Serious Fascists in America (NewsReal Blog) – By David Horowitz

fascists

There are serious fascists in America. But they’re on the political Left.

I wrote yesterday about Glenn Beck’s feature on the violent demonstration by leftists in Pittsburgh (which was covered up by the New York Times and the rest of the left-wing media.) He also reported on the bombing of a radio tower in the State of Washington by the Earth Liberation Front — a left-wing terrorist organization — which went equally unreported. Instead we are treated to a rash of hand-wringings by liberals like Tom Friedman who talk about incitements that could lead to the assassination of President Obama.

Pete Wehner has an excellent blog on this hypocrisy, recalling that a film was actually made by leftists portraying the assassination of President Bush among many other incitements against him by leftists with no — absolutely no — complaints by Friedman and the NY Times. In fact the whole Democratic Party leadership accused Bush of lying to get us into a war and killing young Americans in the process. “Bush lied people died” was the favored leftist chant of the Iraq War, just like “Hey Hey LBJ How Many Kids Did You Kill Today?” was during the Vietnam War. The incitement to assassinate American presidents is the background music of the American left. “Captialism is evil!” “Our leaders are torturers!” “He BETRAYED us!” Screamed Al Gore one of the inciters — and liars –in chief.

What Wehner is too polite to mention is not only are the armies of the Left fascist in behavior but are in full-throated support of our terrorist enemies (whom they like to pretend are only enemies of apartheid Jews) — Hizbullah and Hamas. Every major leftist organization is in some kind of fraternal alliance with CAIR and the Muslim Students Association who sponsor genocidal speakers on college campuses and organize demonstrations to proclaim the birth of Israel on land confiscated from the Turks as a “catastrophe” and who call for the destruction of the Jewish state. But liberals like Friedman are so filled with venemous hatred of patriotic Americans on the right that the only fascism they can see are Tea Party picnickers on the capitol lawn.

  • WFB2

    “Goldberg is an idiot trying to cash in.”
    ———–
    I'm overwhelmed by your well-reasoned, fact-filled rebuttal of Goldberg's book. You've obviously read it with penetrating insight supported by your own thorough knowledge of history. Can't fool you Lefties!

  • VN_Vet

    Aren't you going to be surprised when that pitchfork jabs you in the a$$.

  • VN_Vet

    There are remedial courses in english comprehension that may be able to help you.

  • VN_Vet

    I call them skin heads.

  • Petronius

    Well, a pitchfork will prove that the Devil exists but not God, if that's what you're implying. Besides, I believe in God so there should be no problem.

    I never intended to make Brimp's point. Oh, Oh, did I make a blunder? Look, I don't believe in this whole Rights thing. It is all a crock of shit. So, where does that leave conservatives and liberals now? I only believe in duties.

  • Petronius

    Thank you for your considered opinion but enigmatic ad hominum attacks might not be the way to go here. May I suggest you formulate a fuller response, I would love to hear a decent critique of my views.

  • Petronius

    I am not sure what you mean by the corporatist system. How is it diffferent from capitalism?

    Also, I think a lot of liberals would disagree with your assessment that they see people as subjects. I get the feeling that you are trying to make distinctions where there are none.

  • brimp

    From wikipedia:

    Corporatism is a system of economic, political, and social organization where corporate groups such as business, ethnic, farmer, labour, military, patronage, or religious groups are joined together into a single governing body in which the different groups are mandated to negotiate with each other to establish policies in the interest of the multiple groups within the body.[1] Corporatism views society as being alike to an organic body in which each corporate group is viewed as a necessary organ for society to function properly.[2] Corporatism is based on the sociological concept of functionalism.[3] Countries that have corporatist systems typically utilize strong state intervention to direct corporatist policies and to prevent conflict between the groups.[4]

    Corporatism has been supported from various proponents, including: absolutists, conservatives, fascists, progressives, reactionaries, socialists and theologians.[5]

    Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe a practice whereby a state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through corporations. This usage is particularly common in the area of East Asian studies, and is sometimes also referred to as state corporatism. Some analysts have applied the term neocorporatism to certain practices in Western European countries, such as the Tupo in Finland and Proporz system in Austria.[6] At a popular level in recent years “corporatism” has been used in a pejorative context to refer to the application of corporatism by fascist regimes[7] or to mean the promotion of the interests of private business corporations in government over the interests of the public.

    In America, corporatism could not exist before the 14th Amendment. Once the Supreme Court rulled that corporations have the same rights as, second class, citizens of the United States, then the federal govenment could break out of the cage that the Constitution created for it.

  • brimp

    “Also, I think a lot of liberals would disagree with your assessment that they see people as subjects. I get the feeling that you are trying to make distinctions where there are none.”

    Liberals do not believe I have an absolute right to the fruits of my labor (income tax), my right to own a gun, my right to travel (driver licensing, air port security requires a government issued document to board a flight), my right to contract, or not, for health care, my right to access the health care I deem appropriate (FDA, AMA), my right not to be poisoned (mandatory flu shots: see http://www.fluscam.com), and the list goes on. In each case they think that government is the sovereign and I am the subject who must obey the sovereign.

  • VN_Vet

    It wasn't an ad hominem attack. It was an observation based on the ramblings of your 'full of yourself' posts.

    “Is it any wonder that Hamas and Hezbollah want to kill Jews. The Jewish state of Israel is oppressing Palestinians so the Palestinians and their allies are just fighting back. The Jews bring the retribution on themselves”

    And sick stuff like this, if you really believe it.

    And yes I care, so I'm sure that the Jews care if their ancestors occupied their ancestral homeland 2000 years ago, which was NOT called Palestine.

    You might just have a screw loose. Oh, oh, or you might be a fascist/commie, which is what I originally had you pegged as. Which do you admit to? Crazy or Commie?

  • Petronius

    I am not sure that I should dignify your rantings with a reply but here goes anyway. Let's not pretend that you are above ad hominum attacks. This last posting of yours is full of them.

    Why should you care if Jews lived in 'Palestine' 2000 years ago? Perhaps you're a Jew-lover, more likely you're a Zionist stooge. Whichever it is, you definitely haven't thought through the issues, have you?

  • Petronius

    Thanks for your lengthy reply.

    You seem to believe that you have all kinds of absolute rights. Surely no one has absolute rights. Rights are either tempered by circumstances, or tempered by the rights of others, as well as by community and social needs.

    Instead of rights, I prefer to think in terms of duties. Rights are for the weak who are not strong enough to take what they believe is theirs. Duties are for the strong who do what needs to be done.

  • brimp

    What really matters is the roll of government. Either it is you master or your servant. The more centralized your government is, the poorer you will be. The Muslim countries are poorer (except for oil) than the Christian countries. The Protest countries (United States, Switzerland, Germany, and England) are richer than the Catholic countries (Poland, Spain, Italy, Latin American countries). Communist countries are poorer than capitalist countries. The more of the decisions are taken out of the hands of the individual, the poorer everyone will be. Ten geniuses will make worst decisions, in total, than ten million morons if each moron benefits from his good decisions and feels pain for each bad decision.

    Rights are not absolute. One can walk outside nude on a nude beach but not in most towns. If you tried to be nude in public and someone complains, then a jury will decide who has the greater right. Duties are things you must do if you want to be protected by the group. If the country is attacked, you must risk your life and go to war. These duties are determined by the group. Duties and Rights are linked but are different. Duties are enumerated, rights are not. I have the right to do anything I want as long as nobody complains that I have infringed upon their rights to do what they want. When everyone is looking after their own self interest, without using force or fraud, every one is better off than if each individual gets their list of duties from a central authority.

  • bubba4

    Why should I read his book. I've been reading FPM since it's inception. I am well aware of the bizarro world. If I want to hear the words “liberal” “left” or “progressive” mean Nazi I have only to login.

    I haven't read “United in Hate” either because I avoid books whose basic premise in wrong to begin with. I haven't read any books on “creationism” for the same reason.

  • WFB2

    “Why should I read his book.”
    ———-
    So you'll know what you're talking about when you criticize it?
    —————-
    “… I avoid books whose basic premise in wrong to begin with.”
    ————
    Which raises the question “Why do you continue to read FPM from top to bottom every day and post your “stuck on stupid” comments? Are you the designated troll assigned to FPM duty?

  • bubba4

    Actually Republicans fought against almost all safety requirements for automobiles from the safety belt to the airbag over the years…”government control” and all that.

    Mandating such things was the only reason they happened though.

    I'll let you get back to flogging “liberals”…and cream cheese.

  • VN_Vet

    Ok, we're finally getting somewhere. You have now identified yourself as a fascist and anti-zionist too. So you're also a commie. From zionist to marxist/fascist. You're on a downward spiral man, pull up. But I think you're a little crazy too. Well duh, you'd have to be wouldn't you, silly me. And definitely full of yourself. Just my observations based on you're sick ravings.

    You mean you actually had to “think” through the issues to become part of the dark side? I think you were an easy mark.

  • VN_Vet

    And don't forget one of their biggest sugar daddies, George Soros. There's Peter Lewis, Steven Bing, and several other organizations that are funding the marxists, but Soros is public enemy number one. If you are carrying Progressive Insurance, do like I did, drop it and make sure ole' Lewis knows exactly why and how you feel about anti-Americanism.

  • coyote3

    The issue is whether they fought against safety requirement, like airbags and seatbelts. The issue was that they didn't say no one should have them, only that the government shouldn't require it. You still would have been able to get seatbelts, if you wanted them on your car. In fact, before 1956, they were optional equipment. If you wanted them, you ordered them. Yeah, government control and all of that.

  • coyote3

    When he said he was “retard”, I thought he just quit working, and had an accent like mine.

  • bubba4

    In most cases, especially when what's in the book is in doubt or a matter of opinion, I would agree with you that one should read it before commenting. Fiction most of all…

    If the title of a non-fiction book is an unintentional oxymoron that's probably the first red flag. I read FPM because it is second rate fetid pool from which a lot of lies and narratives are born. I post for my own amusement. I don't know any crazies who believe this bizarro world stuff in my private life….so I have to come here to even experience it. It's gotten so much worse over the last few years…but unlike a lot of people, I am not surprised.

  • coyote3

    Good question, how would he know what the book is about, unless he, at least, looks at it?

  • bubba4

    Sure Coyote…all the safety advances since the 50's would have come about anyway and been within reach of everyone without any safety requirements….sure…

    And what about the drunk driving laws? Aren't you infruiated with the government telling you how much you can drink before you get behind the wheel of your seatbeltless car?

    You just want to argue…

  • coyote3

    No, the safety appliances you were talking about, only affect the user. It is his decision. I recall well, when seat belts were available optional equipment. Personally, I believe it isn't very smart to drive without a seatbelt, but then, that is my business. 10/55 laws are another matter, they don't just affect the driver/drinker. If I get into an accident without using a seatbelt, the only potential downside, is that I “may” be killed/more seriously injured without it than with it.

  • coyote3

    You a member of the “BMP”? Wasn't that a Soviet APC? I don't know that sounds like a strange thing to call someone. Oh, sorry you said “BNP”, I thought you said you were a member of the “BMP”.

  • WFB2

    “If the title of a non-fiction book is an unintentional oxymoron that's probably the first red flag.”
    ——————-
    You continue to flaunt your ignorance. The title “Liberal Fascism” was purposely chosen to reflect the utter hypocrisy of the political Left which Goldberg exposes quite thoroughly in the book.
    Liberalism is nothing it claims to be and everything it projects on to conservatives: racist, intolerant, censorious, bigoted and elitist (My words).

    Your rationale for reading/posting on FPM rings hollow. You're like a moth attracted to the light.

  • Petronius

    You really like ad hominum attacks, don't you? I will wear your attacks with pride. Didn't Mussolini say, “Many enemies, much honour”?

    With respect, your thinking is very confused. Your confusion of communists and fascists is risible. Fascists are not communists and Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union proves it?

    I suggest you stay away from politics as you'll only give yourself a headache and look foolish amongst your friends.

    [See, I can make ad hominum attacks too! Aren't I clever? NOT!]

    Meanwhile, I'm going to have a nap. Catch you later!

  • Petronius

    Duh!

  • VN_Vet

    Oh, ouch.

    “Fascists are not communists and Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union proves it?”

    You conveniently forgot to mention that before Hitler had a brainfart, Germany and the Soviet Union were allied.

    Further, communists in the U.S. agitated for the U.S. to stay out of WWII right up until Hitler attacked the Soviets. There were some commies who were bothered by the alliance, but not much and most weren't.

    As I said earlier, not a dime's worth of difference. Which I think you agreed with at the time.

    I tried to go easier on your tender sensiblities this time.

  • VN_Vet

    My sentiments entirely.

  • VN_Vet

    Communists are notoriously deceiving, of course not.

  • bubba4

    “The title “Liberal Fascism” was purposely chosen to reflect the utter hypocrisy of the political Left which Goldberg exposes quite thoroughly in the book.”

    Yes I know. One thing FPM readers are fond of doing is listing out what liberals are/do. When you are defining something, you are pretty free to make up it's meaning. A word isn't any good for you unless it furthers understanding. Goldberg isn't furthering understanding of anything. He is adding his “professional” FPM post defining “liberalism” any way he sees fit.

    You must realize that with a keen eye towards one's desired conclusion, history is flexible. It's redefineable. If you think all government is bad government (with somehow the exception of the military) then there is no difference between Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler. Also, if you think all white men are evil, then there is no difference between them either. But these comparisons don't teach us anything.

    There is a certain accepted lexicon in politics. Horowitz, Goldberg and others have spent a great deal of energy to poison the well, so to speak…making “left” a catchall boogeyman for all bad things today (and always) while making “conservative” a pseudo-religion…not just a political leaning…but a way of life. The problem is not everyone has gotten the memo…outside the bizarro world, people don't accept the very new premise that being “liberal” is actually being a evil fascist…can you imagine?

    “Liberalism is nothing it claims to be and everything it projects on to conservatives: racist, intolerant, censorious, bigoted and elitist (My words).

    See…just look at you go. Who are you talking about?

    “Your rationale for reading/posting on FPM rings hollow.”

    Whatever…I'm so glad I didn't just blow off your asinine questioning of my motives to post to a website. You know it's not for the exposure….lol

  • bubba4

    I recently saw a car crash test where they rammed a 1950s car into it's closest modern equivalent. They should have painted the words “strict libertarian” on the crash dummy driving in the 1950's car.

  • Petronius

    Maybe they are and maybe they're not but still his ideas and scholarship should be judged on its merit. You're not seriously disagreeing with that, are you, because if you are then it is you that can not be taken seriously.

  • Petronius

    I think anyone who has read his stuff would realize that the pact between Germany and the Soviet Union was intended by both sides to be temporary until each was strong enough to attack the other.

    Communists only supported the pact because they supported what the USSR was doing.

    And you seem to forget that your country, the USSA, was allied to the USSR for far longer than Hitler's Germany ever was!
    Commie!

  • Petronius

    I would have thought that in a democracy government is always to be the servant.

    I believe that your case that decentralization predicts wealth is wrong. Is Italy really more decentralized that Germany? What is your criteria for determining decentralization? Wealth? If so, you're begging the question.

    You say rights are not ennumerated but in your country they are. You forget you've got a bill of rights. Why should that be so?

  • Petronius

    Yeah? And just which marxists are these business men funding?

  • bubba4

    "skin heads" is a nickname for Neo-Nazis…the REAL ones. You know, guys that actually admire Hitler and the symbolism of the 3rd Reich…people that believe in the superiority of the white race…etc…etc…We call them Neo-Nazis already. I was making fun of you VN_Vet…god you're old.

  • brimp

    In a democracy, government is the master. A plurality of easily lead voters can be used to tyrannize everyone.

    The reformation empowered people to think for themselves. Reading the Bible directly and determining what it meant rather than having the Pope do the thinking caused people to think for themselves in other areas. Protestant countries are wealthier than Catholic countries. Is this a coincidence? Switzerland is the most decentralized country in Europe. It is also the richest. Coincidence?

    In America, the Declaration of Independence is our founding document. It states the all men have been endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, amongst these are the Rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution sets up a government under these principles. The Bill of Rights does give me any rights. It says that Congress shall make no law…. It is a restriction on government to not even try to violate some of the most important rights.

    The laws in America are very complex because government can not violate these principles directly. Only through each citizen’s consent can they violate the spirit of the civilization principle. If you don't assert your rights they are deemed to be waived. If you don't know how to assert your rights, you don't have any. The complexity and deliberate mis-education of the people caused them not to know how to assert their rights. We are hanging on to the Constitution by a few threads.

  • coyote3

    Yeah, and the driver of its “closest modern equivalent”, underneath the wreckage, was a liberal.

    You didn't address the issues one bit, because you can't. There is no “right” to operate an automobile, and the government, promoting interstate commerce does have the power to be involved in safety regulations of vehicles. Certainly, if the problem would cause the driver of the vehicle to lose control of it, under “normal” driving conditions, then that becomes a problem for the public at large. What concerns the operator, and only the operator, is not a matter that the government has any business regulating. If I get into an automobile accident, the lack of seatbelts in my vehicles, and/or my failure to wear a seatbelt, will not make the accident any more severe as far as the other driver is concerned. Mandated things like that are not only beyond the business of government, they just increase the cost of the vehicle, and force people to pay extra, when if they have made up their minds not to wear seatbelts, they are not going to wear seatbelts, and all the $25.00 tickets in the world isn't going to change them. It may the “Darwinian affect” in operation, but that is just the way it is. If they take that risk, they take that risk.

  • WFB2

    “Goldberg isn't furthering understanding of anything. He is adding his “professional” FPM post defining “liberalism” any way he sees fit.”
    —————–

    So you're back to evaluating a book you havn't read but to which you impute and criticize content which comes only from your imagination. You're a hopeless waste of time in the long pathetic tradition of Lefty dimwits.

  • VN_Vet

    “I think anyone who has read his stuff would realize that the pact between Germany and the Soviet Union was intended by both sides to be temporary until each was strong enough to attack the other.”

    [LOL. Careful, you risk not being taken seriously.]

    “Communists only supported the pact because they supported what the USSR was doing.”

    [Yes, they supported the Nazi-Commie pact.]

    “And you seem to forget that your country, the USSA, was allied to the USSR for far longer than Hitler's Germany ever was.”

    [A non-sequitur]

  • VN_Vet

    I may be seasoned, but I'm not old. I knew what you meant, it was my attempt at levity. Lighten up already.

  • bubba4

    If you mean by hopeless…I'm not going to agree that the words “liberal” and “fascist” belong together….that this helps somehow…then you are right. I don't think it does.

    I've read reviews about it, excerpts from it, seen him in multiple interviews and TV appearances talking about it, but mostly I recognized the thesis from FPM…I am not going to buy it…lol

    If I'm a waste of time then stop replying to me. You're up to your neck in this cultic nonsense so it only makes sense that you would champion any argument that fits even if it's widely panned as ridiculous and counter to all previous understanding of the evolution of political thought over the last hundred years…..

  • bubba4

    http://video.consumerreports.org/services/playe

    Feel free to not take any precautions of your own. We wouldn't want to stifle “natural selection” (wtf is the “Darwinian Effect”) in your own family.

  • Petronius

    My friend, take care, it is you who risk not being taken seriously. Why do you bother?

  • Petronius

    If democracy is our master then we are all lost.

    Perhaps I can agree with you, Catholicism is intellectually stifleing but I would add that it is economically stifleing too.

    Catholic countries are poorer than Protestant because they were late to develop capitalist economies.

    Switzerland, decentralized maybe but predominately Catholic. It is in the same category as Luxenbourg and Liechtenstein, a parasite whose financial and banking industries have grossly inflated its per capita GNP.

    You still haven't given me your yardstick for determining the centralization of a country. Actually, I don't expect you to. What criteria would you use? The government and bureauocracy, or how the society operates? How about we apply physics: as decentralization increases so does entropy, and chaos. This does not sound like a good recipe for a healthy economy.

    Switzerland is an oddball. Liechtenstein and Luxenbourg are just as rich, if not more so, but I wouldn't think they're particularly decentralized.

    If you want to look at a wealthy European country then I would suggest Sweden. It's protestant, it's capitalist but has had social-democratic governments for years and years, but I suppose you don't want to hear about socialism, do you?

  • brimp

    As long as democracy is viewed positively, we are lost. See the Federalist Papers on this.

    The Catholics in Switzerland, like in America, act like Protestants. If they agree with the pope, then that is great, if not then he is an old man in a dress. Catholicism does not foster independent thinking. Therefore, it does not value capitalism. This does not mean that Catholics are bad people, but it is a handicap that they need to overcome.

    There is a connection between capitalism and freedom. This column is too narrow to put a link so I suggest googling 'freedom index’.

    I've never been to Sweden but I don't think I'd like it. It is not capitalist. It is socialist. Even though people make money there, they are taxed so much that they are much poorer than Americans. Canada is similar to America except the people make a little less money which is taxed at a higher rate and the tax on goods cause many things to cost 2 to 3 times what the same products cost in America. Canada is more socialistic than America is.

    The most surprising thing that I have found in my travels is that China is more capitalistic than America. Its economy is broken into two parts: the state owned companies that lose money and the free market companies that are profitable. I would consider moving to China long before I would move to Sweden.

    If you wish to continue the conversation, I suggest starting a new thread instead of responding to this comment.

  • Petronius

    Hello brimp. Just continuing our conversation here as you suggested.

    You say that Catholics don't value capitalism because Catholicism does not foster independent thinking but I am having trouble seeing the link. I am sure that capitalists in Italy are just in favour of capitalism as capitalists anywhere else. Why wouldn't they since they're profiting from it?

    I agree, there is a connection between capitalism and freedom but there is probably also a connection between capitalism and pornography, capitalism and abortion, capitalism and divorce, capitalism and disrespect for elders etc. Is it any wonder that some Third World countries baulk at the prospect of going capitalist? And that's why you conservatives are in a bind because the very economic system you champion leads straight to the freedoms (and liberals) which you hate.

    No, I don't think you'd like Sweden but you've got to understand that their socialism is Socialism-Lite (not like the USSR). Sure, they pay high taxes but they also receive many government benefits in return. Things can't be too bad there because they never seem to want to emigrate here.

    I don't know why you were so surprised at capitalist development in China? Haven't you been following the situation there? Communist China ditched socialism decades ago but the dictatorship is staying. The Chinese are natural capitalists anyway.

    As I see it China is evil. Check out “China: The Gathering Threat” by Menges. China has labelled the US enemy No. 1 and is prepared to nuke US cities if need be.

  • brimp

    Long ago, people started to settle down rather than constantly moving around to hunt and gather their food. They stumbled upon the civilization principle: Don't commit aggression against members of your own group. In some groups, everything was owned by the group and the leaders decided who gets what. In other groups, the property was owned by individuals. The non-aggression principle allowed people to voluntarily trade their goods and services: You build me a house and I will give you a cow. You fix my roof, and I will give you a chicken. You do something good for me, and I will do something good for you. As people specialized into house builders, farmers… the barter was not convenient. The home builders did not want a cow. Money was created to facilitate good deeds. The more money that you had, the more good deeds that you have done. This is capitalism. This is freedom. Capitalism is the free market. Any time there are restrictions on the free market, it means that we are less free. Socialism says that the group owns the goods and services and the leaders decide who can do what with these goods and services. Today, most countries are a combination of socialism and capitalism. The closer the country is to capitalism, the richer and freer the people are.

    When each person is looking after his/her own self interest while not committing force or fraud on their neighbors then everyone gets richer. It is not that Catholicism is anti capitalistic; it is that the central premise of Catholicism states that you can not think for your self. You need the church to assist you. This is a handicap that many Catholics have overcome.

    As for the third world, the people who control the first world (the central bankers) coop the leaders of the third world so that the leaders get rich while the peasants stay poor and timid. These techniques are now being applied to bankrupt America and make us all poor and timid. The rise of the police state in America is troubling.

    Another technique to rule the people is dividing people into groups. Conservatives/Liberals, white/black, Christian/Jew/Muslim/other/none, … The civilization principle implies that as groups get larger the members get richer and when people are broken into groups we get poorer. I am in full support of different areas trying different practices. If Sweden wants to have high taxes and high benefits, I won't stop them. But, when my neighbor points a gun to my head and says that I need to pay for his services then I may comply but I will work to stop any future use of force. I personally do not want any government benefits other than them securing my rights.

    China has been making all the right decisions in running their country since about 1977. There are still many problems in China (pollution, corruption …) so I would not want to move there yet. As for confronting china, I suggest confronting America to get back to the civilization principle, long before confronting other countries.