The Loud Silence of the Fascist Enablers

World • Views: 2,436

Oddly enough, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Gates of Vienna have absolutely nothing to say about Bruce Bawer’s piece on the meltdown of the anti-jihad movement into a puddle of stinky fascist goo. Their normal response to criticism is to rant, rave, and spew insults, usually within minutes of such a post; yet today, two days after Bruce published it and gave permission for me to reprint it here, there’s nothing from them but a very loud silence.

A cynical person might conclude that they’re afraid to give Bruce’s article any publicity, because it shows that their little clique of fascist enablers isn’t quite as righteous as they like to pretend, and they’re hoping it will just blow over without much notice.

Not even Andrew Sullivan’s link yesterday to the LGF reprint of Bruce’s article flushed them out of their spider holes.

Looks like Bruce Bawer scored a direct hit.

Jump to bottom

142 comments
1 MrSilverDragon  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:55:54am

Nice job, Bruce. Way to shine the light on it.

2 MPH  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:56:02am

There will be more Bawer-styled defenses coming soon...I'm sure of it.

3 JohnnyReb  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:56:12am

Things that make you go hmmmmmmm............

4 Digital Display  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:56:18am

Looks like Bruce scored a direct hit on the foxhole...
Thanks for posting the article the other day.

5 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:56:27am

They're taking on water!

6 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:56:52am
Looks like Bruce Bawer scored a direct hit.


I guess they're now trapped in their bunker, desperately trying to claw their way out of the hole they've dug for themselves.

7 SasquatchOnSteroids  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:56:57am
Looks like Bruce Bawer scored a direct hit.

Dude, you sank my battleship.

Tee Time, with 2 ee's.

Keep it real.

8 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:57:05am

Silence implies agreement?

9 VegasRick  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:57:36am

Hopefully they are learning and reevaluating their positions.

10 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:58:32am

re: #9 VegasRick

Hopefully they are learning and reevaluating their positions.

I wish something would snap them out of it.

11 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:58:50am

The silence from them has been deafening. Even the couterfeit blog commented on it. Even the folks at GoV vs. The World vs. LGF took note of it (and oddly gave you praise, Charles). But, Pamela, Bodissey, Dymphna, and Robert have been silent about it. However, Bodissey tried once again to defend Pro-Köln in a rather lengthy post.

12 davesax  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:58:54am

Charles,

I'm very glad you've brought attention to the facism of the anti-Jihad movement.

That being said, on a side note, I don't take Sullivan seriously. When he's not ranting about the evils of circumcision (a movement that's starting to sound like the anti-Vaccinators, given all the positive medical findings that keep coming out about male-circumcision), he's defending Iran's pursuit of a nuclear bomb and blaming Israel and the "Lobby" for everything, then insisting, "I'm not anti-Semitic".

The guy has issues.

13 Salamantis  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:58:56am

They're afraid to bark, because to bark would be to self-identify as the bit dog.

14 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:59:06am

I was and still am willing to give odds that they won't say a word about it. Since none of them were specifically named, they can pretend he was talking about someone else. To respond would be to cry, with Osric, "A hit, a very palpable hit!"

They won't respond because any response would be worse than silence for their reputations.

15 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:59:47am

re: #6 Kosh's Shadow

I guess they're now trapped in their bunker, desperately trying to claw their way out of the hole they've dug for themselves.

Oddly appropriate considering their fascist sympathy.

16 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:59:51am

an op-ed by Ayaan Hirsi Ali would really obliterate them.

17 JimmyTheClaw  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:00:04am

thats why my blog and news sites that i read daily has evolved over the last 8 or 9 years. what a long strange trip its been.

18 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:00:26am

re: #15 Honorary Yooper

Oddly appropriate considering their fascist sympathy.

I deliberately used that term for that very reason.

19 davesax  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:01:04am

You know, I've never felt comfortable with Geller or Spencer, even before this rift.

Geller always came across as crazy, and Spencer as creepy.

20 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:01:15am

re: #16 Ward Cleaver

an op-ed by Ayaan Hirsi Ali would really obliterate them.

I think Robert tried to do a deflection recently regarding Bawer's post. He posted something positive about Hirsi Ali, and reposted an older photo of the two together.

21 DaddyG  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:01:51am

The dryer must have eaten their sock puppets. /

22 medaura18586  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:02:17am

Andrew Bostom has not kept quite about it,... anyone care to interpret this post?

[Link: tiny.cc...]

23 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:03:01am

re: #12 davesax

That's my point, though -- normally if Andrew Sullivan links to LGF, we get a spate of hate postings at those blogs saying I'm "turning into Andrew Sullivan," or some other such rot. This time -- dead silence.

24 medaura18586  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:03:13am

re: #22 medaura18586

Andrew Bostom has not kept quite about it,... anyone care to interpret this post?

[Link: tiny.cc...]

PIMF: Andrew Bostom has not kept quiet about it

/dyslexic mood today

25 Baier  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:03:19am

Silence works...remember Obama suggesting he might be open to trying Bush officials? It blew over - not for us of course- but out of the general public's vision.

26 lawhawk  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:03:20am

He shoots and scores!

27 Killgore Trout  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:03:23am

re: #22 medaura18586

They just called him gay. Hardly a defense of Vlaams Belang.

28 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:04:18am

re: #22 medaura18586

Andrew Bostom has not kept quite about it,... anyone care to interpret this post?

[Link: tiny.cc...]

Bostom squealed like a stuck pig yesterday over it. He made a bunch of ad hominem remarks while not answering the questions Bawer put forth. Walter made a comment (twice) on Bostom's blog regarding it, and twice the comment was removed. The second time, Bostom closed comments for the post.

29 Killgore Trout  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:04:30am

What's disappointing is pretty much nobody else linked to that article. Of all the counterjihad blogs out there nobody wants to talk about it.

30 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:05:20am

re: #29 Killgore Trout

What's disappointing is pretty much nobody else linked to that article. Of all the counterjihad blogs out there nobody wants to talk about it.

The elephant in the room.

31 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:05:29am

Have a great day all!

32 Ojoe  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:05:48am

The fascists and jihadis can go at each other all they want IMHO.

Pass the popcorn.

33 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:06:24am

re: #32 Ojoe

The fascists and jihadis can go at each other all they want IMHO.

Pass the popcorn.

Chips and Ro-Tel dip!

34 brookly red  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:08:17am

re: #25 Baier

Silence works...remember Obama suggesting he might be open to trying Bush officials? It blew over - not for us of course- but out of the general public's vision.

Who was it that said "silence is a weapon"... Was it Ho Chi Minh ?

35 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:08:33am

re: #32 Ojoe

The fascists and jihadis can go at each other all they want IMHO.

Pass the popcorn.

Uh, hello -- the problem is that the fascists don't stop with the "jihadis."

36 davesax  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:08:56am

#23:

Charles,

I know. It's crazy.

You're no Andrew Sullivan.

Like I said, I was never comfortable with either Geller or Spencer. Spencer's revulsion to Islam always seemed like a weird obsession to me. I don't know. There was just something very unnerving about his approach.

37 Salamantis  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:08:57am

re: #32 Ojoe

The fascists and jihadis can go at each other all they want IMHO.

Pass the popcorn.

I'm just not a-gonna help either one.

It's like when iraq was at war with Iran; you root for BOTH sides to lose.

A pox on BOTH their houses.

38 Killgore Trout  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:10:03am
Looks like Bruce Bawer scored a direct hit.

I think so. Their reaction this time has been very different than in the past. Although their silence is disappointing they aren't going to be able to hide from this. There will be another counterjihad conference. Who is going to be invited and who will show up? They have some very tough choices to make.

39 ducktrapper  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:10:12am

Jonah Goldberg, in his book Liberal Fascism, shows the tempting allure of this philosophy has snared smarter (and probably better people) than Paul Belien and his fellow travellers. Now we see that both Islamists and Eurofascists attack all that oppose or even disagree with them.

40 Ojoe  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:10:17am

re: #35 Charles

Yes that is a problem.

Not very likely that they would eliminate each other exactly, with no residue.

41 kynna  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:11:18am

re: #35 Charles

Uh, hello -- the problem is that the fascists don't stop with the "jihadis."

I want to create 10,000 sock puppets just to upding that response.

42 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:12:12am

re: #24 medaura18586

PIMF: Andrew Bostom has not kept quiet about it

/dyslexic mood today

Linky no worky (lizardlanche!), but I think I saw that yesterday. My most charitable interpretation is asini caput in ano. I pegged Bostom as an egomaniac when his book "The Legacy of Jihad" came out bearing his name with the entirely superfluous "M.D." after it. What on earth does a medical degree have to do with your credibility when writing about history? It's like all those lawyers writing "Esq." after their names even on Valentine's Day cards...

Dyslexic mood, or mode? ;^)

43 researchok  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:12:58am

Bawer's arguments are rational his observations and conclusions offer up a reasonable assessment of current Euro realities. This is antithetical to the hysterical tone and tenor of much of the 'anti jihadi' groundswell.

Civilized, rational argument is the best antidote to emotionality and shallowness.

44 Ojoe  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:15:10am

re: #37 Salamantis

Who said helping?

Watching only.

45 Ben Hur  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:16:09am

re: #29 Killgore Trout

What's disappointing is pretty much nobody else linked to that article. Of all the counterjihad blogs out there nobody wants to talk about it.

What's dissappointing is that I have not heard one explanation of why he gets a pass over supporting Geert.

Everything else I agree with.

They're silent because they know they have no answer to the Koln invite/support fiasco.

I'm putting this to you, because your love to connect anybody supporting Tea Parties with Ron Paul and other wakadoos.

With that logic I would think you would disqualify Bawer as an ally.

46 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:16:20am

re: #35 Charles

Uh, hello -- the problem is that the fascists don't stop with the "jihadis."

Oh, you're right. I misread that. The jihadis would only be their first target.

47 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:16:53am

re: #39 ducktrapper

Fascism (and for that matter, Communism) seems to have a strange draw with people who are supposedly educated enough to know better. Even amongst the Muslims, it is not usually the poor who become entranced with jihad, it is the educated who seem to. I have no idea off hand why it happens, but it does.

48 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:18:24am

re: #46 Ward Cleaver

Oh, you're right. I misread that. The jihadis would only be their first target.

Their next stop would be the socialists of the EU, then the Jews, then the Roma. It doesn't stop with just the jihadis. They will find other targets. It is in their nature, and we have a proven track record in 1930s Germany.

49 ducktrapper  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:20:19am

Yooper - All I know, is that they'd be coming after me. I have no doubt about that. Maybe I'm just not smart enough for them.

50 Killgore Trout  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:22:52am

re: #45 Ben Hur


I'm putting this to you, because your love to connect anybody supporting Tea Parties with Ron Paul and other wakadoos.


Strawman.

51 [deleted]  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:22:54am
52 Mr. In get Mr. Out  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:24:34am
Fascism (and for that matter, Communism) seems to have a strange draw with people who are supposedly educated enough to know better. Even amongst the Muslims, it is not usually the poor who become entranced with jihad, it is the educated who seem to. I have no idea off hand why it happens, but it does.

Moral relativity may play a role. Those educated too often waver without taking a real position, trying to understand the nuance of a mindset. Yet, they end up blindly following a conviction, because they never step back to study themselves.

53 Ben Hur  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:24:39am

re: #50 Killgore Trout

Strawman.

How is that a strawman?

54 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:24:44am

re: #29 Killgore Trout

What's disappointing is pretty much nobody else linked to that article. Of all the counterjihad blogs out there nobody wants to talk about it.

A crystal clear revelation as to who supports fascism and who supports freedom.

55 davesax  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:24:53am

#37

I think it's right to denounce both.

First, because facisim is wrong, no matter what the source.

And second, because the anti-Jihad movement that Charles has been a proponent of is a just and necessary response to Islamic supremicism.

There is a strong case to be made against islamic supremicism. Women's rights, religious equality, and anti-racism are all a part of that case. Simple democratic principles. The Vlaams and their ilk do not represent those principles. They are for replacing one facism with another.

Their movement is different from Charles'. It always has been, and I'm surprised they are only realizing that recently. Charles has never espoused views on this blog that align with facism.

56 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:25:41am

re: #50 Killgore Trout

Strawman.

No, I think Ben Hur was talking about Bawers apparent support of Geert. Address that.

57 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:25:51am

re: #40 Ojoe

Yes that is a problem.

Not very likely that they would eliminate each other exactly, with no residue.

They could weaken each other, or, more likely, they'll divide the opponents to jihad weakening our side, and, by being so openly racist, strengthening the jihadi side.

58 Ben Hur  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:26:18am

re: #50 Killgore Trout


And please don't take this as me attacking you personally.

59 [deleted]  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:26:58am
60 Guanxi88  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:27:04am

I think they're sort of ignoring it a la Baghdad Bob. Yeah, the tanks are there, but if you don't mention them, you avoid having to deal with it.

61 [deleted]  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:28:05am
62 Randall Gross  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:28:21am

Charles I think it's a combination effect. The Pro-koln blowout certainly took wind from their sails, and combined with Bawer's piece there's not a lot of defense they have left.

63 jcm  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:28:43am

I just hope a direct hit on a puddle of stinking fascist goo doesn't splatter it all over everyone.

;-P

64 Guanxi88  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:28:47am

re: #61 buzzsawmonkey

"The Loud Silence of the Fascist Enablers?"

I thought it was Silence of the Vlaams.

Okay, we can close down the thread now.

65 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:29:24am

re: #48 Honorary Yooper

Their next stop would be the socialists of the EU, then the Jews, then the Roma. It doesn't stop with just the jihadis. They will find other targets. It is in their nature, and we have a proven track record in 1930s Germany.

This phenomenon is not confined to 1930's Germany and Nazism. Autocratic movements throughout history have scapegoated and persecuted groups they hated.

66 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:29:37am

re: #55 davesax

#37

I think it's right to denounce both.

First, because facisim is wrong, no matter what the source.

And second, because the anti-Jihad movement that Charles has been a proponent of is a just and necessary response to Islamic supremicism.

There is a strong case to be made against islamic supremicism. Women's rights, religious equality, and anti-racism are all a part of that case. Simple democratic principles. The Vlaams and their ilk do not represent those principles. They are for replacing one facism with another.

Their movement is different from Charles'. It always has been, and I'm surprised they are only realizing that recently. Charles has never espoused views on this blog that align with facism.


In fact, VB and their ilk in some ways are worse. Anyone can convert to Islam, but you can't change your race.
Not that I'd convert to Islam either.

67 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:31:01am

re: #61 buzzsawmonkey

"The Loud Silence of the Fascist Enablers?"

I thought it was Silence of the Vlaams.

Good one!

68 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:33:02am

re: #66 Kosh's Shadow

In fact, VB and their ilk in some ways are worse. Anyone can convert to Islam, but you can't change your race.
Not that I'd convert to Islam either.

I could make a really bad and tasteless Michael Jackson joke here, but I'll refrain.

69 Killgore Trout  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:35:07am

re: #53 Ben Hur

Because it's not true. You are misrepresenting my opinion so there's no need for me to address it.

I am disappointed that so many people want me to be quiet about neoNazi involvement in the Tea Parties. Tea Party supporters should be the loudest voices exposing this. The problem is not going to go away on its own and it's probably only going to get worse. Eventually the MSM will pick up on it if it gets obvious enough.

70 Randall Gross  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:35:15am

There are also upcoming EU, British, and other elections. Perhaps they want to keep their profile low?

71 [deleted]  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:35:43am
72 [deleted]  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:36:35am
73 Lincolntf  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:39:00am

re: #69 Killgore Trout

All of us who attended the Tea Parties saw ZERO Nazi's to "get rid of". You find them because you hunt for them on Neo-Nazi websites. Do you understand the disconnect?

74 Land Shark  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:39:45am

It is interesting that there's been no answer from them, given their fast and vicious response in the past. I would hope they are re-evaluating these associations. However, given their distasteful response to Charles when he first brought them up, I'm doubtful that's the case.

I'm thinking from their point of view the best course is to shut up and hope it blows over. Bawer has a lot of credibility in my book, and his book "While Europe Slept" on the rise of Islamic supremacism in Europe is very well written and convincing. As a gay man who moved to Europe in the hope of finding a more accepting environment for himself and his partner, his discovery of the reality of Islam's growth in Europe and how it undermines what he was hoping to find there makes for a very powerful and courageous narrative.

75 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:41:18am

re: #69 Killgore Trout

The problem is not going to go away on its own and it's probably only going to get worse. Eventually the MSM will pick up on it if it gets obvious enough.

The MSM is already picking up on it:

76 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:42:38am

re: #73 Lincolntf

All of us who attended the Tea Parties saw ZERO Nazi's to "get rid of". You find them because you hunt for them on Neo-Nazi websites. Do you understand the disconnect?

Well what do you think that they are going to be doing, wearing a Hilter moustache and funny glasses?

There is absolute proof that all kinds of questionable groups are hanging their hat on the Tea Parties parade.

For you to dismiss it the way you do is lazy and lacks any critical thinking skills.

It's almost like being ok with VB just because they are anti-jihad.

Same difference.

77 Throbert McGee  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:47:26am

re: #12 davesax

I don't take Sullivan seriously. When he's not ranting about the evils of circumcision (a movement that's starting to sound like the anti-Vaccinators, given all the positive medical findings that keep coming out about male-circumcision)

Don't ask me to explain it -- 'cause I don't understand it myself -- but opposition to circumcision has been a faddish thing among some American gay men for years now, and it seems to have a semi-independent life of its own apart from the (for lack of a better word) "mainstream" anti-circumcision movement. Certainly there's a lot of overlap, but the gay version of anti-circ manages to bring a strong spin of Maudlin Victimhood (big surprise there) into the argument.

78 Ayeless in Ghazi  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:48:59am

re: #62 Thanos

Charles I think it's a combination effect. The Pro-koln blowout certainly took wind from their sails, and combined with Bawer's piece there's not a lot of defense they have left.

I can see a lot of purple faces in that bunker of theirs right now. And it's only going to get worse for them from now on as more light is shone on them. Reminds me of that film, what was it again - ah yes - "Downfall".

'Don't cry Pamela'.

79 Killgore Trout  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:49:34am

re: #75 Charles

Yeesh.

80 guftafs  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:50:06am
Looks like Bruce Bawer scored a direct hit.

... plus with all the tireless coverage done by you, Charles, perhaps these scaremongering opportunists are finally consigned to fester in their own fears and hatreds, impotently and insignificantly.

/you can always hope

81 Killgore Trout  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:51:01am

re: #75 Charles

He's the new rockstar of the right.

82 Lincolntf  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:51:17am

re: #76 Walter L. Newton

Almost like being okay with VB?
That's absurd.
I saw with my own eyes what happens at a legitimate Tea Party. Discussions of City budget shortfalls, examination of the pros and cons of accepting stimulus money, changing tax rates and "environmental" regulations.
The Nazi's exist, and I'm sure that they're thrilled that some have decided to help spread their message, but if you don't trust Nazi's (I presume you don't) then why take their word on this?
If I ever see a Nazi at a Tea Party, I'll be the first to report it.

83 ducktrapper  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:51:30am

It's hard to defeat an existential enemy without threatening its existence. It's hard to get information from terrorists without terrorizing them. It's damn hard to stop people from joining you without using some of the methods used by those whom you don't want joining you. Damn. Maybe I'll just hide in my closet and see which way the winds blow.

84 EndlessBob  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:58:14am

My only beef is with the sloppy use of the word "fascist," which in this case seems to mean "people whose politics I despise." "Fascism" as an ideology involves a lot of statism and government regulation of industry, and is not just a catch-all for right-wing extremism. Jonah Goldberg of The National Review has written a very well-documented book that demonstrates that actual Fascism in the world's history has been a progressive -- or liberal, if you will -- phenomenon.

The behavior of these anti-jihadist groups and their fellow travelers deserves another name beyond the sloppy usage of a cliched epithet.

Just sayin', not defendin'.

85 Randall Gross  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:59:12am

Ron Paul speaks only his most persuasive and popular arguments in that vid, no mention of his social agenda or crackpot economic fringe attachments. No mention of free trade because he's really an isolationist.

86 Throbert McGee  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:59:44am

re: #42 Cato the Elder

Linky no worky (lizardlanche!), but I think I saw that yesterday. My most charitable interpretation is asini caput in ano.

Snerk! "The head of a (jack)ass in the ass(hole)"?

87 stuiec  Fri, May 8, 2009 10:05:28am

re: #39 ducktrapper

Jonah Goldberg, in his book Liberal Fascism, shows the tempting allure of this philosophy has snared smarter (and probably better people) than Paul Belien and his fellow travellers. Now we see that both Islamists and Eurofascists attack all that oppose or even disagree with them.


There's also the phenomenon described in The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America. Movements that begin with the goal of defending liberal values of tolerance and egalitarianism often develop the tendency to become rigid and absolutist, to the point where erstwhile allies and fellow travelers become bigger enemies in the eyes of the movement because they do not accept 100 percent of the movement's precepts and proscriptions. The movement also tends to insist on internal conformity, in which dissenters are re-educated, suppressed and (if they do not recant) expelled.

88 ssn697  Fri, May 8, 2009 10:06:52am

re: #33 Ward Cleaver

Chips and Ro-Tel dip!

My problem with all of this is the high probability of these fringers negating those with legitimate issues.

IT becomes easy to point the finger and say "yeah, you are one of *them*".

89 kansas  Fri, May 8, 2009 10:09:14am

Charles
"A cynical person might conclude that they’re afraid to give Bruce’s article any publicity, because it shows that their little clique of fascist enablers isn’t quite as righteous as they like to pretend, and they’re hoping it will just blow over without much notice."

An optimist might think that perhaps your educating them has yielded positive results. Hopefully it's an "oh shit" moment for them.

90 Randall Gross  Fri, May 8, 2009 10:09:29am

re: #84 EndlessBob

When they speak at gatherings put together by fascists, supply them with a steady stream of accommodating agitprop against the fascist's latest scapegoat, and support banning books, religions, and religious buildings then fascism is a perfectly fair word. Now take your "fascism is liberal" rabbit trail discussion and hold it with yourself. Fascism don't care left from right.

91 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 8, 2009 10:12:37am

re: #84 EndlessBob

My only beef is with the sloppy use of the word "fascist," which in this case seems to mean "people whose politics I despise."

There is nothing "sloppy" about the use of the word "fascist," and it does not mean simply "people whose politics I despise."

The groups they're enabling, Vlaams Belang, Pro-Köln, and others, are absolutely fascists. In the case of Vlaams Belang, their founders had ties to ex-Nazis. You know, from the Third Reich? And in the case of Pro-Köln, they have ties to outright neo-Nazis who dress up as little Hitler clones, and sell Hitler Youth recordings on their websites.

If you don't know the background of these groups, it might be wise to do a little research before revealing your ignorance with a comment like that.

92 davesax  Fri, May 8, 2009 10:13:17am

#77

Throbert!

Good to see you man!

I didn't know it was picking up in the gay community.

That's weird, especially given the recent findings about its health benefits with regards to HIV and STDs.

But hey, people are generally insane, so who knows?

93 Athos  Fri, May 8, 2009 10:18:23am

re: #82 Lincolntf

If I ever see a Nazi at a Tea Party, I'll be the first to report it.

What about their enabler's - like the Paulians?

The reason this effort got the traction and had the impact that it did is because Charles, and a number of us at LGF who supported him, took on the issue to shine the light on the enablers who provided these odious groups what they wanted the most - a glimmer of respectability and a pass for their reprehensible positions because of the 'enemy of my enemy' fallacy.

The GOP and conservatives have the same challenge and need to do the same thing by exposing the enablers. Charles, and many of us here, have taken this one on as well. We are consistent in our approach that the fringe has to remain the fringe and has to remain discredited for their odious positions and beliefs. That means that they need to be exposed for what they are and any enabler also has to be exposed and educated about who they are going to bat for. Then they have to make a moral and ethical decision and live with the consequences of that decision.

94 ducktrapper  Fri, May 8, 2009 10:28:49am

Thanos - I disagree. I always wondered why extreme left and right so resembled each other. However, it eventually became clear to me. Fascism, being fascinated with the power of the state, is a left wing phenomenon, in the end, indistinguishable from communism. The only reason fascism became a bad word with the left is because due to his differences with Hitler, Stalin called ALL his enemies fascists. However, socialism, communism, fascism are essentially in the same food group. Group think is left wing. The individual is unimportant. The right is concerned with and values the individual. The true right wing fringe tends to be made up of paranoid individuals who don't trust any large group enough to join them.

95 Buck  Fri, May 8, 2009 10:29:58am

Andrew mentioned Mark Steyn in his post...

I hope Mark is on the correct side of this, and didn't get taken in.... I really like Mark Steyn.

96 Yashmak  Fri, May 8, 2009 10:32:37am

I've been eagerly awaiting the shrill responses from those Bruce indicts in his article. As Sal noted upthread, none of those folks are going to respond though, because to do so would be to admit theyr'e the ones he's talking about.

97 Lincolntf  Fri, May 8, 2009 10:36:34am

re: #93 Athos

How can you be more "fringe" than when you're completely absent? Again, the "Tea Parties" that took place in some place called "Acela" had nothing to do with the ones held here in North Carolina, or any other state that I've ever heard of.
I have no emotional attachment to the phrase "Tea Party", and I don't get too worked up when people misapply it, but the reality of the gathering that I attended is at odds with all of the Paulian/Nazi accounts that have been generated and repeated on the Web.

98 Randall Gross  Fri, May 8, 2009 10:41:49am

re: #94 ducktrapper

Sorry, not taking the stinky bait. Fascism is a word that fits here. Go have your discussion on left v right with yourself, we've been down that rabbit trail 100+ times in these threads already.

99 ducktrapper  Fri, May 8, 2009 10:43:40am

Thanos - WTF are you talking about?

100 Randall Gross  Fri, May 8, 2009 10:46:27am

Semantical rabbit trails.

101 Render  Fri, May 8, 2009 10:47:57am

AB doesn't mention his sloppy historical work being exposed either.

HEH,
R

102 ducktrapper  Fri, May 8, 2009 10:48:47am

Okelie dokelie. If you're thinking I'm trying to excuse VB et al of the accusation of fascism, your reading skills could use some improvement, however.

103 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, May 8, 2009 10:49:07am

I can't help but hope that Robert Spencer will find his way back from the embrace of the European neo-whatsises. His anti-jihad work is too valuable to lose.

104 Randall Gross  Fri, May 8, 2009 10:53:10am

re: #102 ducktrapper

Look, if it makes you feel better to say that all fascism is by nature leftist, then feel free, but it's non-essential to this conversation. Instead, it's just a distraction and one that curiously comes up in everyone of these threads. You can define what the meaning of "is" is while you are at it, but the essence of this thread is that the anti-jihad movement is in bed with fascists, and has no reply at all to that statement.

105 ducktrapper  Fri, May 8, 2009 11:03:45am

Thanos - Oh it makes me feel all gooey inside to get your permission for a non essential thought. The fact is, I do not disagree with that last statement, in any way. However, when you attack any thought that deviates or, in this case, merely digresses from thine own, I wonder, can any of us be pure enough? I'm sure of myself but now I'm not so sure about you. :)

106 Throbert McGee  Fri, May 8, 2009 11:05:28am

re: #92 davesax

#77

Throbert!

Good to see you man!

I didn't know it was picking up in the gay community.

That's weird, especially given the recent findings about its health benefits with regards to HIV and STDs.

Hi, Dave!

Strictly speaking, I don't think that circumcision is likely to make much of a difference either way when it comes to HIV transmission among gay men in developed Western countries.

But at any rate, the gay version of the anti-circ movement tends to be obsessed with the idea that circumcised schlongs are not only "ugly" and "mutilated," but also virtually incapable of responding to sexual stimulation [!]. That's where the Gay Victimhood part comes in -- circumcision is imagined to be a plot by "erotophobic religionists" to make sex as pleasureless as possible. It is further imagined that gay men in Puritanical America (where circumcision has been historically more common) are greatly disadvantaged compared to our brethren in more enlightened foreign countries.

107 Render  Fri, May 8, 2009 11:06:49am

re: #91 Charles

Inbound.

DEFLECTIONS,
R

108 SixDegrees  Fri, May 8, 2009 11:09:22am
Looks like Bruce Bawer scored a direct hit.

It's possible he just chased them down their ratholes, and that they will be a lot more careful about what they discuss in public now. Similar to the boobs at SF Kilgore was referencing downstairs plotting to remove objectionable wording from their literature for handout at Tea Party rallies, in an effort to dupe the public about their real intentions.

To me, it's more troublesome when the enemy goes silent. I'm a lot happier when they're chatting merrily away about their every intention.

109 wrenchwench  Fri, May 8, 2009 11:12:07am

re: #103 The Sanity Inspector

I can't help but hope that Robert Spencer will find his way back from the embrace of the European neo-whatsises. His anti-jihad work is too valuable to lose.

I understand the emotion, but now his anti-jihad work is tainted to me. I now believe he is an anti-muslim bigot. I won't trust his work again.

110 ducktrapper  Fri, May 8, 2009 11:16:00am

Islam, Christianity, Judaism. There are all organizing principles. Although Spencer has teamed with fascists, Islam is still a dangerous ideology unless it has a reformation, an enlightenment and a renaissance. All the things that eventually made Christianity less dangerous in the hands of the state.

111 Render  Fri, May 8, 2009 11:28:26am

re: #110 ducktrapper

Not disagreeing in the slightest, but..."eventually" is a key word here.

The Christian Reformation took over 100 years and was particularly bloody. These kind of things don't happen quickly or cheaply, even in the modern world.

The Reformation of Islam has already begun, for those who have the eyes to see it. Militant Islam is a hard outer shell, with a hollow and rotten core.

CHICKEN
EGG,
R

112 ducktrapper  Fri, May 8, 2009 11:39:03am

Alas I think you've hit the nail on the head.

113 Land Shark  Fri, May 8, 2009 11:42:53am

re: #109 wrenchwench

I understand how you feel, but Spencer's scholarship on Islam is first rate. I know because I didn't just read his books, I was so appalled by what he wrote that I needed to look up his assertions. Well, my own "research" into what others were saying, especially what Muslims themselves were saying, backed up everything I looked up. It wasn't just what he wrote, but the fact I was able to read and hear the same and more from other sources that confirmed it.

But there's no question Spencer's questionable associations have hurt his credibility and that of his books with many people. Which is very understandable. But what he writes in his books about Islam is verifiable.

114 Yashmak  Fri, May 8, 2009 11:49:55am

re: #104 Thanos

Look, if it makes you feel better to say that all fascism is by nature leftist, then feel free, but it's non-essential to this conversation. Instead, it's just a distraction and one that curiously comes up in everyone of these threads.

I suspect because it's an intellectually interesting exercise to hypothesize about the nature of these extreme forms of government, and how they come to be. I know I'm fascinated by both facism and communism.

115 shortshrift  Fri, May 8, 2009 11:51:49am

re: #87 stuiec

The tendency of groups to move towards orthodoxy, puritanism and extremism is well known. This can happen when the identifier of the group is as broad as nationalism, or as narrow as animal rights. The vested interest in the identifier by the adherents promotes an ever greater refinement of the identifier, to the point of where it becomes holy, a fetish perhaps. As the holy cause is refined, heresy is too. More and more subtle signs of heresy are exposed, and the heretics are anathematized.
Every group is susceptible to this tendency. In the case of a group whose identifier is "tolerance", the dilemma is obvious: do you permit intolerant people to demonstrate tolerance, or do you purge them before they destroy you. Democracies have the same dilemma: do they allow parties to be elected that will end democracy? Even where the majority of voters would vote for that party? Europe is heading there.

116 Randall Gross  Fri, May 8, 2009 11:52:11am

re: #105 ducktrapper

Hey, glad I turned you on. I think we are in agreement, just wanted to point out that some of the apologists take the "what is fascism" tack to distract, then eventually end up at "but we allied with Stalin!". We've had a few of those if you look back.

117 Randall Gross  Fri, May 8, 2009 11:55:31am

re: #114 Yashmak

Yeah, it is appealing discussion because everyone has their own theories on it. One of the reasons it's thrown out there frequently.

118 Yashmak  Fri, May 8, 2009 11:57:17am

re: #111 Render


The Reformation of Islam has already begun, for those who have the eyes to see it. Militant Islam is a hard outer shell, with a hollow and rotten core.

I'm not sure Islam CAN reform, at least not in the way Christianity reformed. The manner in which the Koran is regarded, as the literal and perfect word of Allah, makes it difficult (if not impossible) for this to occur.

119 JHW  Fri, May 8, 2009 12:15:25pm

re: #116 Thanos

That "We allied with Stalin" gambit always seemed particularly foolish to me, what were we supposed to do, declare war on him? Causus belli? As if Germany and Japan weren't enough at the time.

120 stuiec  Fri, May 8, 2009 12:22:07pm

re: #115 shortshrift

The tendency of groups to move towards orthodoxy, puritanism and extremism is well known. This can happen when the identifier of the group is as broad as nationalism, or as narrow as animal rights. The vested interest in the identifier by the adherents promotes an ever greater refinement of the identifier, to the point of where it becomes holy, a fetish perhaps. As the holy cause is refined, heresy is too. More and more subtle signs of heresy are exposed, and the heretics are anathematized.
Every group is susceptible to this tendency. In the case of a group whose identifier is "tolerance", the dilemma is obvious: do you permit intolerant people to demonstrate tolerance, or do you purge them before they destroy you. Democracies have the same dilemma: do they allow parties to be elected that will end democracy? Even where the majority of voters would vote for that party? Europe is heading there.

Do you mean, "Do you demonstrate tolerance by tolerating intolerant people?"

In Europe, the tolerant societies demonstrate tolerance by tolerating Islamofascists to march in the streets calling for beheading those who insult Islam, burn cars and attack Jews.

In reaction, the intolerant (and intolerable) neo-Nazi, Fascist and white supremacist parties take advantage of that aspect of tolerance to show how their societies are under threat due to excessive tolerance.

Absolutist defenders of tolerance amplify the first problem, which feeds the second.

121 DANEgerus  Fri, May 8, 2009 12:22:19pm

While I agree with the postings sentiment, it is quite distracting to see the blog ad for Muslima, Muslim Matrimonials prominently featured on the right margin. Do you think they get a lot of click throughs from this site?

;)

122 stuiec  Fri, May 8, 2009 12:33:34pm

re: #119 JHW

That "We allied with Stalin" gambit always seemed particularly foolish to me, what were we supposed to do, declare war on him? Causus belli? As if Germany and Japan weren't enough at the time.

Back then, there were in fact members of the Roosevelt Administration who viewed the Soviet Union as not an enemy. Churchill recognized the Soviet Union as an enemy, but one to be fought at a later date. He formed a military alliance with Stalin, but never regarded Britain's interests to be aligned in any way with Russia's.

The danger of anti-jihadists giving any credence to neo-Nazis and white supremacists (beyond the opening it gives critics to smear the former) is that it helps to grow movements that should have been smothered in the cradle. But it's critical to distinguish between movements that would represent an existential threat to Western liberal democracy if allowed to rise, and people who are proponents of liberal democracy who occasionally say things that are illiberal. Failure to make that distinction leads to an insistence on ideological purity, purges and redirecting effort away from the groups that pose actual existential threats.

123 JHW  Fri, May 8, 2009 12:40:00pm

re: #122 stuiec

All true, I remember Churchill's quotes on the alliance well, but I'm wondering what alternative those who constantly mention this alliance would have suggested. A declaration of war on the Soviet Union? For what particular reason besides ideological differences? I think IIRC there was some discussion about this between the Western allies at the time of the Soviet attack on Finland.

124 [deleted]  Fri, May 8, 2009 1:24:29pm
125 stuiec  Fri, May 8, 2009 2:11:31pm

re: #123 JHW

All true, I remember Churchill's quotes on the alliance well, but I'm wondering what alternative those who constantly mention this alliance would have suggested. A declaration of war on the Soviet Union? For what particular reason besides ideological differences? I think IIRC there was some discussion about this between the Western allies at the time of the Soviet attack on Finland.

No, that's not what the people bringing up the Soviet alliance here intend by it. They're trying to put forth the idea that since Islamofascism is the main existential threat to the West, liberal democrats who oppose Islamofascism should ally with neo-Nazis and white supremacists who also oppose Islamofascism. However, by allying with those movements, we make them more powerful -- and just as Churchill regarded the Soviets as the enemy to deal with after Hitler, those movements regard liberal democrats as the enemy to deal with after Muslims (not Islamofascists, because the neo-Nazis and white supremacists don't distinguish between fundamentalist Muslims with devotion to violent jihad and all other Muslims).

In the actual historical event, helping the Soviets survive against the Nazis was essential to ensure that Germany didn't acquire the resources to its east and to ensure that the Soviet forces would continue to force Germany to fight on two fronts. But helping the Soviets survive with the capacity to fight didn't mean making them stronger than they were before the war -- the concessions at the Yalta Conference may have had that effect.

Right now, giving neo-Nazis and white supremacists credence as "anti-Islamofascists" does have the effect of making them stronger, since they're not actually expending their blood and treasure in combat against Islamofascists. And no sane, decent person benefits from the race war those groups seek to foment to purge or purify their nation-states of Muslims: that would snowball and never stop until the reintroduction of purity laws and expulsion or detention (or worse) of all ethnic, religious and political minorities deemed incompatible with the national culture and race.

126 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 8, 2009 2:11:56pm

#124: I'm completely fed up with people who make excuses for fascist groups. Go find another website to do it at.

127 Sharmuta  Fri, May 8, 2009 2:25:26pm

The phrase, "We sort of shocked the Confederacy, Scarlet" comes to mind.

128 JHW  Fri, May 8, 2009 3:42:45pm

re: #125 stuiec

Thanks, that's almost exactly what I've always thought as regards to the motivations of the modern supremacists and neo-Nazis was in this regard. Essentially the argument about allying with the Soviets is an attempt to muddy the waters and make moral equivalencies where none exist. And we see the attempts right now (calls for Koran bannings, mass deportations, etc,) to lump all Muslims into the extremist mold which would make a fool's errand out of our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I heartily agree on your conclusions, I've mentioned here before all these groups together have not done as much against the radical jihadis as Hirsii Ali alone or a single US or Brit infantry battalion. The part you mentioned about these groups growing stronger while others expend their blood and treasure is especially pertinent here. Sorry if I didn't express myself clearly, I'm a bit over-tired, but this Soviet alliance thing always comes up as justification to ally with these scum, and I know Thanos is heartily sick of it, as I am. Maybe I was directing a bit of sarcasm at those who use that excuse.

129 Render  Fri, May 8, 2009 4:45:49pm

I'm asking again, what exactly does VB bring to the counter-jihadist table?

Filip DeWinter doesn't even have the courage his Wallonian idol, Leon DeGrelle had.

DeGrelle was an unrepentant nazi, who raised the Wallonien SS Legion (28th SS), which when it wasn't training inside concentration camps, fought exclusively on the Eastern Front against Stalins hordes. 28th SS was destroyed at the battle of the Cherkassy Pocket alongside of 5th SS Viking with just 632 men surviving. The rebuilt 28th SS fought through the long retreat from Pomerania until 1945. By the end of the war the division had again been reduced to just 700 survivors, half of whom surrendered to the Russians (who promptly executed most of them), the remainder to the British in Denmark. Degrelle himself escaped to Spain where he lived out his life in exile, a Jew hating POS until the end.

Filip DeWinter will never raise a division of Belgian neo-nazi volunteers to fight in Afghanistan (or anywhere else against Islamic terrorism) because like every single one of the post war neo-nazis he's just a chickenshit thug and bully.

DeGrelle was evil, but he had courage. DeWinter is just evil and he's worked very hard on hiding that.

[Link: www.thejc.com...]

===

Didn't anybody else notice that Robert Spencer tried to elevate Alex Linders pathetically weak VNN into the leadership of the WN/neo-nazi movement? When he used VNN (they hate Pammie) as an excuse, he did not mention David Duke, Don Black, or Stormfront, who are very much friends and allies with both VB and BNP to this day.

And what's with the weak excuse for Pammie, that because she's Jewish she could not possibly be defending a neo-nazi group? Does he think we haven't heard of Neturei Karta? Norman Finklestein? Noam Chomsky? George Soros? The kapos of the death camps?

Does Robert Spencer realize that the tactics of denial he's used in defense of VB are almost exactly identical to the tactics of Holocaust deniers so brilliantly documented in Deborah Lipstadt's "Denying the Holocaust" (Free Press 1993)?

And what's with the bald faced lie from some of the VB defenders (Paul Belien, Conservative Swede, VDare etc.) about Filip DeWinter being the "founder" of VB? The memory of Karel Dillen turn to ashes in their mouths already?

===

Ornery Elephant (banned): No, I don't "think" I'm smart. I know I'm smart. Just as I know you and the mentally deficient psychopaths of the Stalker site are defending Holocaust deniers, you sick piece of filth.

NO
PRISONERS,
R

130 notutopia  Fri, May 8, 2009 7:25:18pm

The lot of fascist enablers know who Bruce Bawer and Sullivan was writing about.
Their Silence is very telling. I hope they're squirming in guilt. But, I don't believe they have any normal sense of conscience or moral compass.

"Integrity is not a conditional word. It doesn’t blow in the wind or change with the weather. It is your inner image of yourself, and if you look in there and see a man who won’t cheat, then you know he never will." - John D. MacDonald

131 Salamantis  Fri, May 8, 2009 7:30:09pm

re: #94 ducktrapper

Thanos - I disagree. I always wondered why extreme left and right so resembled each other. However, it eventually became clear to me. Fascism, being fascinated with the power of the state, is a left wing phenomenon, in the end, indistinguishable from communism. The only reason fascism became a bad word with the left is because due to his differences with Hitler, Stalin called ALL his enemies fascists. However, socialism, communism, fascism are essentially in the same food group. Group think is left wing. The individual is unimportant. The right is concerned with and values the individual. The true right wing fringe tends to be made up of paranoid individuals who don't trust any large group enough to join them.

Geez; I have to deal with this self-serving and emotionally driven fascist-can't-be-right-wing-because-fascists-are-justifiably-despised-and-I-consider-myself-to-be-right-wing canard every damn thread.

Both systems are totalitarian, but they are radically different types of totalitarianism. Communism is international, because it rooted in the idea of the dissolution of class distinctions, which are a worldwide phenomenon, while fascism is national, because it rooted in the idea of racial purity and supremacy, and thus is tied to the soil to which the 'pure tribal blood' is tied. That is why, although they are both genocidal, fascism tends to concentarate its genocide on particular 'undesirable' and 'inferior' racial types, like the Gypsies and the Jews, while communism focuses on the unrepentant bourgeoise (see Pol Pot's wholesale extermination of the educated classes, and Mao's infamous Great Leap Forward), who tend to dissent and obstruct the implementation of the classless vision. One could argue that in both cases, as small clique of people controls industry, but in fascism, this is a group of well-connected wealthy industrialists, who retain ownership while remaining outside the government, while in communism, these are commissars and apparatchiks, who exercise control only so long as they hold their governmental and party positions. Property ownership is private in fascism, but property is state-owned in communism. And while in fascism their cliquish economic arrangement seems to be an end-state, in communism the cliquish 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was intended to be just a transitional phase on the way to full communism, when in theory that dictatorship would simply 'wither away'; it just never in practice did.

132 Salamantis  Fri, May 8, 2009 7:44:16pm

re: #115 shortshrift

The tendency of groups to move towards orthodoxy, puritanism and extremism is well known. This can happen when the identifier of the group is as broad as nationalism, or as narrow as animal rights. The vested interest in the identifier by the adherents promotes an ever greater refinement of the identifier, to the point of where it becomes holy, a fetish perhaps. As the holy cause is refined, heresy is too. More and more subtle signs of heresy are exposed, and the heretics are anathematized.
Every group is susceptible to this tendency. In the case of a group whose identifier is "tolerance", the dilemma is obvious: do you permit intolerant people to demonstrate tolerance, or do you purge them before they destroy you. Democracies have the same dilemma: do they allow parties to be elected that will end democracy? Even where the majority of voters would vote for that party? Europe is heading there.

The French hermeneutic phenomenologist Paul Ricoeur once stated, in his book Tolerance Between Intolerance and the Intolerable, that the one thing that tolerant people cannot in all good conscience tolerate is the coercive intolerance of others. For to tolerate coercive intolerance is in fact to acquiesce to and enable it, and thus to support it, and one then loses all right to continue to call oneself tolerant, since one will have embraced the coercive intolerance of others as one's own.

133 Lincolntf  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:26:40pm

re: #126 Charles

Dang, I missed the comment.
I'm hoping Killgore Trout got the boot for his constant reliance on "Stormfront" facts, but I'm guessing it was someone else.

134 lurking faith  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:49:47pm

re: #133 Lincolntf

It wasn't KT - you can click on the football or icon to see who it was.

135 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:08:11pm

re: #133 Lincolntf

Dang, I missed the comment.
I'm hoping Killgore Trout got the boot for his constant reliance on "Stormfront" facts, but I'm guessing it was someone else.

I suggest you stop holding your breath for Killgore Trout to be banned. You've been a lot closer to that state than he ever was.

136 shortshrift  Fri, May 8, 2009 9:28:52pm

re: #120 stuiec

Yes, I did mean that. My phrasing was poor, ambiguous.
Thank you for your response. The ideological battle is lost if the choice is only among totalitarians - secular or sectarian universalists, or Nazis. What actual platform of policies can defend democracy and democratic pluralism when the population desires to elect their demise? Purging a political party of nuts does not disenfranchise them.

re: #132 Salamantis

I agree with Ricoeur (thank you for the reference). I would defend tolerance against coercive intolerance, but with whose army? Historically, the American army was available for the purpose. But no more, alas.

137 ducktrapper  Sat, May 9, 2009 6:23:47am

Thanks for the lecture Salamantis but here's my thinking for what it's worth. I like to deal with results not intentions. If the difference between Hitler and Stalin was mostly internationalism vs nationalism and that communism wasn't so choosey about its victims, then there isn't much of a difference at all. When two animals both look, walk and talk like a duck ... I trap them. All that aside, I like to stay in the center. I see a situation where the tight rope walker has lost his balance to the left. Even though he must shift his weight to the right in order to keep his balance, he does this to center himself not because he wants to suddenly become off balance towards the right. While I muse about these differences between the two wings and accept that I could be out to lunch on my understanding of isms, I neither wish to become a member of the socialist group think or the paranoid delusional. I DO NOT identify myself as right wing. I used to identify myself as left wing. I am the tight rope walker. Does that help at all? As for strange bedfellows, didn't someone say something about that a long time ago?

138 Salamantis  Sat, May 9, 2009 7:10:13am

re: #137 ducktrapper

Thanks for the lecture Salamantis but here's my thinking for what it's worth. I like to deal with results not intentions. If the difference between Hitler and Stalin was mostly internationalism vs nationalism and that communism wasn't so choosey about its victims, then there isn't much of a difference at all. When two animals both look, walk and talk like a duck ... I trap them. All that aside, I like to stay in the center. I see a situation where the tight rope walker has lost his balance to the left. Even though he must shift his weight to the right in order to keep his balance, he does this to center himself not because he wants to suddenly become off balance towards the right. While I muse about these differences between the two wings and accept that I could be out to lunch on my understanding of isms, I neither wish to become a member of the socialist group think or the paranoid delusional. I DO NOT identify myself as right wing. I used to identify myself as left wing. I am the tight rope walker. Does that help at all? As for strange bedfellows, didn't someone say something about that a long time ago?

As I said before, both communism and fascism are totalitarianisms, but two different kinds of totalitarianism. But they are both collectivisms. The individual is to be subservient to either the wheel and span of the inevitable procession of the history of humanity's relation to its means of material production (communism), or subservient to the distinctive and defining will of the territory and tribe (fascism).

Opposed to both of them is anarchism, which is the absolute sway of the individual without any organized means of collective decision or action. This state, according to Hobbes, leads to the war of all against all, where life is solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.

Constitutional democratic republics provide a way for the maximum freedom, safety, and opportunity for prosperity of the individual to be guaranteed by mutual consent, while still providing a mechanism by means of which nontyrannical collective consensus can be reached and acted upon for the common benefit.

You may consider this to be walking a tightrope; I conceive of it as finding the sweet spot golden mean between extremes, and nesting in that catbird seat.

139 ducktrapper  Sat, May 9, 2009 7:27:50am

Ah now you're just claiming the superior analogy. But seriously, opposition to both fascism and communism is anarchism? Where exactly does support for "constitutional democratic republics" fit in? You've lost me there. It seems to me that these CDRs are constantly threatened by both fringes. You may sleep in your sweet spot, assured of your complete understanding of everything, I will maintain vigilance and continue to think about it.

140 Salamantis  Sat, May 9, 2009 7:37:18am

re: #139 ducktrapper

Ah now you're just claiming the superior analogy. But seriously, opposition to both fascism and communism is anarchism? Where exactly does support for "constitutional democratic republics" fit in? You've lost me there. It seems to me that these CDRs are constantly threatened by both fringes. You may sleep in your sweet spot, assured of your complete understanding of everything, I will maintain vigilance and continue to think about it.

Communism and fascism are two different varieties of totalitarianism on the personally enslaving collectivist extreme, while anarchism is on the sociopathically nihilistic individualist extreme. CDRs inhabit the sweet spot sensible center, and that's where I stake my tent and stand my ground.

And I'm a US Naval Aviation vet, who hunted Soviet nuclear subs from the air during the Cold War, and kept tabs on them when they neared our shores (AX - Aviation Antisubmarine Warfare Technician), so I've had some experience with extended vigilance.

141 ducktrapper  Sat, May 9, 2009 7:56:58am

Alright, sounds good to me and my compliments to your service and your vigilance, sir. In my experience, however, life especially political life, is like a game of Go. Just when you think one side's winning, suddenly in one move, the other side has the upper hand. Something may once have been one thing but it can quickly resemble its opposite. If one takes their eye off of the ball, it can turn into a puck, overnight. To me, this explains why some liberals get very confused about what is going on. They are unable to see that what was up has now become down. That they now support those they should oppose. Eternal vigilance, even of one's own assumptions, is the price of one's own freedom.

142 Salamantis  Sat, May 9, 2009 8:38:42am

re: #141 ducktrapper

Alright, sounds good to me and my compliments to your service and your vigilance, sir. In my experience, however, life especially political life, is like a game of Go. Just when you think one side's winning, suddenly in one move, the other side has the upper hand. Something may once have been one thing but it can quickly resemble its opposite. If one takes their eye off of the ball, it can turn into a puck, overnight. To me, this explains why some liberals get very confused about what is going on. They are unable to see that what was up has now become down. That they now support those they should oppose. Eternal vigilance, even of one's own assumptions, is the price of one's own freedom.

To me it has seemed more like a chess tournament. Once you defeat one global enemy on the world board, another sits down at the table and pushes a regional pawn. We have had to face fascism, communism, and now jihadism, in rapid succession, with hardly a break in between. And what opponent will next come down the pike should we prevail against this latest adversary, and what we will call it, is anybody's guess.

Freedom will forever be under siege from without, as long as the whole world isn't free, and the threats from within will never end. So I do not expect a final championship round; in my opinion, the tournament to preserve and protect freedom is an endless one.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh