We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, March 26. 2016
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Fascist is actually being to kind and obfuscates their true identity, i.e., Marxist, socialists.
This is the necessary unavoidable consequence of the fact that, according to Marxist doctrine, you do not consider the possibility of dissent among honest people; either you think as I do, or you are a traitor and must be liquidated.
von Mises, Ludwig (2010-12-08). Marxism Unmasked
Fascism rose as a response by the "peaceful-means by progressive interventionism" socialists to the violence be perpetrated by the "violent revolution" socialists., i.e, communists. True, once the "peaceful-means" socialists saw the power of fascist violence, they were quick to push economic and social interventionism to the extreme, but short of revolutionary socialism with state ownership of the means of production and settled on the power to control production vested in the state.
What we see today are simply Marxist/socialists. They are using the violence of the Bolshevik revolutionary socialist, which provoked the equal fascist socialist violence. So really it is just Marxist violence that seeks to provoke to justify their fascist response. Whether their goal is the leap to the socialist/communist end state of total state control or will settle somewhere along the interventionist road beyond the regulatory and welfare state have already lured those who oppose the servile ideology is unknown.
The fundamental idea of these movements— which, from the name of the most grandiose and tightly disciplined among them, the Italian, may, in general, be designated as Fascist— consists in the proposal to make use of the same unscrupulous methods in the struggle against the Third International as the latter employs against its opponents. The Third International seeks to exterminate its adversaries and their ideas in the same way that the hygienist strives to exterminate a pestilential bacillus; it considers itself in no way bound by the terms of any compact that it may conclude with opponents, and it deems any crime, any lie, and any calumny permissible in carrying on its struggle. The Fascists, at least in principle, profess the same intentions. That they have not yet succeeded as fully as the Russian Bolsheviks in freeing themselves from a certain regard for liberal notions and ideas and traditional ethical precepts is to be attributed solely to the fact that the Fascists carry on their work among nations in which the intellectual and moral heritage of some thousands of years of civilization cannot be destroyed at one blow, and not among the barbarian peoples on both sides of the Urals, whose relationship to civilization has never been any other than that of marauding denizens of forest and desert accustomed to engage, from time to time, in predatory raids on civilized lands in the hunt for booty. Because of this difference, Fascism will never succeed as completely as Russian Bolshevism in freeing itself from the power of liberal ideas.
Mises, Ludwig von (2010-12-10). Liberalism (p. 49). Ludwig von Mises Institute. Kindle Edition.
But the one thing in common is that the socialists, fascist or communist variety, fear the ideas of classical liberalism. Although mostly for the college age kids it is pure Marxist hatred of dissent and intolerance of any thought that is now how they think.
The leftist fascists are, as Whittle reminds us, the recent incarnation of Hitler's brownshirts, but what they probably don't realize is that they, and the political movement they espouse, is very similar to Naziism. Hitler was a socialist, but not the "communist" variety. He was not interested in the government owning the means of production. He controlled them by taxation and regulation. Hitler instituted very high taxes and regulated companies to benefit the country as a whole. Basically, the only difference between the left and Naziism is that the Nazis spent a lot on armaments and the left wants to eviscerate our defense spending.
The left actually has a logical, if completely incorrect, idea. Violence to stop the right or others in disagreement with the left is OK because if the right or others didn't hold those "heretical" concepts to be true and speak them, the violence wouldn't be necessary. In other words: you made me made, I hit you, it's your fault I hit you, because you made me mad.
Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.
Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.
3. redefining terminology
4. smear by association
5. conflating tactics with ideology
6. rewriting history
Nailed it. Perfect guidebook of bullet points for the liberal left. The behavior traits and "logic" is obvious, yet they are blind to it.
Handwaving. If you take issue with the particulars, then you might respond accordingly.
Squid ink. Since you've an issue with the particulars, you always respond accordingly.
Truthiness prevails because it's easier than questioning their preconceptions.
Watch what they do. Riots scheduled for DC next month. Big riots with the obligatory violence at the Republican convention. Numerous smaller events as necessary. We will all have a catbird seat thanks to the internet and cable TV and we can watch the fascists left in action.
Of course, the left is built with peddling what become preconceptions. For example, many on the left contend, without evidence, that conservatives (or anybody) who disagree with Obama do so because they are racist. People on the left have a preconception that the Democratic party has been on the forefront of civil rights for over 200 years while they defended slavery, founded the KKK, instituted Jim Crow laws, and filibustered Republican Civil Rights legislation. They have the preconception that Obama is good for the black community, while black unemployment is much higher during his term. They seem to have a problem questioning their preconceptions.
mudbug: many on the left contend ...
Better. Notice how you avoided the overgeneralization by referring to only a subset of those on the Left, rather than attempting, as Whittle did, to consider them intrinsic and universal characteristics of "The Left".
mudbug: People on the left have a preconception that the Democratic party has been on the forefront of civil rights for over 200 years while they defended slavery, founded the KKK, instituted Jim Crow laws, and filibustered Republican Civil Rights legislation.
Presumably, you mean SOME people on the left.
Rand Paul teaches black history
mudbug: They have the preconception that Obama is good for the black community, while black unemployment is much higher during his term.
Good example. The black unemployment rate has dropped to its lowest level since the Great Recession, which had its genesis during the previous administration.
Whittle conflates a tactic, "brownshirts", with ideology. Radicals on both left and right have used intimidation to achieve political aims. Whittle also conflates any disruptive protest with "brownshirts".
The other day, right-wing groups, self-described fascists, got rowdy in Belgium, throwing explosive devices at police. However, to overgeneralize and say everyone on the political right is a fascist or disruptive would be a fallacy of overgeneralization.
Stupid, meaningless diversions prevail because they're easier than seeking truthful principle. I.e., lying is when you mean to be misunderstood.
Ergo, squid ink happens. Help stamp out squid ink.