Peter- Thanks for posting this column. I sent it in a few days ago. You are aware, of course, that Hanson is a right-wing Darwinist and his take is all about skin color rather than ideology?

It's not '38--it's '45.

Same as it ever was. From Rebecca West's Black Lamb and Gray Falcon (some of this was quoted over at volokh a couple of months back):

They had lost all sense that it is sometimes necessary to fight for one's life; and many children born in the decade after the Great War can never have heard a word from their parents and teachers which suggested that their country had or could have been actuated by any motive except stupid and credulous jingoism in taking up arms in 1914. The idea of self-preservation was as jealously hidden from the young as the facts of sex had been in earlier ages. Thus England, not a perverse left-wing England that cared not what price it paid so long as it brought down the established order of society in ruins, but conservative, mediocre England, put itself in a position of insecurity unique in history 'by raising a generation of young men to whom the idea of defending their nation was repugnant not so much by reason of the danger involved (though indeed they were nom often instructed in fear as in other times boys had been instructed in courage) as because they could not believe it would in any circumstances be necessary. Since every day Germany and Italy were, formulating in more definite and vehement terms that they meant to vanquish and annihilate England, it was amazing that it should have been possible to enclose them in the magic sphere of this illusion. It would, of course, be comprehensible had they been drugged by sensual indulgence or grown careless of honour; but never had the mass of the people been more sober, and law-abiding, and restrained, never had they been so anxious for honourable dealings between class and class and between nation and nation.

oj- Your goose-stepping Hezbollahite Shia are certainly 1938 retro.

Here we see further cause to appreciate the brilliance of the United States in having erected Israel as our regional tripwire and our hostage to hegemony.

After that master stroke, whenever a latter-day appeaser suggests abandoning our geopolitical interests in exchange for the fool's promise of peace for our time, the still powerful "never again" call reverberates,and the black umbrellas are cast aside.

Seriously now, does anyone suggest that the Czech lobby would have successfully kept us in the great game if the Czech Republic was being threatened for all these years with being pushed into the sea by the Palestinian "right of return?"

It so happens that supporting Israel is the right thing to do; it is a tribute to American strategic acumen that it is also the smart thing to do.

Mr. Stamford (and VDH) are correct, it is 1938. I must have sat here for 30 minutes how this could possibly be close to the situation we had in '45 and could not come up with one.

oj - do you have any logic in your reasoning? Almost every day for the past few months you have written something so far out in left field I don't know if you're joking or not.

Have you read Kurtz article on NRO? How about Warrens piece on RCP?

I am optimistic about everything as much as the next guy but not any longer. I can not find one shred of thing to be optimistic about in this current situation. That is why we are closer to '38 than to '45.

Iraq - Getting worse. Read blogs by people who live there who used to be very optimistic and now are not. Iran is turning the place into Lebanon. '45...no way.

Just as it was wrong to give Stalin a free hand in 1945, it would be a disaster for the Shia if we pretend that Nasrallah and al Sadr are their legitimate representatives.

I guess the big question is this - do Iran's leaders believe the apocalyptic rhetoric coming out of their President's mouth, or is he a distraction loosed upon the world to gain diplomatic & military initiative without an ultimate showdown? OJ bets on the latter, and I don't know enough to say for sure. Sooner or later the West's handicapping itself by not attacking Iran/Syria (instead of their proxies) will hurt us.

Just substitute Daniel Ortega and Nicaragua and Sandanistas as appropriate, and his cheerleading for Islamic authoritarianism sounds like it comes directly from the playbook of Leftist apologists back in 1985.

Almost every day for the past few months you have written something so far out in left field I don't know if you're joking or not.

It's getting to the point where you wonder if the Evil Twin Brother is really running the show, and even then has nothing better to do than troll his own weblog. (Which might explain why all the trolls have long gone, they knew they couldn't compete with a master...)

BJW:

No. The Darwinist Right isn't capable of meaningful analysis. They hate Islam for the same reason they oppose immigration.

Tom:

Assume for the sake of argument that they are a similar threat--in the years following '38 we fought. After '45 it was all appeasement (or detente as we chose to call it instead).

Bruce:

Neither. He's an accident and only a temporary one.

The Sandinistas were rationalists and lasted a predictably short time as a result. They couldn't withstand voters.

Shi'ism is true and an excellent basis for a decent society which is why it's endured for 1400 years and has a future.

oj-

They're not a similar threat. They're backward, primitives. It would be nice not to see too many of them blindly walk into their own destruction. The world has become compact. Jihadi's are insane. One insane man can create unimaginable havoc with funding while on a 'divine' mission to kill. Allah has spoken and they are listening.

The Sandanista's had as much misplaced confidence in their 'rationalism' without faith as the jihadi's have in their faith without reason.

Regarding the title - the lamps went out in 1914. The 'darkness' in 1938 had been there a long time.

Of course, to an appeaser, the glint of white from a tyrant's eyes or teeth probably looks like the noonday sun.