Wingnuts of the Week - By Former Giuliani Speechwriter

Opinion • Views: 5,025

Former Rudy Giuliani speechwriter John Avlon, author of Independent Nation: How the Vital Center Is Changing American Politics, has a new feature for CNN’s “American Morning:” Wingnuts of the week.

Here’s how Avlon introduces the segment:

We’re trying out a new segment on “American Morning” called “Wingnuts of the Week.” It builds on a simple premise – the far-right and the far-left are equally insane.

What’s a Wingnut? It’s someone on the far-right wing or far-left wing of American politics – the professional partisans and the unhinged activists – the folks who always try to divide rather than unite. In our polarized two party system, they have disproportionate influence and too often define the terms of debate. With this segment, we’re going to try and take that power back.

Great idea; I couldn’t agree more that it’s time for rational people to wrest the podium away from kooks and extremists, who are much too prevalent on both sides of the aisle.

And the first week features a link to yours truly, in the section about one of our “favorite” loony extremists: Cynthia McKinney.

So drum roll, please: The Wingnuts of the Week for our inaugural edition are Michele Bachmann and Cynthia McKinney.

Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann first became nationally known in the late innings of campaign ’08, when she told Chris Matthews, “I am very concerned he [Barack Obama] may have anti-American views.” Undeterred by common sense or common decency, she followed that with a call to investigate all members of Congress for anti-American views. The media fallout made her, if anything, more beloved by conservatives. She was subsequently selected to be the master of ceremonies at the Conservative Political Action Committee’s Presidential Banquet. But the howlers have kept coming – recently put in a handy compendium by my colleagues at the Daily Beast.

This past week, in an interview with PJTV.com she took another leap too far, saying, “I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter.”

Two things: First, the bemused reach for causality between pandemics and Democratic presidents is a great illustration of the Wingnut’s impulse to blame everything bad in the world on the opposite party. Second, she got her facts wrong. It was under the administration of Republican President Gerald Ford that swine flu last reared its porcine head.

But Bachmann’s had chronic trouble with facts, including a recent congressional floor speech in which she again confused a Republican for a Democrat, claiming that it was FDR who signed the “Hoot Smawley” tariffs that helped propel the USA from a recession into the Great Depression. The “Smoot Hawley” Act was signed by Republican President Hoover. To round out her week’s trifecta, Bachmann reached for an awkward metaphor when describing the generational theft of today’s unprecedented deficits and debt, saying “it’s the mother of all ironies … that the kids who voted en masse for Barack Obama are the ones being fitted with shackles and chains.” The “irony” of slavery metaphors to describe the Obama generation? Really? Really.

On the left, the Wingnut of the Week is the former six-term Democratic Congresswoman and 2008 Green Party Presidential Candidate, Cynthia McKinney. She’s a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who assaulted a Capitol Hill cop and whose father blamed “Jews” for her congressional defeat. Her exploits have been detailed in pages ranging from The Weekly Standard to Slate. Bottom line: Cynthia McKinney is what far-right conservatives imagine a far-left liberal sounds like.

McKinney’s been uncharacteristically quiet since the election, but she resurfaced in an April 30th radio interview for an internet station known as “the information underground,” which had previously featured such friendly topics as “Jewish Domination and the World as We Know It”, “The Holocaust Scam”, and “Jews Israel and 9/11″ – to name just a very few. The hour-long interview – brought to light via the blog littlegreenfootballs.com was a veritable cattle call of McKinney’s greatest hits: 9/11 conspiracies, spies sabotaging her campaign, and the dominance of pro-Israel lobbies on all but one percent on the “535” members of congress as evidenced by vote totals for “anti-Sudan” legislation, by which she apparently means attempts to stop the genocide in Darfur.

When the host of the show confides that “DC is a Zionist occupied government,” there is not a hint of objection, nor when White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is described as having “Jew nationality and Jew loyalties.” McKinney just continues on in even tones, thoughtfully finding time to compare herself to Malcom X, Martin Luther King and – my personal favorite – Rosa Parks.

Jump to bottom

324 comments
1 Sharmuta  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:35:03am

This is a great idea- I love it.

2 MandyManners  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:36:03am

Congratulations, Charles!

3 MandyManners  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:36:45am

re: #2 MandyManners

Congratulations, Charles!

Oops! C/P didn't work.

The hour-long interview – brought to light via the blog littlegreenfootballs.com

4 Ojoe  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:36:53am

This development is excellent.

I hope it helps usher the wingnuts into the howling political wilderness where they so richly deserve to wander.

5 Shug  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:36:58am
Hoot Smawley.

Stuart's cousin

6 Nevergiveup  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:38:23am

Yeah sounds like a nice idea, but since it is on CNN lets see how "balanced" it stays. Just a hunch it might not?

7 Sharmuta  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:39:10am
Two things: First, the bemused reach for causality between pandemics and Democratic presidents is a great illustration of the Wingnut’s impulse to blame everything bad in the world on the opposite party.

I couldn't agree more.

8 Cato the Elder  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:39:15am

Meanwhile, have a look at this fine fellow from Kuwait.

[Link: www.road90.com...]

You're welcome for the liberation, by the way.

9 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:40:30am

But.. but.. but McKinney is not a republican, how can she be a wingnut?
/:thud:

10 Ojoe  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:41:10am
“Hoot Smawley” tariffs

Not paid at Hooters Restaurants

11 Ojoe  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:41:56am

re: #10 Ojoe

That was early in the thread I know.

12 pingjockey  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:42:07am

This could be very entertaining, IF htis guy is going after loonies left and right. So far He's 2 for 2!

13 Cato the Elder  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:42:08am

re: #7 Sharmuta

I couldn't agree more.

Unfortunately I don't think the writer knows exactly what the word "bemused" means. It is not a synonym for "confused". But otherwise it's good.

14 doppelganglander  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:42:13am

This isn't enough to make me watch CNN, but I just might sneak a peek online. Congrats, Charles.

15 wrenchwench  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:42:36am

They should have used the same photo of McKinney that Charles used. It really enhances and clarifies any article about her.

16 Sharmuta  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:43:12am
If you’re a political Independent or a centrist – and frustrated by the way that the extremes of left and right dominate our debates, hijack our parties, and artificially polarize our nation – then I want this segment to act as your advocate. I want you to join the conversation – give us your suggestions to who should be named the next Wingnuts of the Week

Ron Paul.

17 Red Pencil  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:43:27am

repost:

Some of the comments are scary.
Gangbox:

"Problem is, the Zionist lobby really DID target Congresswoman McKinney for defeat (in a district where very few Jewish people live).
And the reason they targeted her is because of her opposition to US military aid to the brutal Israeli Army and it’s genocidal occupation of the Palestinian Territories.

And Rahm Emanuel really is a hardcore Zionist, who – if he had to choose, would pick Israel over the USA in a heartbeat!

Sorry, Congresswoman McKinney is not a “wingnut”!

and from David Christie:

Um… Is this a joke or are you really a totally brain-dead pack of morons? If not, it’s clear what your modus opperandi must be.

Comparing Cynthia McKinney to the babbling bimbo, Bachman – who claims Democrats are “un-American” – is disingenuous in the least and nothing but a sinister pro-Zionist propaganda smear through association.

Seriously, you have the gall to represent yourselves as being serious “journalists”?

If you’re really that shockingly un-aware of the influence of AIPAC and ADL on our political system, then at least have enough class and integrity to stop calling yourselves a “news” organization.

Or, make an honest effort to expose yourselves to some facts for a change:

18 Gus  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:43:45am

There's no shortage of "wingnuts" for John Avalon. Good choice for the first two: Michele Bachmann and Cynthia McKinney.

Can't wait to see the exploding heads when the usual suspects see LGF mentioned in this CNN article.

19 doppelganglander  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:43:53am

re: #13 Cato the Elder

Unfortunately I don't think the writer knows exactly what the word "bemused" means. It is not a synonym for "confused". But otherwise it's good.

I think he misuses "cattle call" when he means "roll call," too.

20 subsailor68  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:44:03am

re: #10 Ojoe

Not paid at Hooters Restaurants

The fact is, Hoot-Smaley was signed by President Hoobert Hever.

;-)

21 Cato the Elder  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:44:43am

And one thing's really great about this: applying the term "wingnut" equally to left and right. I never understood how the left got away with making it mean just rightards. "Wing" means either left or right, but they've used it for years as code for "conservative".

There are right-wing moonbats, too.

22 pingjockey  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:45:25am

re: #17 Red Pencil
Da Joooos did it. Goddamn assholes that post shit like that have no brains.

23 Ojoe  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:45:31am

It is hard not to mention the Modern Whig Party here.

Oops.


BBL

24 callahan23  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:45:50am

re: #18 Gus 802

There's no shortage of "wingnuts" for John Avalon. Good choice for the first two: Michele Bachmann and Cynthia McKinney.

Can't wait to see the exploding heads when the usual suspects see LGF mentioned in this CNN article.

A new movie title: "The Sea Of The Brain Dead"

25 unrealizedviewpoint  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:46:36am

With more segments like this Americans may again begin tuning in - Hey CNN, content does matter, it ain't just bells & whistles at work over there at FOX.

26 Gus  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:46:39am

re: #24 callahan23

A new movie title: "The Sea Of The Brain Dead"

The Night of the Living Wingnuts! //

27 pingjockey  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:47:34am

"Attack of the Wingnuts"

28 UberInfidel67  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:47:45am

re: #8 Cato the Elder

Fucking asshole. *tap tap*

29 Sharmuta  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:47:49am

re: #21 Cato the Elder

And one thing's really great about this: applying the term "wingnut" equally to left and right. I never understood how the left got away with making it mean just rightards. "Wing" means either left or right, but they've used it for years as code for "conservative".

There are right-wing moonbats, too.

I have a host of them in mind for this.

30 Ojoe  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:48:14am
31 callahan23  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:48:26am

Brains Everywhere

32 KenJen  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:48:51am

"Hallowingnuts: The 13th"

Bad I know.

33 pingjockey  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:48:59am

re: #29 Sharmuta
A veritable plethora.

34 Ojoe  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:49:05am

Really BBL ... work, or trying to find it.

35 subsailor68  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:49:19am

re: #30 Ojoe

Wingnuts. But Look: One of them is in the center!

LOL! And all three appear to be Walt Disney supporters.

;-)

36 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:49:20am

I think real money could be made by using this "feature" as a starting point for a reality TV show a la Big Brother or Survivor.

I suggest the groups be made up of competing factions of whack jobs; maybe combine The Great Race into it, and have them scouring the web and the globe in search of proof of their insane ravings.

The whack-job sympathizers would tune in like clockwork (oranges) and the sane would watch from morbid curiosity. You could make money coming and going on a deal like that.

37 Gus  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:49:28am

The Crawling Wingnuts

//Filmed in the Italian Alps.

38 Sharmuta  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:49:47am

Next week- Jimmy Carter and Glen Beck.

39 rwmofo  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:50:43am

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that McKinney is significantly farther from the center than Rep. Bachmann. However, let's see how the next few nominees rate.

40 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:51:37am

re: #36 Guanxi88

If you can't beat them (and I fear very much the zanies are, in the long run, unstoppable), exploit them. Might as well get something for our trouble.

41 callahan23  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:51:55am

re: #37 Gus 802

The Crawling Wingnuts

//Filmed in the Italian Alps.


The Wingnut Ultimatum

Filmed in Berkeley

42 Sharmuta  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:52:42am

Steel cage match edition: Ron Paul vs. Pat Bucanan

43 Desert Dog  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:53:17am

re: #8 Cato the Elder

Meanwhile, have a look at this fine fellow from Kuwait.

[Link: www.road90.com...]

You're welcome for the liberation, by the way.

I guess this asshat does not know we could erase his pathetic country in 5 minutes, does he? Or, that this plague he wants to release will come back to his shit-hole country as well. We invaded two "Islamic" countries and put a world of hurt on his buddies when they killed 3000 of our people. How does he think we will react if it's 330,000?

44 Dr. Shalit  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:53:49am

Michelle Bachmann does say some dumb stuff from time to time. Cynthia McKinney on the other hand is Fire to Ms. Bachmann's Firefly.

-S-

45 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:54:05am

re: #19 doppelganglander

I think he misuses "cattle call" when he means "roll call," too.

It's a nice metaphor, though a loud "SoooEEEE" might work better.

/*ducking, in case a U of Arkansas alum is on the thread*

46 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:54:40am

re: #42 Sharmuta

Blunderdome?

47 Nevergiveup  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:54:45am

re: #43 Desert Dog

I guess this asshat does not know we could erase his pathetic country in 5 minutes, does he? Or, that this plague he wants to release will come back to his shit-hole country as well. We invaded two "Islamic" countries and put a world of hurt on his buddies when they killed 3000 of our people. How does he think we will react if it's 330,000?

I don't know, with Obama in the White House, how would we?

48 gmsc  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:54:52am
49 Cato the Elder  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:54:57am

re: #39 rwmofo

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that McKinney is significantly farther from the center than Rep. Bachmann. However, let's see how the next few nominees rate.

McKinney is so far gone she's now a Nazi. In other words, she's overtaken Bachmann on the right.

50 LGoPs  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:55:23am

re: #6 Nevergiveup

Yeah sounds like a nice idea, but since it is on CNN lets see how "balanced" it stays. Just a hunch it might not?

I agree. The radical left amd it's proponents far outweigh those on the right in both numbers and volume. Showing both left and right on every episode automatically creates the perception that there is an eqivalence, which there is not. But the perception will remain and that is supremely important to those that would distort the truth.

51 Desert Dog  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:55:39am

re: #47 Nevergiveup

I don't know, with Obama in the White House, how would we?

Unfortunately, you are right.....Obama would not hit back very hard, would he?

52 Randall Gross  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:55:49am

Great idea - it's time media started paying attention to mind your own business Republicans and Democrats who understand Capitalism. Time to kick the extremists in both camps to the curb.

53 KenJen  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:55:49am

Have a great weekend Lizards. Going shopping for some beachware. Off to Florida next weekend.

54 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:55:54am

Can't comment now--too busy looking for photos of the flag we planted on Mars.

55 Pass The Moonbaticide  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:56:43am

I understood Wingnuts to be a derogative term for people exclusively of the Right - Their answer to Moonbats (Our term for those exclusively on the Left).

Are we to redefine these terms now ?

56 Desert Dog  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:56:45am

re: #54 EmmmieG

Can't comment now--too busy looking for photos of the flag we planted on Mars.

Did we claim it for the King?

57 Sharmuta  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:57:18am

Alan Colmes and world net daily.

58 pingjockey  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:57:18am

re: #54 EmmmieG
What is scary is, people voted for these loons.

59 Randall Gross  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:57:21am

re: #42 Sharmuta

Steel cage match edition: Ron Paul vs. Pat Bucanan

Steel Cage match?! They'd be wearing glitter oil for their loving embrace...

60 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:57:51am

re: #58 pingjockey

What is scary is, people voted for these loons.

Are you sure they were people?

61 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:58:06am

re: #59 Thanos

Steel Cage match?! They'd be wearing glitter oil for their loving embrace...

Eck! What an image.

62 Sharmuta  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:58:08am

re: #59 Thanos

It would be a fight for the king of that crown.

63 pingjockey  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:58:29am

re: #59 Thanos
BRAIN BLEACH.....STAT!

64 unrealizedviewpoint  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:58:30am

re: #55 Pass The Moonbaticide

I understood Wingnuts to be a derogative term for people exclusively of the Right - Their answer to Moonbats (Our term for those exclusively on the Left).

Are we to redefine these terms now ?

That's what I thought. It sounds like compromise - I doubt CNN would permit the usage of the term moonbat.

65 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:58:38am

Jerome Corsi and.... wait, which wing is he on, again?
/

66 Ojoe  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:58:40am

re: #42 Sharmuta

Where do I buy a ticket?

67 Killgore Trout  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:58:41am

Semi OT: Alex Jones is planing a show to run on the Dish Network.....

In response to Alex’s desire to massively expand the infowar on all levels — in particular, his desire to expand the reach of his highly effective video operation — we are announcing the Infowars Moneybomb. The Infowars Moneybomb is fixed to a period of time — it will run until June 11, 2009, with a goal of $250,000.

Alex will use this money to build a studio, a sound stage, purchase cameras and equipment, computers, expand office space and hire additional staff. Alex hopes to launch a new television show on the Dish Network, thus reaching thousands, possibly millions of additional people and warn them of the nefarious plans of the global elite and the New World Order.

Let’s do this! Get the word out, blog, forum, chat, email; let everyone know about this Moneybomb.

68 Randall Gross  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:58:48am

I was hoping Charles would add a wingnut spinoff category, but on second though maybe it would be better to just rename "Moonbats" to "Moonbats and Wingnuts"

69 Sharmuta  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:58:53am

re: #65 Slumbering Behemoth

Jerome Corsi and.... wait, which wing is he on, again?
/

And alex jones.

70 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:59:12am

re: #56 Desert Dog

Did we claim it for the King?

No, just Queen McKinney, since she was the only one who knew about the flag.

71 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:59:16am

re: #65 Slumbering Behemoth

Jerome Corsi and.... wait, which wing is he on, again?
/

A canard, maybe?

72 Sharmuta  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:59:18am

re: #67 Killgore Trout

God help us.

73 Nevergiveup  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:59:52am

re: #66 Ojoe

Where do I buy a ticket?

Stub hub?

74 pingjockey  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:00:07am

re: #60 Guanxi88
Well, they were something that could vote.
BBIAB.

75 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:00:42am

re: #67 Killgore Trout

Dammit! I can't get away from this guy!

When I moved here to Austin, he was a local guy - whacky as all get-out, with a cable-access show.

Now, he's like a schizophrenic Howard Stern - he's the whacked-out King of all Media.

76 Ojoe  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:00:56am

Sherri Glaser Vs. Bill O'riley

In the steel cage

Las Vegas

77 Charles Johnson  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:01:51am

Meanwhile, it looks like John Hawkins is going to let RightWingNews.com turn into another LGF-bashing site.

Which is always nice. We don't have enough of those yet.

78 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:02:14am

re: #76 Ojoe

Sherri Glaser Vs. Bill O'riley

In the steel cage

Las Vegas

Remember where you are. This is Thunderdome, and Death is listening; he will take the first one to scream.

79 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:02:20am

re: #69 Sharmuta

And alex jones.

Jones is an equal opportunity nut, he really doesn't belong to any wing. Corsi, I believe, is on the left. Wasn't he rooting for Hillary in the last election?

80 whiterasta  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:02:43am

re: #77 Charles

No such thing as "bad publicity".

81 wrenchwench  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:02:59am

re: #68 Thanos

I was hoping Charles would add a wingnut spinoff category, but on second though maybe it would be better to just rename "Moonbats" to "Moonbats and Wingnuts"

If you spin off your wing nuts, your wheels fall off.

82 whiterasta  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:03:24am

re: #42 Sharmuta

That would be wingnut vs nimrod.

83 haakondahl  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:03:25am

re: #12 pingjockey

This could be very entertaining, IF htis guy is going after loonies left and right. So far He's 2 for 2!

He's also 2 for 2 on echoing criticism levelled by CHarles within the last few days. Methinks he's a lizard.

84 Pass The Moonbaticide  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:03:33am

re: #64 unrealizedviewpoint
Pass The Wingnuticide ?
Hmmm .... Doesn't really work, does it ?
I reckon I'll have to stay as I am.

85 subsailor68  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:03:39am

In other news, when asked her opinion on Intelligent Design, Ms. McKinney replied, "Well, the plans for my new house are terrific. "

This was followed by four minutes of silence as the interviewer just sat there with his mouth hanging open.

86 abu lahab  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:03:39am

Great idea, I will be checking that feature, thanks Charles.
On another note, did you see Charles that the RoP already found something else to whine about and feel "insulted" ?
The Pope entered the Mosque with his shoes
Al Jazeera is spreading this news like crazy already, btw.
Unbelievable!

87 DEZes  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:03:54am

Cynthia McKinney, can anyone tell me why she doesn't have a sweet at the Rubber Room Hotel?

88 Irish Rose  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:03:59am

re: #68 Thanos

I was hoping Charles would add a wingnut spinoff category, but on second though maybe it would be better to just rename "Moonbats" to "Moonbats and Wingnuts"

"Moonbats and Winguts", sounds kinda like a party mix ;).

This is a great idea though, long over due in my opinion.

I for one am sick and tired of the Republican party being held hostage by the extreme right... it's time for reasonable, rational conservatives and moderates to take their party back.

89 yma o hyd  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:04:45am

re: #77 Charles

Meanwhile, it looks like John Hawkins is going to let RightWingNews.com turn into another LGF-bashing site.

Which is always nice. We don't have enough of those yet.

There's a German saying which translates thus:
'Many enemies - much honour!'

So - the more LGF-bashing, the more honour to you, Charles, and to LGF!

90 gmsc  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:05:06am

re: #87 DEZes

Cynthia McKinney, can anyone tell me why she doesn't have a sweet at the Rubber Room Hotel?

She's only crazy when compared to the general population. Among democrats, she's about average.

91 DEZes  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:05:44am

re: #90 gmsc

She's only crazy when compared to the general population. Among democrats, she's about average.

Now thats a scary thought.

92 gmsc  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:05:47am

re: #88 Irish Rose

"Moonbats and Winguts", sounds kinda like a party mix ;).

It is . . . the Democrat party mix.

93 Killgore Trout  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:06:04am

re: #77 Charles


Nevertheless, had we had 435 Ron Pauls in the House of Representatives for the last 30 years, we would have a balanced budget and be in great economic shape. In fact, Ron Paul is right on almost everything when it comes to economics.


Lol!

94 Irish Rose  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:06:11am

re: #77 Charles

Meanwhile, it looks like John Hawkins is going to let RightWingNews.com turn into another LGF-bashing site.

Which is always nice. We don't have enough of those yet.

I don't have to delink it because it was never linked in the first place.

95 Randall Gross  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:06:24am

re: #77 Charles

Meanwhile, it looks like John Hawkins is going to let RightWingNews.com turn into another LGF-bashing site.

Which is always nice. We don't have enough of those yet.

You ought to be proud: You've spawned a whole new twisted echosphere in the web based on attacking one website. Kudos to the Lizard king, keep upsetting the kooks, you know you are over target when...

96 Cato the Elder  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:06:25am

Ann Coulter vs. Amy Goodman.

Goodman gets the full weapons panoply from Quake 4 to compensate for Coulter's natural one: basilisk eye, face of Medusa, poison tongue and razor-sharp, slashing bone structure.

My money is still on Coulter.

97 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:07:50am

re: #88 Irish Rose

"Moonbats and Winguts", sounds kinda like a party mix ;).

Hey! You got your Anti-Semitism in my Illuminati-Control Theory!
Hey! You got your Illuminati-Control theory on my Anti-Semitism!

(Think reese's peanut butter cups as a model of insane hybridization.)

98 Gus  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:08:52am

re: #8 Cato the Elder

Meanwhile, have a look at this fine fellow from Kuwait.

[Link: www.road90.com...]

You're welcome for the liberation, by the way.

News article for that video:

Al-Jazeera Airs Call for Biological Attack

by IsraelNN staff

(IsraelNN.com) Al-Jazeera recently aired footage of Kuwaiti professor Abdallah al-Nafisi. In the video, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Nafisi expresses ardent support for terrorism, and suggests that terrorists use biological warfare against the United States in order to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Nafisi also suggests that Muslims pray for the success of white supremacist groups that seek to carry out attacks within the U.S.

In addition, Nafisi attacks those in the Arab world who he perceives as traitors, to laughter and applause from his audience. Among those in the Arab world who should be silenced using “any means possible” are journalists who oppose terrorism, anyone who supports dialogue with Jews, and senior Palestinian Authority officials Saeb Erekat and Mahmoud Dahlan, Nafisi says.

One group that has won Nafisi's support is Hamas. According to Nafisi, Hamas' virtue is made clear by the fact that its politicians are personally involved in attacking Israel.

Another group Nafisi praises is Hizbullah, which he claims has advanced weapons laboratories and even exports weapons to eastern Europe.

99 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:09:17am

re: #96 Cato the Elder

I dunno - Coulter's wiry, but I bet she fatigues easily, and Goodman seems to outclass her by at least 40 pounds. In a real toe-to-toe slugfest, you need the ability to absorb damage and keep going.

100 haakondahl  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:09:25am

re: #49 Cato the Elder

McKinney is so far gone she's now a Nazi. In other words, she's overtaken Bachmann on the right.

The only thing "Right" about the flamingly leftist Nazi party was that it was somewhat less to the left than the Communists were, who accordingly called the right-wing. Like Democrats calling Joe Lieberman a conservative. The problem is that so much of the left bought that label, that now so has the right.

101 Cato the Elder  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:09:28am

re: #89 yma o hyd

There's a German saying which translates thus:
'Many enemies - much honour!'

So - the more LGF-bashing, the more honour to you, Charles, and to LGF!

Viel Feind, viel Ehr.

But they got it from Mussolini: "molti nemici molto onore"!

102 Salamantis  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:10:04am

re: #95 Thanos

You ought to be proud: You've spawned a whole new twisted echosphere in the web based on attacking one website. Kudos to the Lizard king, keep upsetting the kooks, you know you are over target when...

All yr brainz iz belong 2 us

103 Cato the Elder  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:10:32am

re: #101 Cato the Elder

Viel Feind, viel Ehr.

But they got it from Mussolini: "molti nemici molto onore"!

Hit "post" too soon. Given that the slogans were used by Adolf and Benito, I wouldn't adopt them for LGF anytime soon.

104 subsailor68  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:10:46am

re: #88 Irish Rose

"Moonbats and Winguts", sounds kinda like a party mix ;).

This is a great idea though, long over due in my opinion.

I for one am sick and tired of the Republican party being held hostage by the extreme right... it's time for reasonable, rational conservatives and moderates to take their party back.

I thought it was a song:

Moonbats and Wingnuts
And whiskers on kittens,
Wild woolly morons
I don't have to listen,
All nutty fruitcakes just doing their thing,
These are a few of my favorite things.

105 yma o hyd  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:11:36am

re: #101 Cato the Elder

Viel Feind, viel Ehr.

But they got it from Mussolini: "molti nemici molto onore"!

Ah - didn't know that!
I sort of recalled some language lessons in school, a long time ago ...

106 whiterasta  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:11:49am

re: #98 Gus 802

I wonder where he was when storming Norman came to kick Saddam out of Kuwait?
France? Switzerland?

107 Cato the Elder  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:11:54am

re: #100 haakondahl

The only thing "Right" about the flamingly leftist Nazi party was that it was somewhat less to the left than the Communists were, who accordingly called the right-wing. Like Democrats calling Joe Lieberman a conservative. The problem is that so much of the left bought that label, that now so has the right.

Here we go with the same old bullshit meme. "Nazis were leftists."

Charles?

108 yma o hyd  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:12:58am

re: #103 Cato the Elder

Hit "post" too soon. Given that the slogans were used by Adolf and Benito, I wouldn't adopt them for LGF anytime soon.

Still racking my brain - I'm vaguely recalling Schiller ...?

Never mind ...

109 Ojoe  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:13:19am

re: #86 abu lahab

They were really nice shoes.

110 callahan23  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:13:27am

Dinner's ready, bbl. - {Lizaridim} Hang in there.

111 Spare O'Lake  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:13:48am

re: #49 Cato the Elder

McKinney is so far gone she's now a Nazi. In other words, she's overtaken Bachmann on the right.

McWhinney is a horse's pudendum.

112 DEZes  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:13:52am

re: #104 subsailor68

I thought it was a song:

Moonbats and Wingnuts
And whiskers on kittens,
Wild woolly morons
I don't have to listen,
All nutty fruitcakes just doing their thing,
These are a few of my favorite things.

Nobodys updinging this, tough crowd. ;)

113 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:14:15am

re: #109 Ojoe

They were really nice shoes.

Maybe his socks had holes? Holy man and all, it might be...

114 Killgore Trout  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:14:39am

re: #107 Cato the Elder

Here we go with the same old bullshit meme. "Nazis were leftists."


It's part of the craziness going around these days. Many are unwilling/unable to understand the very basic left-right politics concept. There's not much that can be done to help them. They're stuck like that.

115 Desert Dog  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:14:40am

re: #107 Cato the Elder

Here we go with the same old bullshit meme. "Nazis were leftists."

Charles?

agree to disagree....it depends on your definitions

116 haakondahl  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:14:45am

re: #96 Cato the Elder

Ann Coulter vs. Amy Goodman.

Goodman gets the full weapons panoply from Quake 4 to compensate for Coulter's natural one: basilisk eye, face of Medusa, poison tongue and razor-sharp, slashing bone structure.

My money is still on Coulter.

Who is Amy Goodman?

117 gmsc  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:15:02am

re: #107 Cato the Elder

Here we go with the same old bullshit meme. "Nazis were leftists."

Charles?

So the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or "National Socialist German Workers' Party" was right wing? That's surprising.

I generally associate "Socialist" and "Worker's Party" with the left.

118 Gus  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:15:25am

re: #106 whiterasta

I wonder where he was when storming Norman came to kick Saddam out of Kuwait?
France? Switzerland?

Probably speaking somewhere in Europe as you suggest. Nearby a luxury resort no doubt. It's amazing to see these costumed pseudo-clerics speak in such a manner. It was also revealing to see how he was making reference to the Koran during his "hate" speech. I doubt most Kuwaiti's agree with him but you never can tell with that demographic.

119 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:15:58am

re: #116 haakondahl

Who is Amy Goodman?

PM Urquardt, she's the host of Democracy Now! Easily two or three of the most loathsome figures on the acid-tripping left.

(Love the avatars! Loved "To Play the King")

120 rwmofo  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:15:58am

OT: Two Ethics Complaints Against Palin Dismissed.

"Palin has set up a legal expense fund to help pay legal bills from defending ethics complaints. She has said she's amassed more than $500,000 in legal bills fighting them as well as other matters."

If she were ineffective, like say, John Kerry*, she probably wouldn't have to worry about having a legal defense fund.

*That weird looking guy, who by the way, served in Viet Nam.

121 Desert Dog  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:16:29am

re: #117 gmsc

So the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or "National Socialist German Workers' Party" was right wing? That's surprising.

I generally associate "Socialist" and "Worker's Party" with the left.

But you cannot call a Republican a Nazi then, so just ignore those parts....move along, nothing to see here

122 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:17:31am

re: #117 gmsc

So the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or "National Socialist German Workers' Party" was right wing? That's surprising.

I generally associate "Socialist" and "Worker's Party" with the left.

It's true, but Socialism, at least in Europe, is not the exclusive reserve of the Political Right there, which, unlike the Right in the US, is not necessarily wedded to free markets.

123 haakondahl  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:18:16am

Sheesh. Good night. You'd think I'd never posted here before.

124 Irish Rose  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:18:37am

By the way lizards, I'm sending out kudos and a big high-five to a new blogger that I linked this afternoon on my blog... go check it out, you'll love it.

125 Achilles Tang  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:18:45am

re: #1 Sharmuta

This is a great idea- I love it.

Yeah, when is the Larry King segment?/

126 whiterasta  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:19:04am

re: #118 Gus 802

To have their country liberated by foreigners and Infidels, to boot is a humiliation.

Never mind that the Kuwaiti "Air force" fled to Monaco, en mass.

127 Sharmuta  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:19:47am

re: #125 Naso Tang

Yeah, when is the Larry King segment?/

Jenny McCarthy and Tom Tancredo.

128 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:19:55am

re: #126 whiterasta

To have their country liberated by foreigners and Infidels, to boot is a humiliation.

Never mind that the Kuwaiti "Air force" fled to Monaco, en mass.

Strategy sessions at the baccarat tables;

129 MacDuff  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:20:05am

"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am........."

130 Cato the Elder  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:20:23am

re: #117 gmsc

So the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or "National Socialist German Workers' Party" was right wing? That's surprising.

I generally associate "Socialist" and "Worker's Party" with the left.

More of the same crap. This has been discussed to death here, and I'm bored now.

Carry on with your delusions.

131 Gus  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:20:35am

re: #126 whiterasta

To have their country liberated by foreigners and Infidels, to boot is a humiliation.

Never mind that the Kuwaiti "Air force" fled to Monaco, en mass.

True. I think it was Osama that first objected to the liberation of Kuwait by the USA.

You mean Morocco right?

132 Ojoe  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:20:37am

re: #116 haakondahl

Amy Goodman is the far left host of Pacifica Radio's "Democracy Now" news program.

133 vitoc  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:21:12am

Alex Jones. I want something about this creep there.

I just spent about twenty minutes reading his forum and now I feel like a need a shower after reading about the NWO and the zionists and stuff. Hey, there was quite a bit of open holocaust denial there (not that I think this should come as a surprise to anyone here).

Alex Jones is my nomination. And Ron Paul of course, they are related anyway.

134 whiterasta  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:21:14am

re: #128 Guanxi88

Your Petro-Dollars hard at work......

135 Spare O'Lake  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:21:15am

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding

136 jcm  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:21:51am

re: #117 gmsc

So the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or "National Socialist German Workers' Party" was right wing? That's surprising.

I generally associate "Socialist" and "Worker's Party" with the left.

Right Authoritarian and Left Authoritarian.

Both are Authoritarian, gut get there from different sides of of the spectrum.

137 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:22:28am

re: #134 whiterasta

Your Petro-Dollars hard at work......

Reminds me of the joke about the Official Saudi and Kuwaiti battle anthem:

"Onward, Christian Soldiers"

138 whiterasta  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:23:02am

re: #131 Gus 802

No. Monaco, if I remember correctly.

Lots of infidel chicks who will indulge any perversion for enough dollars..

139 Last Mohican  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:23:41am

Did this "Wingnuts of the week" thing get picked up by Drudge at some point? Because the first few comments on there sounded like typical CNN viewers, stuff like this:

Comparing Cynthia McKinney to the babbling bimbo, Bachman – who claims Democrats are “un-American” – is disingenuous in the least and nothing but a sinister pro-Zionist propaganda smear through association.

Seriously, you have the gall to represent yourselves as being serious “journalists”?

If you’re really that shockingly un-aware of the influence of AIPAC and ADL on our political system, then at least have enough class and integrity to stop calling yourselves a “news” organization.

[this was followed by a link to a hard-core anti-Jewish hate site]

But then later, it seems to be mostly more neutral comments, or ones arguing that Bachman isn't nutty enough to be compared to McKinney.

140 Catttt  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:24:12am

I think mentioning an "out there" person from the left and the right each week is a sharp idea, because it highlights the irrationality of extremism.

To me, however, I think of the spectrum of views as a large, round rug with fringe. There is fringe all the way around, and if you are on any part of the fringe, you might get caught in the vacuum (not Roombas, though, heh heh).

When people are on the edge, other people near them but more centrally located sometimes try to grab them and defend them or drag them back with logic. Some people, however, have simply fallen off into extremism, and these two women certainly are on the edge, though in different ways.

141 Gus  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:24:34am

re: #138 whiterasta

No. Monaco, if I remember correctly.

Lots of infidel chicks who will indulge any perversion for enough dollars..

OK I'm not familiar with that so Monaco would seem like an odd place to flee from the Iraqi invasion. Considering Kuwait it's probably not that odd.

142 LGoPs  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:25:16am

re: #107 Cato the Elder

Here we go with the same old bullshit meme. "Nazis were leftists."

Charles?

I don't see the 'right-wing' trying to imposing state control on industry. I don't see the 'right-wing' demanding allegiance to the Party. I don't see the 'right-wing' creating its own internal police organization. I don't see the 'right-wing' punishing and disallowing dissent. Quite the contrary, I see most of those traits exhibited by the 'left-wing'.

143 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:25:17am

re: #141 Gus 802

OK I'm not familiar with that so Monaco would seem like an odd place to flee from the Iraqi invasion. Considering Kuwait it's probably not that odd.

Millionaire refugees are different than, say, katrina evacuees.

144 Cato the Elder  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:25:32am

re: #129 MacDuff

"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am........."

Charles should start charging a fee every time that appears.

145 Desert Dog  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:25:38am

re: #139 Last Mohican

Did this "Wingnuts of the week" thing get picked up by Drudge at some point? Because the first few comments on there sounded like typical CNN viewers, stuff like this:

But then later, it seems to be mostly more neutral comments, or ones arguing that Bachman isn't nutty enough to be compared to McKinney.

suffer no fools on either side....that is always a good idea

146 Salamantis  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:25:57am

re: #100 haakondahl

The only thing "Right" about the flamingly leftist Nazi party was that it was somewhat less to the left than the Communists were, who accordingly called the right-wing. Like Democrats calling Joe Lieberman a conservative. The problem is that so much of the left bought that label, that now so has the right.

Oh, no; not again...

I can only repost a post I posted earlier today:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Geez; I have to deal with this self-serving and emotionally driven fascists-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 collectivist, hence totalitarian, but they are radically different types of collectivist 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.

147 Catttt  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:26:09am

re: #99 Guanxi88

I dunno - Coulter's wiry, but I bet she fatigues easily, and Goodman seems to outclass her by at least 40 pounds. In a real toe-to-toe slugfest, you need the ability to absorb damage and keep going.

Ms. Coutler is a heck of a sprinter, though. Did you see her dodge the pie? Not even whipped cream on her afterwards.

148 Irish Rose  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:26:24am

re: #142 LGoPs

I don't see the 'right-wing' trying to imposing state control on industry. I don't see the 'right-wing' demanding allegiance to the Party. I don't see the 'right-wing' creating its own internal police organization. I don't see the 'right-wing' punishing and disallowing dissent. Quite the contrary, I see most of those traits exhibited by the 'left-wing'.

You're kidding, right?

149 Spare O'Lake  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:27:03am

re: #115 Desert Dog

agree to disagree....it depends on your definitions

Anyone who thinks they are making a convincing defence of the extreme right by claiming that Nazis are leftists is sadly mistakes.

150 whiterasta  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:27:07am

re: #141 Gus 802

You could be correct, I just can't be assed to waste any of my life researching the question.

The vast majority of the middle East "countries" are........mmmm...... never mind.

151 LGoPs  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:27:09am

re: #148 Irish Rose

You're kidding, right?

No.

152 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:27:09am

re: #147 Catttt

Ms. Coutler is a heck of a sprinter, though. Did you see her dodge the pie? Not even whipped cream on her afterwards.

Ah, but a truly good fight, if it's not over in about two minutes, becomes a slug-fest, and the wiry ones just can't stand up to the kinda punishment that requires.

153 Cato the Elder  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:27:33am

re: #142 LGoPs

I don't see the 'right-wing' trying to imposing state control on industry. I don't see the 'right-wing' demanding allegiance to the Party. I don't see the 'right-wing' creating its own internal police organization. I don't see the 'right-wing' punishing and disallowing dissent. Quite the contrary, I see most of those traits exhibited by the 'left-wing'.

So Franco was "left-wing"?

154 Ojoe  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:27:46am

Heck with cage match, have a destruction derby.

155 Charles Johnson  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:28:07am

It gets tiring to go through the same arguments again and again, but the simple fact is that Nazis (National Socialism) were NOT a left-wing movement. They began as a right-wing party, coopted other far right parties in Germany, and all of their alliances were with right wing parties. The use of the word "Socialist" in their name does not equate to "left wing" or Marxism at all.

This is a completely uncontroversial view. There are very few reputable historians who don't identify the Nazis as right wing. There's a trend of revision going around that tries to deny any right wing connections at all -- exemplified by Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" -- but it's not working, and it's not going to work, because it simply isn't true.

156 Spare O'Lake  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:28:17am

re: #149 Spare O'Lake

Anyone who thinks they are making a convincing defence of the extreme right by claiming that Nazis are leftists is sadly mistakes.

mistaken

157 Desert Dog  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:28:36am

re: #149 Spare O'Lake

Anyone who thinks they are making a convincing defence of the extreme right by claiming that Nazis are leftists is sadly mistakes.

A defense of the extreme right? There are enough extremists on both sides to keep us occupied. Arguing over this type of thing is a waste of time.

158 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:28:58am

re: #154 Ojoe

Heck with cage match, have a destruction derby.

They could do it in duels, in classic Romani fashion: The men are tied together by their left hands, each given a short dagger, and then they are wrapped in the same cloak.

159 Cato the Elder  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:29:10am

re: #147 Catttt

Ms. Coutler is a heck of a sprinter, though. Did you see her dodge the pie? Not even whipped cream on her afterwards.

"Ms. Coulter"?

You mean Ann Orexia?

160 Gus  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:29:44am

re: #150 whiterasta

You could be correct, I just can't be assed to waste any of my life researching the question.

The vast majority of the middle East "countries" are........mmmm...... never mind.

Yeah, after watching that video and hearing the rather large audience laugh -- I had to censor my reaction. The thought that the Middle Eastern elite is financed by American commerce and energy use just adds to my frustration in that we are essentially their best "customer."

161 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:29:49am

re: #159 Cato the Elder

"Ms. Coulter"?

You mean Ann Orexia?

Didn't know she was Irish.

162 Ojoe  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:30:13am

re: #153 Cato the Elder

Franco was complex. You will find things to detest and admire both if you read his history. Spain was total blood letting anarchy & for better or worse Franco put a lid on it.

163 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:30:33am

re: #147 Catttt

Ms. Coutler is a heck of a sprinter, though. Did you see her dodge the pie? Not even whipped cream on her afterwards.

She dodged the pie no faster than she did the buffet line - afraid of food.

164 Desert Dog  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:31:00am

re: #160 Gus 802

Yeah, after watching that video and hearing the rather large audience laugh -- I had to censor my reaction. The thought that the Middle Eastern elite is financed by American commerce and energy use just adds to my frustration in that we are essentially their best "customer."

Bite the hands that feeds me

165 Achilles Tang  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:31:12am

re: #127 Sharmuta

Jenny McCarthy and Tom Tancredo.

Well, I was generalizing. They are more accurately moonbats along with Larry King rather than wingnuts per the above definition. It's just a little suspect given that Larry King is still called the "Flagship" of CNN. I have a feeling this will implode in an orgy of partisanship and unfairness accusations.

166 Catttt  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:32:35am

re: #152 Guanxi88

Ah, but a truly good fight, if it's not over in about two minutes, becomes a slug-fest, and the wiry ones just can't stand up to the kinda punishment that requires.

I think Ms. Coulter would have more stamina. She just looks to be in better shape, though obviously too skinny. Plus, she'd have a heck of a reach. If she could just land a couple of good blows, she could deck Ms. Goodman in no time.

167 mikalm  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:32:49am

The problem with this otherwise excellent concept is, as someone pointed out above, the huge imbalance on the leftward side of the equation. Maybe living 16 years in the Bay Area has distorted my perception, but it seems as if the Moonbat faction is far more numerous, much more heavily represented in the MSM, and considerably more socially and politically "respectable" than the Wingnutters.

For example, try to name the "right-wing" equivalents of these figures:

Ted Rall (editorial cartoons)
Mark Morford (lifestyle ranting)
Brian Becker (totalitarian extremist with a mass political movement at his hands)
Any Hollywood/entertainment figure who's made rash, ignorant and/or absurd political statements

168 Spare O'Lake  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:33:02am

re: #162 Ojoe

Franco was complex. You will find things to detest and admire both if you read his history. Spain was total blood letting anarchy & for better or worse Franco put a lid on it.

Yeah, just like Hitler made really good railroads./

169 gymmom  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:33:41am

Great idea. But wouldn't it even be a better idea if they presented some real reporting with say, um, facts? For example, actually talk about union auto factories versus non union. Give real info on who was involved in what legistlation and what the consequences have been. I don't know, maybe people wouldn't buy into the propaganda so much if they had the truth presented to them. Just a thought. That knowledge/truth thing can be a bit of a problem for people in power.

170 Occasional Reader  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:33:48am

Howdy. I also like the Winguts of the Week idea generally, and congrats to Charles for the recognition. Two criticisms of the piece, though, and one flabbergasted observation:

1) Much as I dislike Michele Bachman, I think it's perfectly valid to say that Obama "may have anti-American views". They've been amply documented, including at this very blog.

2) Also, I don't see the problem with her "irony" remark. The author seems to think she's misusing the word "irony". She isn't.

3) That "Zionist-occupied government" line from the show on which McKinney was interiewed... I mean, WOW. That is straight out, undisguised, neo-Nazi vocabulary. Absolutely sickening.

171 Desert Dog  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:33:52am

re: #168 Spare O'Lake

Yeah, just like Hitler made really good railroads./

And Mussolini made the trains run on time too!

172 LGoPs  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:34:00am

Fine. Whether nazi's were right wing or left wing and whether or not they were on the opposite end of the spectrum from the Communists or not, the thing that both sides had primarily in common was that both were built on the the supremacy of the State. Both were totalitarian and it is the all powerful State that represents the greatest threat to liberty and freedom. It is the all powerful State that is responsible for scores of millions of deaths within recent history and it is a matter of supreme indifference to those who died whether they were killed by a right wing or a left wing idealogy.

173 Catttt  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:34:09am

re: #159 Cato the Elder

"Ms. Coulter"?

You mean Ann Orexia?

I know it's old-fashioned of me to include everyone's title, but I can't help myself.

174 whiterasta  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:34:09am

re: #160 Gus 802

The untold trillions and trillions we have poured into those "Sheikdoms" and they are still no further ahead than they were 3,000 years ago.

175 Guanxi88  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:34:26am

re: #166 Catttt

I think Ms. Coulter would have more stamina. She just looks to be in better shape, though obviously too skinny. Plus, she'd have a heck of a reach. If she could just land a couple of good blows, she could deck Ms. Goodman in no time.

Boxing fan, are we? See, I agree - Coulter probably has her beat by a couple of inches in terms of reach, and is certainly likely to be lighter on her feet, but Goodman looks pretty solidly put-together. I think of Coulter more as a Bantam-weight, whereas Goodman is certainly a lightweight or cruiserweight.

It'd be a good fight, though. Put that on pay-per-view and let the bucks roll in.

176 Desert Dog  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:34:53am

re: #174 whiterasta

The untold trillions and trillions we have poured into those "Sheikdoms" and they are still no further ahead than they were 3,000 years ago.

Well, the Sheiks are doing pretty well for themselves.

177 vitoc  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:35:06am

re: #155 Charles

Yeah, absolutely. There is simply NO historian of any stature in the current debates that wouldn't say that National Socialism as a phenomenon is part of the extreme right. Anyone who comes up with this bs again and again that the Nazis were really leftists primarily shows his utter lack of any academic literature on the subject.

For an overview on relevant debates by a real Historian I recommend this. Most of the important books on the debate are mentioned.

178 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:35:23am

re: #166 Catttt

I think Ms. Coulter would have more stamina. She just looks to be in better shape, though obviously too skinny. Plus, she'd have a heck of a reach. If she could just land a couple of good blows, she could deck Ms. Goodman in no time.

So you don't think Goodman could clean Coulter's Glock (or whatever it was Coulter was holding in that famous target range photo)?

/*duck and run for cover*

179 LGoPs  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:35:33am

re: #153 Cato the Elder

So Franco was "left-wing"?

I know little of Franco but I do accept that he was labeled right wing.

180 jcm  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:36:20am

re: #142 LGoPs

I don't see the 'right-wing' trying to imposing state control on industry. I don't see the 'right-wing' demanding allegiance to the Party. I don't see the 'right-wing' creating its own internal police organization. I don't see the 'right-wing' punishing and disallowing dissent. Quite the contrary, I see most of those traits exhibited by the 'left-wing'.

Socialist as in Statist. The genesis of the Statism originates on the left for socialists / communists and on the right for the Fascists.

The political compass is more useful than linear right to left.

Or a Pournelle Chart

181 Salamantis  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:36:38am

Third Reich Germany and Il Duce's Italy were about as socialist as communist countries were peoples' democracies.

182 vitoc  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:36:51am

One of these days I will be able to use the software and html here properly, I promise... ooops.

The book on National Socialism I would recommend is this one: is this one

183 Cato the Elder  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:37:34am

re: #178 pre-Boomer Marine brat

So you don't think Goodman could clean Coulter's Glock (or whatever it was Coulter was holding in that famous target range photo)?

/*duck and run for cover*

Goodman can't officially admit to knowing one end of a gun from another. She's a leftist, you know. Guns bad.

Unless, like Dianne Feinstein, you suddenly feel you need one. Then they're good for you, but not for other people. Because you're a good person.

184 Sharmuta  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:37:41am

Authoritarianism isn't a phenomenon of just one wing of the political spectrum.

185 Charles Johnson  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:37:53am

re: #177 vitoc

Yeah, absolutely. There is simply NO historian of any stature in the current debates that wouldn't say that National Socialism as a phenomenon is part of the extreme right. Anyone who comes up with this bs again and again that the Nazis were really leftists primarily shows his utter lack of any academic literature on the subject.

For an overview on relevant debates by a real Historian I recommend this. Most of the important books on the debate are mentioned.

I fixed your link, but you'll have to reload the page to see it. (Remember, the preview button is your friend.)

Agree totally with your comment.

186 Salamantis  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:37:54am

I wanna see Cindy Sheehan and Medea Benjamin added to the list on the left, and Alan Keyes added to the list on the right. They are all utterly noxious wingnuts.

187 [deleted]  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:38:27am
188 whiterasta  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:38:29am

re: #176 Desert Dog

yeah, one of them is buying an A-380 for his personal transport.

[Link: www.luxurylaunches.com...]

Nice work, if you can get it.....

189 Catttt  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:38:45am

re: #175 Guanxi88

Boxing fan, are we? See, I agree - Coulter probably has her beat by a couple of inches in terms of reach, and is certainly likely to be lighter on her feet, but Goodman looks pretty solidly put-together. I think of Coulter more as a Bantam-weight, whereas Goodman is certainly a lightweight or cruiserweight.

It'd be a good fight, though. Put that on pay-per-view and let the bucks roll in.

Yeah, the problem is, it is a mismatch. I just don't think Ms. Goodman looks to be in good enough shape for Ms. Coulter. Ms. Goodman also strikes me as a "sissy puncher," but you never know.

And yeah, I am a boxing fan. Doesn't come up in conversation too often. :D

190 Gus  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:39:36am

re: #174 whiterasta

The untold trillions and trillions we have poured into those "Sheikdoms" and they are still no further ahead than they were 3,000 years ago.

Modern primitives. Dubai was built on petro-dollars and it is just another Arab state ruled by a dark-ages government. While the businessmen take these monies they turn around and revere their hallowed clerics who criticize the Western culture which is the backbone of their riches.

191 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:40:37am

re: #183 Cato the Elder

Goodman can't officially admit to knowing one end of a gun from another. She's a leftist, you know. Guns bad.

Unless, like Dianne Feinstein, you suddenly feel you need one. Then they're good for you, but not for other people. Because you're a good person.

heh (no disrespect!) ... you mistaken the punster for someone who cares what the facts of the matter are.

/or reality, for that matter ... *grin*

192 Desert Dog  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:41:19am

This has been posted here before, I think.

What are you?

The Political Compass

193 Occasional Reader  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:41:22am

re: #181 Salamantis

Third Reich Germany and Il Duce's Italy were about as socialist as communist countries were peoples' democracies.

Perhaps not "socialist" in strictu sensu (although Mussolini did begin his political life as a straight-up socialist), but they certainly shared the corporatist/statist bent with the socialists. I think the great contrast is between that, and systems that emphasize individual freedom.

194 mikalm  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:41:49am

re: #189 Catttt

Yeah, the problem is, it is a mismatch. I just don't think Ms. Goodman looks to be in good enough shape for Ms. Coulter. Ms. Goodman also strikes me as a "sissy puncher," but you never know.

And yeah, I am a boxing fan. Doesn't come up in conversation too often. :D

I'd give Coulter points on speed as well. She's got Type-A whipsnake build and mannerisms, and I'm sure she's could deliver three punches to Goodman's one. Kinda of like the Ali-Liston fight, if you've ever seen that.

195 jcm  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:43:41am

re: #192 Desert Dog

This has been posted here before, I think.

What are you?

The Political Compass

Somewhat useful, bias in some of the questions IMHO.

196 Occasional Reader  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:44:22am

re: #178 pre-Boomer Marine brat

So you don't think Goodman could clean Coulter's Glock (or whatever it was Coulter was holding in that famous target range photo)?

/*duck and run for cover*

Beretta. (Doesn't work for the pun, though.)

197 Occasional Reader  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:45:16am

re: #183 Cato the Elder

Goodman can't officially admit to knowing one end of a gun from another. She's a leftist, you know. Guns bad.

Unless, like Dianne Feinstein, you suddenly feel you need one. Then they're good for you, but not for other people. Because you're a good person.

Did Feinstein really get a gun? I hadn't heard that.

198 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:46:07am

re: #183 Cato the Elder

Goodman can't officially admit to knowing one end of a gun from another. She's a leftist, you know. Guns bad.

Unless, like Dianne Feinstein, you suddenly feel you need one. Then they're good for you, but not for other people. Because you're a good person.

Serious reply ... apart from my #191:

Yes. I recall the absolute (*GASP*) uproar on the Left after Wm. Raspberry shot the intruder.

199 MacDuff  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:46:10am

This whole discussion of "Left wing" nuts and "Right wing" nuts makes me weary and unsettled as it tends to mitigate atrocities according to "whose ox is being gored". Neither are "my ox" and it's fine with me to gore both of the bastards.

Measuring the blood on the hands of Communists vs. Fascists marginalizes the blood.

200 Sharmuta  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:46:22am

In A Conflict of Vision: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, Thomas Sowell notes that both marxism and fascism are hybrid visions. They are collections of ideas that lead to authoritarian, totalitarian regimes.

201 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:46:46am

re: #196 Occasional Reader

Beretta. (Doesn't work for the pun, though.)

Lemme check that out.
Beretta back.

202 Salamantis  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:47:35am

re: #193 Occasional Reader

Perhaps not "socialist" in strictu sensu (although Mussolini did begin his political life as a straight-up socialist), but they certainly shared the corporatist/statist bent with the socialists. I think the great contrast is between that, and systems that emphasize individual freedom.

Fascisms are right wing collectivist totalitarianisms, and communisms are left wing collectivist totalitarianisms. Constitutional democratic republics aren't on the other side from these two; CDRs are in the center, where individual freedoms are maximized and basic individual rights are guaranteed while the means of making and acting upon collective consensus is electorally preserved. What is on the other side is extreme individualism, otherwise known as anarchy.

203 Occasional Reader  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:48:07am

re: #201 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Lemme check that out.
Beretta back.

As dedicated punsters, if we can't find any available puns, we can just Wilson into existence.

204 [deleted]  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:48:22am
205 debutaunt  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:48:24am

re: #201 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Lemme check that out.
Beretta back.

That's quite a nice Italian accent.

206 Cato the Elder  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:49:19am

re: #204 Iron Fist

Get a gun? Had a carry permit was what I heard. After all, she's better than the rest of us.

That's the story I remember too. Didn't make much of a difference to my gun-hating relatives.

207 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:49:41am

re: #203 Occasional Reader

As dedicated punsters, if we can't find any available puns, we can just Wilson into existence.

*grin*

208 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:50:12am

re: #205 debutaunt

That's quite a nice Italian accent.

Lunchtime.
I just had ciao.

209 Occasional Reader  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:50:14am

re: #202 Salamantis

Fascisms are right wing collectivist totalitarianisms, and communisms are left wing collectivist totalitarianisms.

But given your very observation, the difference between "right wing" and "left wing" loses any practical meaning. What real difference was there in being a subject of Hitler or of Stalin? It becomes a Crips vs. Bloods kind of distinction; a smarter taxonomy recognized them both as "street gangs", rather than as somehow on different sides of a "spectrum".

210 Charles Johnson  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:50:26am

re: #204 Iron Fist

I suggest you read what I posted at the end of the open thread.

211 [deleted]  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:51:26am
212 Occasional Reader  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:51:36am

re: #205 debutaunt

That's quite a nice Italian accent.

I guess everyone pun thread will draw some Hecklers like you.

213 mikalm  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:51:59am

re: #202 Salamantis

What is on the other side is extreme individualism, otherwise known as anarchy.

Which, to complicate things further, breeds its own special brand of moonbat.

214 Occasional Reader  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:52:10am

re: #212 Occasional Reader

I guess everyone pun thread will draw some Hecklers like you.

PIMF

(dang)

215 jcm  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:52:28am

re: #211 Iron Fist

Most people I've known who hated guns were quite comfortable withthe right people being allowed to have them, and with the State deciding who the "right" people are. You can't really argue wit people like that, just vaugly feel sorry for them.

Just long as ordinary people don't get them, that would be, you know, DANGEROUS!

//

216 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:52:41am

re: #205 debutaunt

That's quite a nice Italian accent.

*chuckle*
I'd like to hear Dianna's fedora-pinstripes-and-spats-clad Salvatore Squirrel describing what's inside his violin case.

217 vitoc  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:53:20am

re: #187 Iron Fist

You need to read Ribbentrop and Molotov on the issue. It wasn't always very simple or straight forward. The Nazis and the Soviets had far more in common than they had in differences.

They did indeed have a lot in common, and I think it is reasonable to argue that Hitler had a lot in common with Stalin, more so than with Mussolini. However, if one now jumps up and says "hey, that means that Hitler was a leftist!" think again - Mussolini was stronger influenced by the left than Hitler was. More about this here.

The decisive factor when it comes to the nazis I think is that at the very core of Hitler's (and of nazi ideology in general) is that they considered the left in general a mortal enemy. One of the "reasons" they hated jews was that they thought that any leftist thinking was essentially jewish.

218 debutaunt  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:53:43am

re: #212 Occasional Reader

I guess everyone pun thread will draw some Hecklers like you.

I wasn't heckling at all. I commented with a my own Italian accent.

219 jcm  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:54:10am

re: #216 pre-Boomer Marine brat

*chuckle*
I'd like to hear Dianna's fedora-pinstripes-and-spats-clad Salvatore Squirrel describing what's inside his violin case.

That me lad is what we call a Chicago Typewriter.

220 Salamantis  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:54:23am

re: #209 Occasional Reader

But given your very observation, the difference between "right wing" and "left wing" loses any practical meaning. What real difference was there in being a subject of Hitler or of Stalin? It becomes a Crips vs. Bloods kind of distinction; a smarter taxonomy recognized them both as "street gangs", rather than as somehow on different sides of a "spectrum".

Read my post #146. Fascism is national, because it is rooted in race and tribe, and thus is tied to the soil from which the pure blood sprang, while communism is international, because it is rooted in the dissolution of class distinctions, which can be found all over. This is why fascist genocides are directed at races (Jews, Gypsies, blacks), while communist genocides are directed at classes (the bourgeoise).

221 Charles Johnson  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:54:48am

re: #209 Occasional Reader

But given your very observation, the difference between "right wing" and "left wing" loses any practical meaning. What real difference was there in being a subject of Hitler or of Stalin? It becomes a Crips vs. Bloods kind of distinction; a smarter taxonomy recognized them both as "street gangs", rather than as somehow on different sides of a "spectrum".

When either left wing or right wing go deep enough into extremism, they meet at the far end of totalitarianism. (I've been noting this phenomena at LGF for years.)

But that doesn't change the fact that Nazis start their journey on the right side of the political spectrum, while Marxists and Communists start at the left.

222 Occasional Reader  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:55:00am

re: #218 debutaunt

I wasn't heckling at all. I commented with a my own Italian accent.

(psst... "Heckler" was a gun pun...)

223 debutaunt  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:55:24am

re: #214 Occasional Reader

PIMF

(dang)

Your twin brother never used to make all these typos.

224 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:56:01am

re: #219 jcm

That me lad is what we call a Chicago Typewriter.

The original Valentine's Day present.

225 MJ  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:56:31am

I wonder if Ted Turner will be featured?

226 Sharmuta  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:56:47am

re: #217 vitoc

They did indeed have a lot in common, and I think it is reasonable to argue that Hitler had a lot in common with Stalin, more so than with Mussolini. However, if one now jumps up and says "hey, that means that Hitler was a leftist!" think again - Mussolini was stronger influenced by the left than Hitler was. More about this here.

The decisive factor when it comes to the nazis I think is that at the very core of Hitler's (and of nazi ideology in general) is that they considered the left in general a mortal enemy. One of the "reasons" they hated jews was that they thought that any leftist thinking was essentially jewish.

Fascists hate marxists with a passion.

227 grantman  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:56:51am

Regarding Cynthia's father, Billy, let's get it straight. He didn't simply blame the Jews, he even spelled it out! J-E-W-S. Here's the quote: "Jews have bought everybody. Jews. J-E-W-S."

What a guy. What a family. You ought to try living here in Georgia sometimes! Hahahahaha!

228 debutaunt  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:56:53am

re: #222 Occasional Reader

(psst... "Heckler" was a gun pun...)

Don't hate me because I don't get every gun reference, Winchester.

229 Desert Dog  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:56:54am

re: #220 Salamantis

Read my post #146. Fascism is national, because it is rooted in race and tribe, and thus is tied to the soil from which the pure blood sprang, while communism is international, because it is rooted in the dissolution of class distinctions, which can be found all over. This is why fascist genocides are directed at races (Jews, Gypsies, blacks), while communist genocides are directed at classes (the bourgeoise).

Unless you were a Russian Jew in the 1920-1930's. Or a Ukrainian, or a Pole or a German prisoner of war.....in those instances, they toss out the class bits.

230 Achilles Tang  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:57:14am

re: #190 Gus 802

Modern primitives. Dubai was built on petro-dollars and it is just another Arab state ruled by a dark-ages government. While the businessmen take these monies they turn around and revere their hallowed clerics who criticize the Western culture which is the backbone of their riches.

An oversimplification. I don't suggest that they be trusted, say any more than the Russians or Chinese, but they are not dark-ages there and they are not Iran, nor Saudi, nor Hamas. Underestimating peoples is not a good idea.

231 Last Mohican  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:57:37am

re: #145 Desert Dog

suffer no fools on either side....that is always a good idea

Yes, and I love the sentiment behind Avlon's idea. As I've said before here (perhaps too many times for some of you), I think there used to be a social norm in American politics, a kind of "politically correct" pressure, if you will, to at least act like one's political views were sober, rational, balanced, and therefore center-leaning. Now that norm has been replaced by the opposite norm: it's a virtue to be as virulently partisan as possible. I think that can be seen as the inevitable outcome of the two major political parties' quest for cost-effectiveness in maintaining power. You don't build brand loyalty and motivate people to volunteer their time and hard-earned money for your party by offering sober, rational candidates. You do it by polarizing voters and getting them as worked-up as possible.

I like the idea, but as I said last night, I think this new feature will last approximately one episode. Because the "polarize and inflame" strategy works for TV networks as well as it does for political parties. People now tune in largely to get their preexisting polarized views reinforced and amplified. People are going to get offended and turned off really quickly.

232 vitoc  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:58:12am

re: #209 Occasional Reader

But given your very observation, the difference between "right wing" and "left wing" loses any practical meaning. What real difference was there in being a subject of Hitler or of Stalin? It becomes a Crips vs. Bloods kind of distinction; a smarter taxonomy recognized them both as "street gangs", rather than as somehow on different sides of a "spectrum".

It is only important when it comes to analyzing them, for the practical question of whether they are dangerous, worth fighting against, a threat to freedom etc pp - it is meaningless.

However, I think history has shown that it was possible to contain Stalin, but not Hitler. You could make a deal with Stalin with the purpose of defeating Hitler - but with Hitler no such deal would have had any kind of meaning. The nazis needed to be wiped out as quickly as possible.

233 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:58:29am

re: #223 debutaunt

Your twin brother never used to make all these typos.

Makes one wonder how many passion-induced typos were in those love-notes to Adriana.

234 debutaunt  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:58:57am

re: #222 Occasional Reader

(psst... "Heckler" was a gun pun...)

Son of a gun.

235 Occasional Reader  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:59:01am

re: #220 Salamantis

Read my post #146. Fascism is national, because it is rooted in race and tribe, and thus is tied to the soil from which the pure blood sprang, while communism is international, because it is rooted in the dissolution of class distinctions, which can be found all over. This is why fascist genocides are directed at races (Jews, Gypsies, blacks), while communist genocides are directed at classes (the bourgeoise).

Yet the socialist/communist "leftists" seemed to inevitably drift over to extreme nationalism, too (Stalin, Mao, to some extent Castro). And Stalin VERY MUCH went after races/ethnicities (who was it that dubbed him "Breaker of Nations"?). I agree with, e.g., Vasily Grossman; you wind up with systems that are almost indistinguishable.

236 vitoc  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:59:51am

re: #226 Sharmuta

Fascists hate marxists with a passion.

Well, then Mussolini had to hate himself, at least his former self, actually. Read up on his biography, he actually WAS a marxist at some point, and his later thinking was strongly influenced by this. Check out my link.

237 Salamantis  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:59:52am

re: #213 mikalm

Which, to complicate things further, breeds its own special brand of moonbat.

Yep. The Unabomber railed at leftism, and his acronym FC stands for Fuck Computers. He wanted to return us to a global agrarian society run at the village level.

The dangerous anarchists tend to be lone wolves like that. An anarchist, Leon Czolgosz, assassinated President William McKinley.

238 Desert Dog  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:59:57am

re: #231 Last Mohican

One of the down sides of a two party system. We get stability compared to multi-party systems, but more often than not, you get polarization. Hard to get anything done when both sides increasingly demonize the other side.

239 mikalm  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:59:58am

re: #220 Salamantis

while communist genocides are directed at classes (the bourgeoise).

Also, while fascist genocides can be avoided if one is not a member of the hated Other, communist/leftist genocides constantly redefine the identity of The Enemy so that ultimately nobody is safe. Witness the Stalinist purges of the 1930s, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, or even a deep historical precedent like the French Revolution. All ended up eating their own children because the perpetual need for an internal war against dissenters forced the State to keep inventing new enemies to persecute.

240 Randall Gross  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:00:14pm

I don't measure it in terms of left or right. That's a convenient scale when you talk in terms of how much the government does or doesn't do, but it sucks for most else.
Once you get to a single person rule you have reverted to "king". You can call him emperor, dictator, fascist, etc all you want but when you get to crowning a tyrant through one means or another the result is the same. The evil ideology itself used to crown that Single person ruler is what's at fault, not left or right. So you can have a tyrant as a result of tribal supremacism, divine right, class supremacism, or even get there through populist Democracy (e.g. Venezuela.)
Communism is horrid because Class supremacism leads to totalitarianism
Islamism is horrid because religious supremascism leads to a Caliph or monarch
Fascism is horrid because tribal supremacism leads to a dictator

The only opposition to tyranny is liberty, which means balances in government, and well defined individual rights which include rights to property.

So if you have to argue the "left vs. right" thing, then approach it from truth: states on the left break down more often, socialism, marxism, and even democracy have fatal flaws that can lead to Fascism, Totalitarianism, Caliphism, etc. Once the populist tyrant takes over however, it's not democracy, it's not marxism, it's not true capitalism, it's not socialism, etc anymore.

241 MacDuff  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:00:28pm

The weekend tasks beckon, so I will take my leave.

Have a great afternoon Lizards!

242 Occasional Reader  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:01:10pm

re: #228 debutaunt

Don't hate me because I don't get every gun reference, Winchester.

You know, you're bucking like a young, female Colt, who's finally been let out of Herstal.

(yes, yes, there's no such thing as a female Colt, but give me some poetic punster license here)

243 whiterasta  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:01:25pm

re: #230 Naso Tang

Oh, I'd disagree with you on the Dark Ages thing....

[Link: www.dawn.com...]

As much as they like to dress up The Emirates as being civilized, they are still back in the stone age, quite frankly.

244 Desert Dog  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:03:45pm

re: #242 Occasional Reader

You know, you're bucking like a young, female Colt, who's finally been let out of Herstal.

(yes, yes, there's no such thing as a female Colt, but give me some poetic punster license here)

Transgendered horses?

245 Occasional Reader  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:05:24pm

re: #244 Desert Dog

Transgendered horses?

Didn't you know? The Lone Ranger's horse, Silver, after realizing that he was "living a lie", wound up being the Lone Ranger's horse, Chartreuse.

246 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:05:30pm

re: #244 Desert Dog

Transgendered horses?

A mare detail. Pay no attention. Move along.

247 Desert Dog  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:05:51pm

re: #245 Occasional Reader

Didn't you know? The Lone Ranger's horse, Silver, after realizing that he was "living a lie", wound up being the Lone Ranger's horse, Chartreuse.

He was a mare trapped in a stallions body...the poor dear

248 Last Mohican  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:06:11pm

re: #238 Desert Dog

One of the down sides of a two party system. We get stability compared to multi-party systems, but more often than not, you get polarization. Hard to get anything done when both sides increasingly demonize the other side.

I don't see any way out of it. There are enormous amounts of money and power riding on the parties' success in radicalizing people. That has always been the case, but the parties have only just started to realize it in the past ten years or so. I think the existing system would utterly reject the emergence of any third party. It would take some sort of cultural movement that pressures people to be reasonable again, as a matter of political correctness. Just what John Avlon is doing, except that I'm not sure if he has the cultural clout to pull it off.

I should read his book, huh?

249 Desert Dog  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:07:28pm

re: #248 Last Mohican

I don't see any way out of it. There are enormous amounts of money and power riding on the parties' success in radicalizing people. That has always been the case, but the parties have only just started to realize it in the past ten years or so. I think the existing system would utterly reject the emergence of any third party. It would take some sort of cultural movement that pressures people to be reasonable again, as a matter of political correctness. Just what John Avlon is doing, except that I'm not sure if he has the cultural clout to pull it off.

I should read his book, huh?

Right now, the only way to change it is from the inside...not the outside. A third party will guarantee the other side a victory. If you want to change a party, join it.

250 BlueCanuck  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:07:57pm

re: #237 Salamantis

My memory is a little hazy by now, but I once did a project on terrorism in high school for my "Man in Society" class. The early roots were in Russian Anarchism. There were a lot of bomb throwers around then acting out against the Tsars from about the late 18th century on.

251 Occasional Reader  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:08:34pm

re: #239 mikalm

Also, while fascist genocides can be avoided if one is not a member of the hated Other, communist/leftist genocides constantly redefine the identity of The Enemy so that ultimately nobody is safe. Witness the Stalinist purges of the 1930s, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, or even a deep historical precedent like the French Revolution. All ended up eating their own children because the perpetual need for an internal war against dissenters forced the State to keep inventing new enemies to persecute.

Interesting observation. I'd say it's at least a defensible hypothesis that far right/fascist regimes did seem to "stabilize" more, at least in terms of the search for internal enemies. (China perhaps being the enormous exception, but then again whether China is currently under a "communist" system is a point of much debate.)

252 Jimmah  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:08:44pm

Fighting against attempts to mainstream the extremists is an important cause. Great to see respected, influential people identifying this problem and taking a stand.

253 neocon hippie  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:08:44pm

Fascists and communists hate each other because they are rival totalitarian gangs looking for absolute power and the loyalty of the same populations.

One thing to think about is the Stalin-Trotsky split. The latter was a full on international socialist, while the former wanted "socialism in one country," which is similar to national socialism. Jonah Goldberg also makes the point that the Nazis attracted a lot of former communists who wanted revolution but wanted a German version not dictated by the Comintern in Moscow.

254 Sharmuta  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:09:37pm

re: #236 vitoc

I plan to read it- thank you.

I think the problem is these altruistic, elitist leaders thinking they can fix their societies while not being beholden to the law they expect others to live by- elitist hypocrites, in other words. That too much altruism in the guise of government power can lead to authoritarianism in varying forms.

255 vitoc  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:09:43pm

Back to the topic of the wingnuts of whatever colour...

I think what we see here is what can be expected once a society comes into a crisis - the lunatics on either side get more vocal, and more support. Once people get back to normalcy, the lunatics get outcasted again.

Whether we will see more of this idiocy depends on how bad the economical crisis will become in the years to come. If it gets worse I full expect much more extremism of any kind. And I for one do not care much whether it comes from the far right or the far left, I hate either with a passion. That differentiation is only important for analytical purposes anyway.

256 jcm  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:10:46pm

re: #254 Sharmuta

I plan to read it- thank you.

I think the problem is these altruistic, elitist leaders thinking they can fix their societies while not being beholden to the law they expect others to live by- elitist hypocrites, in other words. That too much altruism in the guise of government power can lead to authoritarianism in varying forms.

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”
C.S. Lewis.

257 Desert Dog  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:11:52pm

re: #256 jcm

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”
C.S. Lewis.

Quick, someone send President Obama some CS Lewis!

258 Gus  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:12:08pm

re: #230 Naso Tang

An oversimplification. I don't suggest that they be trusted, say any more than the Russians or Chinese, but they are not dark-ages there and they are not Iran, nor Saudi, nor Hamas. Underestimating peoples is not a good idea.

Dark ages is a figure of speech and in the case of Dubai or the UAE the dark-ages description still stands in many regards including womens' freedom, archaic laws, raw sewage in Dubai, human trafficking (including children), foreign worker abuse, etc.

While they may not be a carbon copy from the dark ages they are certain a modern dark ages state.

259 Last Mohican  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:12:20pm

re: #249 Desert Dog

Right now, the only way to change it is from the inside...not the outside. A third party will guarantee the other side a victory. If you want to change a party, join it.

Well, I must say, I was quite surprised and encouraged to see John McCain win the Republican primary. He wasn't my personal first choice, but he was exactly the kind of rational, balanced, tolerant, uniting moderate figure that I'd like to see back in the American political system. And then he was pummeled into oblivion by the thoroughly polarized press, by the extremists in his own party who felt that he was "not conservative enough," and by his own utter refusal to actually conduct a political campaign. I feel like, if someone were to write his biography, it could be called "The Last Moderate."

260 Salamantis  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:12:44pm

re: #235 Occasional Reader

Yet the socialist/communist "leftists" seemed to inevitably drift over to extreme nationalism, too (Stalin, Mao, to some extent Castro). And Stalin VERY MUCH went after races/ethnicities (who was it that dubbed him "Breaker of Nations"?). I agree with, e.g., Vasily Grossman; you wind up with systems that are almost indistinguishable.

Stalin's biggest targets were not ethnicities; they were farmers and factory owners who resisted nationalization. These are who he mostly gulaged and starved. This is also true of Mao's Great Leap Forward, where bourgeoise elements perceived as sympathetic to democracy or private property were shamed, re-educated, or slaughtered, and in Pol Pot's Cambodia, where agrarian communism was the goal, and the means the Khmer Rouge employed was to execute the educated classes. Stalin isn't the best example of an ethic Russian chauvinist, btw, because he was ethically Georgian, not Russian. Castro most certainly would have had a helluva time pushing racism in Cuba, considering how intermarried the races are there. China is on the other extreme; there WERE NO races much besides ethnic Chinese in most of China, except at the fringes.

261 Walter L. Newton  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:19:41pm

re: #259 Last Mohican

Well, I must say, I was quite surprised and encouraged to see John McCain win the Republican primary. He wasn't my personal first choice, but he was exactly the kind of rational, balanced, tolerant, uniting moderate figure that I'd like to see back in the American political system. And then he was pummeled into oblivion by the thoroughly polarized press, by the extremists in his own party who felt that he was "not conservative enough," and by his own utter refusal to actually conduct a political campaign. I feel like, if someone were to write his biography, it could be called "The Last Moderate."

And get use to it, because you'll get that in spades in the up coming elections. (Can I say "spades.")

That was only a foreshadowing of how far nutziod things are going to get.

262 Salamantis  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:24:04pm

The left is identified with erasing class and the right is identified with purifying race. Even in the US, when you go to the extreme far right, you find racists and antisemites like the KKK and the John Birch Society and the National Alliance and Stormfront, and when you go to the extreme far left, you find class warriors like the Weathermen and World Won't Wait and ANSWER.

263 mikalm  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:24:38pm

re: #261 Walter L. Newton


That was only a foreshadowing of how far nutziod things are going to get.

Don't you mean, "nutzoid"?

264 wiffersnapper  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:28:10pm

I'm gonna like this show! It'll make me watch CNN for once!

265 Lynn B.  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:30:30pm

You know, I turned on the TV this morning and Ben Stein was on FNC. So I switched to MSNBC and there was Pat Buchanan. So I switched to CNN and Betty Nguyen was chatting with the movie critic about Star Trek. That at least wasn't nauseating but I was looking for something a little closer to news. So I switched to the Weather Channel. But I find myself finding CNN less and less (relatively) offensive these days. Sad.

/and for this I pay a cable bill ... why?

266 Sharmuta  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:31:45pm

re: #256 jcm

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”
C.S. Lewis.

I love that quote. +1

267 solomonpanting  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:44:04pm

re: #262 Salamantis

The left is identified with erasing class and the right is identified with purifying race. Even in the US, when you go to the extreme far right, you find racists and antisemites like the KKK and the John Birch Society and the National Alliance and Stormfront, and when you go to the extreme far left, you find class warriors like the Weathermen and World Won't Wait and ANSWER.

"The left is identified with erasing class"-How true, but probably not in the manner you intended.
In reality, though, the left perpetuates racial differences by always highlighting the racial component of someone, especially when it comes to advancements or promotions in what should be merit-based decisions.

268 Bob Dillon  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:44:46pm

re: #77 Charles

Meanwhile, it looks like John Hawkins is going to let RightWingNews.com turn into another LGF-bashing site.

Which is always nice. We don't have enough of those yet.

All publicity is good publicity.

269 Ojoe  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:45:57pm

re: #256 jcm

From the Anchoress, on the next tyranny, probably:

**********

Before we knew him as Benedict, while he was still Joseph Ratzinger, he was telling us what he knew, but between his “rottweiler” caricature and all the religious wrappings, we missed it:
“…the population of an entirely planned and controlled world are going to be inexpressibly lonely … and they will then discover the little community of believers as something quite new. As a hope that is there for them, as the answer they have secretly always been asking for.” [emphasis mine - admin] — (from God and the World)
He knows. Listen to this 20th century man who sees what comes ahead because he vividly remembers all that came before - all that we want to believe we’ve left behind. He recognizes the tyrant because he has seen it, has felt its breath on his very neck. And in that statement, he acknowledges for us that the tyrant this time will eat up liberty so thoroughly that only in the spirit will freedom be found, nourished and strengthened. A totalitarian world without a spiritual defense will be unsurvivable.

Bold at the end is mine.
Link.

270 Altermite  Sat, May 9, 2009 12:58:03pm

re: #229 Desert Dog

Unless you were a Russian Jew in the 1920-1930's. Or a Ukrainian, or a Pole or a German prisoner of war.....in those instances, they toss out the class bits.

Actually, they're beef with many of these groups had to do with perceived 'bourgouise tendancies' and such, more than anything else. Except for German POWs.

271 Altermite  Sat, May 9, 2009 1:01:20pm

re: #117 gmsc

So the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or "National Socialist German Workers' Party" was right wing? That's surprising.

I generally associate "Socialist" and "Worker's Party" with the left.

Names always tell the truth. That is why the Democratic Republic on Congo is such an egalitarian place.

272 Biocritic  Sat, May 9, 2009 1:13:01pm

Hmmm: On the Left is someone out of Congress and with no power. On the Right is a woman who is in Congress.

It will be interesting to see if this paradigm holds as the feature moves on. Bash powerless Lefties and Righties in office.

I find it amusing that the feature said. "We're going to take that power back." Who appointed them and to whom will they "give" the power that "they" have taken back?

If you really want to showcase more reasonable voices, just do it.

273 Alberta Oil Peon  Sat, May 9, 2009 1:14:06pm

re: #136 jcm

Right Authoritarian and Left Authoritarian.

Both are Authoritarian, gut get there from different sides of of the spectrum.

Only because "the spectrum" as it is currently viewed, is the result of a masterful disinformation campaign by Josef Stalin, and brought to America by his acolyte, Walter Duranty of the New York Times.

I recommend that you read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.

To put it in a nutshell: in Weimar Germany, the Communist Party and the National Socialist Party were bitter rivals, because they were both peddling the same collectivist pablum to the same market segment. Same thing in Italy. Mussolini was a Socialist before he became a Fascist, and he said he always still considered himself a socialist at heart.

Needless to say, once the Internationalist Socialist USSR came to swords' points with National Socialist Germany, it became necessary for Stalin to demonize Nazi politics as something altogether alien, hence Nazism became "right-wing." They are both statist, collectivist, and coercive movements, and they are both enemies of freedom.

274 Achilles Tang  Sat, May 9, 2009 1:24:22pm

re: #243 whiterasta

Oh, I'd disagree with you on the Dark Ages thing....

[Link: www.dawn.com...]

As much as they like to dress up The Emirates as being civilized, they are still back in the stone age, quite frankly.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. I can guarantee you that arrest would be the result if you had sex in an explicit manner on a public beach near where I live in Florida if someone saw you and complained. The charge would be public indecency which is on our books in the USA. I don't know the details of this case (he said, she said), but I do know that those people knew very well that they were in a somewhat puritanical society and have mostly themselves to blame.

I've been there many times, and the interesting thing is that the UAE has a largely immigrant CITIZEN population, unlike most of the Middle East. Largely of Indian origin.

You might as well say the same of any part of the world that doesn't subscribe to your definition of Dark Ages. I would also remind you that when I was young, my favorite cartoon was Tarzan, and he had no nipples in the comics, and all married people in sitcoms had separate beds. That was in the USA, so according to you we just left the Dark Ages.

Sheesh.

275 Alberta Oil Peon  Sat, May 9, 2009 1:35:11pm

re: #181 Salamantis

Third Reich Germany and Il Duce's Italy were about as socialist as communist countries were peoples' democracies.

True to a certain extent, Salamantis. The Nazis and the Fascists worked by co-opting the industrialists, rather than by outright nationalizing industry. But they made industry do the State's bidding, nonetheless. Which is scarily like what's happening right now in the USA, isn't it?

Look. If you think about it theoretically, the true end-member on the Right side of the spectrum, conventionally speaking, is not collectivist Nazism, because collectivism is anathema to freedom-loving people. Anarchy, or extreme Libertarianism would be closer to the mark.

The problem with wing-nuts, on "both" sides of the spectrum, is that they are nuts, and as such, are not clear thinkers, so they buy into belief systems that are actually contrary to their self-perceived orientation.

276 vitoc  Sat, May 9, 2009 1:51:11pm

re: #273 Alberta Oil Peon

Goldberg certainly has a couple of interesting and important points. Neither of those are exactly new though - for instance, the origins of Mussolini's thinking have been pointed out before by others, and more conclusively - see Zeev Sternhell for this especially. One thing though is clear about this book, which is probably both a strength and a weakness: It is primarily a political book concerned with the present. It is NOT a historical study on the history of certain ideas, in particular it isn't an academic study. I won't hold that against the book, it is something that should be held in mind when reading it, though. Goldberg has my sympathies if he wants to show how statism is a danger to freedom. But he loses them once he ignores the existing scientific literature, and worse, original national socialist literature. Anyone who has read Hitler, Rosenberg and the likes in the original knows that it is absurd to call the nazis leftists.

It is not a concidence that there is no real debate among historians about this book...

277 Alberta Oil Peon  Sat, May 9, 2009 1:51:52pm

re: #192 Desert Dog

This has been posted here before, I think.

What are you?

The Political Compass

That's a really useful site, and does a fine job of explaining the shortcomings of the one-dimensional Left-Right paradigm.

For the record, my rank: Economic Left/Right: 4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.26

So I sit a little to the left of Milton Friedman, economically, but on about the same plane as him on the social axis.

278 [deleted]  Sat, May 9, 2009 1:57:06pm
279 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, May 9, 2009 2:00:19pm

re: #49 Cato the Elder

McKinney is so far gone she's now a Nazi. In other words, she's overtaken Bachmann on the right.

It is hard to beat Cynthia McKinney, I must admit. She's really more in, I dunno, Stormfront's territory, than Bachman's. Which is not to say that I think much of Bachman, but McKinney is a special quality of psycho.

280 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, May 9, 2009 2:01:54pm

re: #55 Pass The Moonbaticide

I understood Wingnuts to be a derogative term for people exclusively of the Right - Their answer to Moonbats (Our term for those exclusively on the Left).

Are we to redefine these terms now ?

Wingnut is technically neutral, and can refer to a nut from either wing. However, in practice, it is used largely to refer to right-wingnuts, since the term 'moonbat' has become common in reference to the left-wingnut.

281 Achilles Tang  Sat, May 9, 2009 2:08:06pm

re: #278 slotgun

So please: Keep up the good work chronicling the jihad-watching, and yes, call us out when we have it coming to us. But all in balance, eh?

So how do you balance? By ratios of posts, or what they contain, or how people comment?

If you don't like a perspective you are free to say why, but if you sound like you are whining take it like it comes.

282 Alberta Oil Peon  Sat, May 9, 2009 2:12:15pm

re: #276 vitoc

Goldberg certainly has a couple of interesting and important points. Neither of those are exactly new though - for instance, the origins of Mussolini's thinking have been pointed out before by others, and more conclusively - see Zeev Sternhell for this especially. One thing though is clear about this book, which is probably both a strength and a weakness: It is primarily a political book concerned with the present. It is NOT a historical study on the history of certain ideas, in particular it isn't an academic study. I won't hold that against the book, it is something that should be held in mind when reading it, though. Goldberg has my sympathies if he wants to show how statism is a danger to freedom. But he loses them once he ignores the existing scientific literature, and worse, original national socialist literature. Anyone who has read Hitler, Rosenberg and the likes in the original knows that it is absurd to call the nazis leftists.

It is not a concidence that there is no real debate among historians about this book...

Thanks. I actually did try to read Mein Kampf, back when I was in high school. "Turgid" doesn't begin to describe it.

I'll accept your premise that the Nazis may have come from the Right, but they totally discarded all that was good and decent of the Right in their pell-mell descent into totalitarianism. Totalitarianism of the the Left is virtually indistinguishable from that of the right. Except maybe the Nazis had better tailors.

Interesting, isn't it, that a whacko left-wing moonbat like Cynthia McKinney is wound up in the same Judenhass as wingnuts like Stormfront?

283 Charles Johnson  Sat, May 9, 2009 2:13:01pm

You know, I must have missed the part in Avlon's article where he wrote that McKinney and Bachmann were absolutely equivalent in terms of craziness. I say I must have missed that, because apparently a lot of people in this thread didn't miss it -- they're all reacting as if the article specifically says these two people are equally crazy.

Can someone please quote the section where it says that? I keep reading and re-reading the article, but I just can't seem to find it.

And as for whether Bachmann deserves to be called a wingnut at all -- I have to completely agree with Avlon. She's a gay-bashing, creationist, anti-science religious fanatic, and for me she's emblematic of some of the worst traits of the GOP.

284 Achilles Tang  Sat, May 9, 2009 2:27:25pm

re: #277 Alberta Oil Peon

That's a really useful site, and does a fine job of explaining the shortcomings of the one-dimensional Left-Right paradigm.

For the record, my rank: Economic Left/Right: 4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.26

So I sit a little to the left of Milton Friedman, economically, but on about the same plane as him on the social axis.

Weird, I'm - (minus) 4.36 and 0.26 on this, and yet I don't recall finding you loony.

I think they need to come up with a special ranking system for Lizards.

285 vitoc  Sat, May 9, 2009 2:40:21pm

re: #282 Alberta Oil Peon

If you think reading Hitler was bad, think again after having read Rosenberg. :-)

Maybe a part of the problem is that you (and Goldberg) are using American meanings for certain terms, and I think of the same words with their European meaning. I sometimes have to remind myself that...

Now, for the question of where Hitler was coming from: Have a look at his 1923 putsch attempt. One of the key people involved was Ludendorff. I think we can agree that there is no possible way to describe this guy as someone who comes from the left...

What is less known outside of academic debates are things like the Thule Gesellschaft..... This is where you have to look if you want to understand the origins of nazism. This has nothing to do with marxism whatsoever, but all the more with paganism and occultism. This aspect is way too overlooked in the debates about this.

Furthermore, I think we need to be a bit more precise with the terms we use: I think there is a huge difference between Hitler and Mussolini, so much that I would not want to speak of German fascism actually. These are two different beasts.

One last point. One key aspect to Marxism is always to fully embrace modernity, and claiming to want to push it even futher. Marx hoped to achieve a higher level of science and industrial productivity with abolishing capitalism. (this is bs obviously, but that is not the point here). Fascism and nazism on the other hand had quite a bit of a problem with modernity, they longed for the closed society of the past. A key book of the Italian Fascism has the remarkable title Revolt Against the Modern World

286 iLikeCandy  Sat, May 9, 2009 2:42:38pm

The only trouble with these "Nutcase of the week" features is that the targets always wear it like a badge of honor.

I can just see Michele's next appearance on Sean Hannity:

Sean (jovial): So I hear you were named "Wingnut of the week" on CNN.
Michele (laughing): Yes, Sean, apparently loving God and America and your family makes you a "wingnut" now.
Sean: I guess more than half of America are wingnuts.
Michele: George Washington may be the next one!

287 vitoc  Sat, May 9, 2009 2:44:26pm

re: #282 Alberta Oil Peon


Interesting, isn't it, that a whacko left-wing moonbat like Cynthia McKinney is wound up in the same Judenhass as wingnuts like Stormfront?

You are absolutey correct, and it is not an isolated incident, anti-semitism is quite widespread, especially in the more stupid parts of the current left. I think though it is not the Stormfront type of anti-semitism, but rather the Alex Jones variety. Again, it is not that I would concede that there is nothing to your points, I just question whether the similarities are enough to use a common term. And I wouldn't do that because of the rabid anti-communism of the German nazis, and because of the paganist elements in their ideology.

288 [deleted]  Sat, May 9, 2009 2:55:12pm
289 quickjustice  Sat, May 9, 2009 3:26:59pm

Avlon is a moderate, Giuliani Democrat who wrote editorials for my favorite defunct N.Y. paper, the N.Y. Sun. A talented guy.

290 Achilles Tang  Sat, May 9, 2009 5:21:13pm

re: #258 Gus 802

Dark ages is a figure of speech and in the case of Dubai or the UAE the dark-ages description still stands in many regards including womens' freedom, archaic laws, raw sewage in Dubai, human trafficking (including children), foreign worker abuse, etc.

While they may not be a carbon copy from the dark ages they are certain a modern dark ages state.

I hate to tell you this, but you can find anecdotes for all of this right here at home. Just because we have DCF doesn't mean it never happens. As to raw sewage in the streets, I was last there some 16 years ago and I never saw any. I suspect it is "better" now.

Now, if you want to specifically discuss the attitude of Islam towards women I think you will find we have little to disagree about, but that does not mean it applies to all women or all men, even in Dibaia.

291 Achilles Tang  Sat, May 9, 2009 5:21:30pm

crap

292 gnargtharst  Sat, May 9, 2009 5:41:13pm

re: #155 Charles

Wouldn't it be helpful here to define left and right in terms of essentials? What's the point of arguing about whether, e.g., the National Socialists were *really* socialists, unless we have some standard by which we're making this call?

[cue crickets]

293 gnargtharst  Sat, May 9, 2009 5:46:13pm

re: #209 Occasional Reader


Smartest post on this topic I've seen in a while.

294 Achilles Tang  Sat, May 9, 2009 6:02:10pm

I'll go with "I know it when I see it". Now starting the sign off process.

nite.

295 [deleted]  Sat, May 9, 2009 9:46:05pm
296 Salamantis  Sat, May 9, 2009 9:55:01pm

re: #273 Alberta Oil Peon

Only because "the spectrum" as it is currently viewed, is the result of a masterful disinformation campaign by Josef Stalin, and brought to America by his acolyte, Walter Duranty of the New York Times.

I recommend that you read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.

To put it in a nutshell: in Weimar Germany, the Communist Party and the National Socialist Party were bitter rivals, because they were both peddling the same collectivist pablum to the same market segment. Same thing in Italy. Mussolini was a Socialist before he became a Fascist, and he said he always still considered himself a socialist at heart.

Needless to say, once the Internationalist Socialist USSR came to swords' points with National Socialist Germany, it became necessary for Stalin to demonize Nazi politics as something altogether alien, hence Nazism became "right-wing." They are both statist, collectivist, and coercive movements, and they are both enemies of freedom.

Read my post #146; the distinctions between collectivist totalitarianism based upon racial purity and collectivist totalitarianism based upon the elimination of class distinctions are substantial and real.

297 Salamantis  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:06:03pm

re: #275 Alberta Oil Peon

True to a certain extent, Salamantis. The Nazis and the Fascists worked by co-opting the industrialists, rather than by outright nationalizing industry. But they made industry do the State's bidding, nonetheless. Which is scarily like what's happening right now in the USA, isn't it?

Look. If you think about it theoretically, the true end-member on the Right side of the spectrum, conventionally speaking, is not collectivist Nazism, because collectivism is anathema to freedom-loving people. Anarchy, or extreme Libertarianism would be closer to the mark.

Actually, anarchy is on the opposite side of the spectrum from collectivist totalitarianisms. But racial purity based right wing fascism and class distinction elimination based left wing communism are two vastly different kinds of collectivist totalitarianism, with vastly different targets for demonization and genocide (Jews, Gypsies and blacks vs. the bourgeoise).

The problem with wing-nuts, on "both" sides of the spectrum, is that they are nuts, and as such, are not clear thinkers, so they buy into belief systems that are actually contrary to their self-perceived orientation.

Form my post #262:

The left is identified with erasing class and the right is identified with purifying race. Even in the US, when you go to the extreme far right, you find racists and antisemites like the KKK and the John Birch Society and the National Alliance and Stormfront, and when you go to the extreme far left, you find class warriors like the Weathermen and World Won't Wait and ANSWER.

Jonah Goldberg's systematic failure to realize these distinctions brands him as a historical revisionist who wrote a book that those who identify themselves with the right but are appallled at its historical roots would scoop up by the truckloads, in order to reassure them that they're not embracing evil, to salve their hurt feelings, and to provide them with prefab talking points.

298 Salamantis  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:17:14pm

re: #287 vitoc

You are absolutey correct, and it is not an isolated incident, anti-semitism is quite widespread, especially in the more stupid parts of the current left. I think though it is not the Stormfront type of anti-semitism, but rather the Alex Jones variety. Again, it is not that I would concede that there is nothing to your points, I just question whether the similarities are enough to use a common term. And I wouldn't do that because of the rabid anti-communism of the German nazis, and because of the paganist elements in their ideology.

The Nazis didn't get their antisemitism from paganism; they got it from the prior pronuncements of the Roman Catholic Church and the German Father of Protestantism, Martin Luther, who penned a book called On The Jews And Their Lies. Jew-hatred had long been ingrained within German Christian society.

And the more responsible mainstreme Christian denomimations, such as the publishers of Christianity Today, the most globally respected magazine in Christendom, acknowledge as much, not wishing denial or forgetfulness to lead to a repetition the next time a charismatic politician appeals to the seamy underbelly of religious prejudices:

[Link: www.christianhistorytimeline.com...]

299 Salamantis  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:19:42pm

re: #292 gnargtharst

Wouldn't it be helpful here to define left and right in terms of essentials? What's the point of arguing about whether, e.g., the National Socialists were *really* socialists, unless we have some standard by which we're making this call?

[cue crickets]

We do; race vs. class.

It's that simple. And that central. And that fundamental.

300 gnargtharst  Sat, May 9, 2009 10:50:37pm

from #296: "...the distinctions between collectivist totalitarianism based upon racial purity and collectivist totalitarianism based upon the elimination of class distinctions are substantial and real..."

The distinctions are real, but they are the farthest thing from substantial.

To hypothesize a political spectrum, and put communism at one end, and fascism at the other end, is... well, it's a lot of things:

1. It's arbitrary. What *essential* political principle is exhibited and anti-exhibited in this spectrum? Nothing. It's like setting up a spectrum of the relative nutrition of various foods, and then arranging this spectrum by color, with tomatoes and cherry lollipos at one end (red) and bluberries and grape soda at thoe other end (violet).

2. It's historically confusing. The philosphical influences, the methods, the victims... were essentially identical between Naziism and communism (it's no coincidence that the Jews suffered disproportionately under both regimes -- they were demonized by the same prior commonly-accepted views/ideas.)

3. It's a false dichotomy. If someone approached you and insisted that there were essentially 2 ideas you could subscribe to: torturing kittens, or torturing puppies... and if you accepted this idea... where would this acceptance lead you, at best? Sort of "moderately" torturing a "moderate" amount of both?

4. It's dangerous, intellectually and politically. If you accept the false dichotomy of communism vs. fascism, then presumably you'd also spend a lot of time and mental energy reifying trivial, unconnected doctrine kibbles, and demonizing the "enemy", like the never-ending battles of Crips & Bloods, or Hatfields and McCoys, instead of conceiving of a substantive alternative. Which leads to the main reason I object to this "spectrum":

5. It ignores freedom. The most important -- the only important -- variable of political systems is degree of freedom: does the government protect the rights of the individual (the United States' founding principles), or is the government the primary threat to the rights of the individual (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, theocratic Iran)? A "spectrum" which ignores this distinction, and fixates instead on the particular murder weapon, or the particular slur for the scapegoat du jour, is worse than merely irrelevant, it is a cognitive obstacle to contemplating the most fundamental issue of comparative political systems.

Pat Buchanan is Nancy Pelosi is Pat Robertson is Jesse Jackson.

Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand...

301 gnargtharst  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:08:35pm

re: #299 Salamantis


"...race vs. class. It's that simple."

If purifying race is at one end of a spectrum, and eliminating class distinction is at the opposite end, then what is in the middle? Are "moderates" tepidly-but-equally committed to killing some blacks, but also eating some rich?

And why was Mussolini's fascist Italy not concerned with race? Nor was fascist Spain, nor fascist Peru? Why is the American left wing *at least, if not more* racist than the American right? Why was communist Russia EXTREMELY racist (including up to current Russian culture?) Where do all these fit on the spectrum?

If these traits occupy the two basic alternatives of political flavor, then how do we fight racism? By instituting socialism?

If these 2 alternatives occupy opposite and mutually exclusive ends of the political spectrum, then presumably they should be relatively easy to distinguish (being opposites after all); hypothetically, I could produce quotes (paraphrased, to prevent googling) from various communists and fascists, and adherents to this spectrum could tell me which was which? (Because I sure the hell could tell you where their statement stood relative to the reasonable distinction of freedom vs. statism.)

The "spectrum", as it is used today, exists only in the disintegrated concepts of those who attempt to use it. It's uselessness lies in its distinction by non-essentials. There's no difference between the Crips and the Bloods. No important difference.

302 Salamantis  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:14:54pm

re: #300 gnargtharst

from #296: "...the distinctions between collectivist totalitarianism based upon racial purity and collectivist totalitarianism based upon the elimination of class distinctions are substantial and real..."

The distinctions are real, but they are the farthest thing from substantial.

A political system based upon racial purity and supremacism vs. one based upon the elimination of class differences is as subtantial as it gets. Without the doctrine of racial purity and supremacism, Nazism would not have existed as Nazism; likewise with the doctrine of class difference elimination and communism.

To hypothesize a political spectrum, and put communism at one end, and fascism at the other end, is... well, it's a lot of things:

1. It's arbitrary. What *essential* political principle is exhibited and anti-exhibited in this spectrum? Nothing. It's like setting up a spectrum of the relative nutrition of various foods, and then arranging this spectrum by color, with tomatoes and cherry lollipos at one end (red) and bluberries and grape soda at thoe other end (violet).

What part of race-motivated vs. class-motivated are you unable to grok?

2. It's historically confusing. The philosphical influences, the methods, the victims... were essentially identical between Naziism and communism (it's no coincidence that the Jews suffered disproportionately under both regimes -- they were demonized by the same prior commonly-accepted views/ideas.)

Jews were not attacked in the Soviet union so much because of their Jewishness as because of their capitalist tendencies. In fact, Karl Marx, who wrote the communist bible, was himself Jewish.

3. It's a false dichotomy. If someone approached you and insisted that there were essentially 2 ideas you could subscribe to: torturing kittens, or torturing puppies... and if you accepted this idea... where would this acceptance lead you, at best? Sort of "moderately" torturing a "moderate" amount of both?

Just because they're both genocidal collectivist totalitarianisms does not mean that they are anywhere near the same, or that one should approve of either. Their rationales and targets were vastly different.

4. It's dangerous, intellectually and politically. If you accept the false dichotomy of communism vs. fascism, then presumably you'd also spend a lot of time and mental energy reifying trivial, unconnected doctrine kibbles, and demonizing the "enemy", like the never-ending battles of Crips & Bloods, or Hatfields and McCoys, instead of conceiving of a substantive alternative. Which leads to the main reason I object to this "spectrum":

What is dangerous intellectually and politically is to conflate radically different systems for the purpose of lumping everything one is expcted to dislike at the opposite extreme; all it really does is to brand one as an inhabitant of the one wing self-servingly and illegitimately disowning ideological connections with that wing's unsavory antecedents.

5. It ignores freedom. The most important -- the only important -- variable of political systems is degree of freedom: does the government protect the rights of the individual (the United States' founding principles), or is the government the primary threat to the rights of the individual (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, theocratic Iran)? A "spectrum" which ignores this distinction, and fixates instead on the particular murder weapon, or the particular slur for the scapegoat du jour, is worse than merely irrelevant, it is a cognitive obstacle to contemplating the most fundamental issue of comparative political systems.

The other, absolutely individualist extreme is anarchism, and it is massively flawed, too.

Pat Buchanan is Nancy Pelosi is Pat Robertson is Jesse Jackson.

Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand...

303 gnargtharst  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:29:53pm

re: #302 Salamantis

"A political system based upon racial purity and supremacism vs. one based upon the elimination of class differences is as subtantial as it gets..."

So this:

"We're going to kill you because you're a Jew", vs. "We're going to kill you because you're rich"...

is a more substantial difference than:

"We're going to kill you because you're a Jew", vs. "We're not going to kill you; we're going to protect you in fact."?

Alrighty.

"Just because they're both genocidal collectivist totalitarianisms does not mean that they are anywhere near the same..."

Um...okay.

And with that, I'm going to let my previous words on this topic stand on their own. Good night.

304 Salamantis  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:33:49pm

re: #301 gnargtharst

"...race vs. class. It's that simple."

If purifying race is at one end of a spectrum, and eliminating class distinction is at the opposite end, then what is in the middle? Are "moderates" tepidly-but-equally committed to killing some blacks, but also eating some rich?

No, moderates (Constitutional Democratic Republics) are committed to maximizing individual freedom while accepting an electoral means of reaching and acting upon collective consensus, while guaranteeing basic minority rights against majority tyranny. It rejects totalitarian demonization based upon either race or class.

And why was Mussolini's fascist Italy not concerned with race? Nor was fascist Spain, nor fascist Peru? Why is the American left wing *at least, if not more* racist than the American right? Why was communist Russia EXTREMELY racist (including up to current Russian culture?) Where do all these fit on the spectrum?

Muusolini was indeed racist, in the sense that he believed that the Italians were superior, and publicly appealed for a return to the glories of Ancient Rome and its Empire. Franco embraced the ancient glories of the Spanish Empire that competed with the British Empire for imperial conquest of global territory and the dominance of th seas. Communist Russia did have some antisemitism, but it was a holdover from the antisemitism of the Russian Orthodox Church and the pre-Communist Czarists who penned the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion forgery as a means to justify anti-Jewish pograms and seize their property.

And although the Weatermen, World Can't Wait and ANSWER are indeed odious and execrable, only someone who is wearing heavy duty industrial stength memetic fact filters could ever assert that they are/were anywhere near as racist or antisemitic as the John Birchers, the KKK, Stormfront, or the National Alliance.

If these traits occupy the two basic alternatives of political flavor, then how do we fight racism? By instituting socialism?

No, we fight it by doing what we have (belatedly) done; enshrine racial equality of opportunity and guaranteed equal civil rights in our constitution and follow the document.

If these 2 alternatives occupy opposite and mutually exclusive ends of the political spectrum, then presumably they should be relatively easy to distinguish (being opposites after all); hypothetically, I could produce quotes (paraphrased, to prevent googling) from various communists and fascists, and adherents to this spectrum could tell me which was which? (Because I sure the hell could tell you where their statement stood relative to the reasonable distinction of freedom vs. statism.)

You might be able to dig up classist comments from racists and racist comments from classists, since there can be some overlap at Jew Hate Junction, but the exception merely probes the rule (Aristotle) by its exception status; it does not falsify it. Every rule has parameters.

The "spectrum", as it is used today, exists only in the disintegrated concepts of those who attempt to use it. It's uselessness lies in its distinction by non-essentials. There's no difference between the Crips and the Bloods. No important difference.

To mischaracterize fascists vs. communists as crips vs. bloods and thus endeavor to equate the two is to commit a fallacious historical revision of the most egregious kind. Especially since both crips and bloods accept all races as members, while Jewish Nazis and black KKK members are contradictions in terms.

305 Salamantis  Sat, May 9, 2009 11:47:37pm

re: #303 gnargtharst

"A political system based upon racial purity and supremacism vs. one based upon the elimination of class differences is as subtantial as it gets..."

So this:

"We're going to kill you because you're a Jew", vs. "We're going to kill you because you're rich"...

is a more substantial difference than:

"We're going to kill you because you're a Jew", vs. "We're not going to kill you; we're going to protect you in fact."?

Alrighty.

I have already said that they are different kinds of collectivist totalitarianisms. But their reasons for killing people directly map onto whom they choose to and not to kill. Third Reich industrialists would have been lined up against the wall and shot in the Soviet Union; Karl Marx wrote Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto, but his descendants would have been sent to the ovens in Nazi Germany.

"Just because they're both genocidal collectivist totalitarianisms does not mean that they are anywhere near the same..."

Um...okay.

And with that, I'm going to let my previous words on this topic stand on their own. Good night.

Next you'll be telling me that Iranian Islamofascists are really communists rather than theocratic fascists who wanna murder Jews and who have well-connected industrialists who are part of the religion but not part of the government. Or you'll be telling me that Saudi Arabia is a communism rather than a monarchy supported by a Wahhabist Islamic fundamentalism that its royalty shares.

Sheesh!

306 haakondahl  Sun, May 10, 2009 12:56:26am

Salamantis @146,
Your analysis only adds up if you first accept the definitions of right and left given by Marxists and neo-Marxist Progressives (more concerned with race than Marx) and second allow some mixing of quantities "measured"

Your first sentence, that both systems are collectivist, nails the essential distinction with which I am concerned. I agree with you that they are collectivist totalitarian systems, although of radically different types. The distinction for me is that collectivism is a fundamental component of leftist systems, and anathema to the right. To accept the neo-Marxist canard that there is something equally fundamental to the right about a racist component is to forfeit any standing whatsoever for self-identifying as being on the right. Racism is on a separate axis, if you will, and you can certainly arrive at racist positions from the left or from the right, and it says nothing about the left/rightness of how you got there.

If we accept your implication that racism is fundamental to the right, then the right is always evil, and none of us have any business associating with the right. Surely this cannot be the case, and I do not think it is unreasonable to ascribe this to a definition provided by the left for the purpose of demonizing the right. Refuting that definition as flawed does not prevent those on the right or on the left from opposing racism of any political stripe--witness the great number of people on this blog who identify with the right, and who strongly condemn and oppose the racists so popular in certain circles these days.

I do not argue that racism is absent from the right--merely that it is *not* a fundamental property of the right--it is an unwelcome intruder to reasonable people on both sides. So I think it is fair to say that we have done away with racism as being structural to the right, unless we accept what the neo-Marxists have to say.

You claimed that private ownership and class-based identities were central to Fascism, whereas in Communism, individuals only held power so long as they were in government. But in Communist countries, there exists no less frimly entrenched class distinctions and hereditary power structures than in Fascism. They're just advertised differently. Once again, if you accept the definitions offered by Marxists, and which we have all been educated to at some point in our lives, then Communism looks like a fair system. Yet we have seen that it is anything but just or fair, to the tune of tens of millions of lives *within* their respective utopiae.

You accept the flowery claims of the left-totalitarians, even while admitting that they are not valid, and compare those to the ugly realities of the right-totalitarians. This, several times over, is the structural flaw in your argument.

So the central point is this: is it reasonable to say that racism is the defining feature of the right, as you claim? Or is it permissible to claim that authoritarianism, usually via collectivism (you can't redistribute without authority) is a defining feature of the left?
The corollary question then, is what *is* the defining feature of the right? You claim that it is racism. I say that it is de-centralization. Not anarchy, not mindless libertarianism, but healthy, de-centralized, limited government. Private ownership and self-determination depend government not having the authority to re-distribute that property, and with it, a person's ability to determine his own destiny.

Let us admit that reasonable people can espouse collectivism, and therefore the left can be reasonable. Now let's see you admit that the right can be reasonable, because I object *strongly*to your definition of me as a racist. For now, I'll accept that it was inadvertent.

307 haakondahl  Sun, May 10, 2009 1:13:40am

re: #202 Salamantis

Fascisms are right wing collectivist totalitarianisms, and communisms are left wing collectivist totalitarianisms. Constitutional democratic republics aren't on the other side from these two; CDRs are in the center, where individual freedoms are maximized and basic individual rights are guaranteed while the means of making and acting upon collective consensus is electorally preserved. What is on the other side is extreme individualism, otherwise known as anarchy.

On the other side of what? In the first half, yoou claim that the continuum runs from collectivist totalitarianism, through CDRs, to collectivist totalitarianism but of some other flavor.
Then you go on to say that "on the other side" is anarchism, extreme individualism.
But individualist anarchy is a heresy of the right (I think you will agree), and this meshes quite nicely with my contention that collectivist totalitarianism is heresy of the left. There's your continuum, just as I claimed. Or perhaps you mis-spoke.
You are s

308 haakondahl  Sun, May 10, 2009 1:16:10am

re: #146 Salamantis

Hey folks, if you bothered to read that post and then up-dinged it, did you mean to agree that racism is a defining feature of the right? Really? How on earth did that get 10 updings?

309 Salamantis  Sun, May 10, 2009 5:18:51am

re: #306 haakondahl

Your analysis only adds up if you first accept the definitions of right and left given by Marxists and neo-Marxist Progressives (more concerned with race than Marx) and second allow some mixing of quantities "measured"

Bullshit on stilts. It's the definition given by every competent historian and political scientist, and only questioned by those who identify themselves as right wingers, and loathe beholding the racism that other far more right wingers, such as the John Birch Society, the KKK, the National Alliance and Stormfront revel in at their goose-stepping Hitler-worshiping little confabs.

If you ain't racist, you ain't right wing. What the fuck ever made you think that Burkean conservatism was right wing anyway? Those supremacist bastards glommed onto the conservatives in the US the same damn way they've tried to glom onto the antijihadists, and some of you nimrods bought it. But Goldwater and Buckley didn't.

Your first sentence, that both systems are collectivist, nails the essential distinction with which I am concerned. I agree with you that they are collectivist totalitarian systems, although of radically different types. The distinction for me is that collectivism is a fundamental component of leftist systems, and anathema to the right. To accept the neo-Marxist canard that there is something equally fundamental to the right about a racist component is to forfeit any standing whatsoever for self-identifying as being on the right. Racism is on a separate axis, if you will, and you can certainly arrive at racist positions from the left or from the right, and it says nothing about the left/rightness of how you got there.

This is because you continue to confuse and conflate conservatism with being a right winger. It ain't about that at all. Conservatism is about only changing what doesn't work, and keeping what does, rather than embracing change for change's sake. And the far left and the far right approach racism differently; the far right wishes to expel of kill those folks who aren't of the 'right' race, while far leftists wish to foment racial tensions so they can use them as blunt instruments to batter down class distinctions. But both of them are sociopathically treating people as means to an end rather than as ends in and of themselves.

If we accept your implication that racism is fundamental to the right, then the right is always evil, and none of us have any business associating with the right. Surely this cannot be the case, and I do not think it is unreasonable to ascribe this to a definition provided by the left for the purpose of demonizing the right. Refuting that definition as flawed does not prevent those on the right or on the left from opposing racism of any political stripe--witness the great number of people on this blog who identify with the right, and who strongly condemn and oppose the racists so popular in certain circles these days.

The rational and historically correct path is to leave the label 'right wing' on the garbage heap of history, to only be embraced by organizations such as the John Birchers and the KKK and Stormfront and the National Alliance, and for conservatives to only refer to themselves as conservatives, since they embrace Burkean conservatism (you DO know who Edmund Burke was, don't you?). Just like classical liberals should refuse to be called 'left-wing', since they embrace (John Stuart) Millian liberalism.

I do not argue that racism is absent from the right--merely that it is *not* a fundamental property of the right--it is an unwelcome intruder to reasonable people on both sides. So I think it is fair to say that we have done away with racism as being structural to the right, unless we accept what the neo-Marxists have to say.

Well then you argue wrong, because you have failed to distinguish conservatism from right wingism.

310 haakondahl  Sun, May 10, 2009 5:38:16am

re: #309 Salamantis

I notice that you proceed from the assumption, even for definitions, that left is good and right is bad. I guess we're done.

311 Salamantis  Sun, May 10, 2009 5:43:28am

re: #306 haakondahl

You claimed that private ownership and class-based identities were central to Fascism, whereas in Communism, individuals only held power so long as they were in government. But in Communist countries, there exists no less frimly entrenched class distinctions and hereditary power structures than in Fascism. They're just advertised differently. Once again, if you accept the definitions offered by Marxists, and which we have all been educated to at some point in our lives, then Communism looks like a fair system. Yet we have seen that it is anything but just or fair, to the tune of tens of millions of lives *within* their respective utopiae.

Actually, communism would be the perfect system for perfect and altruistic people. Where it fucks up is on the basis of incentive, and the leveling of compensation for highly disparate occupations. When a physicist or chemist has to spend twelve years to learn to do science when a truck driver only has to spend a few weeks learning how to drive a rig, there is no incentive to spend a good chunk of your life while your family suffers learning how to do something that pays about the same. Plus, when there is no incentive to be gained for one's family, for instance more spacious living conditions, for working harder or longer or smarter, one does just enough to keep from pissing off the party rep, and saves one's time, energy and ideas for the black market, where they can be converted into family-benefitting coin. It was an old joke behind the Iron Curtain that "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.'

Communist nations have to capitalistically compete with everybody else in the global market, and they couldn't do that for the above reasons. Failing in their only other option, to equalize the field by turning every nation communist, they bankrupted and folded.

You accept the flowery claims of the left-totalitarians, even while admitting that they are not valid, and compare those to the ugly realities of the right-totalitarians. This, several times over, is the structural flaw in your argument.

I accept the basic and differing rationales behind both communism and fascism as they in fact are - not as I might want them to be because of any political affinities of my own, and not because I blindly accepted what others said to me -because I did the work of understanding for myself. I read Mein Kampf and Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto and other seminal works of both systems for myself to check out the different claims made, and saw what was and was not thecase with each system. Have you?

So the central point is this: is it reasonable to say that racism is the defining feature of the right, as you claim? Or is it permissible to claim that authoritarianism, usually via collectivism (you can't redistribute without authority) is a defining feature of the left?

Nope. Authoritarian collectivism isn't left or right, and neither is anarchistic individualism. Racial purity/supremacy isn't a defining feature of Burkean conservatism, but it is of the fascist right. Just like class warfare isn't a defining feature of Millian liberalism, but it is of the communist left.

312 Salamantis  Sun, May 10, 2009 5:54:39am

re: #306 haakondahl

The corollary question then, is what *is* the defining feature of the right? You claim that it is racism. I say that it is de-centralization. Not anarchy, not mindless libertarianism, but healthy, de-centralized, limited government. Private ownership and self-determination depend government not having the authority to re-distribute that property, and with it, a person's ability to determine his own destiny.

Limited government is a defining feature of, believe it or not, both Burkean conservatism and Millian liberalism. Burkean conservatism is mainly concerned with government not interfering with free enterprise, while Millian liberalism is more concerned with government not interfering with personal freedoms.

Let us admit that reasonable people can espouse collectivism, and therefore the left can be reasonable. Now let's see you admit that the right can be reasonable, because I object *strongly*to your definition of me as a racist. For now, I'll accept that it was inadvertent.

I do not think that it is reasonable for anyone who does not wish to flee from their own freedom of choice and trade it for the security of always knowing what to do because they are being told to espouse collectivism, either far right fascist collectivism or far left communist collectivism.

Both classical Millian liberals and classical Burkean conservatives can be reasonable; I am, however, repulsed, for differing reasons, from the racist fascist right and the classist communist left. Your problem is that you, like many others, have sadly been suckered into the mistaken thinking that you cannot self-identify as a conservative wthout also embracing the label of right-winger. Just as many others have also sadly been suckered into the equally mistaken thinking that they cannot self-identify as liberals without also embracing the label of leftist.

313 Salamantis  Sun, May 10, 2009 6:05:35am

re: #307 haakondahl

On the other side of what? In the first half, yoou claim that the continuum runs from collectivist totalitarianism, through CDRs, to collectivist totalitarianism but of some other flavor.
Then you go on to say that "on the other side" is anarchism, extreme individualism.
But individualist anarchy is a heresy of the right (I think you will agree), and this meshes quite nicely with my contention that collectivist totalitarianism is heresy of the left. There's your continuum, just as I claimed. Or perhaps you mis-spoke.
You are s

There is an opposition between left communist collectivism and right fascist collectivism, but both being totalitarian collectivisms, they are one extreme end of the collectivist-individualist spectrum, with anarchism on the other extreme, and CDRs in the middle between collectivist and individualist extremes. CDRs are not required to accept the racist ideals of the fascist right, the anticlass ideals of the communist left, or the ideal of the utter absence of government embraced by anarchists.

While there can be many different left, right or indifferent rationales given for extreme collectivist governance (racism, classism, religion, etc.), and thus many types of them, there can only be one kind of extreme anarchism, because it is the utter ABSENCE of governance, and thus can have no rationale besides extreme individualism itself.

314 Salamantis  Sun, May 10, 2009 6:06:14am

re: #308 haakondahl

Hey folks, if you bothered to read that post and then up-dinged it, did you mean to agree that racism is a defining feature of the right? Really? How on earth did that get 10 updings?

If they read the rest of this thread, it would most probably get 20.

315 Scion9  Sun, May 10, 2009 9:50:02am

re: #302 Salamantis

Jews were not attacked in the Soviet union so much because of their Jewishness as because of their capitalist tendencies. In fact, Karl Marx, who wrote the communist bible, was himself Jewish.

You really, really need to go read what Karl Marx actually wrote. He was without a doubt a raging antisemite with Daddy issues. A significant body of his work dealt with the 'emancipation' of the Jews.

That is, the destruction of 'Jewishness', and the promotion of the idea that Jews were culturally suited to a bourgeoisie niche and prided themselves as superior competitors against their Christian neighbors. That Judaism was the pinnacle of Capitalist society and Judaism only existed as a thumb in the eye of a greater collectivist harmony.

Marx's theories in particular stand out among the anti-Semitic diatribes of his day, in that they put forward the idea that Judaism wasn't the driving issue in dividing society (among Jewish/Christian lines). That you could strip Jews of their religion and their customs and their Jewish identity and they would still necessarily be Jews because Jewish culture was bourgeoisie culture. That even if you destroyed all religion as his fellow Young Hegelians were fans of promoting, you would still have Jews as a distinct group apart from society as a whole. As long as you had class distinction, you would have Jews. Capitalism was a Christian societal pursuit of Judaism. In a lot of early 20th century Marxist literature you might as well be able to read bourgeoisie as code for Jew.

Marx was a landmark commentator in that period that worked at deflecting the Judenfrage away from being a question ideology or religion, and a promoter of the idea that you couldn't find a solution to the Jewish Question by reforming either Jewish or mainstream culture to be more tolerant of each other, or assimilating into each others culture.

Pointing out that Karl Marx was Jewish, and therefore there Marxism doesn't suffer from Jewhate in a bad way simply isn't cool. He's a seminal antisemitic thinker of the highest order because of the wide proliferation of his worldview today.

316 Salamantis  Sun, May 10, 2009 10:54:51am

re: #315 Scion9

You really, really need to go read what Karl Marx actually wrote. He was without a doubt a raging antisemite with Daddy issues. A significant body of his work dealt with the 'emancipation' of the Jews.

That is, the destruction of 'Jewishness', and the promotion of the idea that Jews were culturally suited to a bourgeoisie niche and prided themselves as superior competitors against their Christian neighbors. That Judaism was the pinnacle of Capitalist society and Judaism only existed as a thumb in the eye of a greater collectivist harmony.

Marx's theories in particular stand out among the anti-Semitic diatribes of his day, in that they put forward the idea that Judaism wasn't the driving issue in dividing society (among Jewish/Christian lines). That you could strip Jews of their religion and their customs and their Jewish identity and they would still necessarily be Jews because Jewish culture was bourgeoisie culture. That even if you destroyed all religion as his fellow Young Hegelians were fans of promoting, you would still have Jews as a distinct group apart from society as a whole. As long as you had class distinction, you would have Jews. Capitalism was a Christian societal pursuit of Judaism. In a lot of early 20th century Marxist literature you might as well be able to read bourgeoisie as code for Jew.

Marx was a landmark commentator in that period that worked at deflecting the Judenfrage away from being a question ideology or religion, and a promoter of the idea that you couldn't find a solution to the Jewish Question by reforming either Jewish or mainstream culture to be more tolerant of each other, or assimilating into each others culture.

Pointing out that Karl Marx was Jewish, and therefore there Marxism doesn't suffer from Jewhate in a bad way simply isn't cool. He's a seminal antisemitic thinker of the highest order because of the wide proliferation of his worldview today.

I don't know where you get that view of Marx from, but I have read him extensively, and I have never seen it in any of his writings. In fact, in his 1843 essay On The Jewish Question, the one time he made the topic the explicit focus of an entire essay, Marx makes it abundantly clear that, in his view, the "Jewish Question" has to do with both the Jewish faith and the Christian faith in which it finds itself embedded, and his solution is for both Jews and Christians to abandon the faiths that place them in opposition, and simply deal with each other as fellow human beings:

[Link: marx.eserver.org...]

Excerpts follow, but feel free to RTWT.

"The most rigid form of the opposition between the Jew and the Christian
is the religious opposition. How is an opposition resolved? By making
it impossible. How is religious opposition made impossible? By
abolishing religion. As soon as Jew and Christian recognize that their
respective religions are no more than different stages in the
development of the human mind, different snake skins cast off by
history, and that man is the snake who sloughed them, the relation of
Jew and Christian is no longer religious but is only a critical,
scientific, and human relation. Science, then, constitutes their unity.
But, contradictions in science are resolved by science itself."

He does later characterize Jews as egotistical and moneygrubbing, but he categorizes Christians in the same terms, maintaining that Christians shared those characteristics with the Judaism from which Christianity sprang. His criticism, therefore, was against theism in general, as one would expect from the proponent of an atheistic system.

I often wonder to what degree Marx himself was aware of his own system's debt to Christianity as a thesis to which he could oppose an antithesis. I wrote an article about this debt, which I shall post in sections here.

317 Salamantis  Sun, May 10, 2009 10:56:53am

The Human Dialectic of Absolute Premises: Christianity and Marxism

I. The Fundamental Contention

In the comparative analysis of two systems of belief, one immediately encounters problems as to the validity of one's methodology. If the belief systems in question are not amenable to correlation, one has three choices: (1) to bias the analysis by assuming one belief system's methodology over the other's, (2) to render the analysis non-relational by choosing a methodology foreign to both, and (3) to beg the question by synthesizing the methodologies of the two systems prior to the comparative analysis.

Since a comparative analysis cannot take place without two distinct belief systems to compare, the question arises whether or not such an inquiry is possible. Certain pairs of systems, however, are indeed correlative and at the same time distinct. This occurs when two belief systems directly oppose one another; they are then relational as correlative opposites, and mutually contradict in their conclusions as a result of the operation of a single logic upon mutually exclusive premises. Two belief systems bearing this relationship may be viewed as thesis and antithesis and compared dialectically.

Such is the relationship between Christianity and Marxism. One asserts primordial Mind as the ground of being for the presence of matter, while the other asserts primordial Matter as the ground of becoming for emerging mind. One sees history as the temporal manifestation of transcendent intention, while the other sees it as the temporal evolution of immanent action. Both are absolutist, both are deterministic, and both accept deductive logic as valid and the principle of noncontradiction as sound.

If these are indeed systems of belief, the basic premise of each must lie outside the purview of knowledge. This means that neither premise may be undeniably demonstrable by example, nor may either be unequivocally denied by counterexample. Furthermore, induction proceeds from empirical data to statistically probable conclusions. The presence of a single measurable and repeatable datum would, due to their mutually antithetical nature, render one of the premises untrue while placing the other within the realm of probability, which is not belief, but statistical knowledge. Our two systems thus must be grounded upon absolute and not relative premises. This entails that neither premise may be statistically probable, in other words, neither may be either empirically verifiable or empirically falsifiable. This of course means that neither system may proceed from induction.

to be continued...

318 Salamantis  Sun, May 10, 2009 10:58:35am

continued...

This is true of Christianity and Marxism. Our sciences, which proceed by induction according to the Verification Principle, are sciences of matter and energy. The sine qua non (condition in the absence of which they would not be what they are) of matter and energy is that they be sensorily perceivable phenomena. These immanent objects of perception are then measured by relating our perceptions of them to our perceptions of intersubjectively agreed-upon standards of measurement which are themselves physical. These quantified perceptions must then be amenable to repetition at will by means of any duplication of the conditions under which they appear. This method cannot be used to either verify or falsify the presence or absence of transcendent nonphysical Mind. Our sensuous perceptions, our technological augmentation of them, our devices of measurement, our method of repetition are all immanent and physical; they are categorically incapable of this task. We cannot prove God is anywhere, and neither can we prove that there is anywhere God is not. Induction is useless with respect to either Christianity or Marxism; the basic premise must be believed in, rather than known, and in either case, conclusions must follow by means of deduction from the basic premise, not induction from empirically obtained data. This explains why both belief systems accept the principle of noncontradiction as apodictically (self-evidently) true. They both proceed by means of deduction from assumed a priori postulates.

What is this concept of Being, however, about the existence of which these two dogmas incessantly contend? It is a concept of absolute Wisdom, Justice, Goodness, Beauty, Power and Unity existing both a priori to and simultaneous with the temporal universe. It is the concept of a universal Creator, Circumscriber and Subsumer who provides source, impetus and goal for every act, passion and inspiration, and in whom is found the purified synthesis of all that is, was and will be, the common essence of apparent multiplicity in space and time.

Capitalize any human virtue and it becomes an attribute of God, the Perfect Mind.

Ludwig Feuerbach's analysis of humanity's relationship to this concept proceeds according to the Hegelian dialectic. Declaring religion to be anthropology and its evolution to be the history of humankind, he states clearly both the three movements of this dialectic and what is being moved. They are:

(1) The animal, becoming human by becoming aware of the humanity emerging within it (which is part of it and yet still controls it), purifies and projects this awareness into an absolute and transcendent realm; emerging mind becomes crystallized in Mind, an Other Mind. This objectification of self as Other, Feuerbach contends, is necessary for the humanization of humanity in abstract terms.

(2) Now, however, nothing is left to the human. It has all been invested in the Other. Humanity finds that it has bankrupted itself by giving the Other all that was recognizable in it as more-than-animal. Humanity finds itself an object, having given its subjecthood away.

(3) Humanity now "really" emerges, or rather finally merges with itself. Seeing that it has alienated itself from its own soul, which it has called God, Humanity shreds the veil of self-delusion and reclaims its own heart from the transcendent altar-prison that it had itself built. This synthesis of animal and God becomes the new thesis, the thesis of the human.

to be continued...

319 Salamantis  Sun, May 10, 2009 10:59:44am

continued...

However, the movements of the human dialectic are not at an end, Feuerbach notwithstanding. The God of Absolute and Perfect Mind has been disputed, true, and by a premise both as basic and as absolute. "God is" found itself facing "God is not". But then, what is to be held holy? We must have some common unity or we must call ourselves nothing, and, for the great majority of us, that is existentially unbearable. But an understanding once achieved could not in good faith be forgotten, and once our eyes had been opened, we could not close them again. Personhood had been fragmented into non-relational persons; what God could reclaim the altar, to replace the God whose throne humanity had usurped, the God whom humanity had conquered, and therefore lost?

The new God-concept was provided by Karl Marx, and was both as absolute as the old God-concept and antithetical to it. In fact, it was not addressed by the name God but by the name Reality. The Geist of Apollo was met by the Geist of Dionysius. Jesus' God was a God of Mind; Marx's God was a God of Matter. Jesus' God inhabited our souls; Marx's God constituted our bodies. The invisible God promising the invisible Heavens was faced with the visible God promising the visible Earth. Dialectical idealism was opposed by dialectical materialism, and contemplation by action. The doctrine of immanence as illusion was no longer an imperative, but an alternative; now another alternative existed; the doctrine of transcendence as illusion. The slave was to spend nights no longer in pursuit of a justification of slavery and the justification of self as slave in the higher order of things. Instead, both days and nights were to be spent correcting the injustice that forced the worker, the producer, and the priest at the altar of the Material God, into servitude for the sake of parasitic inferiors, the bourgeois masters.

Philosophy's task was finished, and now its products must be implemented. There was work to be done. The thesis, Christianity, through Aquinas, Kant, Hegel and Feuerbach, had finally spawned its antithesis, Marxism.

II. The Church as State

During the first few hundred years following the life of Jesus, the thesis of God's presence was accepted by many. These people worshipped first in secret, and oppression by a state (the Roman state) unified these believers in martyrdom and as conspiracy of clandestine religious communion. When however, Constantine the emperor of Rome accepted Christianity and proclaimed it the official religion of the Roman Empire, a unifying structure became necessary. Since the dominant structural model present at the time was monarchy, a monarchial form was adopted.

to be continued...

320 Salamantis  Sun, May 10, 2009 11:01:50am

continued...

This choice fitted in very well with the idea of a sovereign God, and allowed the bishops of each area to speak for their people. Soon the bishop of Rome was recognized as Pope, and all Christians spoke with one voice. That voice, however, was many times not what many would have chosen; many times it spoke for itself and the people of Christianity were coerced into accepting the trappings of totalitarianism as incomprehensible to them, but ordained of God as the best way. God, after all, could not be wrong; God was Perfect Mind. But none of the elaborate ritual of the Roman Catholic Church, and none of its clerical hierarchy, were outlined by Jesus. It was created by the elite, and much of it for the elite. For instance, the people of the church have no say in choosing this elite; it is chosen by itself. Popes choose cardinals; when the Pope dies the cardinals choose a new one. Election and popular vote was never even considered as far as the laity were concerned; appointment by a superior was and is the method of clerical advancement. The only election is to the highest office, by those immediately beneath, and it is for life. Diplomatic ties with other sovereignties were formed with the intention of having the sovereignty of the Church recognized by the states, so that dual sovereignty was demanded of their people; allegiance to both King and Pope, and the Pope first. Vast lands and riches, the price of heaven, were amassed. Salvation was bought and sold for what the buyer possessed, be it wealth or widow's mite. Finally, a Pope granted himself infallibility when speaking ex cathedra, thus grounding totalitarian authority upon the declaration of the declarer.

There were difficulties encountered along the way. The Roman Empire fell. There was a great schism and the Russian and Greek churches broke away. The iron demands of conformity to the party line and subservience to the religious sovereign and his clerical nobility was refused by those who disliked what the Catholic Church had become.

Martin Luther sparked a Reformation that was actually a religious revolution; the Pope was denied sovereignty over both Protestants and Anglicans, who spurned Roman Catholicism's claim to be the temporal arm of God. Monarchy was opposed by democracy, and conformity by freedom of religious choice. Now Christianity is a faith embodied in a multiplicity of expressions and the Roman Catholic Church, while still the largest voice, is one of many which people are free to choose to or not to heed in most areas. Only in a few countries is the manner of Christian expression not a matter of personal choice. It is significant to note that such freedom has never been given, only taken. Spain and Portugal, until recently authoritarian states welded to an institutional church, are the most recent to take such freedoms for their people, but only after the people took their freedoms from the state.

III. The State as Church

Marx, like Jesus, had not specifically outlined a form for Marxism to take. He had stated the purpose of his call for revolution, true; a communist economic system maintained for the fair distribution of the products of labor (goods and services), centrally administered and collectively owned. But the structures of responsibility, decision and communication had not been patterned out or their interrelations delineated. Jesus preached mutual love between people through mediation of Mind and Marx preached mutual service between people through implementation of Matter. Jesus assumes that upon the Apocalypse, which he expected soon, governmental forms would be unnecessary, and Marx assumed that upon the advent of communism that a temporary post-revolutionary organizing authority, the dictatorship of the proletariat, would quite voluntarily "wither away".

The Russian Revolution took the Marxists by surprise. Marx was dead and could not lead; Lenin took command. He possessed a faith, the shambles of a monarchial system, and many millions of religious people.

tbc...

321 Salamantis  Sun, May 10, 2009 11:03:15am

continued...

He instituted a "dictatorship of the proletariat" modeled on the monarchial structure, abolished private property, purged the opposition, and installed himself as leader of a monarchial economic state. Successors were to be chosen by the majority vote of commissars that the previous leader appointed, and all members of the government were to be members of the one party allowed, the Communist Party. The Soviet government was built in the image of the Roman Catholic Church, and Lenin became its first Pope. The communist parties in other nations were required to accept the soviet party as absolute sovereign and not to be questioned. Things move more quickly these days, for thirty years after the Soviet Republic was born Marshal Tito, the first harbinger of schism, appeared on the scene. Soon after, we had socialist as well as communist states, as we have predominately Catholic and predominately Protestant countries; the Socialist Reformation has taken place before our eyes, despite attempts by the Soviet Republic to repress same in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland. It is significant to note that communists may form parties within socialist countries, but until recently, when the issue was forced, not the other way around. This is a duplication of the Catholic-Protestant paradigm of one-way (or predominately one-way) discrimination.

IV. Church-State vs. People

Both of these systems of belief, as practiced by their dominant organs, are monarchies - but not genetic ones. They are ideological monarchies. Neither has much use for the criticisms of philosophy, which they both distrust because they cannot control it. Both have three dogmas that correlate nicely. They are: (1) the Statement of Faith (Catholic - God is, and subsidiary dogma; Communist - God is not, and subsidiary dogma), (2) the Personal Admonition (Catholic - love others; Communist - labor for others), and (3) the Acknowledgement of Authority (Catholic - the church/Pope is infallible; Communist - the Party/President is infallible). One joins them only by publicly endorsing their doctrines, and advances by being perceived by one's superiors as passionately conforming to them. The laity of each lack the power to dictate the course of church-state actions; power issues from the apex - the crowned head of the controlling minority of the ideological elite.

Each is plagued with the wide propagation of a more democratic alternative (Protestantism, Socialism), which it regards as an obstreperous and irreverent stepchild, for although each wants the world to accept its views, each also desires the final disposition of them. Dissent is either treasonous (contra people) or blasphemous (contra God); one punishes it directly in this life, one indirectly through disposition of a believed-in next. To join either is to forfeit it your rights. One is world negating the other is other-than-world negating. Each asserts that the only way to be truly human is to embrace its faith. Both have collectively deterministic views of history; one is determined by Mind (what happens is ordained of God) and the other is determined by Matter (the evolution of the distribution of material is the guiding force of history), and both culminate in utopia. Both have a person to worship and a book to read, and both have trained experts to communicate the orthodox meaning of each to the mass herds, and to denounce forbidden concepts and conceivers. The masses of each are constrained to take their words at face value, the words of ideologues commissioned to propagate the Faith.

to be continued...

322 Salamantis  Sun, May 10, 2009 11:06:39am

continued...

That such similarities should manifest themselves in the relational structures between these belief systems and their respective social masses is not surprising. Correlative opposites mutually and symmetrically define from a neutral or uncommitted perspective; us-them only manifests itself after a faith-grounded Leap - in either direction. Marxism would have to have a governmental system of absolute authority from below to be in good faith with itself. Lacking time and a practicable paradigm from which to develop such a system, the closest available, complementary alternative was employed - a governmental system of absolute authority from above, the model of its ideological antithesis and methodological twin, Christianity. The adoption of this internal self-contradiction festered in the heart of the Soviet system, and in the end, facilitated its demise.

V. The Social Subsumption

Feuerbach's work was brilliant and insightful, and at first one might suspect that Marx had betrayed him by placing the God of Matter upon the throne from which Feuerbach had only recently removed the God of Mind. Actually, Feuerbach had only dealt with one side of the question, and Marx embarked upon the first movement of the other side when he crystallized Matter into an icon. That Apollo had been given away, missed, and reclaimed by humanity we an incomplete resolution of the situation; the same dialectic had to be traversed in Dionysian terms. Chaos and Order are co-primordial, and neither can be apprehended absolutely by humankind, only believed in (a major problem in computer science is the inability to construct a truly random number generator; any pattern - including the Kantian categories of space, time and causality - necessarily begets pattern). At the same instant that humanity became aware of mind, that is, when humanity began to become human, humanity also became aware of body - a body that Marx had enshrined and thus stolen from them. The thesis of Jesus, the crystallizer of Mind, had been dialectically resolved by Feuerbach; who would resolve the Marxian thesis?

It has been done, by Friedrich Nietszche. The majority of his work concerns how humanity had divorced itself from its body. Nietszche missed this body, and reclaimed it in his monumental work The Will To Power. Nietszche did not write as Feuerbach did; he wrote not with the Apollonian clarity of the dialectic, but with the Dionysian passion of the hammer.

Feuerbach and Nietszche, the humanizers of Jesus' God of Mind and Marx's God of Matter, the Promethean reclaimers of Order and Chaos, formulated the restated thesis and antithesis of "God is" and "God is not", which really said "Mindgod is and Mattergod is not" and "Mattergod is and Mindgod is not". Their statements are, respectively, "Mindgod is human" and "Mattergod is human". Now these must be combined into the next synthesis, the synthesis not yet widely spoken but of which the world is already implicitly aware. It is this: Mindgod and Mattergod are the thesis and antithesis which are synthesized in humanity.

to be continued...

323 Salamantis  Sun, May 10, 2009 11:09:28am

continued...

This can be intuited even in Aristotles hylomorphic composition of the world, although he did not apply it to humanity. For Aristotle, things are contingent phenomenal syntheses of noumenal absolutes. So are human beings, but incredibly enriched. Human contingency is the dynamic and never-completed synthesis of opposing absolutes, which itself can only apprehend in contingent terms, but in two opposing yet complementary directions. There are in constant interplay with each other and their names are intuitive right-brain synthesis into unity (from Matter to Mind) and intellectual left-brain analysis into multiplicity (from Mind to Matter). In these two modes of self-consciousness, which are synthesis reflecting upon analysis (which assumes the synthetic whole in order to analyze) and analysis reflecting upon synthesis (which assumes the analytic parts in order to synthesize), the former views their human conjunction as Mind ruling Matter and the latter views it as Matter ruling Mind. Each, like Jesus and Marx, Feuerbach and Nietszche, is partly right and partly wrong, for each focused on a single aspect of the human coin. Neither rules and both do, each by consent of the other. This is the paradox of contingency, which frees history from the determinism of either side alone while still allowing for the interplay of trends, and humanity from the imperative to follow one side of existence exclusively, while still leaving humanity its humanness. The bare existence or lack of same of either absolute is nonrelational to humankind, which is free for each of its individual members to subjectively and intersubjectively experience the plenitude of contingent synthetic/analytic existence.

end.

324 medaura18586  Sun, May 10, 2009 2:53:32pm

We were most impressed with John Avlon's performance on PJTV's CPAC panel:


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
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 368 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1