Let's not forget that much of American opper class society was virulently anti-Semitic during this period; there were many hotels, resorts, and country clubs with a “no Jews, Blacks, or Dogs” policy. This persists to this day in certain upper-class clubs even in such “enlightened” major cities such as Los Angeles, where one mayor was denied the traditional honorary membership in the Jonathan Club because he was black. The other major elite club, the California Club, had a no Jewish members policy until relatively recently. Jews had, in fact, to start their own country clubs in order to play tennis and golf, and socialize. I, myself, as a senior executive of a major oil company, would have been automatically accepted as a member of those two key Los Angeles clubs, but was not because I was Jewish.

Despite a veneer of liberalism,antisemitism is still alive and well in America's upper classes to this day; this is no long-dead historical artifact. And it has nothi8ng to do with Israel.

As for the answer to your question: just look in the mirror, and ask it. Then come back and post your response; I'd genuinely like to know.

Thanks for your vital contribution. I'm sure we're all the richer for it.

It's worth reflecting on the popularity of fascism on the “best” American college campuses in the 1930s. Eugenics certainly played a role. The desire for peace at any costs was another.

The ideas of the Third Reich can be exemplified in a single statement: “We have to be strong enough to live in contradictions;” a quote by Arthur Moeller van den Bruk. The first group to back Hitler was the university professors, and it was through education that the people accepted Nazism as the surrender of I to thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.

Piekoff introduces the idea that Nazism took root in Germany as the result of generations of philosophers promoting the principles of Plato. He puts forward the notion that from Plato comes the driving thrust for collectivism and the subsequent evolution of thought that an individual must surrender himself to the State. He draws contrast between Plato and Aristotle and creates a Yin and Yang argument, yet in the introduction spends the majority of his argument on the Patio heritage. He summarizes the basic argument of prominent German philosophers Kant and Hegal. Each philosopher provides an interpretation of Plato, which unconsciously clouds his argument when attempting to put the Aristotle school of logic as the viable alternative. Of which leaves the reader on 2004 pondering a “third way” or possibly a balance between the two or finally the urge for a little cherry picking of both.

I believe it is worth pointing out that many readers will find their own foundations challenged in the beginning. But completing the book is a must. My personal reaction at the beginning of the book; vested largely on 48 years of surrender to the whole, due to the experience of learning through discovery, and that the premise for which I based my logic was errant; which then draws on the selfless character espoused in Plato and flies in the face of Aristotle. However the intriguing element of the book is not in the individual analysis but in the connection of philosophy to politics as he applies ethics and to social questions. So while the reader may have an induced undercurrent of his own individual views of I, he is compelled by the notion that one not only could surrender to society but also to a supreme ruler, right or wrong in his philosophy. To see where the larger picture is going as Piekoff leads you through the history of western philosophy to provide a lesson for today. The challenge is to look at history through the lens of philosophy and analyze of the minds of leading men put into practice. If ethics is adherence to laws we cannot enforce and politics is a construct of ethics on a scalable social playing field; then how does one discern an absolute aspect of truth through cognitive reasoning when the author requires the absence of the observer in the reality equation? Piekoff with the aid of history makes a very good argument in answering this question.

In a caption: The Fuhrer did this by the uniting of god's representative(s) with the nihilism of a Machiavellian skeptic, and a new phenomena, new at least in its brazen openness, enters the world scene: the absolute of the moment, or the immutable which never stands still, issued at an omniscience that ceaselessly changes its mind.

Some of America's greatest leaders were not intellectuals. George Washington is a case in point.

We've got a nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host here in our area who reminds his listeners almost nightly about the degrees he has earned. After a while, I've got wonder why? He certainly has no need to engage in this exercise.