Articles

Sunday, April 08, 2007

Caryl Chessman and the Triumph of Evil



"Telephone callers from Western Europe, Latin America, Africa and Australia have importuned Governor Brown to spare Chessman's life. Brown has received save-Chessman pleas from Belgium's Queen Mother and from the Social Democratic members of Italy's Chamber of Deputies.

Secretary of State Christian Herter told his press conference last week that the Chessman case had stirred up "quite a surprising amount of interest" in South America. In Brazil, circulators of a save-Chessman petition claim more than 2,500,000 signatures. In The Netherlands, record dealers are profiting from brisk demand for a new platter, in Dutch, called The Death Song of Chessman.

The London News Chronicle recently editorialized that "the great American nation is humiliated because of the agony of Chessman," and the London Daily Herald added that the day Chessman is executed "will be a day when it will be rather unpleasant to be an American." Buenos Aires' Critics called the Chessman case "the most terrible case that has faced the world in recent history." - Time Magazine, Mar 21, 1960

Who was Chessman that America should want to condemn him and the entire world should so hysterically agitate on his behalf and what is his connection to the War on Terror?

Caryl Chessman was a robber, rapist and murderer who dragged women out of cars and sexually assaulted them. He was convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to death. He was held on death row while every goodhearted liberal demanded his release.

Caryl Chessman was to liberals what the terrorists of Guantanamo Bay are today. Imagine Tookie Williams and multiply him a thousand times over and that was Caryl Chessman. Liberals contended he was the victim of a cruel and unfair justice system. They wrote books about him, they made two movies about him, they published the books he wrote and the essays condemning his imprisonment. Ronnie Hawkins wrote "The Ballad Of Caryl Chessman" and Phil Ochs wrote "The Iron Lady" in sympathy for him.


E. A. Poe, Henri Rousseau
Sholom Aleichem and Caryl Chessman
Alan Freed and Buster Keaton too
And each one there
Has one thing shared
They have sweated beneath the same sun
Looked up in wonder at the same moon
And wept when it was all done
For bein' done too soon
For bein' done too soon
For bein' done

Neil Diamond - Done Too Soon


There were no ballads or songs written about Caryl Chessman's victims. One of those victims remained in a schizophrenic state for as long as Chessman remained on death row. But there was no pity for her or for any of them.

No singer worried how much they ached or sweated or how they lived their lives. The liberals ranging from Albert Einstein, Eleanor Roosevelt, Aldous Huxley, Norman Mailer (who himself nearly murdered his wife), Robert Frost (who had also obtained clemency for Nazi propagandist poet, Ezra Pound) to those letter writers sending in a 1000 letters a day cared very much about them.

What all those great men and the everyday liberal had in common was that they gave nearly as much of a damn for Caryl Chessman's victims, as today's liberals bleeding their little hearts all over Abu Ghaib and Gitmo, have for the victims of September 11th and the victims of Islamic terrorism all over the world.

They liked and like to believe that they're enormously sensitive people full of love for mankind, yet that love seemed to best express itself toward murderers and rapists. After Caryl Chessman would come Eldridge Cleaver who would boast of his rapes and of practicing on "little black girls in the ghetto" before using the white women who were the racial enemy. There would be Che Guevara whose murderous visage still adorns millions of red t-shirts.

There would be Adolf Eichmann, who despite carrying out the genocide of millions, was the subject of pleas from all over the world for forgiveness. There was Yasir Arafat whose terrorist thugs carved a brutal trail of terror and death across Israel, Jordan and Lebanon. There would be Tookie Williams and there would be Hicks and the terrorists at Gitmo. The cycle of sympathizing with the criminal and transforming him into a victim, of sanctifying his bloodiest deeds in the name of his victimization by the system and the United States, dated long before Islamic terrorism even reared its ugly head. It was an ugly foulness that was always in our culture and always nesting in the rotting heart of that brand of liberalism which is attracted to the dirty bloody hand and repulsed by the waving flag.

In the death row waiting for their turn
No time to change, not a chance to learn
Waiting for someone to call
Say it's over after all
They won't have to face the justice of the chair

The Iron Lady - Phil Ochs

Aren't you sad now? Can you feel empathy for what he's going through? Poor dear Caryl Chessman. Note the overflowing well of pity for a man who had none for anyone else but himself. Caryl Chessman spent years waxing outraged about his treatment and his abuse by the criminal justice system, even as he concocted more and more outrageous lies in his own defense. And his defenders lapped up every one of them.

Chessman's methods and techniques would inspire hero worship in the Hillside Stranglers who would go on to kidnap, torture and murder a number of women. Even after they were arrested, they nearly got off for it, but for the insistence of the trial judge on refusing the prosecution's motion to withdraw the case and prosecuted it instead.

Chessman is mainly forgotten today, perhaps out of embarrassment. He was sent to the gas chamber from where he never returned. Liberals have found new murderers to idolize. Monsters who make Caryl Chessman or the Hillside Stranglers look like amateurs.

Why remember Caryl Chessman at all? Because he is an example. He is the sham that exposes the fraudulent feminism of liberals who tirelessly defended rapists like him or Eldridge Cleaver. Hunter S. Thompson, that great inspiration to gonzo journalism, who all but celebrated the gang rapists of the Hell's Angels.

It exposes the love that liberals hold for criminals, but never for their victims. Their willingness to identify with and weep over the sufferings of a condemned criminal, without caring a whit for those people whose lives were ruined in his aftermath.

It exposes the fact that modern day liberal sympathies for terrorists is not the product of a more enlightened global worldview. Why after all did Caryl Chessman hate the people he assaulted? He didn't. He wasn't the product of America's policies in the middle east or the ghetto or anywhere else. He was a sociopathic monster in a line of sociopathic monsters whose magnetism and charisma would captivate liberals leading them to make their pilgrimages to Fidel Castro or Yasir Arafat or Ahmadinejad.

When the world wails over Gimto or Hicks and liberals condemn Bush and churn out petitions, there is nothing new under the sun. It has all happened before. It will all happen again.
"One atrocious but clever criminal called into question our judicial system and brought discredit to our laws...Then ... he intimidated the Governor of California and drove the timorous U.S. State Department to declare him an international issue. And finally, he beheld the legislature in a session specially called to change the law so that he could be saved from execution . . . What will happen now? They would not change the law for Chessman, but it would be unwise to give odds that he won't beat it again." Los Angeles Times

Does this sound familiar? Think of Arafat brandishing a gun at the U.N. Think of Ahmadinejad smirking at Britain as he seizes hostages, negotiates an exchange and then sets them free. This is what happens when civilizations give in to thugs. This is what happens when a nation bows its head to a monster.

This is how evil wins, whether it is the evil at the heart of the USSR or Iran or in Ramallah or thugs and murderers smirking their way through sessions with their lawyers. Evil does not merely win when good men do nothing. It wins when the supposed good men do their utmost to fight fiercely on its behalf.

18 comments:

Keli Ata said...

Great post, and a bleated shauva tov.

People who show mercy to monsters like this ultimately become monsters in their own right. They support terrorists by showing them sympathy. Sixty-years ago they joined the Nazi Party. In 2007, they join Peace Now and other terrorist-supporting organizations; they sign petition to release terrorists.

And when it is no longer fashionable to support terrorists, they'll claim they were misinformed.

James Biga said...

You hit the nail on the head. Great post.

Andy said...

Well, isn't it that according to the book of Daniel we are close for the Messiah to come? With that it's not surprising that the world goes to pot. No, nothing is new under the sun but there was never as widespread an acceptance of the vile being honored and the righteous being scorned. The world changed rapidly fast within the last 25 years or should I say almost 50 with the beginning of the 60's movement?

Friar Yid said...

Another brilliant analysis from you and your fan club- liberals can't oppose abuses (torture, being held years without a trial, the "ghost prisoner" phenomenon, people being released for lack of evidence) at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo without supporting terrorists or minimizing 9/11 (why is that, btw?). Of course this kind of logic takes itself to its natural conclusion with KA's Godwin; one can't think a bad thought about Israeli settlements without metamorphosing into a Nazi. The circle is complete.

Heaven forbid a shade of gray intrude here.

It exposes the love that liberals hold for criminals, but never for their victims. Their willingness to identify with and weep over the sufferings of a condemned criminal, without caring a whit for those people whose lives were ruined in his aftermath.

There is a difference between supporting a convicted criminal IN SPITE of their guilt and in contesting that they are guilty in the first place.

Evil does not merely win when good men do nothing. It wins when the supposed good men do their utmost to fight fiercely on its behalf.

I agree, but the problem is determining exactly who IS evil, and what the appropriate action to take against them is. Just because you or the government say a certain person is evil and that justifies doing whatever you want to them does not make it so. That is part of the issue involved in the torture debates. Surely torturing innocent people counts as "evil"?

Sultan Knish said...

and once again you've ignored the specifics of what I said in favor of a generic defense of liberalism

"liberals can't oppose abuses (torture, being held years without a trial, the "ghost prisoner" phenomenon, people being released for lack of evidence) at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo without supporting terrorists or minimizing 9/11"

can they actually?

in the reams of ink spilled in the liberal press, I've seen far more gut level outrage over Abu Ghaib than 9/11.

When did the personages who wrote in to defend Chessman band together to demand the imprisonment of a rapist to protect future victims?

"Of course this kind of logic takes itself to its natural conclusion with KA's Godwin; one can't think a bad thought about Israeli settlements without metamorphosing into a Nazi. The circle is complete."

Since Godwin's are the very personification of strawmen and you just created a strawman for KA... the circle is indeed complete

"There is a difference between supporting a convicted criminal IN SPITE of their guilt and in contesting that they are guilty in the first place."

which motivated the defense of Caryl Chessman or the terrorists at Gitmo?

"I agree, but the problem is determining exactly who IS evil, and what the appropriate action to take against them is. Just because you or the government say a certain person is evil and that justifies doing whatever you want to them does not make it so. That is part of the issue involved in the torture debates. Surely torturing innocent people counts as "evil"?"

This isn't about the government. (Though these same liberals were perfectly happy when the government was run by the Clinton administration and was busy telling them that the Serbs and the militias were evil.)

This is about condemning clear and blatant acts of evil and taking action against the perpetrators. We're not talking about some ambiguous cases. We had Senator Patty Murray praising Osama's social policies shortly after 9/11 and we've got Democratic congressman fighting over who can go do photo ops with dictators first right now.

Friar Yid said...

I've ignored your specific case because I have nothing to say about it- I could care less about Chessman. It's your argument as it applies to a larger attack ON liberalism (and reflected in the comments here) that I actually care about.

in the reams of ink spilled in the liberal press, I've seen far more gut level outrage over Abu Ghaib than 9/11.

First, the fact that you're analyzing a bunch of different responses from people makes any single explanation an oversimplification at best, and I'm sure you're aware of this. Second, I can think of a number of reasons why this may be so without liberals thinking 9/11 was just hunky dory.

These include: the length of time since the attack occurred, the fact that all of the hijackers were killed and it took us a prolonged period of time to get our hands on acceptable substitutes (and even now, it doesn't seem to have quite worked; people don't seem to get as worked up about KSM as OBL, who we still can't fine), and, most importantly, the fact that our own government is behind these controversial and problematic actions- I for one don't find it that surprising that human rights folks (who may indeed have their own biases) want to hold the US to a different standard than Al Qaeda.

Americans being involved in things like unlawful detention or torture is a substantially different issue than an unprovoked terrorist attack, particularly as the war on terror has become more problematic and less popular. For one thing, it evokes shame. There was nothing to be ashamed of on 9/11- we weren't responsible. While some the left (and now the right- see D'Souza's new bit of mental masturbation) claimed that we had somehow "earned" it through US foreign policies, I do not believe they spoke for all or even most liberals, certainly not in the first few months after 9/11.

Since Godwin's are the very personification of strawmen and you just created a strawman for KA... the circle is indeed complete

I see her comment above in black and white. It looks like a straight-line argument to me. People who show mercy to "monsters"- does this include people opposing Abu Ghraib?- are the same type of people who joined the Nazi Party and Peace Now. Tell me what I'm missing.

"There is a difference between supporting a convicted criminal IN SPITE of their guilt and in contesting that they are guilty in the first place."

which motivated the defense of Caryl Chessman or the terrorists at Gitmo?


The little I know about Chessman from a Google search says that, as in the more recent case of Tookie Williams (and Mumia), he continually maintained his innocence, and therefore his supporters were arguing that they did not believe he was actually guilty in the first place, and had been falsely convicted. As I said, this is substantially different from defending a confessed criminal whom you actually believe to be guilty.

As I understand it, there have been a number of different arguments used on behalf of detainees at Gitmo- some people are claiming that some of those prisoners have been unjustly detained without cause (which the release of some without charges seems to support). Others are simply contesting issues like treatment (torture, for instance) or issues with getting due process, which don't pertain to guilt either way. (Of course there's the issue of coerced confessions via torture.) Obviously, the fact that there are several hundred prisoners involved obviously complicates the issue of exactly of what people are protesting when they say they're "anti-Gitmo".

This is about condemning clear and blatant acts of evil and taking action against the perpetrators.

And in cases where such determinations are ACTUALLY clear, I support taking action, though perhaps not to the same degree as yourself (torture, specifically, is very problematic for me). However that is not what people opposed to Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, or Chessman or Williams, are arguing against, and you are misrepresenting them. You can accuse them of being gullible fools and decry their poor powers of observation, but you can't claim that they think evil is "good." That's simply not their argument. Rather, they contest that the people involved are actually evil, which is a totally different issue. Even Pelosi meeting with Assad- either she's doing so because she thinks he isn't that bad (which makes her stupid), or she thinks he's bad but will respond better to negotiation than force (which may be incorrect, but isn't inherently impossible- Israel's been using this tack for years on the sidelines), or she may just be being pragmatic, like Bush has with the Saudis. There's three easy possibilities which don't involve Pelosi thinking evil is a good thing.

Lemon Lime Moon said...

It is useless to fight the Sultan.
He will win and turn us all to the right!!!

Friar Yid (not Shlita) said...

Lemon- I've got a better chance of converting to Islam and changing my name to Saladin than "turning to the right", though Sultan does do a good job of keeping me intellectually honest in regards to the Dems.

Sultan Knish said...

if you have nothing to say about then we're reduced to vague generalities

I've followed the press regularly and I see genuine outrage when it comes to America from liberals, I see little to no outrage about terrorists murdering Americans (never mind Israelis)

It isn't about the length of time. Open up a paper and see how today's attack on US soldiers is reported, vs a crime committed by American soldiers.

It isn't about shame, because other countries and continents where terrorism is suffered get little to no sympathy as well, while their actions against terrorism are condemned.

"I see her comment above in black and white. It looks like a straight-line argument to me. People who show mercy to "monsters"- does this include people opposing Abu Ghraib?- are the same type of people who joined the Nazi Party and Peace Now. Tell me what I'm missing."

You're missing the fact that she never said every member of peace now is the equivalent of a Nazi. What she said was that people who sympathize with evil will use such places and organizations as outlets

and considering david duke climbing on board the palestinian cause, that's not too far fetched

Friar Yid said...

if you have nothing to say about then we're reduced to vague generalities

You used a specific example as a springboard for a general attack on liberalism as a political philosophy. I think my arguments for why you're wrong were specific enough.

I've followed the press regularly and I see genuine outrage when it comes to America from liberals, I see little to no outrage about terrorists murdering Americans (never mind Israelis)

That wasn't my experience following 9/11. Of course, I also tried to actively disengage from the news afterwards, so I'm probably not the best person to give an in-depth analysis of the post-attack coverage.

It isn't about the length of time. Open up a paper and see how today's attack on US soldiers is reported, vs a crime committed by American soldiers.

Wrong application of the time argument. At this point liberals (and a fair share of conservatives) oppose large parts of the war on terror, at least partially because of the mess in Iraq, which has come to dominate the focus of what the war is about and where the primary front is. The fact that many liberals feel the war was not justified in the first place leads to a further poisoning of the well. I'm saying that this is a different attitude than the one many liberals had shortly following 9/11, and that the length of time since that attack, as well as all the things that have happened since then (including the war in Iraq, not finding OBL and various government blunders and abuses) have contributed to this change. The liberal response to casualties in Iraq is the way it is now because of everything that's happened (and, in their eyes, gone wrong) since 2001.

It isn't about shame, because other countries and continents where terrorism is suffered get little to no sympathy as well, while their actions against terrorism are condemned.

I would argue the opposite; that this is an extension of the shame argument, particularly when the countries in question are American allies and are perceived as acting under American direction or pressure. The secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe come to mind. And I would also say that the responses are more fluid than you allow, depending on the situation. I would argue liberals are more likely to give the governments the benefit of the doubt after a credible threat has been demonstrated (London bombings) than they are after a high-profile botch/outrage (Brits shooting unarmed man dead in subway which, with two years afterwards, still has no official explanation). This seems fairly logical to me, particularly when distrust of government-provided information is relatively high. As sad as it is to say, an attack does demonstrate that there are in fact people trying to kill you, whereas you may be much less likely at this point to merely take the government's word for it that they've foiled another attack, particularly when you may not get any further information about the case, not even if the suspects go to prison or, say, are released for lack of evidence. The lack of information leads to a lack of trust, particularly, IMO, in the US. At this point no liberals have any intention of taking Bush's word for anything, because he's so routinely lied and weaseled through his teeth. Why would they?

You're missing the fact that she never said every member of peace now is the equivalent of a Nazi. What she said was that people who sympathize with evil will use such places and organizations as outlets

Funny, it looks to me like she said "people who show mercy to monsters become monsters"- i.e, people who sympathize with terrorists (or Palestinians, same dif, right), like Peace Now are effectively monsters, and the type of people who join Peace Now would have joined the Nazis. Are you claiming that KA is differentiating between well-meaning (just deluded) people in these organizations and actual evil-lovers who infiltrate them and turn them to their own end? If so, please show me where this is. I'm no good at these verbal magic-eye things.

and considering david duke climbing on board the palestinian cause, that's not too far fetched

Let's all play guilt by association! Let's see, the Revisionists in Israel once said the only thing they didn't like about Hitler was his antisemitism, and Lehi famously tried to forge a fascist alliance with the Third Reich. Clearly, then, Begin and Shamir were no different from Himmler, right?

Oh wait.

Sultan Knish said...

"Wrong application of the time argument. At this point liberals (and a fair share of conservatives) oppose large parts of the war on terror,"

How does that translate into not being outraged at the murder of US troops?

Show me an article from a liberal collumnist genuinely outraged at the terrorists murdering US soldiers in Iraq. I'd generally like to see one because I haven't seen one yet.

I've seen thousands outraged at Bush, at the troops themselves and at Israel and at Sean Hannity, etc etc etc

There might be some possibly from embedded reporters, back in the early days, but I've yet to see one.

I saw little outrage post 9/11 either, I saw confusion as liberals struggled with rejecting patriotism and War on Terror, while still feeling bad about the attacks

I saw on the same bloody day of the attacks, people writing up slogans in Union Square Park against a war that hadn't even happened yet. I saw posters two days later clamoring that a war against the Taliban would be wrong and the whole thing was a CIA conspiracy anyway.

"I would argue the opposite; that this is an extension of the shame argument, particularly when the countries in question are American allies and are perceived as acting under American direction or pressure."

Which is a nice conspiracy theory that effectively enables any country dealing with terrorism to be swept under the rug as an American puppet. This was actually an argument dating from the Cold War by the Europe and Anti-American left.

"At this point no liberals have any intention of taking Bush's word for anything, because he's so routinely lied and weaseled through his teeth. Why would they?"

When did they ever take his word? I'm no fan of the Bush admin, but all I've seen for eight years or so now, is endless screaming against Bush, day after tedious day, until even the choir has tuned it out, helping to explain why the Air America project went nowhere.

Liberal politicians have had to make some appearances in the past, but all I've seen is a repeated insistence that if Clinton or Gore were in power, none of this would have 'magically' happened somehow

"People who show mercy to monsters like this ultimately become monsters in their own right."

What she said is that sympathy toward evil, leads to evil. It doesn't mean anyone who sympathizes with evil immediately becomes a Nazi. It does mean they wind up joining ideologies that empathize with and gain a mindset that justifies evil.

Pro-peace advocates quickly find ways to justify terrorism and attack any means of fighting against it. It's a short hop to actively supporting it, as with the case of Tali Fahima.

Or, "Ho Ho Ho Chi Min is Gonna Win."

"Let's all play guilt by association! Let's see, the Revisionists in Israel once said the only thing they didn't like about Hitler was his antisemitism, and Lehi famously tried to forge a fascist alliance with the Third Reich. Clearly, then, Begin and Shamir were no different from Himmler, right?"

You're thinking of Lehi, which was a small splinter group, the Revisionists supported the war effort, with David Raziel, then head, died on a British mission against the Germans.

Beitar members made up a sizable portion of the fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto and throughout Europe.

And even Lehi was trying to negotiate the rescue of Jews in exchange for an alliance with a pre-Holocaust Germany, which mainly seemed to be trying to get rid of the Jews, while the British in Israel were actively killing them via Arab proxies.

This is rather different than the Brown-Red alliance in left wing circles today, which is very much a real thing, and is actually frustrating any number of activists on the left.

Friar Yid said...

I saw little outrage post 9/11 either, I saw confusion as liberals struggled with rejecting patriotism and War on Terror, while still feeling bad about the attacks.

For the sake of my own sanity, I decided to pick just one paper to search through. I hope the SF Chronicle is liberal enough for you.

This op-ed calls for getting tough on terrorists.

This editorial supports Bush's plan to follow terrorist money trails.

This piece calls OBL a callous fanatic and condemns him for not giving a shit about Americans or Afghans.

This one defends journalistic bias and says that American journalists shouldn't fall prey to "uber-objectivity".

As to your talk of "rejecting patriotism and the War on Terror"- I won't contest that some liberals did indeed do this. However I think you're also missing the nuance in their message. Take a look at the column from a self-described "troubled peacenik"- he doesn't attack the war (or the troops, or Bush), and he doesn't reject patriotism. He does say that he's alarmed by the automatic response of wanting to punish people regardless of whether you've got the right people in your cross-hairs. Worrying about whether your country is going to do the right thing is not the same thing as rejecting patriotism.

"Let's all play guilt by association! Let's see, the Revisionists in Israel once said the only thing they didn't like about Hitler was his antisemitism, and Lehi famously tried to forge a fascist alliance with the Third Reich. Clearly, then, Begin and Shamir were no different from Himmler, right?"

You're thinking of Lehi, which was a small splinter group, the
Revisionists supported the war effort, with David Raziel, then head, died on a British mission against the Germans.


Check again. I said Lehi above. Incidentally, the quote in question was from the 30s in a Revisionist newspaper in Palestine before the killing had begun. But if we're going to play "poisoning the well", there you are- the Revisionists wanted to have Hitler's fascist love-child in the mid-30s.

Beitar members made up a sizable portion of the fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto and throughout Europe.

Making the fact that Revisionists in Israel were initially enamored of Hitler's fascism all the more disturbing.

And even Lehi was trying to negotiate the rescue of Jews in
exchange for an alliance with a pre-Holocaust Germany, which mainly seemed to be trying to get rid of the Jews, while the British in Israel were actively killing them via Arab proxies.

This is rather different than the Brown-Red alliance in left wing
circles today, which is very much a real thing, and is actually
frustrating any number of activists on the left.


I'd argue the exact opposite; while their initial proposal was merely to "take the Jews off the Germans' hands", their 1941
proposal
to attack British forces in exchange for German support of a totalitarian Jewish state seems like a pretty clear attempt at an actual alliance. Again, per the rules of guilt by association, this is fair game. I doubt I'd see such nitpicking going on if we were to play this game with Peace Now.

Sultan Knish said...

those op eds first of all don't represent outrage, mostly they represent statements that we should get tough on the terrorists

the kind of outrage and anger we saw over abu ghaib is lacking

secondly, at a casual glance, sofaer is not on the SF Gate staff, he's a former bush white house guy who wrote an op ed

that covers both your top op eds

the wallace piece is fairly blank, aside from an emphatic first paragraph, it's not bad, but it's certainly not outrage

fourth piece, Vicki Haddock isn't bad but that's because a lot of her piece skew conservative

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/17/INGEJL45D11.DTL&type=printable

you'd have done a lot better quoting say nick cohen

as for lehi, it was a tiny splinter group of a splinter group and their goal each time in talking with the germans involved getting jews out, there's a pretty obvious motivation behind that, if lehi had been genuinely sympathetic to the nazis, why bother getting the jews out?

jews who were genuinely sympathetic to the nazis would have been prepared to collaborate with them in killing jews

as for the larger body of revisionists, there was an overlap between various nationalist movements, which included fascist ones, e.g. mussolini

nazism was not actually a nationalist movement in that same vein, it just got its start that way, it also posed as a socialist movement, a movement for worker's rights and a christian movement and as a result was admired by christians, socialists, nationalists etc

there's no confusion today over what neo-nazis represent

Karmasura said...

Hey Sultan.. while this is very well documented that liberals have an urge to defend the evil.. do we know why this is happening??

What leads to such a quixotic behavior from the liberals?? It would be interesting to know your thoughts on this.

Sultan Knish said...

I've written about that on a number of occasions, most recently here

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2008/12/only-moderately-evil.html

or here

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2008/08/dont-shoot-we-surrender.html

HermitLion said...

I'm amazed that this obnoxious man actually stopped responding at some point. I thought he'd never shut up!

Somehow, with his type, the more wrong they are, the longer the posts become. In a war of verbose attrition, you didn't duck a single blow, Sultan - my hat's off to you!

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Thanks. These days I know better than to waste my time this way.

ericcs said...

Admittedly I am coming late to this article, which I found as a link from 05-26-13. Nonetheless, I find the posts from leftist 'Friar Yid' to be fascinating. He spends his time splitting hairs about motivations from the left, meanwhile completely avoiding the stinking, rotten reality-based results of leftist activity no matter what their avowed intentions. For that avoidance, and that alone, he and his ilk are truly irredeemably evil.

Post a Comment