Posted on 02/29/2008 7:24:07 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
From 1969, but still very relavent today. (sic)
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Two parts in this video from YOUTUBE. Thanks to the person who posted it.
I have watched this series before. Outstanding. I wish more WFB stuff was on youtube.
Bump for later
Thanks. I’ll see it later.
Bookmark! Great Post! Can’t wait to watch it.
Check out 2:34 where Chomsky claims the Nazis were attempting to advance Christian spiritual civilization. He lives in Bizzaro world.
What is up with you? Permanent ban, yet posting from proxy. Lots of legalese in your profile.
You must be poison?
Check out 2:34 where Chomsky claims the Nazis were attempting to advance Christian spiritual civilization. He lives in Bizzaro world.The rivival of Christian civilization(as the Nazis saw it) was one of the Nazis main platforms. It's conveniently forgotten but much of the Nazi movement and ideology was protestant in origin(the Nazis hated the catholics). They had all sorts of funny beliefs like "Jesus was the first anti-semite" and Luther was the first Nazi etc... this link has some background.
Off topic but just a heads up Fox News is going to do a special on William F Buckley tomorrow evening. I believe 10 PM (EST)
“I hear ya but you don’t have all the facts. Now please listen to what I have to say.”
Or as I quote him below........
I would like to take you seriously but to do so would affront your intelligence.
William F. Buckley Jr
B.S.
B.S.You can believe it or not. The Nazis saw themselves as the saviors of Western Civilization.
I do not have the historical knowledge that both men possess so I don't know who's facts are off or what. But I do know one thing. Chomsky gives a pass to any type of Communist or socialist intervention but is always quick to condemn American intervention. He mentions numerous Latin American countries where we have sent troops over the decades but never states that we are not there now. While at the time of this debate, where communism has sprouted, it stays. And there is no tolerance for debate.
Those on youtube who state Chomsky won and agrees that America is a bad place seem to have the fact escape them that there was no Chomsky in any Soviet or Chicom controlled country. If America is as bad as Chomsky and his followers claim, then our government would have locked him and his followers up long ago.
Another thing that is interesting about this debate is there is no knowledge of Venona at this time. The Venona transcripts - and what little we have learned from the KGB's own files after the fall of Soviet Russia - indicates that Chomsky should have been just as upset with the Soviet Union as he was with the United States.
bump for later
The Nazi's paid lip service to Christianity. They paid all religious ministers a salary from the state, and used that to force them to say what they wanted them to say.
If you delve deeply enough into Nazi spiritualism, they wanted a revival of pre-Christian pagan faiths. They saw Catholicism and Christianity as the same thing, and wanted paganism. They didn't admit this too freely, afraid of immediate rejection by the people, similar to how the left today attacks Christianity around the edges, but doesn't come right out and admit to their desire to end it entirely.
You should read the new book "Liberal Fascism" by Goldberg, who looks into Nazi and Fascist ideology spiritualism very closely.
What are you talking about? Also, I didn’t say I agreed with Chomsky.
Your reponse: The Nazi's paid lip service to Christianity. They paid all religious ministers a salary from the state, and used that to force them to say what they wanted them to say...Nazi Spiritualism/Neo-paganism...read "Liberal Fascism" by Goldberg."
Yes! The Nazi's invaded the existing German Church eventually replacing the Cross of Christ with the corrupted cross (Swastika) and the Holy Bible with the new holy writ (Mein Kampf). Judeo-Christian Civilization (Jews and Christians) had to be purged and replaced if neo-pagan "new order" were to succeed.
For Chomsky's anarchistic (anarch-syndicalism or libertian socialism) views to succeed, the old order must be discredited. In Romans 13 Paul explains who created government and why. Chomsky's views smack of the same error as all socialist systems--they place their trust in sinful people and expect the "scorpian not to sting". It doesn't take a genius to see that the same disasterous consequences will result.
The best we can do is a God-fearing Constitutional Republic with its limited powers to punish evil doers and a people trained in revealed religion (Christianity)--this is what our founders understood.
Very interesting. Thanks for posting this.
I don’t know who “won,” since there wasn’t really a formal debate, but I enjoy listening to the debate and watching Buckley’s expressions.
There was a link to Foucault vs. Chomsky. It came out in book form not too long ago, and I bought it, but haven’t yet had time to read it.
Didn’t Chavez come to NYC and try to sell us on Noam Chomskey’s book? That says it all.
The Nazi's paid lip service to Christianity. They paid all religious ministers a salary from the state, and used that to force them to say what they wanted them to say.I don't think I was clear enough, the Nazis considered themselves the standard bearers of Christian *civilization*. They considered their ideology a natural growth and result of it. You're right that Nazi fascism wanted to achieve a pre-pagan ideal, but their beliefs were syncretic. Which is why they integrated Christ and Luther into their beliefs.If you delve deeply enough into Nazi spiritualism, they wanted a revival of pre-Christian pagan faiths. They saw Catholicism and Christianity as the same thing, and wanted paganism. They didn't admit this too freely, afraid of immediate rejection by the people, similar to how the left today attacks Christianity around the edges, but doesn't come right out and admit to their desire to end it entirely.
You should read the new book "Liberal Fascism" by Goldberg, who looks into Nazi and Fascist ideology spiritualism very closely.
I'm passingly familiar with Goldberg. Frankly his thesis is so laughable that I can't believe anyone believes it. Goldberg is confusing totalitarianism with fascism. Totalitarianism is apolitical, fascism is inherently reactionary. By its very definition fascism can't be left wing. Goldberg has no idea what he's talking about.
There was a link to Foucault vs. Chomsky. It came out in book form not too long ago, and I bought it, but haven’t yet had time to read it.Foucault destroys Chomsky. Chomsky is so stuck in enlightenment thinking that he really can't grasp what Foucault is talking about.
Yes! The Nazi's invaded the existing German Church eventually replacing the Cross of Christ with the corrupted cross (Swastika) and the Holy Bible with the new holy writ (Mein Kampf). Judeo-Christian Civilization (Jews and Christians) had to be purged and replaced if neo-pagan "new order" were to succeed.You're actually proving my point. The Nazis saw themselves as *the extension* and natural evolution of (protestant) Christianity. They believed their conquest was a means to reestablish western civilization that was decadent and being riven from the inside by undesirable forces(Jews, Catholics, gays etc...).
THANKS.
Bookmarked.
From your link:
"In a further attempt to synchronize religious thought with state policy, the Nazis sought, unsuccessfully, to establish a unified national church. Hitler appointed a Reich Bishop, Ludwig Mueller, who led a "German Christian" movement within the church. Mueller sought to synthesize Nazi ideology and Protestant tradition and to agitate for a "people's church" based on "good Aryan blood." This movement had gained 600,000 adherents by the mid-1930s.
Even more interesting from your link:
The Nazi government also attempted to supplant Christian worship with secular Nazi party celebrations which adopted many symbols of religious ritual but instead glorified the party and the Fuehrer. Efforts were also made to dilute clerical influence on religious instruction in the public schools, as well as to curb the activities and influence the curricula of religious schools.
I noticed the “Christian” and “Nazi” tie as well. Chomsky’s original background was as a linguist. He is well aware of the nature of linguistic argument and that is his basic strategy, to cement perspectives through tying one word to another automatically in the mind. There he tries to tie Nazi — Christian. Elsewhere in the debate he tied American — Imperialism. Elsewhere North Vietnam — heroic. Elsewhere American — Terrorist. It’s how he “debates.” It is not reason that he per se, it is linguistics, tying emotion to a word, substituting one meaning for another. I also noticed that Chomsky had an automatic viewpoint for any issue. The lefts touchstone is ultimately international socialism. If something enhances international socialism then it is supported. If it hurts international socialism is opposed. Thus, the UN is supported, US interests are opposed. US intervention in the attempted communist takeover of Greece is opposed. US intervention in Vietnam is opposed. Etc. Try it. It works perfectly with all issues to give you the left viewpoint. Where the conservative may have to really struggle through an issue given the conservatives allegience to the constitution, church, family, patriotism, pragmatism, practical limitations, historic quirks, the legitimate rights of others, personal preferences and the like the leftist simply asks: does this help international socialism.
Current examples: global warming, border security, fidelity to the constitution.
Less clear is the lefts alleged opposition to free trade. Ultimately I think it comes down to what Obama did — telling the union guys one thing and the government of Canada another. Lies.
End of deep thought’s by Greg F.
Ping to 29.
And to them Western Civilization was a legacy of supermen from another planet who used to live at the north pole. It’s an old trick (one Chompsky understand well); keep the container, change the contents.
What is the title?
The Nazi use of Christian churches to get and hold power by the means of paying their ministers salary is not the same as what they actually desired. It was merely a means to an end. And labeling Nazi's one particular faith is probably like labeling the British "Christian". It may or may not be technically true, but it doesn't reflect the actual beliefs of all modern inhabitants of GB who believe many different things today.
About Goldberg, you need to read his book. Mussolini was the archetypal fascist (a Roman term, thus used by Mussolini who wanted to link himself with Rome), who gained power after years as a socialist activist. The term "totalitarian" was coined by Mussolini himself to describe his own government, so why it is you think that totalitarianism and fascism are mutually exclusive is curious.
As for the idea that fascism can't be "left wing", how did it happen that innumerable "socialists" of the early 20th century suddenly become non left wing? Hitler was an early admirer of Mussolini, and it's not an accident that the National Socialist Workers Party called itself what it did.
It's true that the fascists and communists were blood enemies. But the reason is because they were vying for the same population of supporters who all shared generic socialist ideals. Goldberg explains where the name shift of what is termed left vs. right came from, basically a schism between the International Socialists that believed all allegiance should be to Moscow, and the National Socialists, who discovered that a dose of nationalist emotion would enable them to come to power easier.
Basically, Stalin ordered his international followers to relabel the National Socialists as Facist rather than Socialists, and that theoretically put them on the Right instead of Left, and easier to demonize. Meanwhile the agendas of the two were practically indistinguishable. The NAZI party platform of 1920 was quite interesting as well. Looks identical to something a modern Democrat would proscribe.
If for no other reason than the fact that "Liberal Fascism" is no. 1 on the NYTimes best seller list and will thus affect the political environment, you need to read it, just to keep up.
The Nazi use of Christian churches to get and hold power by the means of paying their ministers salary is not the same as what they actually desired. It was merely a means to an end. And labeling Nazi's one particular faith is probably like labeling the British "Christian". It may or may not be technically true, but it doesn't reflect the actual beliefs of all modern inhabitants of GB who believe many different things today.We're digressing. Chomsky argued that the Nazis saw themselves as defending and re-establishing Western society. You can argue whether their use and perversion of Christian symbolism was instrumental, but I'm satisfied that we've established that Nazi ideology *used* them.About Goldberg, you need to read his book. Mussolini was the archetypal fascist (a Roman term, thus used by Mussolini who wanted to link himself with Rome), who gained power after years as a socialist activist. The term "totalitarian" was coined by Mussolini himself to describe his own government, so why it is you think that totalitarianism and fascism are mutually exclusive is curious.
As for the idea that fascism can't be "left wing", how did it happen that innumerable "socialists" of the early 20th century suddenly become non left wing? Hitler was an early admirer of Mussolini, and it's not an accident that the National Socialist Workers Party called itself what it did.
It's true that the fascists and communists were blood enemies. But the reason is because they were vying for the same population of supporters who all shared generic socialist ideals. Goldberg explains where the name shift of what is termed left vs. right came from, basically a schism between the International Socialists that believed all allegiance should be to Moscow, and the National Socialists, who discovered that a dose of nationalist emotion would enable them to come to power easier. Basically, Stalin ordered his international followers to relabel the National Socialists as Facist rather than Socialists, and that theoretically put them on the Right instead of Left, and easier to demonize. Meanwhile the agendas of the two were practically indistinguishable. The NAZI party platform of 1920 was quite interesting as well. Looks identical to something a modern Democrat would proscribe.
If for no other reason than the fact that "Liberal Fascism" is no. 1 on the NYTimes best seller list and will thus affect the political environment, you need to read it, just to keep up.
Regarding Goldberg, do you understand what the fundamental tenets of fascism and socialism are? They're mutually exclusive. What they have in common is a tendency towards totalitarianism. Think of it like this, Fascism and Socialism are Apples and Oranges. Totalitarianism is the category(fruit) that both come under.
Think about it this way. Fascism is reactionary totalitarianism. Socialism is radical totalitarianism.
You need to read Goldberg's book. Irregardless of whether he's right or wrong, Goldberg is redefining the meanings of "left" vs. "right", and socialism vs. fascism. The book is still no. 1 on the NYTimes list, demonstrating it has genuine legs.
The clincher for me was reading the Nazi party platform of 1920. All you need to do is tone down the anti Jewish parts of the platform, perhaps rewording them as anti Israel, and you would have stated the core beliefs and agenda of modern Liberals perfectly.
You may state that fascism and socialism are apples and oranges, but Goldberg presents more than enough historical and agenda agreements between the two that clearly demonstrate that both are round and good to eat, and thus are one and the same.
The fact that the same people and organizations that were part of the "left" in 1910 that were magically relabeled "right" by 1940, without any change in their goals and ideologies, is proof enough for me that it was only the labels that changed. Goldberg is attempting to restore the original labels from 100 years ago, and by all accounts he is succeeding.
No. They "invaded" and "conquered". Christianity didn't evolve. And the Nazi's didn't see Christianity as basis but a barrier to its hegemony.
As in this country, the apostate, left-leaning churches are rife with anti-christian philosophies and outright heresies. This is not an extension or a development of protestant Christianity, but the subversion and overthrow of it.
You need to read Goldberg's book. Irregardless of whether he's right or wrong, Goldberg is redefining the meanings of "left" vs. "right", and socialism vs. fascism. The book is still no. 1 on the NYTimes list, demonstrating it has genuine legs.You're right, Goldberg *is* redefining the meanings. Regarding the Nazi party platform, haven't we just established that the Nazi's instrumentally used Christian ideology and rhetoric? Does that make the Nazis Christian?The clincher for me was reading the Nazi party platform of 1920. All you need to do is tone down the anti Jewish parts of the platform, perhaps rewording them as anti Israel, and you would have stated the core beliefs and agenda of modern Liberals perfectly.
You may state that fascism and socialism are apples and oranges, but Goldberg presents more than enough historical and agenda agreements between the two that clearly demonstrate that both are round and good to eat, and thus are one and the same.
The fact that the same people and organizations that were part of the "left" in 1910 that were magically relabeled "right" by 1940, without any change in their goals and ideologies, is proof enough for me that it was only the labels that changed. Goldberg is attempting to restore the original labels from 100 years ago, and by all accounts he is succeeding.
Again, I'll argue that you don't understand the Nazis, fascism, socialism or modern liberalism. Socialism and fascism are diametric opposites, one argues for a hegelian worldview the other for a return to an idyllic past. Again your mistake is assuming that the collective and tyrannical nature of totalitarianism makes both ideologies the same. It doesn't. You're confusing "kind of"(i.e. apples are a kind of fruit, fascism is a kind of totalitarianism) distinctions with "is a"(i.e. fascism is a reactionary ideology, socialism is a hegelian ideology) distinctions.
What irks me about the current fawning over Goldberg is that it proves the liberal assertion that conservatives are fundamentally ignorant of history and philosophy. Because most conservatives haven't read or understood Engels, Marx, Hegel or Nietzsche they get suckered by idiots like Goldberg giving educated liberals an opening to attack.
No. They "invaded" and "conquered". Christianity didn't evolve. And the Nazi's didn't see Christianity as basis but a barrier to its hegemony.I think you're a bit confused. We're talking about how the Nazis *saw themselves*. The reality of matter is another issue entirely.As in this country, the apostate, left-leaning churches are rife with anti-christian philosophies and outright heresies. This is not an extension or a development of protestant Christianity, but the subversion and overthrow of it.
Do you have any quotes or writings from any of the Nazi leadership which supports your contention (that the Nazi's considered themselves as the fulfilment of [biblical] Christianity)?
What I have read does not support your thesis. The Nazi's sought to restore a pre-christian, pagan worldview and belief system, not as a full-fillment of Christianity, but to satisfy an entirely different agenda. Transparent similarities do not pass for valid analysis. The differences in philosophy and works are revealed in distinctly diffent sociological phenomena: Just one example--The Nazi's "Final Solution" has no correlate in Christian doctrine.
And meanings are primarily what we all agree they are. With Goldberg communicating with a rather large number of people, he will be successful.
I'll argue that you don't understand the Nazis, fascism, socialism or modern liberalism. Socialism and fascism are diametric opposites, one argues for a hegelian worldview the other for a return to an idyllic past.
The opposite of Lenin's communism is not the Federalism of the Founders. The "right" that is attempting to restore small government federalism today as Gingrich and others attempted are not "right wing fascists". Fascism holds far more commonalities with the international socialists besides just having the word "socialism" in their party label. While the classical liberals of the enlightenment that modern conservatives aspire to are the genuine opposites of both international socialism and national socialism.
Because most conservatives haven't read or understood Engels, Marx, Hegel or Nietzsche they get suckered by idiots like Goldberg giving educated liberals an opening to attack.
The "educated liberals", because they're not communicating to the masses like Goldberg is, are quickly being left on the wrong side of history. Those that get out into the public eye and communicate will always win over those that sit in ivory towers and gaze at their navel.
Again I suggest you read the book. A couple of posts on FR could never counter the arguments in Goldberg's book.
And meanings are primarily what we all agree they are. With Goldberg communicating with a rather large number of people, he will be successful.I disagree with your premises, especially your nihilism when thinking about meaning. The meaning of words do change, but Goldberg and yourself are essentially defining fascism in a "blackwhite" way, redefining the terms in the most politically expedient manner. You're celebrating Goldberg's success as a propagandist, not his ability to rigorously analyze and understand what the original authors and proponents of each ideology actually intended.The opposite of Lenin's communism is not the Federalism of the Founders. The "right" that is attempting to restore small government federalism today as Gingrich and others attempted are not "right wing fascists". Fascism holds far more commonalities with the international socialists besides just having the word "socialism" in their party label. While the classical liberals of the enlightenment that modern conservatives aspire to are the genuine opposites of both international socialism and national socialism.
The "educated liberals", because they're not communicating to the masses like Goldberg is, are quickly being left on the wrong side of history. Those that get out into the public eye and communicate will always win over those that sit in ivory towers and gaze at their navel.
Again I suggest you read the book. A couple of posts on FR could never counter the arguments in Goldberg's book.
This sort of reckless disregard for the truth is *very* dangerous. Ironically enough it's one of the fundamental tenets of the totalitarian governments we're supposed to be criticizing. Your talk about the "wrong side of history" is equally distressing. This totalitarian bent, coupled with your talk of "restoring small government federalism"(i.e. restoring an idyllic past) is classic fascist ideology by the way. Do you understand this?
Is this the one where he threatens to sock him in the head ( and no, I’m not mixing it up with the Vidal incident)?
No. I'm celebrating Goldberg's success at exposing the truth of history that the very same "socialists" of 1900, were redefined as two opposing philosophies in a successful propaganda effort after the 1930's. Goldberg is not "redefining" the terms, but restoring them to their original meaning.
your talk of "restoring small government federalism"(i.e. restoring an idyllic past) is classic fascist ideology by the way.
I don't think many people are going to buy into the idea that small government federalism equates to fascism.
As for those who sought to "restore an idyllic past", you should read the chapters in Goldberg regarding the Wilson administration retreads inside the FDR administration, who's first priority was to return to the strong armed control over the economy as Wilson exercised during WWI. Not a dimes worth of difference between that and Mussolini, but rather a complete opposite to small government federalism.
Is this the one where he threatens to sock him in the head ( and no, I’m not mixing it up with the Vidal incident)?He says it to both. Buckley says something like "if you act up on this show I'll punch you in the mouth" and Chomsky laughs and says "Well I guess I better not then".
No. I'm celebrating Goldberg's success at exposing the truth of history that the very same "socialists" of 1900, were redefined as two opposing philosophies in a successful propaganda effort after the 1930's. Goldberg is not "redefining" the terms, but restoring them to their original meaning.No he's not. You can repeat the same thing over and over again as many times as you want. Fascism and Socialism are irreconcilable. You just have know what each means. You really need to understand how socialism uses Hegel and fascism uses Nietzsche.
I don't think many people are going to buy into the idea that small government federalism equates to fascism.What you fail to understand is that fascism is not defined by the content of what it wants to return to, but by it's reactionary nature. Do you know what reactionary means?As for those who sought to "restore an idyllic past", you should read the chapters in Goldberg regarding the Wilson administration retreads inside the FDR administration, who's first priority was to return to the strong armed control over the economy as Wilson exercised during WWI. Not a dimes worth of difference between that and Mussolini, but rather a complete opposite to small government federalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.