Although I am not even remotely an historian, I believe
I actually could help you understand this chronology, if you
had any real interest in understanding it.  However, I am
not very interested in your rhetorical tactic of changing
the topic.  I also think that simply reminding you to reread
Flaubert's Parrot would better serve both of our interests.
Additionally, before allowing myself to be so baited,
I believe I should wait for you to give a real response the
points in my post.  My primary interest in the response you
gave so far is that it manifests Godwin's Law and fails to
acknowledge Hanlon's razor.

I will however ask a couple additional questions.  Sticking
with your chosen Mises text (Liberalism), despite its more
polemical than academic rhetoric, would you claim that in
this text there is support for fascism as an ideal form of
government? (If you do want to make such a claim, I hope you
will start by providing a recognizable definition of
fascism.) Second, since an understanding of the proper role
of government is definitely promoted in this text, will you
claim that that understanding is compatible with fascism?
Finally, turning now to the chronological approach that you
favor, will you claim that at the time it was simply
benighted to see the Russian revolution as a threat to
"civilization" and "property"?

Alan



On 5/21/2014 7:09 AM, Robert Leeson wrote:
> Using chronology, rather than Miesean deductive logic, could Alan explain:
> 1919: Romanov-ennobled fascists - or white terrorists, as
> they were then known - liquidated 100,000 Jews.
> 1925: "At the beginning of the war, or even during the
> war, if 12,000 or 15,000 of these Jews who were corrupting
> the nation had been forced to submit to poison gas ...
> then the millions of sacrifices made at the front would
> not have been in vain.”
> 1927: "It cannot be denied" that "fascists" - including
> "Ludendorff and Hitler" - will protect "civilisation" and
> "property" (von Mises_Liberalism_  1985 [1927]).