…and we’re not as much as suggesting that SluBlog is one of those who hasn’t been getting it, because that’s definitely not the case, but we hope that his excellent post spreads to some of the more “civilized” and “pragmatic” ones on our side, because it’s yet another wake up call:
Still, the president wasn’t just angry because he lost. He was angry because he lost to people who hold an opinion he’s unable and unwilling to understand and who he seems to regard as beneath him. Last night, Obama showed us the anger that lurks under the no-drama exterior and revealed what we on the right have known for years – he’s thoroughly a man of the left, and shares the left’s contempt for those who believe that the second amendment is not a collective right, but an individual right for a collective purpose – ultimately, the preservation of a “free state.” Our belief in individual liberty makes us inconvenient, and our refusal to acquiesce to the Benevolent and All-Knowing, All Providing Nanny State makes us barriers to the goals of the left.
Quite so, dear Slu.
But it’s not just on 2A issues, it’s on every issue. Every. Single. One.
And before I, once again and for the umpteenth time, start banging my by now tired and worn drum on the issue, let me, also once again, point out why I am not in any way pulling any of the following out of my posterior: I was, once, of the left. Not just “flirting with the ideas” or “curiously studying their customs and quaint habits”, but “red scarf wearing true believer.”
Yes, I hang my head in shame over my youthful ignorance, but I got better. And I try to atone for it by passing on what I’ve learned to those who weren’t as dumb as I and therefore have not the first fucking clue as to what they think they’re up against. Without much success, as the past five years have shown, most of the time — when I get a response at all — it’s along the lines of “lalalala I can’t hear you” or “sure, but our lefties are diff’runt.”
They’re not. That’s the whole point of the left. On the left, nobody’s diff’runt or they’re not on the left anymore. Utter one, even a slight little minor one, heresy against the leftist catechism and we will make you a non-person. Just ask Bob Woodward who, we believe, was once quite the left’s hero for bringing down that horrible man, Richard Nixon. One act of heresy against the Dogma of the Cult of Obama, and he was a doddering old retarded fool and sellout, ready for the glue factory.
Overnight.
And that was not an aberration. That is how it works on the left. Again I say it: Because I KNOW it personally. Heck, I’ve been a part of the drum circle myself, reflexively and instantly “forgetting” people who were heroes yesterday but capitalist traitor scum the next who had suddenly never done a worthwhile thing in their lives. After a while it becomes habit. It’s not even difficult anymore.
So why is it not difficult? It’s because of how we approach ideological differences on the left. Being of the right, you, as I do now, know that we approach differences in ideology as competing ideas. We study the opposing idea, study our own and try to come up with compelling arguments as to why the other idea is wrong. It’s all about the ideas, not the person. Sure, we certainly fling insults and epithets when the person holding the idea is particularly egregiously stupid, but that’s more of a sort of emotional catharsis than it is any attempt at argument.
On the left, on the other hand, the opposing idea is not important at all. Because party ideology is always right, and therefore any idea that opposes it must, naturally, be wrong no matter how it’s worded. This is never questioned. Never. Because it’s a fundamental truth to a true leftist believer. 1) The party is always right. 2) If not, see 1). Why the party is right is irrelevant because, seriously, IT IS RIGHT. Seriously, were you not paying attention?
That is why attempting to engage leftists on ideas is an exercise in futility. Most won’t even take part, but those who pretend to be doing so aren’t actually listening. Because they know they’re already right. They were told so. And the party is always right. Again: I say this because I KNOW. Putting my old red cap on again, why would I question what the party said? All of its ideas had been passed down to me from people much smarter and more learned than I, people who had read all the books and dedicated decades of their lives to studying them, so if I was confused about something it was obviously because I was just missing some important detail. More study would be needed, but questioning the wisdom of the party’s elders was definitely right out. Particularly to a young, naive man.
Contrast this with how we form our ideas on the right: Sure, much of it is passed down from others as well, but it is also very much allowed, even welcomed in many cases (though we’re sure there are exceptions) to ask questions, to request clarifications, to offer counter-proposals etc. Because we could be wrong, you know, and, either way, we both learn from the process when we think our thoughts through and try to argue our case. Win-win.
That is NOT accepted on the left. Try it and you’ll be either bullied back into formation or drummed right out of the movement and become a “non-person.”
So don’t bother “engaging in debate” with leftists, because it’s like trying to teach a pig astrophysics, with the exception that the pig is not deliberately ignoring you.
And the next point, another one ignored by our “pragmatists” and “civility champions” on the right because of their utter ignorance of what they’re dealing with is this: We on the left (again I put my old cap on) do not “disagree” with you. We despise you. The more spirited among us even hate you. Those can mostly be found among the lowest echelons of the movement, the ones who were just given their party badge and feel that they have something to prove so they can move up in the system. Higher up, it’s mostly just contempt.
“But that’s horrible!” Yes it is, but it also follows naturally from the rest of the rotten structure of the ideology, and it’s a lot easier to wrap your head around if you used to be one of them but, briefly, you have to imagine that you hold ideas that you have been taught to the point where you don’t for a second question it are self-evidently true, that they’re the only truth, that it’s so plainly obvious that it’s the truth, so therefore anybody disagreeing must be of a lesser intellect. Or quite possibly quite insane. Or motivated by pure evil.
How can you feel anything but contempt for somebody who stubbornly refuses to agree with you, you who hold ideas that are undeniably, unquestionably, bloody obviously true?
So keep that in mind, “pragmatists”, the next time you make yet another futile charge into the breach to “engage in dialogue” and “find common ground” because “something must be done.” The ones you think you’re engaging are sitting there chuckling inside, wondering how much longer they will have to pretend to listen to that poor, ignorant yokel on the other side in order to be able to say that they “listened” but, regrettably, you cannot agree to the compromise offered.
Think about that, dear “pragmatists”, the next time you rush to compromise with the likes of Schumer. You may think that you’re “competing in the marketplace of ideas”, that you’re “dealing with reasonable men who will surely see the compelling nature of at least some of the reams of data and statistics that you’re bringing along”, but to us on the other side of the table you are, at best, the snotty 4-year-old trying to convince us that time travel is so totally possible if you just use a cardboard box and and egg timer. We’re biding our time, trying hard not to laugh and roll our eyes while we wait for the clock to run out. Because we KNOW that we’re right. You’re just dumb. You’re beneath us, but we have to play the game for the galleries. For now. Until such time when we’ve achieved our true goals and we’ll never have to deal with the approval of lesser beings, but can go on full speed ahead creating Utopia For the Betterment and Good of All, Even Those Who Don’t Have the Brains to Understand It™.
Why do you “pragmatists” think that it is always you who have to come to them? It’s because you don’t matter. You are, admittedly, human in the sense that you share the same biology as The Enlightened Ones™, but you’re a lower class of human. Mud people. The Great Unwashed. The poor benighted ignorant ones who need our help to rise you above your station and guide you through life.
For your own good.
You think we just made that one up by accident? “For your own good?” We didn’t. That’s how we see you. Helpless ignoramuses who need, whether you realize it or not, our guidance. For your own good.
Which brings us to the last point, and if the above infuriated you, then this will absolutely send chills down your spines.
Since you’re beneath us and since you tend to stand in the way of The Common Good in spite of The Common Good being an undeniable fact, we will “remove” you if we have to. With deep regrets, of course, at least if anybody’s asking, because The Common Good is, after all, in the best interest of all of mankind and if you, stubbornly or through sheer malice, insist on holding all of mankind back then, well…
You were barely human to begin with, remember? Sort of a retarded cousin stuck on the lower rungs of the evolutionary ladder. It’ll hurt to have to put Fido down, of course, but it was for his own good.
Remember that.
THIS is what you’re fighting, what we’re ALL fighting now.
Do try to listen this time. I’ll keep repeating myself as I have before, but we may not have much longer for me to repeat myself before I won’t have to. Because then you, me, all of us, like the Jews of Germany, will have the facts staring us in the face.
Thatisall.
Seems kinda like Stalinism writ large. Don’t attack the argument, attack — destroy — the person. So much easier, and oh, so satisfying.
How do I know this? Because fuck you, McCarthyite Trot splitter.
AmericanBTGoG says: Seems kinda like Stalinism writ large. Don’t attack the argument, attack — destroy — the person. So much easier, and oh, so satisfying. Not specific to Stalinism. Any of the socialist -isms. It’s how the ideology is structured. Naziism, Fascism, Communism, Maoism, Socialism. The name changes a lot, mainly because it has to. After all, it’s supposed to… Read more »
Misha, Every Single Ex-Leftist, especially the hardcore communists, says the same thing you just did: the Left is truly a satanic cult. Thomas Sowell, a Marxist in his hotheaded youth; Malcolm Muggeridge, ditto; David Horowitz, the same; a guy named Fred H. Jr. at Neo-Neocon’s blog — all of you say the same thing. We Americans have lived (in world-historical… Read more »
As was stated by someone (can’t remember who) in a prior thread, denial is a strong force in the human psyche. Most of the ever so pragmatic, reasonable “Conservatives” won’t believe us nasty teabagging hobbit extremists until the Occutard crowd has donned red scarves & AK-47s and are rounding them up for “corrective labor.” Even then some won’t believe it… Read more »
Been there myself, Friend & Fellow Worker.
BTW, ever notice that all the cadre think that they – personally – will be the person who decides who’s lined up against the wall “cum the revolution?”
“You were barely human to begin with, remember? Sort of a retarded cousin stuck on the lower rungs of the evolutionary ladder. It’ll hurt to have to put Fido down, of course, but it was for his own good.” The Nazis expressed that idea the most succinctly: Dasein ohne Leben (“Existence without life”). Really, you’re just doing them a favor… Read more »
Excellent. While I’ve never been a leftist I did lean in that direction at one time. Their behaviors changed all that. I simply don’t talk to them anymore. It’s a trap. I just keep my guns……
AmericanBTGoG:
Hence my take on the ancient dictum Whom gods destroy, they first make mad: Whom make Dems mad, they first destroy.
Eric Praline says: Most of the ever so pragmatic, reasonable “Conservatives” won’t believe us nasty teabagging hobbit extremists until the Occutard crowd has donned red scarves & AK-47s and are rounding them up for “corrective labor.” *Bzzzt* Wrong. I think you need to substitute Republicans for “Conservatives.” A large portion of the ever-so-pragmatic, reasonable Conservatives jumped off the Repub bandwagon… Read more »
Tallulah says:
Another one near and dear to some of us here: Bill Whittle was a bleeding-heart lib until 9/11.
LC Grammar Czar, G.L.O.R. says:
Actually, I put “conservatives” in sarcastiquotes because the likes of Karl Rove call themselves conservatives but they’re really just Vichy Republican assclowns that need to be treated like the collaborators they are when the time comes.
Rubio is a judas goat. He’s the RINO establishment’s golden boy to draw conservatives away from the patriot movement and back to the party.
He WILL stab us in the back.
This is the Stupid or Evil dynamic of the Left in glorious Technicolor. What many who perceive the hatred fail to grasp is whence it stems: the Leftist’s needs: 1) To belong; 2) To matter; 3) To think himself morally and intellectually superior, as (in the usual case) he has no objective claim to wisdom, moral insight, or significance. Factor… Read more »
Pretty much what I’ve been trying to explain to people – albeit with clinical research to back it up – for years now. I’m happy to wager a tidy sum that MOST of us were at one time Of The Left. As most normative human beings USED to do, we matured beyond the morally adolescent mindset that refuses to abandon… Read more »
Emperor Misha: Being of the right, you, as I do now, know that we approach differences in ideology as competing ideas. We study the opposing idea, study our own and try to come up with compelling arguments as to why the other idea is wrong. It’s all about the ideas, not the person. Sure, we certainly fling insults and epithets… Read more »
Zachriel says: You seem to be conflating “the left” with ideological or extremist. There are ideologues and extremists on the left and on the right, people who hold rigidly to their views regardless of argument or circumstance. Oh, that’s cute. You’re right, there are. But on the left, and please don’t make the mistake once again of thinking that I… Read more »
fporretto says: This is the Stupid or Evil dynamic of the Left in glorious Technicolor. What many who perceive the hatred fail to grasp is whence it stems: the Leftist’s needs: 1) To belong; 2) To matter; 3) To think himself morally and intellectually superior, as (in the usual case) he has no objective claim to wisdom, moral insight, or… Read more »
Emperor Misha I: But on the left, and please don’t make the mistake once again of thinking that I don’t know what I’m talking about, “extremism” is not an aberration, it’s the whole point. The left is a broad political continuum, just as is the right. Some people have moderate views on the left, supporting some social change, but still… Read more »
Zachriel @ #: The left is a broad political continuum, just as is the right. Some people have moderate views on the left, supporting some social change, but still preserving the fundamental institutions. Some people have moderate views on the right, accepting that some social change may be necessary, but emphasizing the importance of tradition. ………………. No. There are those… Read more »
Oops, had to disable the “auto-close comments on posts older than 7 days” here. Sorry. Zachriel, I appreciate your input. However, I have to correct a couple of common misunderstandings evident from the post of yours that you linked to. First, the dictionary definition that you use of “liberal”, while correct, is only correct for any nation but the United… Read more »
Emperor Misha I: In my native country, for instance, one of the most right wing, conservative parties is called “liberal” and it’s not because that nation’s center is further to the left than ours. That actually supports rather than undermines our position that left-right is a continuum of political positions. We’re not concerned with party labels. You used the term… Read more »
During a PoliSci class in 1980 at a central CA community college which shall remain nameless, the instructor (an M.E., not a degreed polisci major, who was teaching directly from the textbook, IIRC) spewed the cookie-cutter rationalization of the “difference” between fascism and communism we Americans have been beaten with by academia since the socialists marched through that institution in… Read more »
AGoyAndHisBlog: the instructor (an M.E., not a degreed polisci major, who was teaching directly from the textbook, IIRC) spewed the cookie-cutter rationalization of the “difference” between fascism and communism The terms political left and right had their origin in the French Revolutionary period. We have provided not only the common usage, but multiple citations to scholars in the field. While… Read more »
Demonstrating that you didn’t bother to actually read what I wrote and, thereby, provided a perfect example of my point.
AGoyAndHisBlog: Demonstrating that you didn’t bother to actually read what I wrote That is incorrect. We did read what you wrote. The political left-right dichotomy has been in use for centuries. You conflate left with statism, such as when you say “Trying to differentiate between Fascism and Communism is a ruse to obfuscate and misdirect from the real issue, which… Read more »
Zachriel @ #: BTW, Mussolini ALSO wrote, in that same passage: “For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State.” Duh. Anyway, here’s the problem with relying on a single, out-of-context, TRANSLATED quote from Mussolini, copied and pasted from a… Read more »
Zachriel says:
Obviously not. As you keep relying on the Appeal to Authority fallacy I clearly identified. Point being that leftism – as expressed in the U.S. – is nothing short of statism. So they can’t be “un-conflated” when discussing American politics.
Destra, right, is the opposite of sinistra, left. What did you think it meant?
Zachriel @ #:
Already explained above. Meanwhile, what did you think he meant by “this will be the century of collectivism” if he was also claiming, “this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right’ “??? Geez.
No, actually, you did not. What do you think “destra” means in context?
Zachriel says:
Sorry, I’m not going to repeat myself for your entertainment simply because you wish to be free to selectively read what I’ve already written. Already explained above. Go read it.
Zachriel says: Of course it is. Nazis advocated extreme inequality, from an all-powerful leader to some racial groups being better than others. As opposed to socialists, who under no circumstances advocate extreme inequality from an extreme, unelected, all-powerful leader to some apparatchiks and other pigs being more equal than the rest of the pigs? I fail to see your point… Read more »
Not a problem. You obviously don’t have an answer.
Zachriel says: You obviously don’t have an answer. No, I don’t have an answer for those, like you apparently, whose willful ignorance prevents you from acknowledging the answer already provided. That’s the whole problem here. So long as you choose to remain willfully ignorant, you’ll never actually learn anything and, as such, be reduced to parroting out-of-context quotations, engaging in… Read more »
Emperor Misha I: As opposed to socialists, who under no circumstances advocate extreme inequality from an extreme, unelected, all-powerful leader to some apparatchiks and other pigs being more equal than the rest of the pigs? All extremists, left or right, justify the means with the ends. That’s what we mean by extremism. Those on the extreme left advocate absolute equality,… Read more »
Zachriel says:
And I provided a simple explanation, which you persist in refusing to read.
Zachriel says:
I linked to it. Should I have copy and pasted the whole thing so you wouldn’t have to click on the link yourself?
I believe I’m sensing a pattern in Zachriel’s selective acknowledgment of what’s been posted here…
Emperor Misha I: You had suggested a scholarly dissertation, which was not forthcoming. We followed the link. It wasn’t a scholarly dissertation. The most obvious clue is that he had to redefine political left and right in order to reach his conclusions about the political left and right. That’s not scholarship. In reply, we provided citations to a number of… Read more »
Zachriel says:
That’d be a surprise to the scholar who wrote it.
So we’re back to “my scholar can beat your scholar?”
I think we’re done here.
Zachriel says: It was a simple question. And I provided a simple explanation, which you persist in refusing to read, much less acknowledge. Here’s what’s interesting to me: you keep harping on “what do you think ‘destra’ means”, once again cherry-picking a tiny bit of the extensive information I provided, above, and ignoring everything else because you have no response… Read more »
Emperor Misha I: So we’re back to “my scholar can beat your scholar?” No, we made a specific objection to the essay. In addition, the citations we provided were mostly peer reviewed by scholars in the field, unlike Ray’s essay, which was also somewhat outside his specialty. AGoyAndHisBlog: you keep harping on “what do you think ‘destra’ means”, once again… Read more »
Zachriel says: The claim was that fascism is not on the political right. That’s because it’s not – at least not in the sense of what left/right mean in America TODAY, as opposed to the evolving definitions of these terms as used (a) immediately before and (b) after the French Revolution or their varying definitions (c, d & e) in… Read more »
Zachriel says: No, we made a specific objection to the essay. In addition, the citations we provided were mostly peer reviewed by scholars in the field, unlike Ray’s essay, which was also somewhat outside his specialty. You learned it well. I recognize much of my young self in you. I can play that game too for as long as I… Read more »
AGoyAndHisBlog: an explanation you persist in refusing to read. We did read your explanation, then asked a very simple question about it. You have refused to answer. Readers can reach their own conclusion as to why you won’t. AGoyAndHisBlog: In NONE of the cases where you’ve mindlessly referenced some “scholarly” definition of fascism, socialism, right, left, etc., have you indicated… Read more »
Zachriel says: We already provided our argument. Ray redefines left and right to reach his predetermined conclusion, circulus in probando. Which you don’t with your highly amusing conflation of American liberalism with actual liberalism, which is “believing in the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.” What you quote is the definition of… Read more »
Zachriel says: We did read your explanation, then asked a very simple question about it. The answer to the question is right there, and I even repeated the answer for you above against my better judgment, so you’re just lying if you’re claiming to have read it. Or you’re pretending to be an imbecile. You pick. Most of the citations… Read more »
what’s this ‘we’ shit, maggot. Are you keeping a pet turd in your pocket?
Emperor Misha I: Which you don’t with your highly amusing conflation of American liberalism with actual liberalism, which is “believing in the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.” The usual way to deal with that problem would be to explicitly state “modern American liberalism” or “the current Left in the U.S.” But… Read more »
LC Roguetek @ #:
I keep thinking the same thing
I’m wondering who the “we” refers to in Zach’s writings? Whats the deal? Does he have his whole “poly sci” class involved in his review / response? Or is he one of those pretentious a-holes that speaks and write third person? Bottom line there Zach, Does the linear model as presented by AGAHB represent a truer graph of the political… Read more »
Off-topic LC TerribleTroy: Whats the deal? A number of theories have been proposed concerning our use of nosism. If Zachriel were legion. group of poseurs ultimate expression of internet group think hive commune of pedants committee weird cult collective pseudonym like Bourbaki five people collective tri-unity being of more than one mind royalty the Z-team, a team of Zachriels schizophrenic… Read more »
The problem is we’re debating with people that get trapped on an escalator for hours. Logic is a 4-letter word to them. Hell, I’m surprised they can feed themselves and natural selection hasn’t just had a field day.
Emperor Misha I says:
You want we should kill it?
LC TerribleTroy: Does the linear model as presented by AGAHB represent a truer graph of the political spectrum than your circular model? And if not, why not? Without having to abandon standard definitions, left-right can be seen as orthogonal to authoritarian-libertarian. While no categorization can completely describe every possible political position, redefining terminology just to suit an agenda doesn’t constitute… Read more »
Zachriel continues to whine like a twelve-year-old, channeling Sméagol: We asked how it changed the meaning, You asked because you either can’t read plain English, refuse to read that for which you have no canned rhetoric, or you’re still pretending to be an imbecile who can’t comprehend the simple explanation that has already been provided, twice. Again – feel free… Read more »
AGoyAndHisBlog: Mussolini lived in a culture and time where the commonly accepted notions of “left” and “right” still possessed some relationship to their origins during the French Revolution, i.e., radicalized revolutionaries vs. established authority, respectively (as already noted above, twice, and which you continue to ignore). That doesn’t seem consistent with your original statement, “Note well: not a century of… Read more »
Tango9 says:
Heavens no. Wouldn’t want to give it the satisfaction. At this point that’s about all that it can hope to walk away with.
Zachriel continues to whine like a twelve-year-old channeling Sméagol: That doesn’t seem consistent with your original statement, …, That’s because, like the well-schooled and obedient useful idiot you are, you’re cherry-picking my original statement, and excluding the portion you’ve been ignoring since I posted it: “He’s making a distinction between revolutionary and authoritarian factions here, not abandoning his core socialist… Read more »
AGoyAndHisBlog: He’s making a distinction between revolutionary and authoritarian factions here, not abandoning his core socialist beliefs (see above regarding collectivism). Mussolini directly contrasted fascism with socialism and liberalism on the left. You are apparently conflating socialism with collectivism. Mussolini’s statism was absolute. AGoyAndHisBlog: Precisely. And in this context, that’s the only aspect that matters. When the state has supremacy… Read more »
As an aside, with all the reference to Mussolini: he was a Marxist, and a revolutionary syndicalist. Not much of a jump to where he landed. Chapter two is a good place to start.
Emperor Misha I says: Tango9 says: You want we should kill it? Heavens no. Wouldn’t want to give it the satisfaction. At this point that’s about all that it can hope to walk away with. Emperor Misha I recently posted..We Didn’t Stop Loving You Today, George You sure? have backhoe, will travel. whenever hippies/commies/liberals start pontificating I (and this is… Read more »
Zachriel has now crossed the line to boring repetition… Mussolini directly contrasted fascism with socialism and liberalism on the left. You are apparently conflating socialism with collectivism. Mussolini’s statism was absolute. . No, his one doctrinal reference to leftism identified a movement which employed radical, revolutionary change, as contrasted with authoritarian control (aka, "right"). Again, read it for yourself. Meanwhile,… Read more »
AGoyAndHisBlog: No, his one doctrinal reference to leftism identified a movement which employed radical, revolutionary change, as contrasted with authoritarian control (aka, “right”). Again, read it for yourself. Okay. Benito Mussolini (1932): “Granted that the nineteenth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, it does not follow that the twentieth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism,… Read more »
LC Roguetek @ #:
I thought Misha was the only “we” around here…
Pretentious little gasbag is Zachriel.
Zachriel says:
How can you possibly state that rule by a monarch, is in the political center? What would be to the left of all power being in the hands of one person/ family?
Zachriel says: Mussolini is contrasting socialism, liberalism, democracy, with fascism on the right. No. Again, you’re cherry-picking. See about that reading tutor. Once you find one, get him or her to help you with some European history, then read the doctrine in its entirety while trying to maintain some level of empathy with Mussolini himself and the world in which… Read more »
LC Ohio Right Wing Nut: How can you possibly state that rule by a monarch, is in the political center? What would be to the left of all power being in the hands of one person/ family? In 1750, most agreed, including most American colonialists, that democracy would inevitably devolve into ochlocracy, that only a strong monarchy could maintain stability,… Read more »
Zachriel says: You don’t seem to have read our position, … You claimed Mussolini was contrasting socialism with his alternative of authoritarianism. He didn’t. Rather he was contrasting the means by which core socialist principles could be achieved, and terminologically disconnecting the “pure”, “correct” means – fascism – from the “radical”, “incorrect” means – commonly recognized at that time by… Read more »
Zachriel says: In 1750, most agreed, including most American colonialists, that democracy would inevitably devolve into ochlocracy, that only a strong monarchy could maintain stability, and that kings were anointed by God. Democracy was an outlier position, far from the political center. People fought and died for king and country. What you are describing was the political norm, not center,… Read more »
AGoyAndHisBlog: You claimed Mussolini was contrasting socialism with his alternative of authoritarianism. Mussolini also said fascism stands for liberty, is the purest form of democracy, and negates socialism. While Mussolini certainly did come to fascism by way of socialism, that doesn’t make fascism socialist. AGoyAndHisBlog: The end result of these two systems is indistinguishable from the viewpoint of the common… Read more »
Zachriel says: …that doesn’t make fascism socialist. It doesn’t make fascism what Mussolini was referring to using the term “socialism”. See above. Not going to explain this again. Do some reading. Socialism, communism and fascism are all left-wing, in the sense that they all diminish individual liberty and promote the power of the state. Under fascism, the state is absolute.… Read more »
AGoyAndHisBlog: Do some reading. Good idea. Nearly every historian and political scientist place fascism as a movement of the right. AGoyAndHisBlog: Socialism, communism and fascism are all left-wing, in the sense that they all diminish individual liberty and promote the power of the state. And per the same standard usage of the terms, you conflate statism with the political left.… Read more »
Zachriel says: Nearly every historian and political scientist place fascism as a movement of the right. Again with the fallacies. Yes, thinking outside the box is hard; groupthink is much easier. We’ve established that. You realize you’re just going in circles now, right? And per the same standard usage of the terms, you conflate statism with the political left. I… Read more »
Nearly every historian and political scientist place fascism as a movement of the right. First, no they don’t. Second – that word “nearly”? I do not think it means what you think it means. Third – those that do have their head ensconced squarely up their ass. Just as you do, dumb fuck. We have provided citations, and we have… Read more »
AGoyAndHisBlog: Again with the fallacies. You said read, so we read. An appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacy, especially with regards to terminology relevant to a particular field. But you insist on calling a tail a leg, and therefore prove that dogs have five legs. AGoyAndHisBlog: I also observe that today’s leftists (and that includes their demonstrably NON-conservative… Read more »
Zachriel says: An appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacy, especially with regards to terminology relevant to a particular field. But you insist on calling a tail a leg, and therefore prove that dogs have five legs. Wow, now you’re really clutching at straws. Gets harder and harder to validate an irrational position, doesn’t it. I dimly recall the… Read more »
Zachriel says:
My money’s on that one.
Ok, lots of comments, not much time but I just want to dick punch Zachriel.
Flight, Halt! At Ease.
and everyone out of the pool! Last fucker out gets shot.
You guys are arguing over what is or ain’t individual liberty?
Let me Power Point it for you:
– Leave me alone
– Stay the fuck out of my business
– I will end you
We good?
As the saying goes: “If you convinced me, and I convinced you, wouldn’t there still be two points of view?” Give it up, GAHB. You will never convince the chew toy, and he’s just taking up space.
Oh, and Zachriel, Darth Venomous is administration here. You really DON’T want to piss him off. The name itself should be a clue.
LC Grammar Czar, G.L.O.R. says: Give it up, GAHB. You will never convince the chew toy… Oh, I don’t entertain any illusions of convincing young “Zach'” of anything – any more than anyone could have changed my mind for me 30 years ago. I just enjoy watching moral adolescents squirm in their efforts to maintain their unsupportable positions. I keep… Read more »
Those on the left push for social reform, more equality, equality of conscience, equality of social rank, equality of opportunity. To fucking funny. “equality of social rank”…..Whats the plan for achieving this lofty goal? We all gonna live in the same kinda house? We all gonna receive the same pay, no matter our skill set? We all gonna wear the… Read more »
AGoyAndHisBlog: Whether you’re going to admit it or not, the only “support” you’re providing here involves citing the recursive, circle-jerked, “peer reviewed” orthodoxy, i.e., Appeal to Authority. Words are defined by general usage, and words within a field, such as political science, often have more specific meanings. We provided a citation to the Oxford Dictionary, which is a valid authority… Read more »
LC TerribleTroy: “equality of social rank”…..Whats the plan for achieving this lofty goal? The power of the aristocracy, that is social rank by birth, was done away with in many countries over the last two centuries, and diluted in most others. For instance, the Queen of the United Kingdom is merely a figurehead with no significant political power. LC TerribleTroy:… Read more »
Zachriel says: Words are defined by general usage, and words within a field, such as political science, often have more specific meanings. You’re intentionally confusing pseudo-science – like polisci, econ, climate “science”, etc. – with hard science, like chemistry & physics. Additionally, the words you’re whining about are not used only “within a field”, they are words commonly used in… Read more »
AGoyAndHisBlog: Additionally, the words you’re whining about are not used only “within a field”, they are words commonly used in public discourse That’s right. Words are defined by usage. Oxford Dictionary: fascism, an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization… Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt… Read more »
Tango9 @ #: 80
Zachriel says: Oxford Dictionary: … More appeal to authority. You’re really stuck on that, aren’t you. Take “right-wing” out of that definition and the meaning of the word doesn’t change at all. In fact, using history (as opposed to recursive academic consensus) as a reference, one must remove it in order for the definition to remain internally consistent. The reason… Read more »
So holding the position of allowing the South to keep its slaves, but stopping its expansion to new territories in the West, was somewhere nearer the center of the political spectrum.
Zachriel says: So holding the position of allowing the South to keep its slaves, but stopping its expansion to new territories in the West, was somewhere nearer the center of the political spectrum. This question reveals that, like most of the rest of what you’ve written, you’re making the mistake of operating based on 21st Century – in this case,… Read more »
AGoyAndHisBlog: This question reveals that, like most of the rest of what you’ve written, you’re making the mistake of operating based on 21st Century – in this case, specifically, antebellum / post-Civil-War – sensibilities, not those sensibilities extant at the time in question. You had said “The political center hasn’t moved because it can’t.” If the political center can’t move,… Read more »
Zachriel says: …Lincoln in 1860, supporting as he did the continuation of slavery, … If Lincoln had been a supporter of the continuation of slavery, the South would not have seceded upon his inauguration. So I’m pretty sure it’s your position that’s incoherent, son. You’re still intentionally confusing political center and political consensus. p.s. that ‘antebellum’ above should have been… Read more »
AGoyAndHisBlog: If Lincoln had been a supporter of the continuation of slavery, the South would not have seceded upon his inauguration. Lincoln, presidential campaign of 1860: “We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the Constitution, and the peace of the country both forbid us — We must not withhold an efficient fugitive slave law, because… Read more »
Zachriel says: The reason the South seceded is because of demographics. Which is why Lincoln’s election triggered their secession. Got it. Meanwhile, your attempt to paint Lincoln’s position as “extreme” is silly. Whether you want to pretend he was protective of slavery, or intended to end it, is irrelevant. Either way, he was on one side of an issue over… Read more »
AGoyAndHisBlog: Which is why Lincoln’s election triggered their secession. Mississippi Declaration of Causes: “It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.” The South’s cause was “thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.” AGoyAndHisBlog: Meanwhile, your attempt to paint Lincoln’s position… Read more »
Zachriel says: The South’s cause was thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery. In your opinion, based on a single cite. Either way, this says nothing about the fact that secession was triggered by Lincoln’s election. By applying your definitions, we show their incoherence. So far you’ve only demonstrated your own incoherence. So Lincoln’s position on slavery was centrist or… Read more »
AGoyAndHisBlog: In your opinion, based on a single cite. They were proud of it! They wrote it down!! Mississippi Declaration of Causes: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.” And we have this grotesque perversion of the Declaration of Independence: Texas Declaration of Secession: “We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and… Read more »
Zachriel says: They were proud of it! They wrote it down!! … None of this addresses the fact that Lincoln’s election triggered the secession. Irrespective of your over-educated opinion on the matter, THE SOUTH clearly did not view Lincoln as “pro-slavery”. So, allowing slavery was once a centrist position. But the political center doesn’t change. In 1860 the federal government… Read more »
Remind me again….what political party was Lincoln affiliated?