perfidy

In this article by David Brooks, I read about the connection between Nazism and Aflaq. 

MICHEL AFLAQ was born in Damascus in 1910, a Greek Orthodox Christian. He won a scholarship to study philosophy at the Sorbonne sometime between 1928 and 1930 (biographies differ), and there he studied Marx, Nietzsche, Lenin, Mazzini, and a range of German nationalists and proto-Nazis. Aflaq became active in Arab student politics with his countryman Salah Bitar, a Sunni Muslim. Together, they were thrilled by the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party, but they also came to admire the organizational structure Lenin had created within the Russian Communist party. The Baath party is not quite like the Communist parties. It bears stronger resemblance to the Nazi party because it is based ultimately on a burning faith in racial superiority. The revolution, in Saddam's terms, is not just a political event, as the Russian or French revolution was a political event; it is a mystical, never-ending process of struggle, ascent, and salvation. 

There was another article, but I can't find the link. The author was Iraqi. This article mentions how Nasser was a hero of Saddam's. 

From the Encyclopedia Brittanica: 

Pan Arabism Nationalist concept of cultural and religious unity among Arab countries that developed after their liberation from Ottoman and European dominance. an important event was the founding in 1943 of the Baath Party, which now has branches in several countries and is the ruling party in Syria and Iraq. Another was the founding of the Arab League in 1945. Pan-Arabism's most charismatic and effective proponent was Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser. Since Nasser's death, Syria's Hafiz al-Assad, Iraq's Saddam Hussein, and Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi have all tried to assume his mantle.

Ba'ath Party 

When time permits, please explain precisely how you believe Aflaq, and you can throw Gamel Abdel Nassar in there as well, were influenced by the Nazis. Citations a plus. 

Weapons and Camps 

I have not heard about chemical weapons stores. The only camp I've heard about was in the north of Iraq, in nominally Kurdish/U.S. controlled territory. Please elaborate, and citations are a definite plus. If it's Fox News, I don't believe them. Ever. At all. If they told me the sky was blue on a sunny day without clouds I would think them liars. 

To Hitler 

I obviously made up the Cheney-Rumsfeld thing. They never burned down the Capitol, nor did they invade Canada. That was a) the British b) the Fenians. 

Environmentalism 

Your brief mention of Marx in conjunction with environmentalism reminds me that I've recently been complaining about the inclusion of environmentalism into the leftist political umbrella. That's actually counter to Marxist thought. According to Marx, nature exists to be dominated by man, its resources plundered, and the cause of industrialization under the dictatorship of the proletariat advanced. Environmentalism is actually anti-Marxist. 

But of course, not every leftist is a Marxist. But every leftist should be pro-labor. Environmentalism usually runs counter to the interest of labor. Someone has to be paid to cut down trees. Therefore, if a virgin forest is slated for the chopping block, it will create jobs. If environmental restrictions make it such that a factory cannot be built somewhere, the residents of that area will have fewer jobs. Therefore, I submit that environmentalists are in fact anti-labor. They stand in the war of people having jobs. 

Environmentalists who insist on all preservation all the time, even at the expense of employment, are phony leftists. I'm generally sick of their ilk. Veganism affects no one but the vegan. The animals and animal products they don't eat will be eaten by someone else. If a vegan joins habitat for humanity and builds a house, great. But they can't say they're leftists simply because they won't eat a cheeseburger. That little tangent aside, unwavering environmentalism at the expense of labor isn't left-winged. It's just environmentalism. 

Speaking of phony leftism

And now back to false Communism. There have been Communists, but not Communism. There have been Communists since Engels. Stalin, Mao, and Castro, however, weren't three of them. The crux of the issue is global revolution. Stalin, who proclaimed that socialism in one state was legitimate, started the whole thing. On the other hand, his rival Trotsky kept trying to advance the goal of global revolution, as did Castro's associate Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. But there is no such thing, according to the strict letter of Marxist law (as written by Engels), as socialism in one state a la Stalin. The strict letter of the law is that Communism is achieved only once the national boundaries of countries have been eliminated from the map and there is only one governing body across the globe, that is, the global dictatorship of the proletariat. Revolutions start in countries, they finish in a world. 

Marx's only provision for a government was the interim between the onset of revolution and the final stage of the dialectic. During that interim, the vanguard of the proletariat was to steer matters previously tended to by governments, until the global revolution was complete, the means of production firmly in the hands of workers, and the dictatorship of the proletariat assured. Then, there was to be a withering away of the state. But Stalin, Mao, and Castro, for example, conveniently forgot about the withering of the state. They did not gradually reduce the state, transferring means of production and control to the workers, but rather increased the role of the state. In other words, they did the opposite of what real Communists are supposed to do. How can anyone really be anything if they do the opposite of what members of that thing are supposed to do? For example, if I said I was a vegan and kept eating the flesh of animals and cheese, I would be doing the opposite of what vegans do, and could not therefore legitimately call myself a vegan. 

There have been Communists, but not Communism. Communists in power, like anyone in power, sought to hold on to their power, thus preventing the withering away of the state. Instead, so-called Communists in power ensured, as Rosa Luxembourg predicated, that, "the dictatorship of the proletariat would become a dictatorship over the Proletariat." Thus the prophecy was left unfulfilled, and Communism never happened. After all, Communism was part political and economic philosophy and part prophecy. Since the ultimate aim was never achieved, Communism was never achieved. Communists tried to bring it about, but they either died before they became dangerous (as in John Reed's case), were exiled and later assassinated with an mountaineer's ice pick (as with Trotsky), or were purged at some point, in numbers too great to even comprehend. 

On other matters 

I'll let other stuff go without commentary from me for now.

Mike, you're right about Iraq and the British - but there were German troops in Vichy-run Syria, just not in significant enough numbers to affect the war in North Africa. A great fear of the allies was that the Germans would move East and take the Mosul oilfields. The Baath party was founded by Michel Aflaq, who was influenced by the Nazis. While the Ba'ath party was anti-colonialist, it was also Arab nationalist, and socialist. 

Yes, Syria still rules most of Lebanon. While the risk of more terrorist attacks may increase in the short term, bringing democracy and freedom to the middle east would dramatically decrease the risk of attacks in the long term. I don't believe we will need to invade Iran, because I think the large democracy movement there - with perhaps some aid and encouragement, will handle the job nicely. The people of Iran hate the mullahs, and its only a matter of time. 

As for Syria, it is a much more entrenched totalitarian state - much like the similar Ba'athist state that existed up 'til recently in Iraq. There is no organized resistance or opposition in Syria that we could negotiate with. BTW, we did make the Germans and the Japanese into democrats at the point of a gun. I think that the fact that Saudi Arabia is not on our list is merely a tactical move, until we have another secure base from which to operate, and another large, secure source of oil. They will appear on the list, the sooner the better. 

(I used Mohammedan because I was tired of writing Islam and Muslim. Poetic license. They can call me a white trash cracker in retaliation if they wish.) 

How free are the Germans with our planes and tanks in their country? I never suggested that we attack every repressive government in the world. But the fact that we don't attack that one is not a reason we can't attack this one. And, although given the current world situation, it might not be wise to attack our god friends the British; we're 1-1 against them so far. Everyone else on your list is open season as far as I'm concerned. Castro just sentenced another 75 journalists and dissidents to quarter century prison terms. Fucker. Who decides what is an oppressive regime? It's fairly obvious, unless your head is so full of ethical relativism that you can't tell the difference between a nation like, say Finland, and another like Cuba. 

Also, most slippery slopes aren't terribly slippery, at least in this country. It's the one thing that gives me hope in regards to the whole Patriot Act thingie. 

I did generalize about the left for the sake of brevity. But are you saying that there have been no communists since Engels died? Because every time someone who thought they were communist got power, millions of people died. The Black Book of Communism lays this out rather starkly. The central feature of every leftist regime is the total unconcern for the rights and lives of its citizens. No one has freedom, and those who argue become dead. 

Even among the socialists forced to work in societies like ours where there are inconvenient things like the Bill of Rights, the goal is regulation. Every liberal policy seems to center around restricting my freedom to act. Or at least taxing me so much that I can't afford to do anything. You cannot maintain liberty when you are restricting people's liberty - even when its for their own good. The regulatory state is just a watered down version of the ideas that led to five year plans, forced collectivization and the famine in the Ukraine. You suggest (hopefully jokingly) that we forbid capitalism to get a space program. But of course, we'd have to get everyone to do it. That scheme is more ambitious than my cunning little plan to take out a few odious fuckwit dictators. But yet, that is the communist world revolution. I can make many practical arguments for keeping capitalism around for a while longer. It has produced the economy of the United States, where even the poor live better than kings in almost any other country. Capitalism made that possible. But the key reason that I support Free Markets is that they are, well, Free. People choose - what they want to buy, and others choose to take risks forming companies that they think will supply consumer needs. 

The socialist economies of Europe are (slowly) going down the shitter, while despite war, terrorist attack, and cyclical downturn ours is still performing better. Because we are freer than they are.

Because I haven't commented on anyone else's posts for far too long, here are some thoughts, replies and comments on youse guys posts over the last couple weeks. 

To Mike's counterpoint to Mark Steyn: 

No one suggests that we should be giddy simply because civilian casualties are light. But, we should be happy that we can remove an evil dictator at so light a cost to his victims. Every death is a tragedy, but it is good that there are so few of them. Also, there is proof that there is a connection between Al Quaida and Iraq. Al Quaida operatives were given refuge in Iraq, and we have found (and destroyed) several large terror training camps. Also, the fact that the Baathists are secular and the Al Quaida fundamentalist is no barrier to their cooperation. Remember, Saddam's government has paid 35 million dollars to the families of suicide bombers in the West Bank, many of whom were members of the very fundamentalist group Islamic Jihad. It is, after all, an old Islamic proverb, that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Although it is too early to tell at this point, it doesn't look like we are radicalizing the Iraqi citizenry, who seem quite glad to have us there, and Saddam gone. 

Again on WCM: 

De Genova's comments were reprehensible, indeed. And kudos to Foner for actually calling him on it. But the whole thing made me think - this is an anti-war movement, but not a peace movement. They are against American involvement, but willing to countenance the brutality of the Saddam's regime. There was a German resistance movement in WWII, but could it have liberated the German people from Hitler's regime without outside help? Mike is certainly right that comments like those piss people off. Wishing for the deaths of Americans certainly makes his anti war stance seem rather less credible, as well. 

But is nothing served by death, anywhere? Are not some things worthy of sacrifice? Freedom is certainly worth sacrifice. Nothing of value is without cost. We have to always be deeply aware of the cost, and remember who paid. Freedom is one of those things. Many have and will continue to give cynical motives for our war in Iraq, but the real benefit will be to the Iraqis, who free of Saddam might be able to live ordinary lives, in liberty. 

To Johnny, on increasing dovishness: 

How do you feel now, now that we have found chemical weapons and terror training camps? And remember, Bush has been talking about regime change for over a year - regime change was only ever the means to eliminate the threat of terror, and WMD. 

To Johnny, on the "as in not funny" nature of the press: 

The media is a collection of old women, who flutter and shriek at the slightest change in temperature, conditions, or movement. So of course they would rave about the justthatbuilding bomb, and then the MOAB. And rave about blinding advances, then twenty minutes later cry "quagmire." Also, the reason you're gotten no firm news is because the military pulled the biggest snow job in military history. The embeds are like headlights to the media deer. Immediacy, vivid images, and "you're right there" reporting consume the media's attention, while the army is able to move whole divisions without anyone in the media noticing. Suckers - gotta hand to the military for cleverness on that one. 

To Johnny, on the media polls: 

Reminds me of a something that happened during a political discussion with our friend Burton. We was advocating some risky liberal scheme, one that would give decision making powers from the general citizenry and vest it in some government agency. His basic justification was, "75% of people are idiots." I argued with his plan, and Burton got the idea that I disagreed with assessment of the intelligence of the American populace. A day later, I was complaining to Mike about Washington drivers, and he expressed surprise - "Well, you disagreed with my 75% - why complain now?" I said, "Mike, if anything, I think the percentage is higher, but they still have the right to be stupid however they want. That's what liberty means." Hardesty's corollary to Voltaire's observation: the true test of someone's commitment to liberty is how stupid or offensive someone has to be before you want to start regulating their behavior. 

From everything I'm hearing, Patriot II is gonna be a nightmare. But then, I'm still complaining about RICO statutes and civil forfeiture. 

To Johnny on AA: 

The United States, as a whole, should never be color blind. The U.S. government, and the law, should. The only way to end discrimination is to well, end discrimination. The quote you added hits it right on the head - these are cultural and moral issues, not legal ones. Therefore, stop the legal wrangling so that we can deal with these issues where they should be dealt with. 

Patriot II needs to be killed dead. Here's something the liberals could actually be useful on - rather than waving puppetheads and smelling funny in public. Republicans are often too willing to sacrifice freedom for security in this realm. Economically, of course, it's the other way around. 

This is where limited government should really, really come into play. What part of the constitution, and I'd like an exact quote, does this bill get its authorization from? 

To Johnny on Forests and Trees: 

I would argue that the military plan we used did take the political goal into account. However, just like the military plan, you can't publish the political plan in advance, for fear of rendering it useless. n.b. I think this classifies as a world class cakewalk. 

To Mike on Patriot II: 

Like many conservatives (as opposed to mere Republicans) I worry a lot about civil liberties. I think the Drug War has been a civil liberties disaster. The erosion of our constitutional rights has been scary. This threatens further erosions. Like Franklin said, those who trade liberty for security will soon have neither. I would like to have our representatives see that it is our freedom and liberty that is the best defense against these threats (at least internally - the U.S. Army and Navy are better for overseas.) Perhaps the best example was the passengers on flight 93. While I might be safe under this administration, as time goes on, we would all be targets. How long would I last if Gore became president? We could have adjoining cells. 

To Johnny on RIAA: 

I think it falls into the same category as Patriot II. 

I have to pee. More later.

So I was listening to a brief story on NPR yesterday that identified a possible misinterpretation of Iraqi jubilance. It seems that looters in Iraq, as well as those who appear to be welcoming British and American troops, are giving a thumbs-up. According to NPR, however, that might mean "up your's" in Iraq, as opposed to the American positive conotation. I got to thinking. While growing up and beyond, my half-Lebanese mother would frequently tell me to "Stick it up your [my] ass!" when she was angry with me. She would also jerk her thumb in the air while telling me to stick it up my ass. I thought that my mother probably acquired this habit from her Lebanese-born aunt, who contributed significantly to my mother's upbringing. 

During a telephone conversation this evening, I asked my mother if her Lebanese-born aunt would indeed jerk her thumb in the air while stating angrily, "Hazut pi tizuk!" It translates from Arabic, directly into English, as "Up your ass!" My mother confirmed that a raised thumb gesture would accompany the verbal declaration. 

While Lebanon is a different country than Iraq, in so very many ways, it's quite possible that there are cultural consistencies throughout the Middle East that might well transcend political and (since my mother's aunt was a Maronite Christian) religious boundaries. It is thus possible that some of these looters, and people believed to be revelers, who are not kissing American troops or otherwise making it abundantly clear that they are receiving troops with a positive attitude, are in fact telling the troops, "Hazut pi Tizuk" with their thumb gesture. 
 

I still hold out hope that the UN or a similar body may be a vigorous force for justice and international stability. In fact, a strong and clear-headed UN ought to lead the way as international ties and international government become stronger. But, let's look at the Congo. Four years of civil war. Three million dead, mostly from starvation and disease. Now, a thousand civilians slaughtered by rebels during the drafting of the peace accords. The UN's response to this this humanitarian and military crisis? "We must form a committee to investigate!." In the meanwhile, Uganda is in charge of security in the Congo.

Bucketman, with all due respect, I feel it necessary to point out that the use of the term Mohammedan is archaic. More importantly, followers of Islam regard the use of the term as offensive. I do not seek to scold you for this. I recognize it is an oversight, and merely wish to indicate that the term Islamic, or better yet, Muslim, are the best ways to go. Perhaps it is silly, but your posts would indicate that the United States must enter this new terrain in Middle Eastern foreign policy in the spirit of cooperation with its people, especially Muslims. To that end, it's better to use the word Muslim as an adjective. 

Just who is next? And other tangents 

I believe that widening the war to Iran and Syria would be a tremendous mistake at this point. As someone whose maternal grandmother was Lebanese Maronite Christian, I have serious qualms about the rule of al Assad. His father occupied my grandmother's country, and to my knowledge, Syria maintains a military presence there. He has some nerve bragging about his campaigns in Lebanon. Al Assad is a bastard, like his dead father. Of course, the Israelis still have troops hanging around the south, and not long ago, seemed to think they could bomb Beirut whenever they felt like it. To be fair, within the Lebanese context, they both suck. 

But that's neither here nor there. I maintain that Hussein posed no significant threat to the United States, and that the war cannot be justified on those terms. The notion of liberating Iraq, the way I see it, only came after many people weren't buying the weapons and threat to the U.S. argument, so the administration changed its tune. It's an excuse, not a causal factor. Rumsfeld and Cheney had no problem with Hussein gassing Kurds before; I don't think they really have a problem with Hussein's treatment of his citizenry now. The administration has not really told the truth about why it is fighting this war. I don’t believe that it is about oil; it is political. But beyond that, the administration has not been forthcoming. 

But that is also beside the point. The war against Iraq has inflated the possibility of terrorist attacks. A war against Syria and Iran will inflate it further. I fail to understand how a war against Iraq, which created a greater possibility for further attacks, simultaneously lowered the likelihood of attacks. Oh, right, after Hussein was deposed, then the threat was lowered. But he didn't pose a threat in the first place. It's enough to give me motion sickness.

There are other ways to deal with Syria and Iran than war. Iran has a significant population of moderates. Why doesn't the United States attempt further dialogue with them? Why did our President just slap them with an axis of evil label, alienating moderates? Can't we work with those who would listen rather than calling them evil and shooting them? Steve, you indicate that the prospect of further war is dodgy, and that encouragement of democratization is possible. I couldn't agree more. But to make sure I'm clear, we can't make people be democratic or republican by holding a gun to their head, or shooting them. Dialogue and diplomacy with moderates and reformists is infinitely preferable to war. You also correctly point out that Saudi Arabia is probably the biggest problem. You bet it is. But the United States thus far has been committed to assisting the Saudi monarchy and helping to preserve a system that does everything you said it did, plus it stones women to death for adultery. The U.S. will have to withdraw its support for that monarchy? Is the administration willing to do that? I doubt it, but we'll see. 

Again with the Nazis?

Steve, Steve, Steve. First, Vichy administered Syria during World War II, not Germany. Vichy was a puppet state of Germany, but don’t you think if Germany ruled it directly the campaign in Egypt would have gone quite differently? Iraq was in the British sphere of influence during the war, not France. Any colonial administration of Iraq was performed by the British, not the French. 

The Ba'athist party thus did not stem from German influence during the war. It was an anti-colonial nationalist movement directed against British influence in Egypt, Iraq, and elsewhere. It was also an anti-colonial nationalist movement against French influence in Syria. If it was influenced by German nationalism, then it was also influenced by every other nationalist movement in history. 

Secondly, it was a pan-Arabist movement with the ultimate goal of uniting the Middle East under a single government. Egypt and Syria briefly played with that one, until they realized they couldn't get along. But how was that a product of German influence? I'll keep it short for now. Further discussion can be engaged at your discretion. 

Conclusion: on the left, Hussein's removal, and widening the war 

Steve, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were engaging in generalizations of the European and American left for purposes of brevity. But I will nevertheless weigh in with some of my own views. As a teacher of history, I have never hesitated to be honest with my students about Stalin. I give them the numbers. I mention Robert Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow, which argues that Stalin artificially engineered the Ukrainian famine. I do not excuse the mass slaughter of innocents under anyone just because they claimed to be Communist. I reiterate: it was only a claim because they never launched the global revolution of class war. Anything less was not Communism in the strict letter of Marxist/Engelsian prophecy. 

Some other people, who paint themselves as leftists, have excused Stalin, Mao, and others. I have argued with them, stating that there was no excuse. I can remember one jug-head at a conference a couple of years back who will remain nameless. He argued that the USSR could not be industrialized without mass slaughter. I asked, who gives a shit about industrialization if it has to be accomplished that way? The preservation of human life unfettered by oppressive government with a roof over every head, clothes on every back, and food on every plate are the goals, not lip service to bullshit, bastardized, half-baked, "I can't believe it's not Marxism" so-called falsely asserted Communism blown out the asses of functionally illiterate imbeciles like Stalin and Mao who looked at the pictures in the Classic Comics edition of The Communist Manifesto. But human life is the main thing for our purposes. 

To that end, is the removal of Saddam Hussein a good thing? Ultimately, probably, unless somebody worse comes along. But even with a more democratic government, how free will Iraqi citizens be with American tanks and troops occupying their country? Was it the place of the United States to remove him? You argue, yes, it is. I'm not so sure. Is the United States going to attack every oppressive regime? Will we fight Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, and Britain? The UK is still occupying the north of Ireland, and has engaged in human rights violations against Catholics there. Let's go to war with Britain. So what constitutes an oppressive regime? Who's going to decide that? Could we end up with a global witch hunt? We're on a slippery slope, and widening the war to Syria and Iran will only increase our velocity. Cheney and Rumsfeld and the other neo-Reaganites got their war. Enough.

Matthew Yglesias has an insightful post up about that Iraq dealie we're in right now. In the interest of poking Buckethead with a sharp pointy stick, I'm just going to throw most of it up here verbatim.

". . .you can't just let a political process determine a military goal (remove Saddam Hussein from power) and then let the military pursue that goal by whatever means they deem appropriate and then declare victory when the war is over. Rather, you need to make sure that the way in which the war was conducted actually achieves your specific political goals rather than simply the broad task of defeating the other guy. 

One of the problematic elements of Operation Iraqi Freedom is that it was never really clear what these specific goals were. Instead you had lots of different people accepting different reasons for invading. On the assumption that the war would be a cakewalk, there was no problem with this, since folks could stay united around the military objective regime change and then continue the fight over political goals in the postwar period. Now that that scenario doesn't seem to be playing out, however, it seems to me that the administration is in danger of falling into the trap of redefining its political goals in purely military terms. Hence, our objectives now seem to be (a) capturing Baghdad, (b) destroying Republican Guard regiments, and (c) killing Saddam Hussein. Those are reasonable (and achievable) military objectives, but it's not clear to me that they're going to accomplish any important political goals at all."

While I think it's a little early to worry to seriously about the implementation of political goals (since we may be months from a military conclusion), it is a very real concern for this reason: nobody seems to know for sure what the political goals will even be. I've seen at least four different plans for post-war Iraq, all purportedly from gub'mint sources. Since I for one haven't seen a compelling, detailed, plan for reconstruction, my feeling is that that Matthew Y is right. Are we setting up a protectorate? A shadow government? A constitutional monarchy? An anarcho-syndiclast commune? Who gets the oil? Who develops Iraq's infrastructure? Who gets first crack at capital investment? What about trade arrangements for that same oil? What day is this? Is it dinnertime yet? Where are my pants? 

n.b. Historically, this war still definitely counts as a cakewalk. However, there are lesser and greater degrees of cakewalkitude, and my sense is that the needle is rolling over to the lesser side of the dial now. Just saying.

also n.b. Unlike my compatriots, I am not much of a political scientist. So, in choosing to separate military and political ends in my argument, I may have made a big mistake from a poli-sci standpoint. I realize that if we are at war to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, then that matters now. But, we are also at war to create a new government in Iraq, and that doesn't so much matter until the shooting dies down. That seems to me to be the true political goal, hence my disconnecting the two. If I have in fact made a big mistake, well... nyah.

Informal empire, or hegemony, if you will, is maintained not as much through government (if at all) but through corporations. American informal empire/hegemony is achieved through American corporate enterprise.

John McCain is just great. In this op-ed from last Friday's Washington Post, McCain touches on "empire." Well of course he does. Please read the whole thing-- it's a remarkable essay about why he believes America is great and doing the right thing. Here's the money quotes for us:

Critics who deem war against Saddam Hussein's regime to be an unprecedented departure from our proud tradition of American internationalism disregard our history of meeting threats to our security with both military force and a commitment to revolutionary democratic change. The union of our interests and values requires us to stay true to that commitment in Iraq. Liberating Iraqis from Hussein's tyranny is necessary but not sufficient. The true test of our power, and much of the moral basis for its use, lies not simply in ending dictatorship but in helping the Iraqi people construct a democratic future. . . . This is what sets us apart from empire builders: the use of our power for moral purpose. We seek to liberate, not subjugate.

Fair enough, and beautifully said. It's about the use of our power for moral purpose. 

But it's also about the oil (but not in the way many people think). 

Let the flames begin!! 
 

If the term hegemony is more acceptable than empire, I'll let it go at that. The United States has a hegemony rather than informal imperialism. But I'll make my final statement on this that American hegemony looks an awful lot like British informal imperialism. 

I have previously conceded that some parts of the world voluntarily adopt aspects of American culture. I was not insisting that western European nations have had McDonald's forced on them. I hope I've made that clear. 

Communism and the Origins of Fascism and Nazism 

Steve, you can read this when you get back from the shower. I'm sure you'll survive. I'm going to get fairly specific with this, so here it is. This is going to be quite extensive, but I'll ask you to please read it in its entirety when you have the time. I might suggest printing it out in lieu of reading it onscreen. 

According to strict Marxist letter of the law, the Bolsheviks in Russia could not be socialist because they had not yet experienced the bourgeois overthrow of the feudal aristocrats and the institution of a market economy. Lenin realized this, and instituted the New Economic Policy, which was essentially a market economy. It was still in place when Lenin suffered his stroke, thus he never instituted a socialist economy. Stalin later abandoned Marxist doctrine whole hog when he declared the legitimacy of socialism in one state. According to Marx, the worker's revolution that achieved the final stage of the dialectic had to be global. Anything less was not Communism. Since the global worker's revolution never happened, Communism never happened. Leaders who referred to themselves as Communist were liars. 

Economic planning in the Third Reich was not exactly centrally planned. Having worked as a Teaching Assistant on the second half of western civilization courses (C. 1700-present) twice, and having taught the course myself as an adjunct once, not to mention the slew of European, German, and Russian history courses I've taken as a college student and graduate student, this is what I've found. Adolf Hitler followed Benito Mussolini's economic strategy, known as Corporatism. Corporatism organized similar branches of industry into cartels, hence there was a steel cartel, an automobile cartel, a railway cartel, etc. Under Corporatism, the Fascists and Nazis maintained private ownership of the means of production, which flies in the face of Marxist doctrine. According to Marx, ownership of the means of production is transferred to the workers after the global revolution. Stalin and his ilk were fake communists because they transferred the means of production to the state, not the workers. "All power to the Soviets [worker's councils]" was a mantra of the Russian Revolution, upon which the Bolsheviks and later Stalin never made good. Corporatism also maintained that goods produced by cartels were dictated by the Party and thus the national leadership, whereas Marx asserted that the workers would have complete control over the means of production, including what goods were produced. This is as centrally planned as the Fascist/Nazi economies ever got. 

As to the comparisons you have drawn between Nazis and Communists, who I deem fake Communists, I must respectfully point out that they are partially on and partially off the mark. Nazis hated Jews not only because they were not German, but also because Nazis were crazy. I’m sure you accept this and even implied it. But fake Communists claimed that they hated Jews because Jews engaged in bourgeois nationalism that was antithetical to the spirit of internationalism required by socialism and Marxist doctrine. This is a case of fake Communists paying lip service to Marxist doctrine, when in fact they hated Jews, like the Nazis, because they were crazy and as a holdover of Tsarist era Russian/Georgian/Belorussian, etc. anti-semitism There were actual Communists who remained committed to global revolution, such as Leon Trotsky, however, who were opposed to Jewish identity because it represented bourgeois nationalism. Trotsky, whose mother named him Lev Davidovitch Bronstein (I'm sure you can do the math), epitomized this position. In 1903, when questioned by Vladimir Medem, "You consider yourself either a Russian or a Jew?" Trotsky responded, "No, you are wrong. I am a Social Democrat and only that." (Nora Levin, The Jews in the Soviet Union Since 1917, volume 1, 10). 

Fake Communists believed that everyone should become Communist then die. I prefer the Soviet uniforms because the Nazi culture of death emblazoned on their SS uniforms creeps me out. 

I must respectfully disagree with your father, who is certainly a most eminent historian who I was honored to meet, on the subject of Fascism/Nazism as an evolution from the left. I'm sure you'll understand that even upstart historians such as myself often disagree with established, eminent historians such your father. In this case, it is not done from vitriol or malice but purely professional. 

Fascism and Nazism grew out of several factors. They include but are not necessarily limited to disaffected populations who lost faith in humanity, those who were disgusted by the hedonism of inter-war popular culture, the collective shell-shock of Europe following the trauma of World War I, the economic dislocation of the inter-war years, the yearning for stability among Italian and German people, and the weakness of the Italian monarchy and Weimar republic. To say that Fascism and Nazism are a result of socialism, I respectfully submit, is monocausal. I have yet to hear a monocausal explanation that I deem valid, and that includes the Marxist interpretation of history. Perhaps it was not intended as a monocausal explanation, but it is certainly an oversimplification. 

Perhaps your father's position stems from the fact that many argue Mussolini was a Socialist. I must respectfully disagree. He was a member of the party, but did not believe in what the Socialists believed. Mussolini was a Syndicalist, not a Socialist. He was dismissed from his position as editor of Avanti!, a Socialist newspaper, in 1914, and dismissed because he supported an international war, specifically the Great War, of course. As Marx argued, war between nations is illegitimate; it does not advance the proletariat in their struggle to achieve control. International war benefits only the bourgeois masters of the Proletariat. Thus, class war is the only just war. I submit, Mussolini was a nationalist Syndicalist, not an international socialist. 

Hitler was no Socialist. I reiterate, the presence of the word Socialist in the National Socialist German Worker's Party was due to its founding members, the Strasser brothers, who were left of center. When Hitler seized control of the party he left the word Socialist in the title, but eventually expelled all left of center members of the party. He also molded the party according to his own vision, which consisted of a Corporatist, not Socialist economic strategy. I reiterate again, as Socialism is international, the title National Socialist is mutually exclusive. 

It is actually easier to describe Fascism and Nazism as what they were not, rather than what they were. Fascism was anti-Socialist, anti-Communist, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-international free trade capitalism and banking.So, how could Fascism and Nazism have been Socialist/Communist anti-Socialists and anti-Communists? Nazis battled Socialists and Communists in the streets of Weimar Berlin. Mussolini ordered his Squadristi to attack Socialists and Communists, and destroy their offices, newspapers, and homes. 

The base of support for both Fascism and Nazism, in addition, did not come from Socialist or Communist sympathizing urban proletariat, rural agricultural laboring classes, or even left-wing intellegentsia, but from people who feared and hated Socialism and Communism. Fascism and Nazism were supported by traditionally right-wing people who weren't reactionary monarchists, such as violent war veterans, disaffected members of the middle classes and highly skilled laborers, wealthy people who feared Socialism and Communism as threats to their wealth, and yeoman farmers. Thus, the base of support for Fascism and Nazism came not from Socialists but from traditionally conservative (as opposed to reactionary monarchist) elements of the German and Italian populaces. 

But the Nazis and Fascists were not really right-wing, or even just conservative either. All this is prologue to the argument of another established historian, Robert O. Paxton. In his work, Europe in the Twentieth Century, Paxton argued that Fascism, while erroneously considered a right-wing political and economic practice. Paxton wrote that, Fascism was not simply the far right. The terms right and left were first applied to politics during the French Revolution. They belong to the political vocabulary of nineteenth-century struggles over popular sovereignty, individual liberties, and property. With fascist movements, we find ourselves in a strange landscape where familiar signposts like right and left do not give very precise directions (232). 

I therefore refute the thesis that Fascism was an outgrowth of Socialism. That is not the case. I will follow this post with a brief bibliography of sources I have consulted. While many of them are convenient surveys, they are nonetheless quite reliable. The Otto Friedrich is a bit dodgy on some things, but fairly reliable as to the Nazis, and I have corroborated what he wrote with other sources. I will add that my last 10 years in dogged efforts to learn this information has assisted immeasurably. Many thanks to historians Glenn Sharfman, PhD, Hiram College; Bernard Weiss, PhD, Duquesne University, and Steven Vardy, PhD, Duquesne University. 

Bibliography 

De Jonge, Alex. Weimar Chronicle: Prelude to Hitler. New York: New American Library, 1978. 

Flood, Charles Bracelen. Hitler: The Path to Power. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Press, 1989. 

Friedrich, Otto. Before the Deluge: A Portrait of Berlin in the 1920s. New York: Perennial, 1995 (reprint). 

Levin, Nora. Paradox of Survival: The Jews in the Soviet Union Since 1917, Volume 1. New York: New York University Press, 1988. 

Paxton, Robert O. Europe in the Twentieth Century. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1997. 

Stromberg, Roland N. Europe in the Twentieth Century. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1992. 

Suny, Ronald Grigor. The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Well, Johno and I seem to agree that there is a distinct difference between Empire and Hegemony. Although I have issues with the term "American Global Hegemony," it is largely due to the people who usually use the phrase. Mike has chimed in with a scenario where other cultures borrow from and become derivative of another culture, without that culture engaging in imperialism. 

Why don't we, for our own convenience, establish some terms, so that we can argue more effectively? If an Empire is political and military ownership of other nations/territories/cultures, and acts that further expand an empire are Imperialism, we can distinguish this behavior from Cultural Hegemony, which is the economic, cultural and technological dominance of one nation over others. 

Now, wars can be fought without imperialistic aims. A war of defense, for example would not have imperialistic aims. WWII was not a war of Empire for the United States. Imperialism could be considered naturally aggressive, though the effects of imperial rule would range from sadistic to benign. But one key factor in an Empire is that subject territories always remain subject territories, used for the benefit of the nation at the center of the Empire. 

There is certainly no rule that says that empires are ruled by emperors. Most of the territory eventually ruled by the Roman Empire was conquered by the Roman Republic. Democratic Athens created an Empire. Britain had an empire, but was ruled by a Parliament and Prime Minister. But India never sent ministers to Parliament. America has never exactly been an Empire - conquered territories are either integrated directly into the nation itself, or eventually granted independence. We conquered California from the Mexicans, but in no sense is California a subject territory of a separate United States. 

Now cultural influence - here is where it gets more interesting. Mike cites several examples where cultures have voluntarily borrowed from another civilization. This, he says, is not cultural imperialism, or hegemony. The United States is the most influential part of the most influential civilization on Earth. To what extent are other nations or cultures voluntarily borrowing from our culture? Does cultural hegemony require an analog of the aggressiveness of imperialism? Are we forcing our culture on others, are are they voluntarily adopting Levis, Michael Jordan basketball Jerseys, Rock and Roll and Rap music, McD's hamburgers, watching Hollywood movies and so on? 

I would argue that China's impact on Japan was larger than America's impact on much of non-Western civilization today - maybe just because it operated over a longer period - but if that isn't cultural hegemony or informal empire, then what do we have? We are clearly a daughter culture of England, western Christendom, Rome and Greece. Of those, only England survives, and we are now having more impact on them than they are on us. We have overtaken our parent culture. We influence the whole world, not just because we have more money, and thus more guns. Our technology, freedom and cultural dynamism are what effects everyone. Our military impacts only a small part of the world. We aren't forcing people to buy into our culture. 

If we have an informal empire, a halfway state between empire and not empire, how does it work? Rome in republican times had a dual empire - parts were directly controlled, others were client states who had local autonomy but had no control over external affairs. Various territories often moved from the latter status to the former over time. Is this an informal empire? We have trade agreements, but they are that - agreements. We negotiate them. We do not have client states. 

Our companies, and industry, and so on have subsidiaries in other nations. But they have been nationalized in the past, or lost money and closed, or whatever - we don't force nations to open McD's. The Thais who work for Nike, or for third world employees of just about any American company not run by Kathy Lee Gifford generally make more money than their counterparts in local industries. Sure, they are paid less than an American worker, but the cost of living is vastly lower as well. The South Koreans leveraged participation in the lower rungs of the American and Japanese economies into growing prosperity, and their per capita wages are now higher than much of Europe. Is this a voluntary adoption of a American cultural ideas, and fitting them into their existing culture to make a better life for themselves, or is it rapacious and arrogant US economic imperialism compounded by showing them a vision of heaven while denying them admittance? 

The Japanese and South Koreans were exposed to American culture more than most nations in the last fifty years. American soldiers were the primary vector for this infection. In the first case, our troops remained after WWII for our security interests due to the recent phenomenon of Japanese militarism. South Korean and, later, Japanese bases were maintained to protect those nations (and us) from communist aggression. These two nations have borrowed more from our culture than most. Their cultures do not seem in imminent danger of disappearing. They are also the two richest non-western nations in the world. Are they part of our Hegemony, or our informal empire? 

Or is it only voluntary adoption when ethnically similar cultures borrow from each other? Are we victims of Chinese cultural imperialism because we have Chinese restaurants, manned exclusively by ethnic Chinese waitresses and cooks, and there are Kung Fu schools in every village across the land? American Ecofreaks (sorry, environmentalists) in the US dream longingly of the unspoiled rainforests where earthy people live in harmony with Gaia. Tribesman in Borneo and elsewhere dream of getting to America where they can have a house and a car and big screen TV. Which if these people did American Cultural Hegemony brainwash? 

Well, a final (at last!) point. Johno asked, "Is cultural hegemony like empire? By its own lights, it is not. But, if empire implies achieving dominance via force, and hegemony implies achieving dominance via way of life, what do you call it when we go kick some ass for the sake of asserting (and, arguably, protecting) our way of life?" 

That depends.

Hey guys, 

Many thanks to the Bucketman for opening a debate on the present and discussion of the past viz-a-viz empire. Thanks to Johnny for keeping it going. 

The first question is, does China in the fifteenth century constitute an empire because of its cultural influence elsewhere in Asia? This brings in the matter of derivative civilizations. The way I see it, Korea and Japan constituted derivative civilizations of Chinese civilization in that they were the product of East Asian peoples ethnically related to the Chinese, who voluntarily adopted aspects of their culture. Hence, they are derivative civilizations, not a product of cultural imperialism. The fifteenth century is too soon, tenth at the latest. As I am oriented toward European, British, Irish, American, and American ethnic history, I'll provide the testimony of an expert in support of my argument. I'll offer two quotations. According to Edwin O. Reischauer's Japan: The Story of A Nation, 

Japan nonetheless is culturally a daughter of Chinese civilization, much as the countries of North Europe are the daughters of Mediterranean culture. The story of the spread of Chinese civilization to the peoples of Japan during the first millennium after Christ is much like the story of the spread of Mediterranean civilization to the peoples of North Europe during the same period. But the greater isolation of the Japanese from the home of their civilization and from all other peoples meant that in Japan the borrowed culture had more chance to develop along new and often unique lines (7). 

I'll add that Highland Scottish culture is derived in an even more direct fashion from Irish culture. Highland Scots are the product of migrants from Ireland to Scotland. Even as late as the sixteenth century Gaelic and Gallic were so similar it is roughly analogous to a present-day American conversing with a present-day English person. Currently Ulster Gaelic and Scottish Gallic retain a high degree of similarity. The Irish were not engaging in imperial adventures against the Scottish, but Highland Scots and their culture are derivative of the Irish and their culture. Rome itself was in many ways a Hellenistic culture derived from Greece, and that occurred less through imperialism than voluntary admiration. Athens had colonies in Sicily, but not on the boot. These examples possess similarities with the situation in regards to China and other Asian cultures. 

So back to Japan. As to the origins of the Japanese themselves, Reischauer asserts that, “

the Japanese are closely related to their neighbors in Korea and China; but like all modern peoples, they are the product of extensive racial mixture (9). 

Thus, I take the position that the Japanese voluntarily adopted Chinese culture. You could argue that for the U.S. in many cases as well; Europeans constantly mimic American popular culture while simultaneously criticizing us for being boorish louts with no sense of culture. But in other cases, American cultural imperialism is a product of American economic imperialism. People in Thailand making Nikes for 3 cents a day are presented with a picture of American prosperity that they cannot themselves achieve, but American companies urge them to buy American products. Continuing the Thai example, corporate insensitivity was so much that Pepsi mis-translanted their slogan, "Choice of a new generation," to "Pepsi resurrects your dead ancestors."

I'll help Johnny out a bit with the admittedly opaque statement, if that's alright. Nations can have empires, nations can refrain from imperial exercises, but nations can also engage in imperialistic exercises that exist outside the realm of formal empire through cultural or economic rather than political and military dominance. Rome possessed such an empire, but the world has changed a great deal since the classical period, and definitions must be adjusted to incorporate change over time. Britain possessed an empire both formal and informal. If this assertion is doubted, I will carry out my previous threat to supply a bibliography. America possesses an empire that is more informal in nature than formal. We have thus seen change over time. Anachronistic definitions do not suit the present; the present is different than the past. That is not to say that formal imperialism has vanished, but it is growing increasingly archaic and atavistic. 

Finally gentlemen, thank you for reminding me that I still love history, despite the best efforts of the forces of evil in academia (IE postmodernists) to crush my spirit and swallow my soul.

Mike, Thank you for coming to my rescue. 

It occurs to me that what you just described sounds a whole lot like the orthodox definition of Gramscian Hegemony. Was that intentional, you big postmodernist, you? 

That leads to the question: is cultural hegemony like empire? Putting aside the fact that Gramsci was a Marxist, I think this concept goes a long way toward describing the US's position in the world. Whereas empire means dominance achieved via military means, hegemony denotes dominance achieved via social, economic, and cultural means. 

Buckethead argues that empire is only dominance through use of force. WCM argues that there can exist derivative civilizations, not brought about by cultural imperialism (is that the same as hegemony?). I, predictably, stand in the middle and stammer like a moron. 

I think the three of us are arguing from this playbook, and we're getting lost in the thicket of distinctions. 

Is cultural hegemony like empire? By its own lights, it is not. But, if empire implies achieving dominance via force, and hegemony implies achieving dominance via way of life, what do you call it when we go kick some ass for the sake of asserting (and, some would argue, protecting) our way of life?

Fine fine fine fine fine. First things first. 

On empire as a non-indeterminate duality:

Buckethead, semantics aside, I'm willing to grant you your orthodox definition of "Empire" if you will grant me that there exists no empire/not-empire duality between which poles there is no ground for indeterminacy. I think that may be the single most opaque sentence I have ever written. 

On good and evil as non-indeterminate duality: 

Your point is well taken that the Cold War skewed US perceptions of good/evil (again not a Manichean duality). Furthermore, it is wrong to argue that since we made the mess, we forfeit the right to clean it up later. What a stupid argument, that I hear all the damn time! However, some Chicken Littles feel the US is currently in danger of allowing the same thing to happen once again in the opposite extreme. Christ, even AA doesn't require you to actually fix every problem you ever caused. Especially if that means ignoring especially inconvenient ones. 

On convenience: 

I don't think for a second that anyone in the Administration sits in a windowless room, night after night, brooding and plotting in a black leather wing chair about their cunning plans to break the spine of the American will and leave them putty--putty! to be molded like, er, putty into a complacent and docile nation of ciphers. 

That being said, the road to hell is paved with you know what, and good intentions never excuse wretched results. If certain members of the Government wish to make it easier to obtain information about any citizen under any circumstances, for the sake of convenience, that deserves much questioning. If certain agencies of Government wish for the power to detain US citizens at will and try them in a military court, that deserves ridicule. If those same agencies wish to reserve the power to strip US citizens of their citizenship, then I man the walls and start shooting on sight. Fuck good intentions, and fuck convenience. I, and all Americans, deserve to live free from fear of our government. Liberty is constrained when a citizen fears his leaders at every turn. Fuck good intentions, and fuck convenience. 

On Pat Boone: 

I WAS going to let this slide. But you know what, I can't now, so you asked for it, you're effing well going to get it. 

Eminem is a whole lot like Pat Boone. Like Pat, he is a popular and wildly successful practitioner of a mature form of the popular arts. Like Pat, he has become popular by drawing on, reinterpreting, and arguably sanitizing, the fundamental tropes of his chosen genre. Like Pat Boone, he is a white boy singing what started as the modern folk music of black America, and he's become famous by being that music's emissary to white America and the pop world. And like Pat Boone, he's really fucking good at it. 

However. Eminem is much better than Pat Boone. Pat Boone is and always was boring. The music is competent but unremarkable, and his singing is too straightforward to really grab you. His talents were a great voice, charisma, and a stage presence, all of which went down easy back in the day. Eminem has the same exact things going for him, but he has more too, plus he's fun. No more "controversial," but fun. And better. 

Pat Boone never engaged in self-mythologizing like Eminem has, for instance. Do you realize that each of Eminem's first four albums have engaged a different aspect of his persona, and totally convincingly? Eminem, Slim Shady, Marshall Mathers, they are all different characters, and within the mini-dramas of his singles, Eminem plays them off one another masterfully, if you care about that kind of thing. What's most remarkable about that is, from day one, he had to have planned this out. To do that, and to pull it off, is pretty awesome. 

Eminem has wicked flow -- he wraps lines around the beat, rushes them out, bites off words, falls completely off the meter, and somehow makes it right back to where he needs to be. Lots of black rappers can't touch him -- Biggie Smalls, Old Dirty Bastard, Mase (where is he now???), Missy Elliott, Nelly, they all have/had rudimentary rhythmic skills. (Admittedly, Biggie, ODB, and Missy all make their limitations into major strengths). Eminem writes funny, vivid lyrics. His ability to create a character, okay, caricature, with only a few lines is unmatched in current hip-hop, and his hooks kick ass. But yes, you are right. Eminem is like Pat Boone. He doesn't innovate, he perfects. Innovation is left to Timbaland and Missi, Prince Paul, N.E.R.D., perpetual outsiders like Aceyalone, and all the thousand kids in the Queensboro Houses who don't even remember who Schooly D was. It's been almost fifty years (FIFTY YEARS!!!!) since Pat Boone cleaned up Ain't That A Shame and had a hit with it. Who do we remember? Fats Domino. Eminem is probably headed for the same shabby dustbin, to rest beside Snow, Young MC, and Technotronic, but he's so much goddamn fun right now, that I could give a shit. Q.E.D.

Yes, Saddam used to fall into the category, "Yes, he's a bastard, but he's our bastard." The fact that he fell out of that category was due to 1) the end of the cold war, as I've discussed earlier; and 2) he went to far. The Cold War distorted our perceptions of international politics enormously. Ideology is a bad thing.

Mike, would you say that the Chinese Empire in the fifteenth century or so had an informal empire that included SE Asia, Korea, Manchuria, and Japan? For me, I have a hard time translating influence into empire - empire to me means something like the Romans or the British. Generally, if someone wants our stuff, or watches our movies, or whatever, that's their choice. We aren't forcing it down their throats at gunpoint. Now, obviously in Iraq we are going to force Democracy down the Iraqi collective throat, but if McD's can't make money in Mesopotamia, they'll close up shop and move elsewhere.

As for the United States itself, while yes, we did take the land from the Indians, our polity is not structured even remotely like any historical empire. We do not function like an empire internally. Our overseas possessions are leased, or the people there voted to be part of our big crazy party.

Maybe we need to consult a therapeutic semantician.

What do you think the chances are that this news, about a new wave of violent government repression of dissent, will inspire marches and demonstrations from the activist Left in the USA? 

Since it's happening in Cuba, (aka, "happyland"), and not in the fertile plains of their imaginations, I think the chances are pretty fucking slim indeed. 
 

Gentlemen, 

Points of clarification always seem a necessity to me after a post. Let's begin. 

1) Scare quotes. I will respect sensibilities and will refrain from the use of scare quotes. 

2) Frustration. The frustration to which I referred was with the utter uselessness of dissent, not the members of our cyber-panel. Nor was I claiming that I had been attacked, nor was I expecting one. I just didn't want to leave the impression that I intended to be less than civil. Neurotically so, perhaps. As to my frustration with the futility of dissent, like I said, I and anyone else can oppose, oppose, oppose, and decisions have already been made. Objections are irrelevant. It is the way of the world, but it bugs me. On a similar topic, the Bucketman's optimism is duly noted viz-a-viz representative republics. But in my short lifetime I have seen so many governmental abrogations of individual rights and liberties, such as the de facto dismissal of the Fourth Amendment, that my pessimism makes me wonder just how representative the American republic will be in the future, and whether or not it will even be a republic. 

I often used to say that America needs its lunatic fringe, as they are really the protector of individual rights, but they have been increasingly marginalized. The ACLU is often perceived as an aggregate of clowns and fools when they attempt to protect those rights. Given the current outbreak of war, my pessimism forces me to ask, will we be revisited by the Alien and Sedition Acts? Iraqi nationals have already been detained. On the other hand, Daschle really blasted the President, and unlike the Democratic-Republicans of the Federalist era, specifically Matthew Lyon, he has not been imprisoned. So we'll see, but I'm never optimistic. No, I'm not a Libertarian, because I am virulently opposed to laissez faire capitalism, but I am a great-great-step-grandchild of the Enlightenment. Postmodernists would call me a racist and an elitist because of that, and they can stick it up their ass. I think what I think and I don't care so much what side that puts me on. According to academic perceptions, for example, I'm a right-wing extremist. Funny how that happens. 

3) Israel. I'll ask for clarification within my clarification. Is your perspective, Mr. Buckethead, that the Palestinian state or the Palestinian people or both are what you describe? I will respond with the assertion that however you perceive the Israeli state, in contrast, I see them as a occupying force who routinely murder and abuse the subject people they conquered. Granted, that’s what happens to subject people, just ask an American Indian, but that doesn't make it right. Many Israelis, particularly those I've heard interviewed on NPR, state that they are the legitimate authority in Palestine because they fought for and conquered the country. One young lady, I distinctly recall saying in the course of an NPR interview, "This is our country. We fought for it." I found her statements curious considering she had recently arrived there from Brooklyn. But there are other, longer-standing residents who echoed her sentiments. That is a might makes right argument, and under that stipulation, the Palestinians are justified in doing the same thing in attempting to reconquer the country. 

4) Empire. Dictionary definitions are all fine and good, but there are other factors. The historiography of British Imperialism (a topic of my recently passed comprehensive exams) clearly demonstrates a debate on the nuances of formal versus informal empire. I could easily supply a decent bibliography on the subject, but that's probably a story for another time. The United States is on its face a formal empire in that the entirety of it was conquered and seized from the indigenous peoples. It is more loosely a formal empire in that the United States has overseas possessions, such as Puerto Rico and American Samoa. They don't seem to mind too much, and it's a very benign formal empire, but a formal empire nonetheless. The United States possesses an informal empire in terms of the economic control it exercises over many parts of the world. That is much less benign. 

Okay, I'm going to pay more attention to the war show on TV. Plus, I need to write a lecture for tomorrow. Take it easy, gents.

I don't have a problem showing favoritism to Israel over Palestine. Of the two groups, one is a parliamentary democracy (and one fifth of the members of this parliament are from the same ethnic and religious group as the enemy.) with freedom of speech and press, a market economy, and rule of law. The other is a terrorist organization that plans and executes the murders of civilians, and ruthlessly supresses all dissent (collaboration) and embezzles billions of dollars into Swiss bank accounts. I can discriminate between the two, rather easily.