Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

New Political Spectrum?

Old 01-11-08, 06:34 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,921
New Political Spectrum?

Just read a review of the new book by Jonah Goldberg called Liberal Fascism:


Liberal Fascism

The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning

Written by Jonah Goldberg
Political Science - Political Ideologies - Fascism & Totalitarianism | Doubleday | Hardcover | January 2008 | $27.95 | 978-0-385-51184-1 (0-385-51184-1)

About this Book


“Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers”—such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?

Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism.

http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday...=9780385511841

*************************

Anyways, in Daniel Pipes review of the book:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5355

He mentions that the author suggests a new political spectrum:

"These facts jar because they contradict the political spectrum that has shaped our worldview since the late 1930s, which places communism at the far Left, followed by socialism, liberalism in the center, conservatism, and then fascism on the far Right.....His revised political spectrum would focus on the role of the state and go from libertarianism to conservatism to fascism in its many guises – American, Italian, German, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, and so on."

As I'm not a libertarian, I still fall somewhere near the middle of this new political spectrum, like I do on the currently accepted one---but this new one seems much more logical to me. Opinions?
Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 01-11-08, 06:41 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,971
It sounds to me like it's very much like this one:



It's not new, it was developed by libertarians and it's been around for decades.
movielib is offline  
Old 01-11-08, 06:43 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,466
Still sounds like a straight line to me. But I agree that the 2-dimensional spectrum shown above better reflects the complete spectrum.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 01-11-08, 06:47 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,971
Originally Posted by Red Dog
Still sounds like a straight line to me. But I agree that the 2-dimensional spectrum shown above better reflects the complete spectrum.
You're probably right. Goldberg apparently puts the liberals in with the fascists.

But I'd sure like the one in Post #2 to be accepted as the norm.
movielib is offline  
Old 01-11-08, 06:51 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,921
Originally Posted by movielib
It sounds to me like it's very much like this one:



It's not new, it was developed by libertarians and it's been around for decades.

I do like that one.
Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 01-11-08, 09:16 PM
  #6  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,002
First Islamo Fascists, now Liberal Fascists. Protect your children folks.
VinVega is offline  
Old 01-11-08, 11:23 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,063
Originally Posted by VinVega
First Islamo Fascists, now Liberal Fascists. Protect your children folks.
If I had children, I'd be mroe concerned about protecting them from Jonah Goldberg.
JasonF is offline  
Old 01-12-08, 07:28 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,921
Originally Posted by Vandelay_Inds
Second, if you really get to the root of the matter, to the fundamental conception of society, both Stalin and Hitler share infinitely more than Reagan and Mussolini, one of whose many mottos was "everything within the state; nothing outside the state".
And that's also why I don't like the current political spectrum. While there may be differences of nationalism vs. internationalism and race vs. class, communism and fascism are simply not polar opposites--they share most of the fundamental concepts in regards to the organization of society and economy and the role of the state in guiding those.
Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 01-12-08, 08:15 AM
  #9  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 26,215
Originally Posted by JasonF
If I had children, I'd be mroe concerned about protecting them from Jonah Goldberg.

Why?
Pharoh is offline  
Old 01-12-08, 09:12 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 18,880
Originally Posted by Pharoh
Why?
Cause he's a neocon asshole?
Jason is offline  
Old 01-12-08, 10:20 AM
  #11  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 26,215
Originally Posted by Jason
Cause he's a neocon asshole?


Yeah, that must be it.


By the way, since I don't know, and you are obviously very familiar with, what are Mr. Goldberg's views on the positive lingering effects of the 60s counter culture on social policy?
Pharoh is offline  
Old 01-12-08, 10:23 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 18,880
Originally Posted by Pharoh
Yeah, that must be it.


By the way, since I don't know, and you are obviously very familiar with, what are Mr. Goldberg's views on the positive lingering effects of the 60s counter culture on social policy?
I think it has something to do with "all hippies must die"
Jason is offline  
Old 01-12-08, 10:26 AM
  #13  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,978
Here's a column that he wrote several years ago. I especially love the bolded part at the end:


http://article.nationalreview.com/pr...Y3MzY0NjkxNzY=

January 05, 2001, 4:00 p.m.

Springtime For Slanderers

Who are you calling a Nazi?

By Jonah Goldberg


In South Africa, we call it apartheid. In Nazi Germany, we'd call it fascism. Here in the United States, we call it conservatism,” said Jesse Jackson years ago. There’s no evidence that he’s changed his mind. During the Florida mess he accused Bush of “Nazi tactics” and suggested that Jeb Bush was deliberately targeting Holocaust victims, “once again.”

This reveals the fundamental psychological defect of the Left today: a failure of the imagination. I’m not trying to excuse these people; but I honestly think they mean it. One of the reasons I’ve reached this conclusion is that some readers of my syndicated columns defending Ashcroft — but especially some newly arrived liberal readers of NRO — seem sincere when they call John Ashcroft a Nazi and me a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer.

Now, clearly tensions are running high over Ashcroft and the fallout over Florida. More importantly, Nazism and the Holocaust are hardly joking matters. So let me be very careful in how I talk about this.

If you honestly think John Ashcroft or elected Republicans in general are Nazis, then you are either a moron of ground-shaking proportions or you are so daft that you shouldn’t be allowed to play with grown-up scissors. And, just to be clear: To all of those people I’ve corresponded with on this topic over the last few weeks, I am talking about you. I’m also referring to those like-minded chaps who were never able to write me because they electrocuted themselves while trying to type e-mail in the bathtub. But they too were idiots.

Why are they idiots? Because they, like the Leftist core of the Democratic party, cannot tell the difference between someone saying, “You can’t have a free car” and someone running people down with his car. They don’t understand that opposing preferential treatment for some minorities or advocating colorblindness in government programs is not the same thing as calling for the restoration of Jim Crow or slavery. They don’t understand that cutting off some entitlement is not a pogrom and that good and honest people can oppose egalitarian agendas without being fascists. And, they do not understand that something can be constitutionally permissible and morally wrong and/or illegal (though I know a few conservatives who struggle with this from time to time too).

My first major lesson in this phenomenon came when I was a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute at the time The Bell Curve came out. Murray, the coauthor of the book and an AEI scholar, was treated to a shellacking in the national press that has not been replicated since. Television networks introduced their segments by showing clips of Hitler screaming and mobs sieg-heiling at Nuremberg rallies. He was called a eugenicist and fascist in code — and in plain language — a thousand times over. His book pointed out a fact that the most entrenched liberals consider sacred scripture — that there are inequalities between the races-but he differed from orthodoxy on the causes and solutions. It is the wonder of liberal double standards that it is racist to say there are differences between the races and it is racist to say there aren’t.

Now, one may not agree with every conclusion in Murray’s book (though I guarantee that 99% of those who say Murray’s a racist, etc., haven’t the first clue as to what he actually wrote), but there’s simply nothing in there that would draw one to conclude he’s a Nazi. I know, like, and respect Murray a great deal but, sadly, he’s a soaked-to-the-bone libertarian. He believes everything from government-run garbage collecting to federal mandates requiring mattress tags are examples of the tyrannical overreach of the U.S. government. And yet Murray’s critics didn’t blink at saying he advocated herding people into camps for mass sterilizations.

Since then I’ve kept a mental file of those who think reducing the role, size, and power of the federal government is synonymous with, or code for, implementing a totalitarian regime.

Just a few of my favorite examples:

* During the debates over the Contract with America Rep. John Lewis read Martin Niemoller's timeless speech about the Nazi takeover: "They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews ... trade unionists ... Catholics ... Protestants ..." And then with all the gravity he could muster he said, “Read the Republican contract. They are coming for the children. They are coming for the poor. They are coming for the sick, the elderly, and the disabled.”


* In addition to his comments that Bush used Nazi tactics and that Jeb targeted Holocaust survivors all over again, Jesse Jackson also said that he saw little to no difference between the Dred Scott case (which upheld slavery) and the Supreme Court decision stopping the Florida recounts.


* Remember Ted Kennedy denouncing Robert Bork? He said that in Robert Bork’s America “…blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids.” In 1987, People for the American Way ran ads saying that Bork favored “mass sterilization” and Gregory Peck hosted a commercial suggesting Bork favored restoring literacy tests and the poll tax.

Now, I know the “Contract with America” cut taxes and shifted various social-welfare entitlements to the states. But maybe I missed the Leni Riefenstahl film that depicted Hitler calling for more local autonomy for Bavarian welfare programs or lower income taxes; that’s hardly the central tenet of the National Socialism I read about in college. As for Jackson’s comparison of the Dred Scott and recount cases, the only law school in America that would give this analysis a passing grade would also give you a free refrigerator-repair kit upon graduation. And as for all the stuff they threw at Bork, well, that buffoonery speaks for itself.

Of course, the smear that American conservatism is akin to Nazism is not new. Indeed, over 30 years ago, Gore Vidal, called William F. Buckley a “crypto-Nazi” on TV. To which Mr. Buckley, fed up with the slander, responded: “Now, listen you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in the goddamn face.”

Which brings up the appropriate response to such accusations. Calling someone a Nazi is as bad as calling them a “******” or a “****” or anything else you can think of. It’s not cute. It’s not funny. And it’s certainly not clever. If you’re too stupid to understand that a philosophy that favors a federally structured republic, with numerous restraints on the scope and power of government to interfere with individual rights or the free market, is a lot different from an ethnic-nationalist, atheistic, and socialist program of genocide and international aggression, you should use this rule of thumb: If someone isn’t advocating the murder of millions of people in gas chambers and a global Reich for the White Man you shouldn’t assume he’s a Nazi and you should know it’s pretty damn evil to call him one.

However, if you’re not too stupid to recognize the difference, but you just think saying such things will get you more attention from the press, make you a hero to some constituency, or simply makes you sound impressive, than you deserve to be socked in the goddamn face.

And one last point I feel compelled to point out. I’ve never met a real social-welfare state leftist who could answer the following question without having to think real hard: “Aside from the murder and genocide, what exactly don’t you like about National Socialism?”

And I’ve never met a conservative who didn’t have an answer at his fingertips. So, who’s really closer to being a Nazi?
grundle is offline  
Old 01-12-08, 10:30 AM
  #14  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,978
Originally Posted by Ky-Fi
Nazis... believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage.

Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

Yep.

But this still doesn't stop people from wrongly claiming that the Nazis were "right wing." Even teachers make that bogus claim.
grundle is offline  
Old 01-12-08, 10:34 AM
  #15  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,978
Originally Posted by movielib
It sounds to me like it's very much like this one:



It's not new, it was developed by libertarians and it's been around for decades.

Yes. That chart places the fascists and communists in the same area, with very low scores on both axis.
grundle is offline  
Old 01-12-08, 12:01 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,063
Originally Posted by Pharoh
Why?
Because I find Mr. Goldberg's writings to be at bets insipid and at worst toxic -- the latest example being his recent piece on how "certain segments of American political life will become completely unhinged" if Senator Obama becomes the Deomcratic nominee and then doesn't win the election.
JasonF is offline  
Old 01-12-08, 12:09 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,063
Originally Posted by grundle
Yep.

But this still doesn't stop people from wrongly claiming that the Nazis were "right wing." Even teachers make that bogus claim.
Fascism is an authoritarian philosophy that aproaches authroitarianism from a rightist starting point, just as Stalinism and Maoism are authoritarian philosophies that approach authoritarianism from a leftist starting point. It's an oversimplification to call the former "right wing" and the latter "left wing," but it's also an oversimplification to dismiss the links that the philosophies have with the respective ends of the political spectrum. And it's a flat-out distortion to pretend that fascism in general and Nazism in particular wasn't a philosophy built on a right-wing base.

It's very popular among some people to pretend that "right wing" and "conservative" are synonyms for "individualism" and that "left wing" and "liberal" are synonyms for "collectivism." That's simply not true, however, and no amount of rhetoric from Mr. Goldberg will make it so.
JasonF is offline  
Old 01-12-08, 12:18 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,921
Originally Posted by JasonF
It's very popular among some people to pretend that "right wing" and "conservative" are synonyms for "individualism" and that "left wing" and "liberal" are synonyms for "collectivism." That's simply not true, however, and no amount of rhetoric from Mr. Goldberg will make it so.


To be fair, Goldberg's spectrum isn't based on all aspects of the various political ideologies---he's basing his spectrum on the role and power of the state. And in that sense, I think his logic is airtight--libertarians would be at one end of the spectrum, conservatives next, followed by liberals (who advocate a bigger role for government) and with communists and fascists on the far end of the spectrum. If you want to make an argument that the 'role of the state' is too narrow a criteria to base a political spectrum on, then fine (and movielib's spectrum might be a better alternative). But by its own definitions, I think Goldberg's spectrum is fair and logical.
Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 01-12-08, 12:27 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,063
Originally Posted by Ky-Fi
To be fair, Goldberg's spectrum isn't based on all aspects of the various political ideologies---he's basing his spectrum on the role and power of the state. And in that sense, I think his logic is airtight--libertarians would be at one end of the spectrum, conservatives next, followed by liberals (who advocate a bigger role for government) and with communists and fascists on the far end of the spectrum. If you want to make an argument that the 'role of the state' is too narrow a criteria to base a political spectrum on, then fine (and movielib's spectrum might be a better alternative). But by its own definitions, I think Goldberg's spectrum is fair and logical.
I don't agree that conservatives would be closer to libertarians than liberals. While every conservative is different, in general, conservatives support the war on drugs, believe one's sexuality is proper subject of state regulation, and think that to the extent individuals are receiving payment from the government (especially, but not exclusively, through welfare), that the government has a right (or even a responsibility) to dictate to the individual exactly how the money is spent.

This is not to say the left does not have its areas where it promotes state power over individualism. But I think it takes willful blindness to argue that the modern conservative is closer to a libertarian than the modern liberal.
JasonF is offline  
Old 01-12-08, 12:35 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,921
Originally Posted by JasonF
But I think it takes willful blindness to argue that the modern conservative is closer to a libertarian than the modern liberal.
I think you can certainly find examples where a modern liberal is not espousing classically liberal polices, and where a modern conservative is not espousing classical conservative positions. But would you really argue that conservatism places a GREATER emphasis on the size, power, role, reach and responsibility of the government than does liberalism?
Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 01-12-08, 01:07 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,063
Originally Posted by Ky-Fi
I think you can certainly find examples where a modern liberal is not espousing classically liberal polices, and where a modern conservative is not espousing classical conservative positions. But would you really argue that conservatism places a GREATER emphasis on the size, power, role, reach and responsibility of the government than does liberalism?
Neither greater nor lesser. The size and power of the state is really orthoganol to the goals of modern liberalism and conservatism.
JasonF is offline  
Old 01-12-08, 01:44 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,921
Originally Posted by JasonF
The size and power of the state is really orthoganol....
All right, you just made that word up!

Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 01-12-08, 01:53 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,063
What are you talking about? It's a perfectly comulent word!

(orthogonal = at right angles to. I spelled it wrong in my last post )
JasonF is offline  
Old 01-12-08, 03:55 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Legend
 
wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,500
Originally Posted by JasonF
What are you talking about? It's a perfectly comulent word!

(orthogonal = at right angles to. I spelled it wrong in my last post )

Not to be obtuse but it's called plaid.

I heard this word used on Trading Spaces when some basement walls were painted with blue orthogonal stripes (with rolls and rolls of tape being employed).
wishbone is offline  
Old 01-12-08, 05:03 PM
  #25  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,978
Originally Posted by JasonF
Fascism is an authoritarian philosophy that aproaches authroitarianism from a rightist starting point, just as Stalinism and Maoism are authoritarian philosophies that approach authoritarianism from a leftist starting point. It's an oversimplification to call the former "right wing" and the latter "left wing," but it's also an oversimplification to dismiss the links that the philosophies have with the respective ends of the political spectrum. And it's a flat-out distortion to pretend that fascism in general and Nazism in particular wasn't a philosophy built on a right-wing base.

It's very popular among some people to pretend that "right wing" and "conservative" are synonyms for "individualism" and that "left wing" and "liberal" are synonyms for "collectivism." That's simply not true, however, and no amount of rhetoric from Mr. Goldberg will make it so.

Well, let's take a look now.

The original article said:

Nazis... believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage.
All of those ideas are supported by the political left.

The original article also said:

Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.
All of those Americans who praised the fascists' policies are on the political left.

This is from the article that I posted:

And one last point I feel compelled to point out. I’ve never met a real social-welfare state leftist who could answer the following question without having to think real hard: “Aside from the murder and genocide, what exactly don’t you like about National Socialism?”

And I’ve never met a conservative who didn’t have an answer at his fingertips. So, who’s really closer to being a Nazi?
It is conservatives, not liberals, who object to those Nazi policies that I quoted from the original article.

Here's that paragraph again. This ideology is left wing, not right wing:


Nazis... believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage.
grundle is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.