Saturday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Saturday, July 25. 2015

In Praise of the Benjamin Button Babes

We Are Told Jazz Jennings Is a Girl, yet Boys Aren’t Biting

Rutgers Professor: White People Are “The Face Of The Oppressor”

All the Illegals Get to Stay

Anthem to buy Cigna — and then there were three: 7 key points

Colorado Nuns Appeal Birth Control Ruling to Supreme Court

IRS Should Avoid Bias Risk in Auditing Nonprofits, GAO Finds

New York Times alters Clinton email story

HILLARY PUTS ‘FUN CAMPS’ ASIDE TO PROPOSE ‘CARING CORPS.’

Sheesh. She should run on the Fun Camps thing. A winning issue.

Hillary Promises Pizza And Free Stuff, But Still Can’t Attract Any Young People To Her Cause

Why Scott Walker is so dangerous

Walker is not anti-union. He is anti-government employee unions. So was FDR. The real reason he is dangerous is because he rides a Harley, while Hillary! can't drive a car.

Italians Finally Rise Up Against ‘Migrants’ - Slow-motion but steady invasion of Europe by Africa and the Middle East gets some pushback.

From Foe to Frenemy - Why the United States is Courting Vietnam

Hungary expects to complete Serbian border fence by November

Get Ready, Japan: Russia Has Its Own Island-Buildup Project

Amnesty protests 'staggering execution spree' in Iran

Mission to Purge Syria of Chemical Weapons Comes Up Short

The Myth of Iran's Peaceful Nuclear Program

The President’s Preferred Bad Deal

Salman Rushdie on Islam: 'We have learned the wrong lessons'

We Are Told Jazz Jennings Is a Girl, yet Boys Aren’t Biting - See more at: http://moonbattery.com/?p=61094#sthash.L7S0XnqV.dpuf

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:24 | Comments (43) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Jul 26, 09:58

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

We Are Told Jazz Jennings Is a Girl, yet Boys Aren’t Biting

So if the kid is not surgically altered and this is all just chemical and the kid just stops the chemical therapy, what happens? Can he just go through puberty and normally develop {as a boy} at this point ? Just supposing.

Besides a life long appointment with hopefully a sane analyst, and the kid doesn't murder his parents in his sleep, that is.

The irony just hit me. The people screaming that our GMO, non organic food supply is "killing us", but pumping yourself for the rest of your life with synthetic hormones to mimic the oposite sex is
"good for you".

The endocrine system is nothing to fool around with.

#1 fjord on 2015-07-25 07:15 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The Myth of Iran's Peaceful Nuclear Program:

Of course many in Iran want the bomb, especially those on the political right. Iran has been the pawn of great power politics for centuries, especially the Anglo-Russian colonial struggles. The U.S. has also been involved, going to far as to help overthrow the democratically elected Iranian government in the 1950s, and supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, a war which Iraq instigated, and which led to up to a million dead and widespread devastation on Iranian soil.

The bomb provides a deterrent to foreign meddling. It also emboldens Iran's quest for regional hegemony, which they see as necessary for their security to prevent another war on their territory.

The compromise depends on what is called their breakout capability, the period between when they decide to build a bomb to its actual detonation. Currently, they could probably build a bomb in a few weeks, once they have sufficient fissionable material. The agreement reduces their stockpiles of fissionable material, reduces their ability to refine new fissionable material, and consequently results in a breakout period of about a year.

That satisfies hardline Iranian concerns about having a nuclear deterrent. If worse comes to worst, and the political and military situation deteriorates, they can still have time to build a bomb. It satisfies the West, because it gives them time to react if Iran takes such a path. Meanwhile, forces of liberalization and generational change may result in a reformed Iranian society.

It's important to realize that nothing short of occupation can prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon if they so choose. Convincing Iran to put off building the bomb for now is an important step. Eventually, they'll have a bomb if they think it is in their best interest. It's 1940s technology.

#2 Zachriel on 2015-07-25 09:55 (Reply)

this is a win-win for everyone.

little barry got his treaty, Iran got the Bomb, Administration shills got an extra strong k00kgasm.

#2.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-07-25 11:25 (Reply)

Why does Iran feel that regional hegemony is required for their security? The only major threat in the region was Iraq and it's no longer a problem. Considering their motives as defensive is ridiculous.

Acquiescing to their having The Bomb is to start an arms race in the most volatile place on earth. That a regime that believes it should hurry the coming of the Twelfth Imam which will be accompanied by tyranny and violence - which they intend to provide - might possess the means to destroy their Sunni and Jewish enemies is more than dangerous.

Their having The Bomb will start a war. They welcome it and it is something that no neighbor can allow. Iran's ties to China and Russia could bring them into the conflict and turn it into a global conflagration.

Bush should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq and Obummer was on a fools errand with this deal. The only reason to talk to Iran which actively went to war on us and seeks our destruction is to convince them of the benefit of a change of behavior and mind. That is a fantasy quest but not to even address Iran's posture in the region is insane.

#2.2 mudbug on 2015-07-25 12:08 (Reply)

mudbug: Why does Iran feel that regional hegemony is required for their security?

Because, within the last generation, they were attacked by an American-supported Iraq, including the use of chemical weapons, devastating large sectors of Iran, and leading to up to a million deaths. Consider how much longer it took the U.S. to get over the Civil War to understand how that war, and previous colonial misadventures, might warp Iranian perceptions of their national integrity.

mudbug: The only major threat in the region was Iraq and it's no longer a problem.

The entire region is in turmoil. The Iraqi government is Shiite, yes, but it only controls half the country, and is in a very weak state. If the U.S. has long considered Honduras and Chile to be part of their sphere of influence, then certainly Iran would consider Iraq important to their own security.

mudbug: Acquiescing to their having The Bomb is to start an arms race in the most volatile place on earth.

Yes, it could start a dangerous arms race.

No one should have the bomb, but wishes don't constitute policy. You can't stop Iran short of invasion. The Iranians have to decide on their own that the bomb is not in their best long-term interest. Not everyone in Iran supports acquiring a bomb, though it is a point of national pride for many. They'll probably acquire the bomb at some point. It's 1940s technology.

mudbug: That a regime that believes it should hurry the coming of the Twelfth Imam which will be accompanied by tyranny and violence -

Yes, and the U.S. keeps threatening to bomb or invade Iran, which only strengthens the position of those who want the bomb as a deterrent. Israel has the bomb, again, strengthening the pro-bomb factions.

mudbug: Their having The Bomb will start a war.

The bomb is primarily a deterrent. The U.S. probably won't attack a country with a bomb. That's the dynamic. From the point of view of Iran, it guarantees national independence from colonial interference.

mudbug: Bush should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq

The invasion of Iraq was a debacle. Iran has twice the population of Iraq, twice the GDP, a more advanced military infrastructure, and a much more rugged terrain.

#2.2.1 Zachriel on 2015-07-25 12:30 (Reply)

The entire region is in turmoil, but none of the turmoil was impacting Iran.

We were next door to them while we were in Iraq and Afghanistan while they were killing our soldiers and we didn't attack them, threaten to bomb, or invade them. What makes anybody think we were going to attack them knowing that?

There is no "could start an arms race" it's already started.

I guess all that "Death to Israel! Death to America" stuff is defensive, right? They tell us they want us dead. They desire the means to make it happen yet you don't believe them! Why?

You're right, Israel has the bomb. They are virtually alone in a sea of enemies all vowing to kill them. They have threatened nobody. Even Israel's having a bomb is much less dangerous to Iran than Iran having it. It would take at most two bombs to virtually destroy Israel. None of that can't be said of Iran.

I don't know why you think the Iraq war was a debacle. Until Obummer got there, it was pretty well pacified. The Iraqi people didn't choose a good PM but at least they had the choice.

Invading Iran would certainly have been much more difficult, but they pose the biggest threat. It would certainly have been easier to invade them in 2003 than when they bought advanced anti aircraft defenses from Russia and an A-Bomb that they will have in the not to distant future.

#2.2.1.1 mudbug on 2015-07-25 14:35 (Reply)

mudbug: The entire region is in turmoil, but none of the turmoil was impacting Iran.

Not sure where you got that idea. Iraqi Kurdistan borders Iran, which has its own restive Kurdish population. Iran is heavily involved with the Iraqi government, which is very weak, and under threat from ISIS, among other problems.

mudbug: We were next door to them while we were in Iraq and Afghanistan while they were killing our soldiers and we didn't attack them, threaten to bomb, or invade them.

Senator and Presidential candidate, John McCain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

mudbug: There is no "could start an arms race" it's already started.

"Acquiescing to their having The Bomb is to start an arms race in the most volatile place on earth."

mudbug: They have threatened nobody.

Their political right has often advocated aggressive war.

mudbug: I don't know why you think the Iraq war was a debacle.

It led to the death of hundreds of thousands, turned millions into refugees, ethnic cleansing, bombs going off in major cities nearly every day, and the entire region has been in turmoil ever since. Oh, and thousands of American casualties, trillions of dollars wasted, weakened alliances, emboldened adversaries, and exposed weaknesses in the U.S. military to its enemies. Other than that, it went okay.

#2.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2015-07-25 15:34 (Reply)

You're bringing up the Kurds and Iraq just makes my point. Neither of those threats would require a nuclear first strike threat. In fact you admitted that Iraq was weak.

Re: McCain - oh yes, the threat from a joke (at Iran's expense, admittedly) is not a significant threat. Does it rise to the level of the supreme leader of Iran shouting "Death to America"? (no) Did we kill any Iranian soldiers? (no) Did Iran kill American soldiers? (yes) So who is the aggressor, now?

You are the one who said Iran getting The Bomb could start an arms race. I said it already has. Big difference.

QUOTE:

It led to the death of hundreds of thousands, turned millions into refugees, ethnic cleansing, bombs going off in major cities nearly every day, and the entire region has been in turmoil ever since. Oh, and thousands of American casualties, trillions of dollars wasted, weakened alliances, emboldened adversaries, and exposed weaknesses in the U.S. military to its enemies. Other than that, it went okay.

Saddam Hussein killed tens of thousands of his own citizens, he was a destabilizing force in the region, there were seventeen UN resolutions that he refused to abide by, he harbored, aided and abetted terrorists, he used chemical weapons in the past and was thought to be developing more advanced chemical and nuclear weapons at the time (by every intelligence agency who cared), he attacked two of his neighbors - attempting to swallow up one of them who was essentially defenseless. He planned to kill a past US President. Other than that, he was a nice guy.

The Middle East has always been in some level of turmoil, but it was down to a dull roar after the Iraq war. Until the JV team came on the scene, that is. The power vacuum that was formed when we left (in spite of the fact that Obummer said we were leaving a "sovereign, self-reliant, and Democratic" Iraq) encouraged ISIS to be even more aggressive. None of our old allies in the Middle East trusts us (because we won't even give them any substantive assistance, not even intelligence to fight ISSIS - what are allies for?) and none of our enemies fear us (Iran, Russia, China). That is not an effect of the Iraq war, that is an effect of Obummer's foreign policy. I don't know what military weakness you're referring to unless it's our unwillingness to go after Iran who killed our soldiers.

#2.2.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2015-07-25 17:19 (Reply)

mudbug: You're bringing up the Kurds and Iraq just makes my point. Neither of those threats would require a nuclear first strike threat. In fact you admitted that Iraq was weak.

A threat on their border encourages involvement of great powers, who have destabilized the region. Credible political factions in the U.S. threaten to attack Iran. Yes, the bomb would act as a deterrent.

mudbug: oh yes, the threat from a joke (at Iran's expense, admittedly) is not a significant threat.

Of course it is. McCain almost became president.

mudbug: Did we kill any Iranian soldiers? (no) Did Iran kill American soldiers? (yes) So who is the aggressor, now?

What? The U.S. helped topple the democratically elected government of Iran, imposing a monarchy that used secret police to stifle dissent.

mudbug: I said it already has.

You said, "Acquiescing to their having The Bomb is to start an arms race in the most volatile place on earth." Other than Israel, which already has the bomb, other nations see the treaty as a way to keep Iran for developing the bomb in the near future.

mudbug: Saddam Hussein killed tens of thousands of his own citizens, he was a destabilizing force in the region

Saddam started a war with Iran, and the U.S. backed the aggressor. Then the U.S. invaded Iraq, further destabilizing the region.

mudbug: he used chemical weapons in the past and was thought to be developing more advanced chemical and nuclear weapons at the time (by every intelligence agency who cared)

The U.N., which had inspectors on the ground before the invasion, could find no evidence of WMD, even with the Americans telling them where to look. Of course, after the invasion, it was shown that Iraq had no WMD under their control.

mudbug: The power vacuum that was formed when we left

The Bush Administration told the American public the war would last weeks. It lasted years. The Bush Administration negotiated for the timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Iraq was a debacle for the Iraqi people and for the U.S.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2015-07-26 09:50 (Reply)

“Of course many in Iran want the bomb, especially those on the political right”

Are there any “political right” in Iran? Let’s see, by political right you mean: a capitalist who believes in human rights, law and order, private property, and honesty. And you believe these would be the people who want the bomb in Iran. Seriously?

#2.3 Sweetpea on 2015-07-26 00:29 (Reply)

Sweetpea: Are there any “political right” in Iran?

Yes, per the standard usage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_Iran

Sweetpea: Let’s see, by political right you mean: a capitalist who believes in human rights, law and order, private property, and honesty.

That's not the standard definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

The center varies in different countries, and in Iran, even the moderates are on the political right by Western standards.

#2.3.1 Zachriel on 2015-07-26 09:58 (Reply)

New York Times alters Clinton email story.

The Times, they are a changin'.

#3 Millie_woods on 2015-07-25 10:44 (Reply)

RE We Are Told Jazz Jennings Is a Girl, yet Boys Aren’t Biting

children and animals instinctively recognize evil. that's why Biden's dog attacked him last week, and why these boy reject this ... thing.

#4 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-07-25 11:23 (Reply)

A child doesn't become a "thing" because his moonbat parents pursue a catastrophically wrongheaded treatment for him.

#4.1 Texan99 on 2015-07-25 17:13 (Reply)

that depends on your point of view.

#4.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-07-25 20:03 (Reply)

Always, and that's the point. When people persuade themselves that other people can be considered "things," the result is usually atrocities.

#4.1.1.1 Texan99 on 2015-07-26 00:44 (Reply)

only if you can't distinguish weak analogies that are orders of magnitude apart. is every slope slippery to you?

the teenage boy identifies as a girl. that's twisted. unstated in the story, but probably true, is that he gets his ass kicked from time to time. better it gets its hard dose of reality now -- reread Moonbattery if you think I'm being harsh -- than later, when he's got a lot more at risk.

#4.1.1.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-07-26 10:15 (Reply)

More slippery than you're giving it credit for, and you should know better.

#4.1.1.1.1.1 Texan99 on 2015-07-26 22:09 (Reply)

Hildabeest's Caring Corps

can't find any details as sources keep repeating each other, except its a proposed local effort to assist the disabled.

so what's the problem? did we run out of disabled? because it seems like conservatives are blasting a good idea, which makes the conservative movement very asshatted.

#5 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-07-25 11:34 (Reply)

Why government? Decent people do these things anyway

#5.1 Bird Dog on 2015-07-25 12:02 (Reply)

Churches used to, also. Before they became obsessed with social justice and other moonbattery.

#5.1.1 fjord on 2015-07-25 12:37 (Reply)

which churches are you speaking about?

#5.1.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-07-25 12:48 (Reply)

so... did we run out of handicapped people?

that's a serious question. I'm a director of a local 501(c)(3) corporation that does exactly this kind of charity (from delivering groceries up to and including structural modifications to homes), and there's no shortage of need, there is, however, a shortage of decent people helping.

I haven't seen any story that says this is will be government run, there aren't any details at all.

#5.1.2 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-07-25 12:47 (Reply)

This has nothing to do with caring for the disabled. Since the scheme is being articulated by the totally corrupt, HRC, one can only conclude the "Care Corps" is about:

1) The empowerment and enrichment of the Clinton crime family.

2) The expansion of power for government run bureaucracy, and by extension, the power of the Democratic party.

3) A jobs program for Democrats.

Every government run social program is an abject failure if measured by the service it provides. Every single one. The Care Corps would be no different.

The disabled are nothing more than pawns in this plan.

#5.1.2.1 feeblemind on 2015-07-25 13:25 (Reply)

thanks for clearing all that up.

#5.1.2.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-07-25 13:50 (Reply)

Saturday morning challenge

What's wrong with this picture?

http://www.schooltube.com/video/e8ecaf4f63e7425da1a0/Designing%20Tomorrow's%20Schools

Have a nice day!

#6 faculty wife on 2015-07-25 14:14 (Reply)

This sounds like a lot of hooey. They open up with a comment on working collaboratively. My daughter had that in school. The group got one grade for the entire project. My daughter worked her tail off because she wanted a good grade. The rest of her group did next to nothing. What a great idea!

This video also reminds me of the ads for school bonds where they would get wound up because "some classrooms are over TWENTY FIVE years old!!!" Oh, the horror! In my high school, I sat in those old timey desks made with wrought iron sides and a small writing space (like you'd see in an old move set in the beginning of the twentieth century) - sometimes with an INK WELL! - that was bolted to the floor. The room hadn't been remodeled in over sixty years! No wonder my education was so mediocre! It's all the room's fault! Well, I did get to sit at the same desk one of Harvey Firestone's kids sat in because his name was carved in it. Maybe on second thought, it wasn't that bad.

#6.1 mudbug on 2015-07-25 18:28 (Reply)

I think you are conflating religious with conservative.
I also think you are confusing wikipedia with an authoritative source. Wikipedia is a propaganda tool of the left so it isn't suprising that they would define the political right in negative ways.

"The center varies in different countries, and in Iran, even the moderates are on the political right by Western standards"

Because the political left moves even further to the left that does not change the goal posts for the right. All of Iran's political groups are far from being to the right politically. There may be people in Iran who lean to the political right but they are unheard, unwelcome and unseen.

This is not a new propaganda technique. The left in this country (that would be our media) have often referred to Hitler and Communists as "right wing". Of course Hitler was a far left politician and communism is center left and exactly what Hillary is advocating (although she would never say the word "communism").

#7 Sweetpea on 2015-07-26 11:09 (Reply)

Sweetpea: I think you are conflating religious with conservative.

Not at all. There are religious people on the left and on the right.

Sweetpea: I also think you are confusing wikipedia with an authoritative source.

Wikipedia is a secondary source, and is sufficient to determine common usage.

But here's a couple of examples:

QUOTE:

"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the sixth and current President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the main political leader of the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran, a coalition of conservative political groups in the country."
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/02/04/sen-mccain-tweets-joke-comparing-irans-ahmadinejad-to-space-monkey/

QUOTE:

Hardline candidate withdraws from Iran election to boost conservative chances
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/10/hardline-candidate-withdraws-from-iran-election-to-boost-conservative-chances/

Sweetpea: Wikipedia is a propaganda tool of the left so it isn't suprising that they would define the political right in negative ways.

The definition of political right is neutral, at least in the moderate sense, and often represents preservation of valued traditions and institutions, with change moderated to avoid social disruption and unintended consequences. Right wing is a more general term, and can encompass anything from moderate conservatism to extreme reactionism.

Sweetpea: Because the political left moves even further to the left that does not change the goal posts for the right.

As there's no absolute center, it does depend on the state of society. What is considered ordinary today, such as women's suffrage, was once considered radical left.

Sweetpea: Iran's political groups are far from being to the right politically.

Sorry, but Iran's politics is nearly always described as conservative or right wing. It is your use of the terms that are heterodox.

Sweetpea: The left in this country (that would be our media) have often referred to Hitler and Communists as "right wing".

No. Generations of scholars and common usage describe Nazis as on the extreme political right and communists on the extreme political left. That's because fascists advocated absolute inequality, while communists advocated absolute equality. Here's a few references:

QUOTE:

Nazism and the Radical Right in Austria 1918-1934, Lauridsen.

The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right, Paul Davies.

The Culture of Fascism: Visions of the Far Right in Britain, edited by Gottlieb & Linehan.

Fascism Past and Present, West and East: An International Debate on Concepts and Cases in the Comparative Study of the Extreme Right, Griffin et al.

France in The Era of Fascism: Essays on the French Authoritarian Right, edited by Jenkins.

Fascism and Neofascism: Critical Writings on the Radical Right in Europe (Studies in European Culture and History), edited by Weitz & Fenner.

#7.1 Zachriel on 2015-07-26 15:22 (Reply)

The Nazi party were socialist, left wing socialist. The Russian communist were a variation of socialist, left wing socialist. The Fascist were socialist, left wing socialist. There are no right wing socialist, communist or fascist, they are all left wing philosophies.

To simply say that conservatives are defined by a desire for "preservation of valued traditions and institutions" is 100% incorrect. That would make all of the American Indians conservatives as they tried to keep their traditional value of killing and scalping their enemy. It would be more accurate to say that conservatives want to preserve traditions that have value. Things like family, honesty in public service, balanced budgets, etc. represent conservative beliefs.

Wikipedia has enormous biases and intentional inaccuracies so to even cite it reflects bad judgement or a dishonest intention on your part.

You cite a number of writers who "deemed" fascism to be right wing. Indeed even our own alphabet TV news media often does this as well. But doing it doesn't make it true. It is a common ploy to try to distance their own left wing beliefs from the left wing Fascism. I don't blame them for being ashamed of their left wing history but a more honest approach would be to admit what was wrong with the left wing fascist beliefs and expunge them from their own philosophy. Even Hillary's most recent speech on what she would do economically if she became president was scarily reminiscent of fascism in the 30's. Until the left admits their love affair with the fascist beliefs they will continue to make the same mistakes. Instead they try to blame it on others in much the same way they try to cover up their KKK roots. Perhaps these are their "traditional values" and they simply cannot escape them.

#7.1.1 Sweetpea on 2015-07-26 17:16 (Reply)

Sweetpea: The Nazi party were socialist, left wing socialist.

Nearly all scholars place the Nazi party on the political right, then and now. Nearly everyone places the Nazi party on the political right, then and now. We've provided references, and definitions to support our position. All you have done is make bald assertions.

Sweetpea: The Russian communist were a variation of socialist, left wing socialist.

That's right.

Sweetpea: To simply say that conservatives are defined by a desire for "preservation of valued traditions and institutions" is 100% incorrect.

We didn't say that. We mentioned some characteristics often found in conservatives that are not "defined in negative ways".

Sweetpea: That would make all of the American Indians conservatives as they tried to keep their traditional value of killing and scalping their enemy.

Not very many American Indians support scalping. In any case, yes, it would be a conservative impulse to keep the old traditions when confronted by modernity.

Sweetpea: It would be more accurate to say that conservatives want to preserve traditions that have value.

Generally, though some conservatives will try to preserve traditions regardless of their value because they see the alternative as anarchy. They do it that way because it has always been that way.

Sweetpea: You cite a number of writers who "deemed" fascism to be right wing.

That would be virtually all scholars, newspapers, encyclopedias, and other sources until very recently when the American right has attempted a redefinition.

Sweetpea: But doing it doesn't make it true.

Words are defined by usage, and the usage has been relatively consistent for generations. The left is characterized by a desire for greater equality, while the right wants to preserve or recover hierarchical relationships. Liberals balance liberty and egalitarianism. Conservatives try to preserve traditional ways of life. Extremists believe the ends justify the means, and can be found on the left or the right.

Redefining words does not make for a valid argument.

QUOTE:

Benito Mussolini: A party governing a nation “totalitarianly" is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as "the acquired facts" of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century.

#7.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2015-07-27 09:18 (Reply)

"Nearly all scholars place the Nazi party on the political right"
Indeed! In much the same way all government supported climate scientists espouse AGW. But the Nazi party (national Socialist) were (wait for it...) SOCIALIST!! All the rewriting of history won't change the fact that the Nazis were socialist not conservatives, not right wing, they were left wing socialists.

"Not very many American Indians support scalping."
You are kidding I hope. Perhaps you simply never read history or learned history in a Liberal Arts college.

"The left is characterized by a desire for greater equality"
Not true. Ask the 50 million Russians who were killed by leftist Marxist socialist communist in the 20th century. Or perhaps that is what you leftist mean by "equality". What the left does, and does very well, is sell their phony philosophy of "equality" and welfare and punishing the rich as a way to enlist the vast army of lazy, incapable, alcohol and drug using left to vote for them. And they do indeed fight inequality once elected by taking from the productive to give to the unproductive but they do it for votes not for some genuine feeling about helping people. The left fails where ever they have power. Look at Detroit,Chicago, Baltimore and now New York City. Listen to Bernie Sanders and Hillary as they say the same things that Marx, Lenin, and Hitler said. That is the real left. It isn't about fixing economic inequality and never has been. It is about exploiting the weak, the poor, the ignorant in an attempt to gain power, absolute power for their own personal gain (again look at Hillary who sold arms to our enemies while Secretary of State to enrich herself).

#8 Sweetpea on 2015-07-27 10:26 (Reply)

Sweetpea: But the Nazi party (national Socialist) were (wait for it...) SOCIALIST!!

Sure. And the People's Republic of China is a republic.

Sweetpea: All the rewriting of history won't change the fact that the Nazis were socialist not conservatives, not right wing, they were left wing socialists.

Gee whiz, Sweetpea. Words are defined by usage, and people simply don't use the terms that way. Fascists were on the authoritarian right.

Sweetpea: Or perhaps that is what you leftist mean by "equality".

As we said, extremists believe the ends justify the means. Communists thought they were creating egalitarian utopia, and they thought the ends were worth the costs. Once the class system was destroyed, then everyone would be equal. Nazis also thought they were creating utopia, with a hierarchy of races, and Aryans as rulers.

In any case, redefining words doesn't constitute a valid argument. Only people in the right wing blogosphere use the terms in your fashion, and that only very recently.

#8.1 Zachriel on 2015-07-27 10:50 (Reply)

It is obvious that you believe your own lies and propaganda.

"Only people in the right wing blogosphere use the terms in your fashion"

Not clear what you mean by that. I am guessing you don't like the definition of conservative or right wing and prefer the one that the left uses so they can paint us as "authoritarian".

"As we said, extremists believe the ends justify the means"
Yes but you failed to state these were LEFT WING extremists.

"Communists thought they were creating egalitarian utopia"
No one believes that, not even the communist believed that. They were simply using socialism/communism to sieze power for themselves. All left wing socialism/communism.fascism revolutions require that you kill or 're-educate' everyone and anyone who might disagree with you. That is what left wing authoritarian regimes do. That's what Castro did in Cuba and what Chavez did in Venezuela. That is what left wing regimes do once they take power.

#9 Sweetpea on 2015-07-27 15:47 (Reply)

Sweetpea: Not clear what you mean by that. I am guessing you don't like the definition of conservative or right wing ...

We prefer using the standard definitions. It's easier to communicate that way.

Sweetpea: and prefer the one that the left uses so they can paint us as "authoritarian".

No. Conservative does not equal authoritarian. There are authoritarians on the left and authoritarians on the right. There are anarchists on the left and anarchists on the right. And all sorts of in-betweens.

Sweetpea: Yes but you failed to state these were LEFT WING extremists.

There are extremists on the left and on the right.

Sweetpea: No one believes that, not even the communist believed that.

Of course they did, otherwise millions wouldn't have fought to the death for communism. They believed in a future utopia.

Sweetpea: All left wing socialism/communism.fascism revolutions require that you kill or 're-educate' everyone and anyone who might disagree with you. That is what left wing authoritarian regimes do.

If you think about it, perhaps you will be able to see the difference between left extremists and right extremists. The extreme left reeducates, while there was no reeducation from being Jew in Nazi Germany. That's because the extreme left sees differences as due to class which can be changed, while the extreme right sees differences as due to inherent differences that can't be changed.

Sweetpea: That is what left wing authoritarian regimes do.

Or right wing authoritarian regimes. There are authoritarians on the left and on the right. The amount of government is orthogonal to the left-right dichotomy.

#9.1 Zachriel on 2015-07-27 17:26 (Reply)

Your standard definition of right wing is clearly inaccurate.

No! The communist in Russia and China, the socialist/fascists in Germany and Italy were all left wing extremists.

"otherwise millions wouldn't have fought to the death for communism"
Au contrare mon frere. They fought under fear of death if they didn't fight. I will concede that "some" people do indeed believe in the whole nirvana thing and Lenin referred to them as useful idiots.

"There are authoritarians on the left and on the right"
Name a right wing authoritarian regime that exists today. I can't think of any.

#10 Sweetpea on 2015-07-27 19:53 (Reply)

Sweetpea: Your standard definition of right wing is clearly inaccurate.

We've provided scholarly references, examples from common usage, even the founder of fascism. You've said "Is not!"

Sweetpea: Name a right wing authoritarian regime that exists today. I can't think of any.

Thailand, Egypt.

#11 Zachriel on 2015-07-28 08:47 (Reply)

Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930: I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.

F.A. Hayek in his Road to Serfdom (p. 168) said: The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism—Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle—are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. …. From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine.

I think you and your sources (the left) have sterilized the meaning of socialism and fascism so that you can once again stand behind it and push it on us. Your "scholarly references: are left wing propagandists.

So explain what in particular makes Thailand or Egypt "right wing"? I see zero right wing philosophy in either country.

#12 Sweetpea on 2015-07-28 10:51 (Reply)

Sweetpea: "a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend"

The statement contradicts your own position. It's not socialism, but "socialism".

Sweetpea: "It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine. "

Again, contradicting your point.

#12.1 Zachriel on 2015-07-28 11:04 (Reply)

Good try, no contradiction
Hitler's point was that Marxist socialism was too tame and his brand of socialism was fascism ruled by the gun.

Still no answe to how Thailand and Egypt are right wing in their philosophy? I'm thinking you pulled those countries out of your ***

#13 Sweetpea on 2015-07-28 23:05 (Reply)

When your use of the term is contrary to how it is used generally, and as words are defined by usage, in this case, usage over more than two centuries, it suggests you are not using the terms correctly. We've provided multiple references. Here's another:

QUOTE:

Encyclopedia Britannica: right, portion of the political spectrum associated with conservative political thought... In the 19th century the term applied to conservatives who supported authority, tradition, and property. In the 20th century a divergent, radical form developed that was associated with fascism.

QUOTE:

Encyclopedia Britannica: left, In politics, the portion of the political spectrum associated in general with egalitarianism and popular or state control of the major institutions of political and economic life.

The terms derived from French Revolutionary period when those who opposed the Ancien Régime sat on the left, while those who supported the Ancien Régime sat on the right. The left is, therefore, associated with egalitarianism («Liberté, égalité, fraternité»), while the right is associated with traditional institutions. They both have extreme forms. They both have authoritarian and libertarian forms.

Sweetpea: Still no answe to how Thailand and Egypt are right wing in their philosophy?

The usual. The governments are trying to mitigate rapid social reform, and seek stability and economic growth through the concentration of decision-making in the military and business elites.

#13.1 Zachriel on 2015-07-29 08:53 (Reply)

Historical right-wing authoritarian governments include Pinochet in Chile, Franco in Spain, Batista in Cuba, the Shah in Iran, Somoza in Nicaragua, apartheid South Africa, to mention just a few.

#13.2 Zachriel on 2015-07-29 08:58 (Reply)

The Shah in Iran. I agree. The Shah brought women's equality to Iran and general freedoms to all. Iran was a decent nieghbor in the Middle East under the Shah.

The other examples I don't agree with. For example: Pinochet was an anti-Marxist but this doesn't automatically make him a right wing leader. He was a Chilean general who ruled with a closed fist. He saved the Chilean economy but angered many and he did indeed commit crimes against his enemies. Whereas Obama used the IRS to punish his enemies Pinochet used his military. Very similar, don't you think?

#14 GoneWithTheWind on 2015-07-29 13:04 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, July 25. 2015

Saturday morning links