Wednesday morning links

"Trump May Be The True Liberal"

The terms conservative and liberal were stripped of any useful meaning a long time ago.

Now they are merely convenient labels for sectarian dispute.

#1 JJM on 2019-01-02 08:11 (Reply)

There is no way to give this a thumbs up, so consider this sentence to be that.

BTW, the warning messages your comment system spit out are...inaccurate.

#1.1 William O. B'Livion on 2019-01-04 11:58 (Reply)

I can't believe I actually thought Mitt Romney was a good person and voted for him. Just like John McCain they were what the "elitist" picked for us and we didn't know any better. I almost feel assaulted and thank heavens for Trump. Imagine what could be accomplished if "our side" actually supported his agenda.

#2 JC on 2019-01-02 08:12 (Reply)

As the politician who managed to lose out to the worst president in history, Romney has absolutely no credibility.

#2.1 Jim on 2019-01-02 15:08 (Reply)

Re: Romney
It seems to me that there are two main groups that are contesting Trump's way of being president. On the Left, you have those who believe that hey have the right to rule based on their superior ability and morality (Clinton, Obama) while on the Right you have those who believe they have the duty to rule, again based on their superior ability and morality (Romney, McCain).
Both sides, however, believe that there is this sort of Neo-Calvinist "Elect" group that should be in charge, though they may disagree on who belongs to it, and the rest of us who should just shut up and do what "they" say.
The common ground between both groups is that Trump and his supporters and voters definitely do not belong to this in-group.

#3 Another Guy named Dan on 2019-01-02 08:18 (Reply)

Funny to see WaPo giving op-ed space to the guy who strapped dogs to the roof of his car just for kicks, kept women locked up in binders when he wasn't killing them by giving them cancer, wrote off 47% of the electorate as... something or other, the racist, bigoted, evil, greedy vulture capitalist so dumb he still thought Russia was a major geo-political foe. The most literal Literal Hitler since John "Literal Hitler" McCain.

Well, maybe not "funny" so much as disgusting and infuriating and (one would think) a blindingly obvious object lesson in just how we got Donald "Literal Hitler" Trump.

#4 Jerryskids on 2019-01-02 08:21 (Reply)

Great! Romney can buy a retirement home next door to Hillary in Sorelooserville.

#5 Mike Anderson (Link) on 2019-01-02 08:43 (Reply)

One year Mittens begs for Trump’s endorsement, the next year he begs for a job in the administration, and now its a hit piece in the Bezos Times?

Someone ought to adjust his magic underwear.

#6 Scullman on 2019-01-02 08:53 (Reply)

As a former Romney supporter I too am very disappointed in him. He's off to a terrible start as a Senator.

#7 Hawk1776 on 2019-01-02 09:07 (Reply)

re Romney

One wonders if Romney would have been elected if he had spewing this kind of rhetoric during his campaign?

Would he have survived the primary?

Since we knew he felt this way all along it reveals what a hypocritical POS he really is.

But how could one expect less from the person that sired Romneycare?

Just another Big Government Republican.

#8 feeblemind on 2019-01-02 09:19 (Reply)

The larger question here is, are we headed down the same road as the Spanish were in the 1930s? Apples and oranges comparison to be sure . . . but there are similarities.

#8.1 feeblemind on 2019-01-02 14:36 (Reply)

Si se puede!

We are already there. The Democrats attempting to remove Trump would be the match that would set it off.

#8.1.1 Jim on 2019-01-02 15:04 (Reply)

+1 to all the Romney comments above. What a dick.

#8.2 snopercod on 2019-01-02 15:57 (Reply)

+1 to yours. I can't believe I voted for that guy

#8.2.1 Whitney (Link) on 2019-01-03 09:20 (Reply)

Re: he [Romney] is a sanctimonious putz

He's worse than a putz: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/01/timeline-mitt-romney-history-of-backstabbing-donald-trump/

#9 mudbug on 2019-01-02 10:11 (Reply)

Ever since the Mormons rode in to Arizona to evict the Confederacy, their elites have arrogated to themselves the role of Moral Scold.

Really, this is the only political confection they bring to the American table. Otherwise, the Church's agenda is big Government Rents, Missionary-inspired open borders, and perfect hair.

Just like the Left's urban progressives, securing their place at the taxpayer's trough, maintaining a glossy media "image," and sticking it to regular, working class Anglos is the Mormons' game.

Mitt Romney's dripping hair gel, his tenure in the Massachusetts Commonwealth's fever swamps, and his marm-ish scoffs and scolds are the current insignia of the Urban metrosexual Resistance. He is reading their script and delivering their lines.

#10 steveaz on 2019-01-02 10:25 (Reply)

Learning From The Spanish Civil War

QUOTE:

In 1930, the military dictatorship was overthrown, and municipal elections across the country the next year led to a big win for combined parties of left and right who favored a democratic republic. (N.B., not all leftists and rightists wanted a republic!) After the vote, the king abdicated, and the Republic was declared. Later that spring, leftist mobs burned convents and churches in various cities, while Republican police stood by doing nothing. This sent a deep shock wave through Spanish Catholicism.

The Republic, in typical European fashion, was strongly anticlerical. It quickly passed laws stripping the Catholic Church of property and the right to educate young people. There were other anticlerical measures taken. Anti-Christian laws, and violent mob action, were present at the beginning of the Republic.

Anyway, the 1933 elections resulted in a swing back to the right, with a coalition of center-right and far-right parties winning control, and reversing some of the initiatives of the previous government. Socialists, anarchists, and coal miners in the province of Asturias rebelled against the Republic. They murdered priests and government officials; the military, led by Gen. Franco, brutally suppressed the uprising. All of this radicalized the left even more.

By 1935, left-right opinion had become so polarized that there was practically no middle ground left. Both sides came to distrust democracy because it was the means by which their enemies might take power. . . .people on the left and right just flat out hated each other. The whole country was a powder keg.

By the 1936 campaign, the centrist parties had practically disappeared. A leftist coalition won the vote, but deadly violence between left and right began ramping up. A far-right fascist militia, the Falange, formed. Mutual assassinations on both sides, and street fighting between Falangists and Republican forces, triggered a military coup against the government. The coup failed to overthrow the Republic, but it did divide the country, and spark a civil war between Nationalists and Republicans. Gen. Francisco Franco quickly emerged as the Nationalist leader.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/learning-from-the-spanish-civil-war/

#11 feeblemind on 2019-01-02 10:48 (Reply)

feeblemind: "Learning From The Spanish Civil War"

Thoughtful essay that made many interesting points.

Many people saw the Spanish Civil War as the first significant pushback against fascism, a place where Nazi Germany tested their new military hardware and doctrines. Orwell was not the only artist who opposed fascism in Spain.

#11.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 11:48 (Reply)

"At heart a sentimentalist."

-

#11.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 11:56 (Reply)

There is little practical difference between fascists and communists. They are both socialist authoritarians and remember that left and right are seating arrangements and not a location on the political spectrum. Hillary and Bernie are a good example...Hillary is a communist and Bernie is a fascist. They both hate Trump who is a capitalist traditional liberal.

#11.2 indyjonesouthere on 2019-01-02 12:04 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: There is little practical difference between fascists and communists. They are both socialist authoritarians and remember that left and right are seating arrangements and not a location on the political spectrum. Hillary and Bernie are a good example...Hillary is a communist and Bernie is a fascist. They both hate Trump who is a capitalist traditional liberal.

You can't begin to make sense of the essay, or most anything written about the political left and right, or about fascism and communism, when you use alternative definitions. Franco was on the political right. The Loyalists were on the political left. That's what they said at the time, and that is how people still use the terms.

#11.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 12:14 (Reply)

The so called left, actually authoritarians, are pros at using alternate language. As verbal "trannies" it is near impossible to have a conversation with the self described lefties. The loyalists were communists and Franco was a fascist.

#11.2.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-01-02 12:22 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The so called left, actually authoritarians, are pros at using alternate language.

Again, you can't make sense of most anything ever written about the political left or right by using alternatives to long-standing usage of the terms. For instance, the Dreher essay refers to Franco as a "hard-right conservative authoritarian". By equating the left with authoritarianism, you make his essay incoherent. There are authoritarians and libertarians on the political left and on the political right.

#11.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 12:25 (Reply)

I'd like to see a leftist make sense of the constant gaslighting required to hide his inherent fascism, which is to say, his intolerant force against those who hinder his sociopathy.

Or is creeping totalitarianism and the various Utopias that killed tens of millions really just a field of daisies?

#11.2.1.1.1.1 Meh on 2019-01-02 14:21 (Reply)

An honest leftist would admit that said gaslighting was a feature (and a fundamental one at that - all else stems from it), not a bug. Got to deny reality and rub that denial in the face of the politically vanquished (or those in need of suckering). You'll tolerate a grown man who - on a whim - decides he's a woman and wants a seat in the bathroom stall next to your young daughter, or things won't go so well for you, for example.

Funny, were it all not so hideous and atrocious, how the concrete tens of millions killed via communism are fastidiously ignored by legions of asshats in their meaningless attempts to show it meaningfully different from fascism in the abstract. TomAto vs. tomAHHto. Coke vs. Pepsi. Communism vs. fascism. Peer competitors - this town ain't big enough for both of us totalitarians. All of that said, communism has racked up a substantially higher body count. But that brings us back to the subject of gaslighting, doesn't it?

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-01-02 16:29 (Reply)

Bill Carson: An honest leftist would admit that said gaslighting was a feature (and a fundamental one at that - all else stems from it), not a bug.

People on the left and the right will use gaslighting. Extremists are notorious in this respect, as it undermines the foundation of truth necessary for civil society.

Bill Carson: All of that said, communism has racked up a substantially higher body count.

Communists are no pikers when it comes to mass murder, or mass death by neglect.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 16:36 (Reply)

You're not an honest leftist. You're welcome.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-01-02 16:39 (Reply)

Reframing is gaslighting, Bill. Gasbot's persistent reframing purports to be fact but it's just opinion. We should refer to it as the GasWiki.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Meh on 2019-01-02 17:51 (Reply)

Yes, indeed, reframing is a particularly insidious form of gaslighting. I like GasWiki, but feel it lends an undeserved amount of dignity.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-01-02 18:31 (Reply)

Agreed. Since gasbotting involves adopting various false poses aimed at appearing human or aimed at false bipartisanship, gasbotting is a particularly active, gaslighting gaslighting and doesn't much rise to the dignity of an impartial moniker.

I leave it to you. The word troll comes to mind too, but by now it's probably too mild. All I know is that it's lying when you mean to be misunderstood.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Meh on 2019-01-03 08:15 (Reply)

QUOTE:

gasbotting is a particularly active, gaslighting gaslighting

You're really on to something here, Meh. Exhibit A:

"People on the left and the right will use gaslighting. Extremists are notorious in this respect, as it undermines the foundation of truth necessary for civil society."

Taking time out - mid-gaslight (mid-vigorous gaslight) - to school marmishly warn (and reframe for) us of the dangers of gaslighting is nothing if not gaslighting gaslighting.

To steal from Jaws, we're gonna need a bigger dictionary.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-01-03 09:18 (Reply)

“If I had ever learnt, I should have been a great proficient.” — Lady Catherine, Pride and Prejudice

"I think I would've been a good general, but who knows," said Trump, who has not served in the military and sought five deferments during the Vietnam War.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-03 10:46 (Reply)

I am a marvelous housekeeper. Every time I leave a man I keep his house.
- Zsa Zsa Gabor

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Meh on 2019-01-03 11:21 (Reply)

Correction, Gasbot: That would better read Trump, who ha[d] not served in the military and [who] sought five deferments during the Vietnam War before becoming the first potus in a dozen administrations to fulfill a campaign promise to interrupt industrial war while at the same time - and by a righteously and completely awesome contrast, man - nullifying Nobel-winning Little Baraq's record-setting capitulation to said machinery.

(Funny how, when optic-mining, one misses the complete inversion of classic Democrat and Republican stereotypes, associations, and assumptions.)

Naturally all this reality interests pedantic gaslighting quote-bots not much at all, just like a hundred million dead as the result of Utopian collectivist leftism don't appear to interest them. Gasbots probably love optics and the politics of personal destruction more and humanity less.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Meh on 2019-01-03 11:32 (Reply)

Let go the rope, Zachriel, as you are off your water skis and getting dragged around the lake.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3 Bill Carson on 2019-01-03 11:39 (Reply)

Bill Carson: Let go the rope, Zachriel, as you are off your water skis and getting dragged around the lake.

Your signal-to-noise ratio is very low. You might want to adjust your settings.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-03 11:43 (Reply)

You better go get your shine-box, dickweed.

P.S. Once you get above 10^(-12) W/m^2, come talk to me.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-01-03 11:51 (Reply)

A hundred million lives lost under the treads of a megalomaniac Utopian lie. Addressing this we call a poor SN ratio but the added lie of reframing and gross denial concerning such a staggering evil we do not call a poor SN ratio.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.2 Meh on 2019-01-03 11:51 (Reply)

Yup, and a gasbot does this day in and day out. Whether, as some suspect, it's a programmer's work in progress - which explains the odd combination of monumental pedantry, oblivious arrogance, and halting, embarrassing attempts at real humanism - or as someone else observed, autistic babbling, is anyone's guess.

But, guess we shall, us being people persons with real human insights not swayed by utterly detached, robotic pedantry and that perpetual reframing.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Meh on 2019-01-03 10:46 (Reply)

And, really, what's more important, discussing the tens of millions slaughtered via communism in practice or the semantics (or Stalin's unrequited love for "equality") associated with an essay regarding the Spanish Civil War?

Shit, "gaslighting" doesn't begin to describe it.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2 Bill Carson on 2019-01-02 16:38 (Reply)

Bill Carson: And, really, what's more important, discussing the tens of millions slaughtered via communism in practice or the semantics (or Stalin's unrequited love for "equality") associated with an essay regarding the Spanish Civil War?

Turns out that people talk about many things. And really, what's more important? Stalin or how 'bout them Yankees?

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 17:26 (Reply)

Or Hillary's Presidency? But that can be talked about rather quickly, can't it?

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-01-02 18:13 (Reply)

Bill Carson: Or Hillary's Presidency?

That's right. You have grasped the point.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 18:52 (Reply)

The only point is that you dissembled, got called on it, and dissembled some more. Which is no point at all.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-01-02 18:55 (Reply)

And which will neither unkill the tens of millions killed by the actual communism that you ignore in order to nitpick in the abstract, nor make Hillary President.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-01-02 19:00 (Reply)

Bill Carson: And which will neither unkill the tens of millions killed by the actual communism

Not sure your point. There is no doubt that communists killed millions, a result of believing that the utopian ends justified whatever means. Communists are on the political left because the ends they envision concern a utopian vision of absolute equality, resulting in the end of war and struggle. Fascists, on the other hand, envision a society of absolute inequality, with war and struggle giving meaning to a nation or people. They killed a lot of people too. So did colonialists. So did Genghis Khan.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 19:58 (Reply)

Of course you're not sure the point. The point is that leftism foundationally, invariably involves force applied to the victim whereas classic, largely western civility involved recognizing human rights and then attempting to guard them from collectivists. In other words, freedom from force, thus liberty.

It's the simple distinction between the nonexistent positive right (of redistribution, which is force) and the negative rights of the individual citizen-sovereign.

Obviously gasbots aren't sure the point because of cognitive dissonance. This manifests in the constant reframing and revisionism at the expense of simple clarity. Us normals call that denial and simple bullshitting.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Meh on 2019-01-03 10:54 (Reply)

QUOTE:

largely western civility involved recognizing human rights and then attempting to guard them from collectivists. In other words, freedom from force, thus liberty.

This is the point - all others reside under its umbrella. And no amount of wordy, meaningless attempts to distinguish between the various identical-in-outcome - death, misery and bondage on a large scale - flavors of collectivism will change this fact one bit.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-01-03 11:24 (Reply)

Bill Carson: largely western civility involved recognizing human rights and then attempting to guard them from collectivists. In other words, freedom from force, thus liberty.

This is the point - all others reside under its umbrella.

The origin of this thread was the essay by Dreher on the Spanish Civil War, which we found to be well-thought. The sub-thread was indyjonesouthere's conflation concerning communism and fascism, as well as the political left and right. You have apparently abandoned that line of thought.

You are correct that much of modern political history can be seen as a struggle for liberty. While the concept of liberty long predates Western Civilization, the West has incrementally developed stable social structures that allow for necessary government while also protecting liberties, including the rule of law, due process, and representative democracy. However, much of modern history also entails the struggle for social equality, including the end of class structure, and greater economic opportunity.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-03 11:41 (Reply)

All that condescending reframing optical pedantry to avoid the import of the simple truth that man's default is generally force and his highest manifestation of force is the lethal collective version sold to him by lie and deception in appeals to his baser instincts toward taking what isn't his, even when it involves a small caliber round in the base of the skull while facing an open pit on your knees.

That we shall not regard as such. Instead we'll babble some textbook hogwash in order to look like we're down for the cause and we're truly humanly engaged and we're erudite and researched ... while not regarding things where they really matter for exactly what they are.

A hundred million lives for an ideology whose fundamental components are a laundry list of classic sins: Covetousness, envy, theft, lying, false witness, and ultimately, murder. Because all good - what was it again? Oh yes - egalitarianism shall somehow have no compunction whatsoever having its moral and intellectual roots - to say nothing for its ways, means, and many times, players - in the same fertile soil Mao and his contemporaries grew from.

Egalitarianism.

Let go the rope, dragbot.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Meh on 2019-01-03 12:04 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The origin of this thread was the essay by Dreher on the Spanish Civil War, which we found to be well-thought. The sub-thread was indyjonesouthere's conflation concerning communism and fascism, as well as the political left and right. You have apparently abandoned that line of thought.

Sorry, but the context of 100 million dead due to communism is always going to raise its ugly head whenever some shit-head shakes their pom-poms while jumping around in a Marx & Engels U letter sweater. On a smaller scale, it's like those horrific thoughts of a poor left-to-drown woman conjured up every time some dope would prattle on about Ted Kennedy, "Lion of the Senate". You'd have better luck parting ways with your shadow.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Bill Carson on 2019-01-03 13:31 (Reply)

QUOTE:

However, much of modern history also entails the struggle for social equality, including the end of class structure, and greater economic opportunity.

Ergo, those 100 million were but a small price to pay. Now back to fighting the real crime here, committed by those who have the temerity to correctly conflate communism and fascism.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3 Bill Carson on 2019-01-03 13:41 (Reply)

Upthread Gasbot's interlocutor raised authoritarianism correctly and in context after which the pedantic thing had the temerity to correct said real human people person for this natural, uh, "conflation" because blah blah semantics and argle bargle topics.

And no, you can't make this up. Take your small caliber round and fall into the pit with the rest of the human collateral so that revisionistic tactical optics may live and presumably, eventually construct heaven.

1. Really bad shit.
2. Revisionism and optics.
3.
4.
5. Utopia!

Meanwhile don't utter a syllable when someone rightly points out that the core of leftism is eternally some degree of force upon Y by X - on every possible level and continuum including linguistic where force can be expressed - and that such force invariably and as a moral philosophy carries in it the manifestation of wrong and evil.

Ever see the cartoon of the man standing on one end of a plank the other end of which is suspended over a cliff? On that far end stands a second man pointing a gun at the first. The first is called capitalism and the second socialism. Even as mislabeled as they are you get the idea. Humanity is forever perched between one form of destruction or another but apparently unable or unwilling to ascribe a moral agency to them effective and durable enough to prevent plank-standing in the first place. We'll call it something else and let it take millions by force.

Meanwhile, efforts to so much as regard classical liberalism - it having been removed by that force many decades ago - go revised and ridiculed as insufficient for mankind because in some deranged matrix you shall be brought to toe the line for ideals and persons whose ethics are both corrupted and hidden. This is the foundation of Utopia! The core of man's new god, arbitrary force, the old G-d having been reduced from the mind's highest expression of spiritual ascendancy to a bizarre leftist stereotype involving hate and patriarchies or something.

Progressivism is a bad religion in every conceivable way. Moreover, it is fundamentally materialistic and covetous.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1 Meh on 2019-01-03 14:33 (Reply)

Ben Carson: but the context of 100 million dead due to communism is always going to raise its ugly head

Except that the struggle for equality is not confined to communists. For instance, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4 Zachriel on 2019-01-03 15:30 (Reply)

That's Bill Carson. I know you're a little rattled, but try to pull yourself together.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4.1 Arch Stanton on 2019-01-03 15:40 (Reply)

Bullshit. There is no equality, there is no just "struggle" for it - for if there is it's just manifest coveting and theft - and equality in the American originalist context refers not to state communism and the "equality" even it's never delivered, obviously, but to legal equality under the law, you prevaricator, which means that plebeians, monarchs and even lying, vaguely humanoid Gasbots get equal dealing at law.

That law, Gasbot, refers first back to the highest authority, which is that of the Constitution's negative right and the sovereign citizen's protection from exactly the "equality" your fool circuitry just floated, thus entirely fulfilling previous warnings in this thread about revisionism, shifted definitions, and yes, gaslighting.

Good work, Gasbot. You even cited the very classical context you then went on to ignore and violate. Or put another way, jeenyus Gasbot just divided the single principle in one text to set it against itself on about six different levels.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4.2 Meh on 2019-01-03 16:22 (Reply)

The underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution invoked in a defense of the underpinnings of communism. Wow. Just wow. That's gotta be a first. The Gasbot self-gaslights and then self-cannibalizes.

It's Miller time!

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4.2.1 Bill Carson on 2019-01-03 17:03 (Reply)

Bill Carson: The underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution invoked in a defense of the underpinnings of communism.

Not sure why you think we were defending communism. Try to follow our actual position, rather than making unjustified assumptions.

The discussion concerns two currents in modern political history, the struggle for liberty and the struggle for equality. Marxist communism is an illiberal, radical form of egalitarianism, one which has led to oppression and ruin. Meanwhile, Western Civilization has developed stable social structures that balance the desire for liberty with the desire for equality.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-03 17:35 (Reply)

Only your 'discussion' concerns your particular gaslit version of the word, pal. You just invoked the Declaration of Independence to defend dependence, and precisely on cue once caught in another of your revisionist, logical pretzels, you threw it back on a real human people person for noticing.

I kinda like the condescending fake surprise, however. It adds to the point.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4.2.1.1.1 Meh on 2019-01-03 18:15 (Reply)

Coming to a theater near you: Waterboarding Logic, starring the Gasbot.

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4.2.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-01-03 19:11 (Reply)

QUOTE:

They killed a lot of people too. So did colonialists. So did Genghis Khan.

If only I'd have had the presence of mind to dress up my conquest, rape, slaughter, subjugation, etc. in coffee-house class struggle terms, I'd have had Zachriel eagerly and willingly attempt to de-conflate for me centuries later! Shit!

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 The Ghost of Ghengis Khan on 2019-01-03 14:04 (Reply)

Of course, Gasbot also awarded you a point for "grasping" the point you made yourself, thus allowing Gasbot to run out of bounds, completely around the Gatorade, and right back in for a touchbackdown incursion in the flats for four points plus the first next returnpunt after the third second tossflipcoin of 2019.5. Awarded consecutively.

Not sure if I'd call that talented or blatantly transparent. Regardless, to infinity and beyond!

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2 Meh on 2019-01-03 11:17 (Reply)

QUOTE:

thus allowing Gasbot to run out of bounds, completely around the Gatorade, and right back in for a touchbackdown incursion in the flats for four points plus the first next returnpunt after the third second tossflipcoin of 2019.5.

And all this time I've been led to believe that soccer is "the beautiful game"!!!

#11.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1 Bill Carson on 2019-01-03 13:50 (Reply)

Alternative language...What was the long term standard meaning of "gay". Really tough for you to get a grip on authoritarian lefties and righties? Those are communists and fascists. What is the Antifa movement about? It wasn't chosen by mistake.

#11.2.1.1.1.2 indyjonesouthere on 2019-01-02 16:10 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: What was the long term standard meaning of "gay".

The original meaning of gay is still in use. It's clear how Dreher and nearly everyone uses the term. Insisting on your redefinition just leads to incoherence. Try it again: "hard-right conservative authoritarian".

indyjonesouthere: Really tough for you to get a grip on authoritarian lefties and righties?

Now you got it! There are authoritarians on the left and on the right. There are anarchists on the left and on the right.

indyjonesouthere: Those are communists and fascists.

Not all authoritarians are communists or fascists. Some authoritarians are run of the mill kleptocrats, for instance.

indyjonesouthere: What is the Antifa movement about?

Anti-fascism. Many of its members are anarchists. Dreher discusses left anarchists among the Spanish Loyalists. They weren't much for following orders, duh. Again, it would be incoherent to talk about left anarchists if you equate the left with authoritarianism.

#11.2.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 16:24 (Reply)

"Anarchist" is just another word for "thug", kiddiez.
Try to keep up..

#11.2.1.1.1.2.1.1 Zzzatemypuppy on 2019-01-02 23:39 (Reply)

(from Dreher)
All my life I’ve heard Franco and the Nationalist side described as “fascist,” but it’s not accurate. True, the Nationalist had real fascists in their ranks — that was the Falange — but Franco exploited and controlled them. The Falange’s founder, Jose Antonio Rivera, was killed by the Republicans, and turned into a martyr by the Nationalists. Doing so allowed Franco to embrace the Falange but also to defang them as a political force. In the film, an elderly Falangist complains that Franco was not a real fascist, and he wouldn’t seriously implement the Falange’s program (e.g., Falangism’s opposition to capitalism).

The documentary says Franco ought to be understood as a hard-right conservative authoritarian, not a fascist. Mussolini was a big supporter, and sent troops and military aid, but was frustrated by Franco’s failure to be affirmatively fascist. Hitler sent lots of military aid, which was critically important to the Nationalist victory, but was angry at Franco for not being willing to be more Nazi-like.

Keep trying.

#11.2.1.2 Christopher B on 2019-01-02 12:25 (Reply)

Christopher B: The documentary says Franco ought to be understood as a hard-right conservative authoritarian, not a fascist.

That's correct. Dreher considers Franco a hard-right conservative authoritarian, not a fascist, but one who gained his most important support from Nazi Germany. Whether you agree with Dreher or not, he is using the term political right consistent with conventional and historical usage.

#11.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 12:29 (Reply)

Well, considering that his guy named Marx seemed to think that a Communist revolution would necessarily pass through a stage that most others would characterize as fascist, the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", characterized by rule by the party and suppression of all opposing ideologies, I think you're talking about a distinction without a difference.

#11.2.1.3 Another Guy Named Dan on 2019-01-02 12:29 (Reply)

Another Guy Named Dan: [i]Well, considering that his guy named Marx seemed to think that a Communist revolution would necessarily pass through a stage that most others would characterize as fascist, the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", characterized by rule by the party and suppression of all opposing ideologies, I think you're talking about a distinction without a difference.[/]

Dictatorship of the proletariat is not fascism. Fascism is authoritarian, hierarchical, and ultra-nationalist. The Dictatorship of the proletariat refers to the workers having control of government, not a hierarchy under a single authoritarian leader. Furthermore, fascism is characterized by a belief in violent national and ethnic struggle and hierarchy, while the ultimate goal of communism is disarmament and a classless society.

#11.2.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 12:37 (Reply)

Another Guy Named Dan: I think you're talking about a distinction without a difference.

The confusion come from mixing ends with goals. The left is defined by advocacy of egalitarianism. The right is defined by advocacy of hierarchies. Extremists use extreme means, thinking the ends justify the means. So those on the extreme left or extreme right may use suppression or murder to achieve their very different sought after ends.

Communists want perfect equality. Fascists want perfect inequality. Communists want a world without war. Fascists see war as a defining aspiration of a nation or people.

#11.2.1.3.2 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 12:42 (Reply)

Z: Communists want perfect equality...

There is nothing even approaching equality any communist regime so you must think that communism has never really been tried. If you think that, it's no wonder you say the things you do.

Of course, this all relates to Franco being on the right since that was what he was called at the time. Stalin, for example, was called a communist at the time but he had no interest in equality so by your definition, he really wasn't a communist.

Quite often, terms like "hard right" are used as a pejorative term rather then an illustrative one. There are basically two directions governments can go - authoritative and liberal. I think it makes more sense to describe policies and ideologies in those terms rather than "right" and "left."

#11.2.1.3.2.1 mudbug on 2019-01-02 14:25 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Stalin, for example, was called a communist at the time but he had no interest in equality so by your definition, he really wasn't a communist.

Au contraire - Stalin granted a fair number of Kulaks an equality of sorts.

#11.2.1.3.2.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-01-02 15:43 (Reply)

mudbug: There is nothing even approaching equality any communist regime so you must think that communism has never really been tried.

It's been tried and found wanting. Absolute equality, like all utopias, isn't possible. Rather, the belief in the unachievable, along with the belief that the ends justify the means, has led to untold suffering. Communists have justified all manner of atrocities in the name of equality.

mudbug: Of course, this all relates to Franco being on the right since that was what he was called at the time.

At that time, but also consistent with historical usage, and consistent with current usage: "The documentary says Franco ought to be understood as a hard-right conservative authoritarian, not a fascist." Does that sentence parse? It doesn't if you assume that authoritarianism is equivalent to leftism.

mudbug: Stalin, for example, was called a communist at the time but he had no interest in equality so by your definition, he really wasn't a communist.

Stalin espoused the communist belief in equality, and to achieve it meant destroying the existing class structure.

QUOTE:

Strikes, boycott, parliamentarism, meetings and demonstrations are all good forms of struggle as means for preparing and organising the proletariat. But not one of these means is capable of abolishing existing inequality. All these means must be concentrated in one principal and decisive means; the proletariat must rise and launch a determined attack upon the bourgeoisie in order to destroy capitalism to its foundations.

That the Soviet Union devolved into hierarchy is inevitable despite the original goals — because the goals were illusory.

mudbug: There are basically two directions governments can go - authoritative and liberal.

Then Dreher's entire essay is incoherent. But it's not. Whether you agree with it or not, it is a coherent point of view based on a standard understanding of left and right. If you equate authoritarianism with the left, then King Louis XVI was a flaming leftist, which is just plain silly.

mudbug: I think it makes more sense to describe policies and ideologies in those terms rather than "right" and "left."

Sure. You can sidestep the question, but if you use the terms, it behooves you to use them in their proper sense, else the only ones who will understand you will be those already steeped in the propaganda of the right-wing echochamber.

#11.2.1.3.2.1.2 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 15:56 (Reply)

mudbug: There are basically two directions governments can go - authoritative and liberal.

We misread your statement. Libertarianism is usually considered the contrary of authoritarianism, though the term liberalism sometimes plays the same role. Fascists saw themselves as opposed to liberalism, which they saw as weak and lacking in the will to power.

#11.2.1.3.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 16:07 (Reply)

You love the confusion that the left and right terms generate...that is typical for the international global socialist communists and the national socialist fascists. You are birds of a feather. You are warmongering authoritarians...and your aim is the same as Islamism which is conversion or death. Do leave us the hell alone and our democratic republic is not to be raped by your devious living breathing Constitution. The Constitution well defines how it is to be changed and that is not by judicial, congressional, or executive dictate.

#11.2.1.3.2.1.2.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-01-02 16:24 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: You love the confusion that the left and right terms generate

Outside the right-wing bubble in which you apparently marinate, the use of the terms is widespread and consistent, and does not equate the left with authoritarianism. Otherwise, there would be no left anarchists. Think of a hippie commune run by consensus.

Have you read the essay in question? The essay makes no sense if you equate the left with authoritarianism, and the right with liberty. Nor does it make sense historically, in common usage, or in scholarly usage. Your use of the term is a recent redefinition devised for propaganda purposes.

#11.2.1.3.2.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 16:29 (Reply)

Again you put left and right on opposite political ends...they have the same ideals but some are new world order globalists and some are national socialists. Anarchists want no government and the current Antifa communists and anarchists have in common the idea to get rid of the current government. No different than the Frankfort School Antifa comrades that in the end helped destroy the old German government but lost out to the Nazis in the chaos. You, along with your authoritarians Hillary and Bernie, would like to do the same here by getting Trump out of office. It is why we keep guns and will always have guns...it keeps you authoritarians from gaining control.

#11.2.1.3.2.1.2.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-01-02 16:47 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Again you put left and right on opposite political ends.

That's rather the point of using the terms left and right. Your redefinition leads to nothing but confusion and incoherence.

Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism

Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable

#11.2.1.3.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 17:30 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism

Call from the nomenklatura on line #1 ... Call from the nomenklatura on line #1 ...

#11.2.1.3.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-01-02 18:23 (Reply)

Silly me, I forgot that the nomenklatura quickly dissolved back into the proletariat once all those who stood in the way of "equality" were either killed or converted.

#11.2.1.3.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-01-02 18:38 (Reply)

QUOTE:

if you use the terms, it behooves you to use them in their proper sense

Yes, please use the terms...er,..."properly."

You see, the Zacolyte's paymasters and their friends in the progressive intelligentsia have invested an enormous amount of time and effort in order to warp the language in ways that undermine their opposition and – as our favorite resident paid shill has so vividly demonstrated above – they are triggered whenever the unwashed don’t play along.

#11.2.1.3.2.1.2.2 Thos. on 2019-01-02 16:44 (Reply)

Thos: an enormous amount of time and effort in order to warp the language in ways that undermine their opposition

In fact, the terms left and right in terms of politics was coined over two centuries ago: In the French Estates General, the supporters of the monarchy were on the right, while the supporters of the Republic were on the left. Since then the terms have the meaning of those supporting hierarchy on the right, while those supporting egalitarianism on the left. If you equate the left with authoritarianism, that would lead to the silly notion that King Louis XVI was a flaming leftist.

#11.2.1.3.2.1.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 17:35 (Reply)

Tough to find monarchs that are not authoritarian. All communists are authoritarian. All fascists are authoritarian. All Nazis are authoritarian. Hillary and Bernie are authoritarian. Islamists are authoritarian. Authoritarians will not tolerate dissent and you can have the choice of conversion or death. A Constitutional republic is a foreign idea to authoritarians. Wilson was an authoritarian that created the administrative state, with supposedly neutral employees, in order to grow government in every direction and beyond Constitutional limits. This is not a country for the Borg.

#11.2.1.3.2.1.2.2.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-01-02 18:23 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Tough to find monarchs that are not authoritarian.

Actually, constitutionally limited monarchies are quite common.

indyjonesouthere: All communists are authoritarian.

Actually, many communists are anarchists. Typically, they don't form governments though. Duh.

indyjonesouthere: All fascists are authoritarian.

Actually, that is true as authoritarianism is intrinsic to fascism.

Not sure how this relates to the topic.

#11.2.1.3.2.1.2.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 18:40 (Reply)

Communists are authoritarians...what happens when you defy Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Min, or Pol Pot?

#11.2.1.3.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-01-02 19:27 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Communists are authoritarians.

Not all communists are authoritarians. Some are even anarchists. Think hippie commune.

#11.2.1.3.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 19:43 (Reply)

Point out a communist government that is not authoritarian. Hippy communes are anarchists...they want no government at all. They are on the opposite end of the scale from communists who are authoritarians. There's a reason that every lib/prog/soc/com is always looking for reasons to tax anything and control everything. It is power and money that they are addicted to.

#11.2.1.3.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-01-02 21:28 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Hippy communes are anarchists...they want no government at all. They are on the opposite end of the scale from communists who are authoritarians.

It's called anarcho-communism. That such a thing can exist, just like "right authoritarian" from above, shows the incoherence of your use of political terminology. These internal contradictions of your view should lead you to reevaluate your position.

The egalitarian (left)-hierarchical (right) spectrum is orthogonal to the authoritarian-libertarian spectrum. So you can have anarchists on the left or right, and you can have authoritarians on the left or right.

#11.2.1.3.2.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 23:44 (Reply)

"Franco was on the political right."

This is rewriting history. It was essential for the left to rewrite the history of Hitler and Mussolini who were socialist because it gave socialism a bad name

The political right believes in individual freedom and liberty, law and justice, capitalism and equal opportunity, the constitution and democracy, and most importantly; small government. Does this describe Franco???

#11.2.1.4 OneGuy on 2019-01-02 12:54 (Reply)

OneGuy: This is rewriting history.

No. That's how people described Franco then. That's how Dreher and nearly everyone else describes Franco now. Making up new definitions isn't an argument, but propaganda.

Individual freedom and liberty, law and justice, capitalism and equal opportunity, the constitution and democracy, and most importantly; small government. Does this describe Louis XVI?

#11.2.1.4.1 Zachriel on 2019-01-02 13:07 (Reply)

"Trump May Be The True Liberal"

The Democrat Party no longer claims to be Liberal, they call themselves Progressives now. Which is a code word for Socialist.

#12 Bill Adams (Link) on 2019-01-02 10:53 (Reply)

"Progressive" always reminds me of cancer. Because it is a form of cancer.

#12.1 Sam L. on 2019-01-02 11:48 (Reply)

How does Trump do it? How did he take competent, responsible, and dignified Mitt and turn him into a silly ass?
Suffice it to say, Mitt was always a shill for the Investor class and the International Chamber of Commerce, at the expense of everyday aspirational working Americans; it is just more obvious now.

#13 Exasperated on 2019-01-02 12:52 (Reply)

How? He let Mitt do it to himself.

The Gang of Z was BUSY today!

#13.1 Sam L. on 2019-01-02 21:30 (Reply)

'Dunderheadedness'. I had forgotten I knew this word, don't see it used often anymore, if ever. I did look it up to make sure and there it was, a nice old word to describe some modern political debates.

#14 XRay on 2019-01-02 15:58 (Reply)

So. Now it's shown the illegal "Russian bots" in the Alabama senate election are actually more correctly identified as "Democrat bots."

Who's going to be prosecuted for illegal interference in a Senatorial election?

#15 OldFert on 2019-01-02 16:20 (Reply)

Trump may indeed be a rabid buffalo crashing a knitting circle, but it has been a while since we've had a president like George Washington. Woe unto us all if we begin looking to members of the professional political class to "shape the character of the nation"... The "character of the nation" is enshrined and defined in the Declaration of Independence, a rather feisty document that is more honest, has more integrity, and is more wear-resistant than any man or woman courting our votes.
The man who has devoted his life to the teachings of a con artist encouraged the nation to examine its leaders to see whether they are worthy of our devotion and respect.

#16 The Distributist (Link) on 2019-01-02 16:37 (Reply)

"Emotional abuse to be criminalized in Ireland with new domestic violence law "

This is interesting. Clearly an attempt to give women the upper hand in a court case. But ironic in that emotional abuse is a women's forte. This may not work out as they intended it to.

#17 Anon on 2019-01-02 20:41 (Reply)

I have read many times over the years that presidential candidates never seem to get over their desire to be president. We have lots of evidence over the years of just that. And even worse, former presidents are unwilling to give up the glory and the ability to tell the nation what to do. Surely, that is why the Obamas bought a significant residence in D.C. rather than going 'home' to Chicago, where his presidential library eventually will be after all the legal cases trying to prevent it wind down. George W. set an excellent example by turning to aid the wounded warriors from his administration, painting, and refusing to try to hang on, like Jimmy Carter. Paul Ryan said something about Romney becoming the standard bearer of the Senate, but he just looks to me like another one not ready to give up.

#18 The Elephant's Child (Link) on 2019-01-02 23:26 (Reply)

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, January 2. 2019