<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Brandeis Gives Honorary Degree to Critic of Judaism, Refuses to Give One to Critic of Islam</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 12:15:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5400867</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2014 03:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5400867</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[But people lie about all forms of &quot;history&quot; all the time.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But people lie about all forms of &#8220;history&#8221; all the time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shari Peterson</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5400858</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Shari Peterson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2014 03:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5400858</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Deep history doesn&#039;t lie.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Deep history doesn&#8217;t lie.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ObamaYoMoma</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5399387</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ObamaYoMoma]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2014 00:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5399387</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;The Muslim Brotherhood does not have a non-violent wing.&lt;/i&gt;

Okay, if what you say is correct, and it&#039;s not, then how can you claim that they are terrorists? Are you saying that they are non-violent terrorists?

We are teetering here on the borderline of absurdity.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>The Muslim Brotherhood does not have a non-violent wing.</i></p>
<p>Okay, if what you say is correct, and it&#8217;s not, then how can you claim that they are terrorists? Are you saying that they are non-violent terrorists?</p>
<p>We are teetering here on the borderline of absurdity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 1stworlder</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5399336</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[1stworlder]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2014 22:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5399336</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Not from George Soros.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not from George Soros.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5398872</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2014 02:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5398872</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;While it&#039;s an interesting approach and conversation, I&#039;d first have to note that it pretty well disposes of the &quot;fascists=socialists&quot; assertion in the Goldberg sense, or in the sense used earlier to lay blame for the Holocaust at the foot of &quot;socialism.&quot;&quot;

I&#039;ve never conflated fascism with socialism. But one can use the ideas bundled with socialism to promote fascism. And incremental (coerced) socialism (in one state) is de facto fascism. It may not be a clear replica of fascism in Italy or Germany, but the underlying fundamentals are there: Increase state sovereignty over capital and human behavior in the name of the welfare of the people and or the state.

No, socialism itself is not a root cause of the Holocaust. But when someone makes such a statement I won&#039;t blow them off. It&#039;s confusion worth clearing up.

&quot;I&#039;d fully agree that you&#039;re going to see common threads and lines of thought that will cross many boundaries. &quot;Right&quot; and &quot;left&quot; were first defined in the context of support or opposition to the Bourbon monarchy, so narrowing down what is really meant by those terms might actually be more productive if the context of the conversation were trying to determine why modern conservatives are trying so hard to recast the fascists.&quot; 

I understand that. The question is whether they&#039;re right to do so at least in an effort to point out that in American politics, the right has never been associated with anything fascistic unless you boil fascism down simply to having a strong loyalty to the US constitution. Because everything else about the American right has always been anti-statist. Fascism is statist. 

&quot;(I suppose it to be an attempt to avoid being associated with fascists themselves by pre-emptively associating them with &quot;the left.&quot;)&quot;

I&#039;d rather just point out that it&#039;s not something that could come from the right in America, unless you&#039;re strictly talking about nationalism.

It&#039;s also true that some fascist factions might try to coopt the right but I don&#039;t see any clear examples of any successes. It&#039;s always easier in a democracy to do things &quot;in the name of the people&quot; rather than explaining the finer points of the constitution to people that don&#039;t fully understand it or our history in America and our relationship with European efforts at some kind of balance between rights of each human and rights of the rulers.

&quot;If the context is simply trying to trace certain lines of thought through various ideologies, then &quot;left-right&quot; can be dispensed with. I find that filter confining and problematic, myself.&quot;

It&#039;s just not clear how to do that. I try to challenge myself to make sure I&#039;m pushing towards illumination of understanding. If I&#039;m confrontational and simplistic, it&#039;s not an effort to end the conversation but to try to force a carefully nuanced one.

At the beginning of conversations you have to meet people where they are and some times you have to challenge them to explain their definitions. 

&quot;Okay, why don&#039;t you start there?&quot;



I&#039;d like to but I need to choose a logical place in the timeline. The Christian Reformation and the Industrial Revolution were both crucial events for driving ideology and in the case of the Christian Reformation, it proved that ideas and Ideology can drive history at times. We need to pay more attention to when that happens.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;While it&#8217;s an interesting approach and conversation, I&#8217;d first have to note that it pretty well disposes of the &#8220;fascists=socialists&#8221; assertion in the Goldberg sense, or in the sense used earlier to lay blame for the Holocaust at the foot of &#8220;socialism.&#8221;&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve never conflated fascism with socialism. But one can use the ideas bundled with socialism to promote fascism. And incremental (coerced) socialism (in one state) is de facto fascism. It may not be a clear replica of fascism in Italy or Germany, but the underlying fundamentals are there: Increase state sovereignty over capital and human behavior in the name of the welfare of the people and or the state.</p>
<p>No, socialism itself is not a root cause of the Holocaust. But when someone makes such a statement I won&#8217;t blow them off. It&#8217;s confusion worth clearing up.</p>
<p>&#8220;I&#8217;d fully agree that you&#8217;re going to see common threads and lines of thought that will cross many boundaries. &#8220;Right&#8221; and &#8220;left&#8221; were first defined in the context of support or opposition to the Bourbon monarchy, so narrowing down what is really meant by those terms might actually be more productive if the context of the conversation were trying to determine why modern conservatives are trying so hard to recast the fascists.&#8221; </p>
<p>I understand that. The question is whether they&#8217;re right to do so at least in an effort to point out that in American politics, the right has never been associated with anything fascistic unless you boil fascism down simply to having a strong loyalty to the US constitution. Because everything else about the American right has always been anti-statist. Fascism is statist. </p>
<p>&#8220;(I suppose it to be an attempt to avoid being associated with fascists themselves by pre-emptively associating them with &#8220;the left.&#8221;)&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;d rather just point out that it&#8217;s not something that could come from the right in America, unless you&#8217;re strictly talking about nationalism.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s also true that some fascist factions might try to coopt the right but I don&#8217;t see any clear examples of any successes. It&#8217;s always easier in a democracy to do things &#8220;in the name of the people&#8221; rather than explaining the finer points of the constitution to people that don&#8217;t fully understand it or our history in America and our relationship with European efforts at some kind of balance between rights of each human and rights of the rulers.</p>
<p>&#8220;If the context is simply trying to trace certain lines of thought through various ideologies, then &#8220;left-right&#8221; can be dispensed with. I find that filter confining and problematic, myself.&#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s just not clear how to do that. I try to challenge myself to make sure I&#8217;m pushing towards illumination of understanding. If I&#8217;m confrontational and simplistic, it&#8217;s not an effort to end the conversation but to try to force a carefully nuanced one.</p>
<p>At the beginning of conversations you have to meet people where they are and some times you have to challenge them to explain their definitions. </p>
<p>&#8220;Okay, why don&#8217;t you start there?&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;d like to but I need to choose a logical place in the timeline. The Christian Reformation and the Industrial Revolution were both crucial events for driving ideology and in the case of the Christian Reformation, it proved that ideas and Ideology can drive history at times. We need to pay more attention to when that happens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5398863</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2014 01:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5398863</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While it&#039;s an interesting approach and conversation, I&#039;d first have to note that it pretty well disposes of the &quot;fascists=socialists&quot; assertion in the Goldberg sense, or in the sense used earlier to lay blame for the Holocaust at the foot of &quot;socialism.&quot;   I&#039;d fully agree that you&#039;re going to see common threads and lines of thought that will cross many boundaries.  &quot;Right&quot; and &quot;left&quot; were first defined in the context of support or opposition to the Bourbon monarchy, so narrowing down what is really meant by those terms might actually be more productive if the context of the conversation were trying to determine why modern conservatives are trying so hard to recast the fascists (I suppose it to be an attempt to avoid being associated with fascists themselves by pre-emptively associating them with &quot;the left.&quot;)   If the context is simply trying to trace certain lines of thought through various ideologies, then &quot;left-right&quot; can be dispensed with.  I find that filter confining and problematic,  myself.  

&lt;blockquote&gt;It&#039;s more like an ecosystem of ideas and you have to identify dominant themes&lt;/blockquote&gt;


Okay, why don&#039;t you start there?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While it&#8217;s an interesting approach and conversation, I&#8217;d first have to note that it pretty well disposes of the &#8220;fascists=socialists&#8221; assertion in the Goldberg sense, or in the sense used earlier to lay blame for the Holocaust at the foot of &#8220;socialism.&#8221;   I&#8217;d fully agree that you&#8217;re going to see common threads and lines of thought that will cross many boundaries.  &#8220;Right&#8221; and &#8220;left&#8221; were first defined in the context of support or opposition to the Bourbon monarchy, so narrowing down what is really meant by those terms might actually be more productive if the context of the conversation were trying to determine why modern conservatives are trying so hard to recast the fascists (I suppose it to be an attempt to avoid being associated with fascists themselves by pre-emptively associating them with &#8220;the left.&#8221;)   If the context is simply trying to trace certain lines of thought through various ideologies, then &#8220;left-right&#8221; can be dispensed with.  I find that filter confining and problematic,  myself.  </p>
<blockquote><p>It&#8217;s more like an ecosystem of ideas and you have to identify dominant themes</p></blockquote>
<p>Okay, why don&#8217;t you start there?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5398855</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2014 00:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5398855</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;I was under the impression from your earlier that you had a pretty specific ideological forebear in mind that more or less specifically resulted in socialism on the one hand, and Hitler&#039;s ideology on the other.&quot;

No. Not in Germany. I think fascism overtly rejects Marx because he was calling for global remedies. But that doesn&#039;t mean they were not influenced by some of the underlying ideas and the justifications used. Some of the ideas may have been coopted. But they also might have been influenced by some of the same thinking that led Marx to be a big myopic in his analysis. We can look carefully at what they said and see who was promoting those ideas beforehand but of course never really have a strictly scientific ideological DNA analysis. 

Deconstructing ideology can help to humanize people that on the surface seem to act like &quot;aliens.&quot; We&#039;re trying to clearly understand the range of possible behaviors in humanity - which is the opposite of &quot;dehumanization.&quot; Demagogues can take this same process and do the opposite but running from the task is not the solution because they&#039;re going to do that anyway.

You might think that the end result is the same but it&#039;s not. If ideas and ideology drive human behavior in good ways and bad ways, we can come up with remedies. If it&#039;s genetic, the result of alleged racial distinctions or &quot;sub human&quot; characteristics innate to certain groups, we&#039;re far more limited in what can be done.

At this point we&#039;re not really talking about socialism in Germany as a root cause but we&#039;re looking at common causes and ideological influences between the ugly sides of fascism and the various attempts to implement Marx-derived socialism. Just calling everyone &quot;extreme&quot; as opposed to moderate is really not that helpful. Extreme justice is good. Extreme injustice is not. But how to we define justice?

&quot;Identifying that specific forebear was what I had in mind for the next step.&quot;



It&#039;s more like an ecosystem of ideas and you have to identify dominant themes that were harvested by any particular group or leader.


What makes Marx unique is that he put together comprehensive and coherent theories. And many of them became viral. He&#039;s more like a carrier of a super-virus than an evil genius. I&#039;m not out to dehumanize anyone. I&#039;m trying to help deconstruct human behavior in rational and useful ways so that we can better understand risks that occur when ideologies and civilizations clash.


And if I&#039;m right, why approach is really the only one that can lead to international institutions that help lead the world to some kind of stable peace without huge wars. Not that I&#039;m expecting such a result any time soon if ever, but it&#039;s clear to me what the path should be.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I was under the impression from your earlier that you had a pretty specific ideological forebear in mind that more or less specifically resulted in socialism on the one hand, and Hitler&#8217;s ideology on the other.&#8221;</p>
<p>No. Not in Germany. I think fascism overtly rejects Marx because he was calling for global remedies. But that doesn&#8217;t mean they were not influenced by some of the underlying ideas and the justifications used. Some of the ideas may have been coopted. But they also might have been influenced by some of the same thinking that led Marx to be a big myopic in his analysis. We can look carefully at what they said and see who was promoting those ideas beforehand but of course never really have a strictly scientific ideological DNA analysis. </p>
<p>Deconstructing ideology can help to humanize people that on the surface seem to act like &#8220;aliens.&#8221; We&#8217;re trying to clearly understand the range of possible behaviors in humanity &#8211; which is the opposite of &#8220;dehumanization.&#8221; Demagogues can take this same process and do the opposite but running from the task is not the solution because they&#8217;re going to do that anyway.</p>
<p>You might think that the end result is the same but it&#8217;s not. If ideas and ideology drive human behavior in good ways and bad ways, we can come up with remedies. If it&#8217;s genetic, the result of alleged racial distinctions or &#8220;sub human&#8221; characteristics innate to certain groups, we&#8217;re far more limited in what can be done.</p>
<p>At this point we&#8217;re not really talking about socialism in Germany as a root cause but we&#8217;re looking at common causes and ideological influences between the ugly sides of fascism and the various attempts to implement Marx-derived socialism. Just calling everyone &#8220;extreme&#8221; as opposed to moderate is really not that helpful. Extreme justice is good. Extreme injustice is not. But how to we define justice?</p>
<p>&#8220;Identifying that specific forebear was what I had in mind for the next step.&#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s more like an ecosystem of ideas and you have to identify dominant themes that were harvested by any particular group or leader.</p>
<p>What makes Marx unique is that he put together comprehensive and coherent theories. And many of them became viral. He&#8217;s more like a carrier of a super-virus than an evil genius. I&#8217;m not out to dehumanize anyone. I&#8217;m trying to help deconstruct human behavior in rational and useful ways so that we can better understand risks that occur when ideologies and civilizations clash.</p>
<p>And if I&#8217;m right, why approach is really the only one that can lead to international institutions that help lead the world to some kind of stable peace without huge wars. Not that I&#8217;m expecting such a result any time soon if ever, but it&#8217;s clear to me what the path should be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5398795</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2014 18:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5398795</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was under the impression from your earlier that you had a pretty specific ideological forebear in mind that more or less specifically resulted in socialism on the one hand, and Hitler&#039;s ideology on the other.  Identifying that specific forebear was what I had in mind for the next step.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was under the impression from your earlier that you had a pretty specific ideological forebear in mind that more or less specifically resulted in socialism on the one hand, and Hitler&#8217;s ideology on the other.  Identifying that specific forebear was what I had in mind for the next step.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5398737</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2014 15:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5398737</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Avoid the real issue.&quot;

So the &quot;real issue&quot; is Hiernonymous&#039;s shortcomings as a poster?  Or are you redirecting, sidelining, nitpicking, and avoiding the real issue?  Just curious.

&quot;Have you stopped beating your wife?&quot;

I never started.  Why do you ask?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Avoid the real issue.&#8221;</p>
<p>So the &#8220;real issue&#8221; is Hiernonymous&#8217;s shortcomings as a poster?  Or are you redirecting, sidelining, nitpicking, and avoiding the real issue?  Just curious.</p>
<p>&#8220;Have you stopped beating your wife?&#8221;</p>
<p>I never started.  Why do you ask?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5398736</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2014 15:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5398736</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I haven&#039;t suggested that there is a &quot;conspiracy against me.&quot;  I&#039;ve observed that your posts containing a particular term don&#039;t appear to be held in moderation; given your affiliation with the site, the natural conclusion is that you have a special exemption, not that I&#039;ve been singled out for bad treatment.  

All that&#039;s speculative, of course, which is why I invited you to let me know if I was wrong.  If &quot;the system doesn&#039;t favor me&quot; means that you are auto-flagged the same as everyone else, well and good.

 &quot;The fact that you think that way however is very revealing.&quot;


In what way?  That I find it frustrating that I can&#039;t hold an adult conversation on the topic of the National Socialists without finding increasingly irritating circumlocutions for the subject of the discussion?   Guilty, your honor.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I haven&#8217;t suggested that there is a &#8220;conspiracy against me.&#8221;  I&#8217;ve observed that your posts containing a particular term don&#8217;t appear to be held in moderation; given your affiliation with the site, the natural conclusion is that you have a special exemption, not that I&#8217;ve been singled out for bad treatment.  </p>
<p>All that&#8217;s speculative, of course, which is why I invited you to let me know if I was wrong.  If &#8220;the system doesn&#8217;t favor me&#8221; means that you are auto-flagged the same as everyone else, well and good.</p>
<p> &#8220;The fact that you think that way however is very revealing.&#8221;</p>
<p>In what way?  That I find it frustrating that I can&#8217;t hold an adult conversation on the topic of the National Socialists without finding increasingly irritating circumlocutions for the subject of the discussion?   Guilty, your honor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5398733</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2014 15:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5398733</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Okay, let&#039;s work with that.  What was Morsi&#039;s work &quot;with&quot; the Group that proves the terror groups were still acting under MB control?
 
And, actually, yes, the Group renounced violence, but much, much later than the MB - in 2003, IIRC.  The renunciation was convincing enough to lead Mubarak to release over 1000 Group prisoners from prison in 2006.  But the sincerity of their renunciation is neither here nor there - you&#039;ve asserted that Morsi&#039;s &quot;work&quot; with the Group demonstrates ongoing terrorism by the MB, so please let us know what &quot;work&quot; you&#039;re talking about.  The only thing that comes to mind is his appointment of Adel al Khayat as Governor of Luxor; but that wouldn&#039;t show that the MB was continuing to sponsor terror, so you must have something else in mind.  What?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay, let&#8217;s work with that.  What was Morsi&#8217;s work &#8220;with&#8221; the Group that proves the terror groups were still acting under MB control?</p>
<p>And, actually, yes, the Group renounced violence, but much, much later than the MB &#8211; in 2003, IIRC.  The renunciation was convincing enough to lead Mubarak to release over 1000 Group prisoners from prison in 2006.  But the sincerity of their renunciation is neither here nor there &#8211; you&#8217;ve asserted that Morsi&#8217;s &#8220;work&#8221; with the Group demonstrates ongoing terrorism by the MB, so please let us know what &#8220;work&#8221; you&#8217;re talking about.  The only thing that comes to mind is his appointment of Adel al Khayat as Governor of Luxor; but that wouldn&#8217;t show that the MB was continuing to sponsor terror, so you must have something else in mind.  What?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5398669</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2014 05:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5398669</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That would be accusation, not observation. 

Posts don&#039;t get posted quickly. They go up instantly unless they get automatically flagged. 

The system doesn&#039;t favor me and there&#039;s no conspiracy against you.

The fact that you think that way however is very revealing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That would be accusation, not observation. </p>
<p>Posts don&#8217;t get posted quickly. They go up instantly unless they get automatically flagged. </p>
<p>The system doesn&#8217;t favor me and there&#8217;s no conspiracy against you.</p>
<p>The fact that you think that way however is very revealing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5398668</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2014 05:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5398668</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;(oh, to have Daniel&#039;s exemption from childish circumlocutions!)&quot;

When in doubt, whine about unfairness and accuse your enemies of having special privileges. 

How liberal of you]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;(oh, to have Daniel&#8217;s exemption from childish circumlocutions!)&#8221;</p>
<p>When in doubt, whine about unfairness and accuse your enemies of having special privileges. </p>
<p>How liberal of you</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5398667</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2014 05:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5398667</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That would be his work with  Al-Gama&#039;a Al-Islamiyya.

Ah but I forget they also &quot;renounced&quot; violence. So clearly they can&#039;t be terrorists.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That would be his work with  Al-Gama&#8217;a Al-Islamiyya.</p>
<p>Ah but I forget they also &#8220;renounced&#8221; violence. So clearly they can&#8217;t be terrorists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5398666</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2014 05:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5398666</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Redirect, sideline, nitpick. 

Avoid the real issue.

&quot;It&#039;s interesting that you see respect for accuracy and sound logic to be &quot;cheap lawyer&#039;s tricks&quot; and &quot;technicalities.&quot;

Have you stopped beating your wife?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Redirect, sideline, nitpick. </p>
<p>Avoid the real issue.</p>
<p>&#8220;It&#8217;s interesting that you see respect for accuracy and sound logic to be &#8220;cheap lawyer&#8217;s tricks&#8221; and &#8220;technicalities.&#8221;</p>
<p>Have you stopped beating your wife?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5398602</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2014 00:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5398602</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;That said, as I understand it, you&#039;re not defending OP&#039;s comment, but want to postulate a previous generation of thought whose influence you want to trace, and that&#039;s also what I&#039;m interested in hearing you talk about.&quot;

It just depends on how far back you want to go. Should we start with Martin Luther and Machiavelli, or do we need to go back further?


The era of the Christian Reformation was one where role models emerged for promoting ideas that contradicted &quot;received wisdom&quot; and I think encouraged others who had the mind to stand up and do the same kind of thing. Martin Luther proved that the pen can be mightier than the sword in ways that can be better than violent revolution.


They did not immediate become concerned with the lower classes but eventually some thought leaders did. All of these ideas were competing while in some cases harmonizing with other leaders and in other cases clashing.


The discourse concerning criticism of society included both spiritual issues and questions about how the current social order came about. Looking at the criticism coherently, the RCC was blamed for a lot of the problems. But just as with any other progress people can agree about a problems without agreeing on how to solve them.


If you follow some of the thought leaders that emerged, some dominant competing ideas become clear. Some can be refuted yet still influence thinking today. Other ideas can be seen as valid in a limited context, yet those ideas too have wide currency and are used to criticize just about anything even remotely plausible. Lots of individual people and groups get demonized in these processes. Bogey men and &quot;bogey people&quot; that were once part of some earlier criticism of society are now modern scapegoats at times.


This is not an attack on socialism at all. As I&#039;ve said many times, socialism has some ideals that are good. But when you look at the larger discourse in the criticism of society you can easily see how those ideas and ideals got bundled with other ideas that demonized collectives of people. Separating justice from collectivism is crucial if you want to come up with solutions that are valid in the world that we live. Our founders understood that even if the lexicon has changed a bit since then. They did not fully complete the revolution, but they gave us a fairly reliable framework for doing that. I think some have lost their way in understanding that framework.


The conversation at this point could go in any number of directions but we&#039;re way past criticism of socialism. So I&#039;ll leave it up to you.


I don&#039;t hate &quot;socialism,&quot; but I do hate liars and ideas that are destructive. Socialism has to be purified if you want to remove the destructive ideas that are almost always bundled with it today. At this point it&#039;s probably a lot more useful to talk about the destructive ideas than about socialism itself. I&#039;ll wait and see where you want to take it but I&#039;ll give it some more thought as well.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;That said, as I understand it, you&#8217;re not defending OP&#8217;s comment, but want to postulate a previous generation of thought whose influence you want to trace, and that&#8217;s also what I&#8217;m interested in hearing you talk about.&#8221;</p>
<p>It just depends on how far back you want to go. Should we start with Martin Luther and Machiavelli, or do we need to go back further?</p>
<p>The era of the Christian Reformation was one where role models emerged for promoting ideas that contradicted &#8220;received wisdom&#8221; and I think encouraged others who had the mind to stand up and do the same kind of thing. Martin Luther proved that the pen can be mightier than the sword in ways that can be better than violent revolution.</p>
<p>They did not immediate become concerned with the lower classes but eventually some thought leaders did. All of these ideas were competing while in some cases harmonizing with other leaders and in other cases clashing.</p>
<p>The discourse concerning criticism of society included both spiritual issues and questions about how the current social order came about. Looking at the criticism coherently, the RCC was blamed for a lot of the problems. But just as with any other progress people can agree about a problems without agreeing on how to solve them.</p>
<p>If you follow some of the thought leaders that emerged, some dominant competing ideas become clear. Some can be refuted yet still influence thinking today. Other ideas can be seen as valid in a limited context, yet those ideas too have wide currency and are used to criticize just about anything even remotely plausible. Lots of individual people and groups get demonized in these processes. Bogey men and &#8220;bogey people&#8221; that were once part of some earlier criticism of society are now modern scapegoats at times.</p>
<p>This is not an attack on socialism at all. As I&#8217;ve said many times, socialism has some ideals that are good. But when you look at the larger discourse in the criticism of society you can easily see how those ideas and ideals got bundled with other ideas that demonized collectives of people. Separating justice from collectivism is crucial if you want to come up with solutions that are valid in the world that we live. Our founders understood that even if the lexicon has changed a bit since then. They did not fully complete the revolution, but they gave us a fairly reliable framework for doing that. I think some have lost their way in understanding that framework.</p>
<p>The conversation at this point could go in any number of directions but we&#8217;re way past criticism of socialism. So I&#8217;ll leave it up to you.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t hate &#8220;socialism,&#8221; but I do hate liars and ideas that are destructive. Socialism has to be purified if you want to remove the destructive ideas that are almost always bundled with it today. At this point it&#8217;s probably a lot more useful to talk about the destructive ideas than about socialism itself. I&#8217;ll wait and see where you want to take it but I&#8217;ll give it some more thought as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Z</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5398364</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[A Z]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2014 11:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5398364</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Supposedly, Russia is nearing economic collapse.  It remains to see where the trade deals with China, India &amp; Iran leave it.

The GDP is near flat. Which is not saying much since many of the G7 are not doing much better.  There have been large outflows of capital as well.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Supposedly, Russia is nearing economic collapse.  It remains to see where the trade deals with China, India &amp; Iran leave it.</p>
<p>The GDP is near flat. Which is not saying much since many of the G7 are not doing much better.  There have been large outflows of capital as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Z</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5398360</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[A Z]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5398360</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot; the secular Polish leftist Jews found it out in1968 socialist Poland, when they were unceremoniously kicked out with a stateless travel document and a one way ticket to Israel.&quot;

That is news. Did not know that
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8221; the secular Polish leftist Jews found it out in1968 socialist Poland, when they were unceremoniously kicked out with a stateless travel document and a one way ticket to Israel.&#8221;</p>
<p>That is news. Did not know that</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5398357</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2014 09:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5398357</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s interesting that you see respect for accuracy and sound logic to be &quot;cheap lawyer&#039;s tricks&quot; and &quot;technicalities.&quot;  

Trying to deflect uncomfortable observations by attacking the critic is old hat, as well.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s interesting that you see respect for accuracy and sound logic to be &#8220;cheap lawyer&#8217;s tricks&#8221; and &#8220;technicalities.&#8221;  </p>
<p>Trying to deflect uncomfortable observations by attacking the critic is old hat, as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/brandeis-gives-honorary-degree-to-critic-of-judaism-refuses-to-give-one-to-critic-of-islam/comment-page-1/#comment-5398356</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2014 09:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223069#comment-5398356</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;In essence you attribute the atrocities to an irrational race-based national jingoism.&quot;

That&#039;s not complete, but it will serve if you replace &quot;irrational&quot; with &quot;opportunistic.&quot;  The driving element is the nationalism.  While I do find that sort of nationalism irrational, and genocide to be insanity, I don&#039;t use those terms in an exculpatory or explanatory sense; it&#039;s simply a judgment.  Achieving power was his goal; extreme nationalism was his ideology; and he&#039;d employ whatever economic program or programs that he thought would help him accomplish his goals.  In Weimar Germany, socialism  of some sort held enormous and broad appeal, given the massive levels of unemployment, the hyperinflation and collapse of the mark, and the subsequent depression.  The lower-class elements of the party were very useful to Hitler in the early stages, particularly his brownshirts, in providing street muscle, and those were the elements who actively supported socialist elements.  Ernst Roehm was a genuine socialist; he wanted to nationalize businesses, confiscate aristocratic holdings, etc.  However, when Roehm, the Strassers, and other socialists pressed for implementation of the socialist planks of the party platform (as well as subordination of the Army to the SA), they were instead purged.  By 1934, the Krupps were far more useful to Hitler as allies than the Roehms.  All of this indicates that socialism was not a driving or formative element for Hitler; socialism didn&#039;t shape his goals (and, by extension, his party&#039;s goals), it was one tool, to be discarded as soon as other tools were more appropriate.  

All that is pretty straightforward German history.  You&#039;ve suggested that, rather than trying to equate the NSDAP with socialism, there&#039;s a common antecedent.  I&#039;d be interested in you outlining this antecedent and tracing its descent.

&quot;Saying that they were influenced by Marx, perhaps indirectly, is not stupid.&quot;

Not as such.  It&#039;s more helpful to be specific.  Men like Roehm and Strasser were very much influenced by Marx.  The victorious faction of the party was a bit more problematic, and you&#039;d have to be careful to be clear about what you mean by &quot;influenced by.&quot;  It&#039;s worth keeping in mind that this conversation was based on a comment that attributed the deaths of millions of Jews to &quot;socialism,&quot; which implies a far more direct relationship than that implied by suggesting that Marxism was one of many influences that eventually shaped the party&#039;s ideology.  That said, as I understand it, you&#039;re not defending OP&#039;s comment, but want to postulate a previous generation of thought whose influence you want to trace, and that&#039;s also what I&#039;m interested in hearing you talk about.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;In essence you attribute the atrocities to an irrational race-based national jingoism.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s not complete, but it will serve if you replace &#8220;irrational&#8221; with &#8220;opportunistic.&#8221;  The driving element is the nationalism.  While I do find that sort of nationalism irrational, and genocide to be insanity, I don&#8217;t use those terms in an exculpatory or explanatory sense; it&#8217;s simply a judgment.  Achieving power was his goal; extreme nationalism was his ideology; and he&#8217;d employ whatever economic program or programs that he thought would help him accomplish his goals.  In Weimar Germany, socialism  of some sort held enormous and broad appeal, given the massive levels of unemployment, the hyperinflation and collapse of the mark, and the subsequent depression.  The lower-class elements of the party were very useful to Hitler in the early stages, particularly his brownshirts, in providing street muscle, and those were the elements who actively supported socialist elements.  Ernst Roehm was a genuine socialist; he wanted to nationalize businesses, confiscate aristocratic holdings, etc.  However, when Roehm, the Strassers, and other socialists pressed for implementation of the socialist planks of the party platform (as well as subordination of the Army to the SA), they were instead purged.  By 1934, the Krupps were far more useful to Hitler as allies than the Roehms.  All of this indicates that socialism was not a driving or formative element for Hitler; socialism didn&#8217;t shape his goals (and, by extension, his party&#8217;s goals), it was one tool, to be discarded as soon as other tools were more appropriate.  </p>
<p>All that is pretty straightforward German history.  You&#8217;ve suggested that, rather than trying to equate the NSDAP with socialism, there&#8217;s a common antecedent.  I&#8217;d be interested in you outlining this antecedent and tracing its descent.</p>
<p>&#8220;Saying that they were influenced by Marx, perhaps indirectly, is not stupid.&#8221;</p>
<p>Not as such.  It&#8217;s more helpful to be specific.  Men like Roehm and Strasser were very much influenced by Marx.  The victorious faction of the party was a bit more problematic, and you&#8217;d have to be careful to be clear about what you mean by &#8220;influenced by.&#8221;  It&#8217;s worth keeping in mind that this conversation was based on a comment that attributed the deaths of millions of Jews to &#8220;socialism,&#8221; which implies a far more direct relationship than that implied by suggesting that Marxism was one of many influences that eventually shaped the party&#8217;s ideology.  That said, as I understand it, you&#8217;re not defending OP&#8217;s comment, but want to postulate a previous generation of thought whose influence you want to trace, and that&#8217;s also what I&#8217;m interested in hearing you talk about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 800/889 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-30 07:13:59 by W3 Total Cache -->