You hit it right about "Mein Kampf."

People speak of Hitler's blueprint and suggest "Mein Kampf" is something that should have alerted humanity to Hitler's desire to rule the world. Yet, if one goes to the library and actually reads it, it is mainly Hitler unbounded anger at target groups.

Marx does not write with the kind of vitriol that Hitler does. Disagree, or not, Marx lays out his ideas. Hitler lays out his hates. Making sure that no issue comes from the womb of someone he detests, is the Hitlerian view of things. Enemies of the Reich did include homosexuals and there was the view expressed in "Triumph of the Will" that a certain group was destined to rule and right in their desire to sterilize and kill those who they believed were inferior.

I have watched Nazis and neo-Nazis and Nazis-in-training erupt into terrible tirades - that the world will be better when people of a certain genetic background are exterminated, or people with sexual desires, that make the Nazi feel uncomfortable, are prevented from expressing themselves.

The United States achieved moral leadership in the post-World War Two era when its leaders argued the policy that our government would not tolerate intolerance. It staked out the high ground of liberty.

As I said in an earlier essay, Reagan turned Marx on his side, when Reagan said government has never created anything. That's is what Marx said of capitalism.

Corporations are concentrating more and more, into less and less - or at least fewer and fewer. As corporations squeeze out workers in the name of efficiency, they undercut the very consumers would could/would buy from the corporations. Looking for new consumers, the corporation have their own expansionist policies to seek new markets as they have squeezed dry their existing markets in order to create more capital - which at the leading business schools is called "capital formation."

Where the hatred comes in is at this point. The group the squeezes workers out of jobs justifies itself that it is doing this to "welfare shirkers," "liberals," "gays," and others who are not worthy to breath the oxygen of this planet.

We have seen it in history. I recall remarking, once, how beautiful Paris is. My host quipped. "Yes. We attacked every nation around and looted them and with that kind of money, its easy to build a city like this." Same with Hitler's Reich. It's a kind of Attila the Hun mentality that in the two prior centuries was called imperialism. And, this behavior was also called "white man's burden." In this concept, the burden of the white man is to subjugate another people and take their resources away. It is even known as "Gunboat Diplomacy" and Reagan loved the buckaroo image of America and sold it to a generation of people too young to know to the horror of war and so undereducated that they did not look into what imperialism really is.

Part of every dictatorship or imperialistic expansion is helped by creating a "national enemy." Reagan trotted out "godless Communism." Would it have been nearly so horrible had it been "Christian Communism?"

It was essential to attack other nations in the war on terrorism, otherwise people would be all dressed up with nowhere to go. Afghanistan was not enough. Iraq was needed and Sadam was hated and so the hating binge begins.

Progressives, however, have logic on their side and as far as debating the right wing, we must avoid getting into the yelling matches that are part of beer hall politics and tradition As a friend once said, "never get into a farting contest with a horse's ass." or horse's "Rsassy."

Matsu