I think the problem is that you and I are seeing the same thing from two different angles. You see the naked power that hides behind all ideologies (as do I, when arguing with someone who doesn't see it). However, ever since leaving the Birch Society in disgust I have been trying to understand the ideological/philosophical connections between the American and European Rights and the reason for the antagonism between the statist European Right and the Left. There are simply so many people who started out Birchers who became national socialists and so many national socialist or racialist web sites today that claim to be the "old right" (as opposed to the "phony" individualistic conservative one, I suppose). The plotters in the shadows may very well be aphilosophical power hungry maniacs who simply use the true believers, but there have always been true believers who provided the ideological cover for the aphilsophical maniacs. Since the orders created by these two philosophies are so similar, what is the point of antagonism between them? What is the point of attraction between libertarian and statist Rightists? Between anarchist and totalitarian Leftists? Perhaps you consider these questions of mine purely academic because of the plotters in the shadows, but they are very real to me, and I will continue to try to sort them out.
One final word: if you ever examine any national socialist propaganda or web sites you will notice that there is very little about what sort of government they intend to create. National socialism seems to be primarily about race, with theories of government relatively unimportant. All national socialist sites I have seen give mountains mountains of racial/biological rhetoric but almost nothing about what kind of government they intend to create should they ever (G-d forbid!) come to power. In fact, national socialism is closer to Communism than it is to true Fascism in regarding the state as a means to an end (whereas Mussolini's Fascism declared the state to be "an end in itself"). Alfred Rosenberg (yimach shemo vezikhro!) once wrote that "it is not the totality of the state, but the totality of the national socialist movement." And indeed, just as their are anarchist as well as statist Communists, there are anarchist as well as statist national socialists--as you will see if you ever visit the anarcho-Nazi "Liberty Forum," where people use the swastika as an avatar and insist that "Hitler was a man of peace" even as they dream of the abolition of the state.
It's a crazy world.
There's nothing wrong with that, but one shouldn't necessarily take an ideologue at his or her word. Consider environmentalists who can rationalize a holocaust like the San Bernardino Fire.
When a person engages in internal dishonesty, as anyone bent upon the exercise of power for personal gain must do, you have to face the fact that their actions will NEVER match the necessary consequences of their deeds. Thus to try to untangle their web of internal justifications as couched by their public pronouncements simply because they appear to be deeply felt, is, in my judgement, a waste of time.
On the other hand, to understand their internal speech to the point that you can turn it and get their attention, and then show them the consequences of their beliefs, sometimes earns, if not conversion, at least respect. It may be the best you can do until they've had time to mull over the way you've cut their moral and intellectual underpinnings.
All of that goes for Statists of any stripe who would use limitless power to coerce the world to fit their twisted imagination with all accountability for failure to be owned by their operationally identical opposition. The plotters in the shadows may very well be aphilosophical power hungry maniacs who simply use the true believers, but there have always been true believers who provided the ideological cover for the aphilsophical maniacs.
No matter what vicious true believers may say, when it comes to what they do they are aphilosophical maniacs.
Since the orders created by these two philosophies are so similar, what is the point of antagonism between them?
You see, what people hate the most is competitors just like themselves, those who would share their means. That is the unifying similarity between the extremes you seek. To learn where such people really live, note their favorite insult.
Perhaps you consider these questions of mine purely academic because of the plotters in the shadows, but they are very real to me, and I will continue to try to sort them out.
No, while I can easily understand your interest in delving into such as a Zionist, I just don't consider dealing with them a valuable use of time seeing as I understand what makes them tick fairly well. In the mean time, a new way of seeing how markets can resolve competing claims over the use of goods with abstract value has been revealed to me. I am accountable to G*d for learning how to make it happen, so that's what I do.
Didja ever read that first chapter? You should. It's worth the study because it is an analogue battle in a different medium than that to which you are used, therefore capable of revealing principles in which you might otherwise have too much investment in the subject matter to recognize.
One final word: if you ever examine any national socialist propaganda or web sites you will notice that there is very little about what sort of government they intend to create.
The same is true of conservative/libertarians who fancy less regulation. I run into it all the time.
And indeed, just as their are anarchist as well as statist Communists, there are anarchist as well as statist national socialists--as you will see if you ever visit the anarcho-Nazi "Liberty Forum," where people use the swastika as an avatar and insist that "Hitler was a man of peace" even as they dream of the abolition of the state.
Been there many times.
Thx for the respectful exchange. They're rare these days. A blessed Sabbath to you.