists came to power fighting against a Soviet-backed and largely Communist "Republican" regime.

The Nazis have a whole lot worse reputation than the Communists because they opposed the Communists and nearly destroyed the Soviet Union. The academics and media types that have installed the Nazis as the Great Villains of history are almost universally leftists, and are commonly outright Communists. Of course they hate the Nazis more than they hate themselves!

By the way, these same academics and media types are the source of the canard that the Nazis were "right-wing," although, as it is repeatedly pointed out, the very name "Nazi" is a contraction of the German for "National Socialist." From the point of view of these leftists, they ARE right-wing -- because they opposed Communism. Thus they are the "enemy," and by definion, "right-wing."

duh, typo
In the last line of my 4:38 post, DEFINITION, not "definion." DUH...

Why the communist "won"
The reason Dennis says the communists won is because after post WW2 they were in control of much of the european continent and much of Asia,wheras the Nazis clearly were defeated. Barry

Warrior 9:53 am EST
Warrior, your anti-Semitism goes both ways. On the one hand, you identify prominent Marxist thinkers as Jews. On the other hand, you name prominent capitalist, the Rothchilds, Schiff, Aschberg, as Jews. Which is it? Are the Jews defenders or attackers of Capitalism? Chaka Z.

tgwWhale
So Communism came on over to Italy, twisted everyone's arms and forced them to adapt an oppressive system of government? Forgive me for my simplistic analogy, but that in essence is what you said.

More like Totalitarian
Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems whereby a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media (or adoring MSM), a single party that controls the state, personality cults, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of state terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

Parentheses mine above. Totalitarian fits the Obama direction to a tee. Personality cult, MSM (adoration) control, control of the economy - it's like a bad nightmare.

A slight correction . . .
It's not entirely true that the Nazi attrocities were unprecedented. The Turks slaughtered a million Armenians, and the world stood by and did nothing. That's the reason Hitler thought he could get away with slaughtering the Jews and other "non-Aryans." That doesn't seem to be remembered except by a few historians, and commentators such as Thomas Sowell.

Godless, but not Communist
Standhisground posted in part:
"I can think of one more reason, in fact two, why communism still enjoys a measure of attractiveness to a group of Americans - liberals - than Nazism does to ANYONE: first and foremost, the unabashed atheism that is at the heart of communism.
Since American liberals today are pretty much secular people who have less and less use for God, any philosophy with an atheistic foundation will by virtue of that fact alone have some appeal to them, its record in practice notwithstanding."

Though I am a non-theist and have many disagreements with Christians, I try to avoid falling into stereotypes such as, Christians are ignorant, hypocritical, exploiting their believers for money, etc. While some Christians do fit such descriptions, many others do not. I'd appreciate it if Christians would reciprocate and shun sterotypes aboutnon-theists, such as the one indicated above; Communists are atheists, therefore the reverse ust be true and all atheists must be Communist leaning that way.
One of the best known defenders of capitalism and opponents of communism in the 20th century (having escaped it herself) was Ayn Rand, an atheist.(I'm an admirer of hers, though not a 100% follower of her philosophy.) Other pro-capitalist thinkers such as Milton Friedman were, as far as Im aware, entirely secular in their views.
In my opinion, the main problem with Communism was not that it was "godless," but that Marxist beliefs formed a kind of quasi-religion whose adherents believed that they had a handle on Absolute Truth regardless of any contrary evidence. And that their certainty entitled them to impose their beliers by force and murder. In this, they had more in common with some (not all) religious believers than the believers would like to admit.

Prager is right-- this time
By the way, though I disagree with Dennis Prager more often than not these days, I agree with the main premise of this particular column. Commnism and Nazism were both extremely evil, destructive systems, and there's no good reason to regard Communism more favorably than Nazism, esecially since-- if only because it lasted longer and controlled more territory-- Communism killed and oppressed many more people than Nazism had the chance to.

kirk
so if liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, and naziism are all on the extreme left wing of the political spectrum, whats on the far right wing?

Simple answer Dennis
Because the democrats are communists and they control the culture of media and mind.
DUH.

Let me tell you again
so your moral compass may right itself:
THE DEMOCRATS ARE COMMUNISTS.
~" Let me tell you what i'll be about, let me, what.. I'll be about taking you over and running it" - (the democrat/communist to the oil exec).
Now we have our current examples.
The problem the communists have here is they cannot just take it all in one fell swoop- so they keep taking it bit by bit, but if they were allowed it would all be theirs already - and the entire democrat party is set up to do so.
They already murder 4,500 us babies every single day, and that 47 million already matches Mao or Stalin, doesn't it ? How did you not include the COMMUNISTS OF THE USA ?
Well, you're in DENIAL my friend, Dennis. You are the nice guy radio host to the decmorats, and there's no way you can admit it to yourself - and won't until the evidence is so overwhelming you blow your happy gasket and become enraged. The day is coming Dennis.

Cambodian and Vietnamese communism

A Cambodian woman working at a friend’s home in the early 1980's told me how she and others escaped “the killing fields” of the Khmer Rouge by hiding in the Cambodian forest for 4 years eating roots. She lived in a hole for several days before moving on to dig another hole. She lost all her hair from starvation which proved a good thing since it concealed that she was a woman and kept her safe from rape. She eventually made it to freedom by crossing a river. One of her sisters was able to return to their affluent family home in Phnom Penh and discovered it had been taken over by the communist Khmer Rouge. Their family home was filled with filing cabinets of the Khmer Rouge. The Cambodian woman, once in medical school in Phnom Penh, lost her dream and her home with the communist aggression of the Khmer Rouge. She was able to recover it in part when she came to America and attended nursing school while working as a nurses aide.

For a firsthand account of "the killing fields," read "A Cambodian Odyssey" by Haing Ngor. This Cambodian doctor played the part of Dith Pran in the outstanding film "The Killing Fields." Ngor writes of his own torture and that of others. Ngor survived, came to America, starred in this award-winning movie, and died by the hand of teen-age Asian gang members in a common robbery.

On Vietnam communism, one of the best early accounts of why America was involved in Vietnam was written by Dr. Tom Dooley, a young Navy doctor in North Vietnam in the mid 1950's. His short books can occasionally be found at garage sales. He wrote of hearing firsthand accounts of the torture of North Vietnamese Catholics by the Chinese Communists moving south from China into North Vietnam. He also wrote of the disemboweling of South Vietnamese by the North Vietnamese Communists, the Vietcong.

Dr. Tom Dooley's Three Great Books: Deliver Us From Evil, The Edge of Tomorrow, The Night They Burned the Mountain.

Reason 8?
Because in the biggest war the US has been in, it got in bed with Communists. The fleas from that love affair are still with us.

Well done Mr. Prager !

May you live a thousand years!

the reason
More than 100 countries have had aspects of Communism that ran their society. For example, Allende(Chile) and Ortega(Nicaragua) were communists who were leaders of their countries. Neither of them had a legacy of millions of deaths. There was only one Nazi country (Germany during the 3rd reich), so there is only one form of Nazism that could be reviewed. Fascism is a different thing. Franco and Peron were both fascists -- and to me they were (for the 20th Century) not too bad as leaders. Does that mean I am a fascist? No. Conservatives do sometimes compare left wing people to communists, so this observation is actually untrue as far as that goes. Personally, I would put Hitler, Stalin and Mao on about the same level (once you kill more than 1 million people, it is pretty hard to say who is worse or better).

Happy Jake, step forward...
You need to be careful when defining what the Holocaust against the Jews was... yes, I'm talking about the event otherwise known as Nazism's "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem."

One of the worst mistakes you can make is to suggest that a single deranged yet brilliant man seduced a whole country into working his evil for him. The Holocaust was anything BUT that. It was a meticulously planned and executed state action which required the willing cooperation of millions of people who knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it.

Eventually it will fade away...
When history is not taught it gets forgotten. And the same attempts at appeasement of evil becomes palpable. While Nazism is reviled (rightly so) look at the far left's response to Islamofascism. Islamofascism has many root systems- one big one which is believe it or not Nazism. Look it up. The fact that people who would like to see others dead as a fate accompli of its poisonous ideology causes no fear in these drones. They perceive their own country as equal with Nazism while the real Nazi's are equated as freedom fighters on the level of George Washington. When history is denied and facts are suppressed in the name of ideology you get ignorant populations who splurge on escapism and entertainment as forms of intellectual stimulus and the consequences are ripe for disaster. I am sure the populace of Germany during the Weimar Republic would have laughed at the possibility of a Hitler and the concentration camps.-- As far as Communism is concerned "The forced collectivization of the Kulaks and the building of the White Sea Canal"(30-60 million dead) parallel anything the nazis did- only the outside world was denied access to this history for so long after the events that its memory is nothing more than dry ink on pages of old history books.

Obama's BC Issue getting INTERESTING ...
BORN IN THE USA?

Justice, Supremes confirm getting eligibility challenge

Taitz documents demanding proof of Obama's birth place to be reviewed

Posted: March 24, 2009
9:29 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Orly Taitz

The U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Justice Department today confirmed that documentation challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has arrived and soon will be evaluated.

Confirmation came from DefendOurFreedoms.us, the foundation through which California attorney Orly Taitz has been working on a number of cases that raise questions over Obama's birth location, and therefore his qualifications to be president under the Constitution's demand that the office be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen.

According to the blog, Taitz was informed by Karen Thornton of the Department of Justice that all of the case documents and filings have arrived and have been forwarded to the Office of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, including three dossiers and the Quo Warranto case.

"Coincidently, after Dr. Taitz called me with that update, she received another call from Officer Giaccino at the Supreme Court," the posting said. "Officer Giaccino stated both pleadings have been received and being analyzed now."

The report from the Supreme Court also said the documents that Taitz hand-delivered to Chief Justice John Roberts at his appearance at the University of Idaho a little over a week ago also were at the Supreme Court.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId= 92810


www.NOSocialismForMe.com
Sign the petition!

USPatriot56
Don't the Leftist Cowards WHINE when they get NAILED!

no end of history
Communism and Fascism are at one extreme (see reply #112) the other is anarchy. The two above ideologies are what might be called Modern Dictatorships (also called Totalitarianism) as apposed to the Hereditary Dictatorships of the past (Kings and Queens of old). The scale is not left or right but the amount of power allowed to the central government. Dennis does a good job of trying to explain why Fascism gets all the blame although the best explanation is a combination of #4 and #7, they lost in the greatest war in human history. Had they had more time to ply their evil doctrines I suspect their numbers of murders would rival that of the Communists. The great fear now is obviously from first, doctrines not discredited like Communism, but also from new ideologies which can rally mass numbers of people in a noble cause. I would submit that the guest Dennis had on his show today alludes to one such doctrine. The ideal that the planet is about to be destroyed and the human race is facing extinction is the ideological basis for genocide. It is an ecological axiom of the extremists that the most basic of all ecological problems is that we have too many people. I believe a high level UK official has already stated that the optimum UK population should be around 30 million ( about ½ of today). The obvious answer to this “problem” if it involves the very survival of the human race was provided by Pol Pot. Another possible foundation of a future Modern Dictatorship is found in both Communism and Fascism: the perfectibility of Man. The USSR could not create the “New Soviet Man” thru education. Even when every aspect of life was in control of the state, it failed because of human nature. The modern technology of DNA manipulation provides the solution. Unfortunately it will not be the rather benign presentation in Brave New World. It would be the hell of a small master race ruling over a genetically engineered race of slaves.

fascism
{As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it.}

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

Roosevelt/Mussolini
It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book, The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.

communism
Communism is like prohibition, it's a good idea but it won't work.

Will Rogers (1879 - 1935)


Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.

John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)


Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff.

Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)

Why no mention of Japan?
The historian Chalmers Johnson has written that:

It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians [i.e. Soviet citizens]; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers — and, in the case of the Japanese, as [forced] prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%

Special Japanese military units conducted experiments on civilians and POWs in China. One of the most infamous was Unit 731. Victims were subjected to vivisection without anesthesia, amputations, and were used to test biological weapons, among other experiments. Anesthesia was not used because it was believed to affect results.

To determine the treatment of frostbite, prisoners were taken outside in freezing weather and left with exposed arms, periodically drenched with water until frozen solid. The arm was later amputated; the doctor would repeat the process on the victim’s upper arm to the shoulder. After both arms were gone, the doctors moved on to the legs until only a head and torso remained. The victim was then used for plague and pathogens experiments.


roy
"so if liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, and naziism are all on the extreme left wing of the political spectrum, whats on the far right wing?"

Pride of country, virtue, honor, integrity, morals, religion, capitalism, individualism, liberty, freedom, patriotism ... I could go on but you get the picture.

Hey Cavell
Stalin was a communist and Hitler was a socialist, the real difference between the two is negligible. So you liberals can wear the Hammer and Sickle or the Swastika. Both are fitting.

Not a damn thing wrong with Rush or the Bible. I would bet, more people on the Right have read the Constitution then those on the Left. The Righties also read the Constitution to find out what was allowed and to marvel at the rights they were given by the founders and the founder's God. Unlike the Lefties, who only read it to find the loop holes to circumvent it. First casualty of any Democrat administration is the US Constitution.

BTW your hatred for Christians is evident. Of course you don’t realize Christians gave you this great country to destroy and also Communist killed more people in the last century than Christians EVER have! I think I will side with Christians and Rush, instead of the Fascists and Communist like you have.

Now go put on your jack boots and send your resume to Obama’s “Civilian National Security Force”. I am sure you are the perfect person to violate the Civil Rights of all Conservatives and Christians!

Armageddon (of sorts)
I agree almost completely with Dennis on this one.

All we need to bring the evils of Communism into the spotlight is a first-hand experience. Maybe Obama is on to something. Maybe he plans to implement Communist ideals in the US Government in order to watch it all fall apart. A few years of anarchy ought to be worth the resulting enlightenment.
God speed, Obama!
Let's go out with a bang, shall we?

I wish.


Oh yeah; Isaiah, you're an arrogant fool. You're so full of yourself and yet you show little or no proof for your arguements.
Don't bother re-butting, save for the sake of your own ego; I won't be visiting this page again.

Armageddon (of sorts)
I agree almost completely with Dennis on this one.

All we need to bring the evils of Communism into the spotlight is a first-hand experience. Maybe Obama is on to something. Maybe he plans to implement Communist ideals in the US Government in order to watch it all fall apart. A few years of anarchy ought to be worth the resulting enlightenment.
God speed, Obama!
Let's go out with a bang, shall we?

I wish.


Oh yeah; Isaiah, you're an arrogant fool. You're so full of yourself and yet you show little or no proof for your arguements.
Don't bother re-butting, save for the sake of your own ego; I won't be visiting this page again.

Why?
I think that people use the words "Nazi" and "fascist" without really knowing what they mean. Both ideologies are leftist and socialist in nature, though one was genocidal, too. The Left worships at the alter of holy secularism, even though, more lives have been sacrificed in the name of secularism in the last 100 years (as Mr. Prager demonstrates) than any other period in history.

jvb

Fascist China
Siegfried posted:
"Because Communist China makes all the products we use. They're also the ones who buy the majority of the debt we keep increasing."

Whenever someone refers nowadays to "Communist China" the thought occurs to me that the name is obsolete. Even though the ruling party in China still calls itself "Communist", it would make more sense to refer to "Fascist China". China now allows private capitalism and profit-making activity, on condition that the capitalists obey orders from the state and serve the overall goals of the state. But the nation remains a one-party dictatorship which is strongly influenced by militant Chinese nationalism. The combination of dictatorship, nationalism and capitalism is a lot closer to fascism on the old Nazi or Mussolini Italian model than it is to Mraxist or Maoist Communism.

I'm not saying that changing from Communist to fascist has made China either better or worse (though allowing a semi-free market and private profit has made their economy stronger than under Mao, with fewer people starving). Communism and fascism are both bad systems. But there are differences between them.

WRH Bill/ Fascist China
good observation about China

Have you seen this website that defines Fascism?

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

Race based politics
I agree with all the points that were made by Mr. Prager, but perhaps the most important point was left out. The left emphasizes Nazism because Nazism was raced based and every problem, according to the left, can be explained by race, gender, or class conflict. Nazism was a horrible, racist atrocity, but Communism propagated atrocities as well. The only difference, the atrocities by Communism were not driven by racism.

THANK YOU DENNIS
Growing up in the 60's I heard from my father and uncles many WWII stories. The one that had the greatest impact on me was about Russian troops entering Berlin first, (that was a mistake) and proceeding to take out their anger on German citizens. American soldiers reported seeing red army personnel throwing babies into the air and machine gunning them. Now I don't know how factual these accounts are but I have had the privilage to meet and talk with two Jewish brothers who were sent to a Siberian Gulag. I shudder at the absolute inhumananity in their stories of a people devoid of any moral consiousness. The removal of "the opiate of the masses" from a communist society shows us the end results of Marxism. During the 70's I often wondered why so many Hitler movies, yet nothing about Stalin. TO date I've only seen one Stalin movie produced, (though I may be mistaken). Thank you again Dennis & keep shinning your light.

yikes
I don't even know where to start... This whole column is so devoid of actual fact and real substance, that it makes my head spin. Two points (although I could make about 17 solid counter-arguments): The basic ideology behind communism was shared wealth. The basic ideology behind naziism was eradication of specific ethnic groups and giving total authority to others. Genocide was not a byproduct or simply an atrocity borne from naziism; it was the mission statement behind the political ideology that drove the movement. Communism isn't about taking over the world and killing everyone with, say, dark skin. Secondly, Mr. Prager demostrates complete logical disorientation when he points out, apparently with disbelief and incredulity, that intellectuals on the left loathe Stalin and the North Korean regime but not communism. I would argue that it's totally rational for someone to loathe Stalin and Mr. Ill and not the idea of shared wealth distributed by what was, on paper at least, always supposed to be a fair government. By the same logic, if an Iraqi person loathes George W. then that person should also, by direct extension, loathe democracy, capitalism and the United States in general. I'm glad Mr. Prager is obviously a complete idiot, otherwise people might take this garbage seriously.

YIKES JESSICA
Mr. Prager has stated in the past that communistic ideals are fine. It,s the practical application of those ideas that never work. The track record shows us the end results. Lofty ideals always look good on paper. AS for me, I'll stick with the rule of our constitution and the rigths granted by God to all individuals.

Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name
Dennis has missed the most significant reason that Communism is not thought as bad as Naziism. The Modern Left became founded in Marxist thought before the evils of communism came to light. To reject those ideas now would require that the Left fundamentally transform itself, which it can't do. So instead the Left and the institutions it dominates (academia and the media) work to sweep the bad facts under the rug, and put their faith in a better light.

Socialism is a wicked ideology, period.
" 2. Communism is based on lovely sounding theories; Nazism is based on heinous sounding theories.... The monstrous evils of communists ... have been regularly dismissed as perversions of a beautiful doctrine ... whereas Nazi atrocities have been perceived (correctly) as the logical and inevitable results of Nazi ideology. "

It is worth pointing out that "Nazi ideology" and "Communist ideology" are precisely the same heinous ideology (of state suppression of individual rights). There is no practical difference between them, no matter who wishes to pretend otherwise (or how hard they try to pretend it).

For the same reason Christians...
...aren't reviled in the street, either.

At the end of the day, if someone is a good Christian everything is hunky-dory. It's only when people are Christian in name and act differently in practice that things get out of hand.

Similarly, there has yet to be a truly Communist country on earth. Every single time a revolution gets started, it is co-opted immediately by the militant fascists.

I think that fact is a stinging critique of communism's inability to support itself, for certain.

But if Prager really preferred clarity, he would recognize immediately the difference. The Nazis had bad intentions and executed them well. The communists and socialists have good (or if not good, at least interesting) intentions that are always hijacked by militant dictators.

Intellectual honsesty, Prager!

Phylo --
If, in your belief, Barack Obama is not a hardcore leftist, then who, praytell, do YOU believe -- among present-day elected US officials, that is -- constitutes one? Ted Kennedy? Barney Frank? Obama is as left as they . . .

answering a paranoidmystic
Please cite the last time Christians massacred in the name of Christianity. Forget Hitler. That old argument is full of holes, the chief one being he was not a Christian. Try as you might, the fact remains, none of his policies were invoked to further the teachings of Jesus Christ.

If I hear that stupid argument one more time about Communism not getting its :chance" I will vomit. Communism has gotten myriad chances and has failed because it needs one basic thing in order to succeed; a totalitarian state. You can't force people to give up their desire to excel without a dictator threatening harm upon those that fail to toe the government's line. Communism fails because it is against human nature. Why is that so incredibly difficult for the left to admit?

Prager DID recognize the difference you cited and addressed it. Read it again.

Intellectual honesty, indeed.

WAY back up the thread,
the statement was made that communism was based on a beautiful ideal. I could buy that if partaking of its alleged benefits was entirely voluntary. However, communism, like its evil twins socialism and fascism, requires total compliance. The penalty for non-compliance is death, delivered by the men with the guns. There are NO exceptions!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.