Which Is What His Imperial Majesty Has Been Trying to Tell Everybody For Years Now

…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.

119 comments

  1. 1
    AmericanBTGoG growls and barks:

    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.

  2. 2
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    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 be “different” than the last go which enemies of the people might point out didn’t work out so well. Change the name and that argument is gone.

    How many times have you heard leftists say when you point to the Soviet Union as a prime example of socialism not working: “Oh, but that’s different, that was COMMUNISM, they just got it wrong!”

    Socialism, Socialism never changes… (sorry about the gratuitous Fallout™ reference there, I’m a gaming geek in my spare time ;) )

    As to the rest of your point, you’re quite right. Obviously the “making the political personal” angle of attack was specifically designed by the higher ups in the Movement™ specifically to avoid engaging in a guaranteed losing battle of facts, but that’s not how the rank and file sees it. It would be devastating to The Movement™ if their useful idiots ever realized that.

    No, to the rank and file (and putting on my Socialist Misha persona again for a moment here), we’re not refusing to engage you on facts because we’re afraid of losing. Please understand that we know that we’re right as only a True Believer can know such a thing, so we couldn’t possibly lose. If we were to be bested in any way in a debate with you, it would be because we weren’t experienced and learned enough to see through your obvious lies and distortions, and we’d immediately scurry to our elders to offer our apologies and ask for more education so it wouldn’t happen again.

    We’re attacking you as a person because we truly, honestly, consider you less than fully human. You’re either evil or retarded, and thus beneath our consideration as a fellow member of the species. If we mainly consider you retarded, we’ll just condescend and pat you on the head while we generously guide you towards enlightenment, but if you resist that we have to, we must assume that you’re guided by malevolence because, well, how else would you explain your opposition to something as clearly true as our ideology? And then you become a target. Because you’re standing in the way of the Common Good and therefore must be sacrificed to serve the betterment of all.

    OK, please put down the gun now. I’m Real Misha again :)

    But, seriously, that is who and what we’re up against.

    To fight the enemy, you have to understand the enemy. And I can help with that because I used to be the enemy. I suspect that the reason my efforts have been resisted so much by our side is that the realization, the full realization of what and who we’re fighting is truly horrifying.

    But that doesn’t change the facts on the ground.
    Emperor Misha I recently posted..Which Is What His Imperial Majesty Has Been Trying to Tell Everybody For Years NowMy Profile

  3. 3
    Tallulah growls and barks:

    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 terms) lived a VERY sheltered life. We truly find it hard to believe that nice people — people we know, neighbors of ours — would ever, for instance, turn us in to the secret police.

    Well, I think we could all use a little uplift. Watch this — it has a wow finish:

    Folks, if you need an uplifting moment, watch this — the emotional National Anthem in the Boston Bruins’ pregame ceremony tonight.

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/dxk7pew

    Bostonians, good on ya. THIS is Why We Fight.
    I love Americans.

  4. 4
    Eric Praline growls and barks:

    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 until they’re bleeding out in a mass grave.

  5. 5
    AmericanBTGoG growls and barks:

    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?”

  6. 6
    Fa Cube Itches growls and barks:

    “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 by liberating them from the shame of being counter-revolutionary, don’t you know.

  7. 7
    LC HJ Caveman82952 growls and barks:

    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…… :em07:

  8. 8
    LC Xystus growls and barks:

    AmericanBTGoG:

    Don’t attack the argument, attack — destroy — the person. So much easier, and oh, so satisfying.

    Hence my take on the ancient dictum Whom gods destroy, they first make mad: Whom make Dems mad, they first destroy.

  9. 9
    LC Grammar Czar, G.L.O.R. growls and barks:

    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 awhile ago. For me, it was after we had McCain forced down our throats. (I actually voted for Palin; the old guy was just along for the ride.)

    More and more conservatives are trending towards Rand Paul. He’s smart, but without all the weapons-grade crazy of his dad. There is a groundswell towards Allen West, too. Marco Rubio, (even with his stupid immigration support), is also a major contender. While these all may not be tea partiers, per se, we are getting tired of the same old white guys.

  10. 10
    LC Grammar Czar, G.L.O.R. growls and barks:

    Tallulah says:

    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.

    Another one near and dear to some of us here: Bill Whittle was a bleeding-heart lib until 9/11.

  11. 11
    Eric Praline growls and barks:

    LC Grammar Czar, G.L.O.R. says:

    I think you need to substitute Republicans for “Conservatives.”

    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.

  12. 12
    single stack growls and barks:

    There is a groundswell towards Allen West, too. Marco Rubio, (even with his stupid immigration support), is also a major contender.

    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.

  13. 13
    fporretto growls and barks:

    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 into this the oft-repeated observation that the lowliest worm of a Leftist usually believes that “come the Revolution,” he’ll be a commissar.

  14. 14
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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 childish behavior… and socially suicidal policies.

    Part of what makes this whole thing so ungodly frustrating is that this is NO LONGER normative.

  15. 15
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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 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.

    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.

  16. 16
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    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 don’t know what I’m talking about, “extremism” is not an aberration, it’s the whole point.
    Emperor Misha I recently posted..More Publik Skool Goodness! Those Woefully Underappreciated, Heroic, Underpaid Teachers Forcing Your Kids to be GayMy Profile

  17. 17
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    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 significance.

    Factor into this the oft-repeated observation that the lowliest worm of a Leftist usually believes that “come the Revolution,” he’ll be a commissar.

    That, Francis, as always is you taking everything I said and concentrating it all beautifully into one short paragraph.

    You’re a national treasure, and I’m glad to know that you’re still around, brother :)
    Emperor Misha I recently posted..More Publik Skool Goodness! Those Woefully Underappreciated, Heroic, Underpaid Teachers Forcing Your Kids to be GayMy Profile

  18. 18
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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 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. On the other hand, there are extremists on the left, who want a radical redistribution of wealth, and strict regulation of markets. And, there are extremists on the right, who want to stop all social progress, or even turn the clock back.
    http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html

    Reading some of your other posts, you seem to also conflate statism with the political left. There are statists on the left and on the right. There are non-statists on the left and on the right.

  19. 19
    AmericanBTGoG growls and barks:

    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 whose opinions are as yet unformed – clay- if you will, as well as those with false consciousness and then there are those — me/we of course — who are the intellectuals supreme (even the thuggiest) and the bearers of light. And then, of course, there are the others, who stand opposed to us or, unluckily, in our path. They may call us comrade, but they are still in our way. If we can use them, for the moment, fine. Else, they are *nirthings*. Think: the politics of Republican Spain.

    Do you think for one second that I gave a flying fuck about Earth Day or “green politics”? Oh hell, no, but when I was assigned to infiltrate such a group, or “bore from within,” in order to get into a position to influence their agitprop or activities (or money), I was the greenest of the green. Similarly with other “liberal” groups and institutions. Look, would it surprise you that (before my time, but probably still) there were cadre who were, either by direction or on there own initiative (really not their own, but through good training) infiltrated local PTA organizations with conscious purpose?

    Oh yeah. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, bullshit. No matter the color of the apple (green, pink, red) our internal discussion, our democratic centralism, stopped when the leadership group (central committee or whatever) made the call. Then our task was not to debate, not to question, but to implement and spread their golden truth.

  20. 20
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    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 States of America. 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. In this nation, “liberal” is merely the label that the socialists adopted when it became no longer helpful to label oneself a “socialist.” Which was a label adopted when it was no longer helpful to be a “communist”. Which was a label adopted when it became no longer helpful to be a “progressive”. Which… Oh irony of ironies, is what liberals now want to call themselves again, hoping that nobody remembers that one of the 20th century’s foremost progressives was a certain Austrian wannabe artist who later became rather… Infamous.

    Which leads to the second misunderstanding in your post: Fascism, as well as Nazism, is not “right wing.” For a more scholarly dissertation on the subject, see this post. Yes, its focus is on Hitler, but it applies equally well to the Father of Fascism, Benito Mussolini. Indeed, socialists all over the world (including this country’s) were positively enamored by Benito and Adolf until they got mean to Josef Stalin, at which point a lot of furious airbrushing ensued. This airbrushing goes on still.

    I am quite familiar with that practice. Airbrushing inconvenient facts out of history, that is. My socialist mentors taught me very well indeed.

    I can’t “conflate leftism with statism” because they’re the very same thing. Leftism means the supremacy of the state or “the common good” as we prefer to call it when we’re talking to those who are still clay. Because how can “good” be evil or wrong?

    We on the left are extremely good at muddying up the waters by abusing language to suit our own ends. Were I still a leftist I would find it extremely amusing, for instance, that there is a whole nation of 300 million souls who, by and large, think that a party which promotes centralized government control of everything is “liberal.”

    I am not, however, so I find it not amusing at all.

    Your contention that there are degrees of being a leftist is absolutely correct. It also doesn’t matter. What matters is where on the scale that the party they vote for is. What also matters, or what should matter at least to those moderate leftists, is just how utterly irrelevant their moderate objections are to The Party. They’re tolerated as long as they don’t get in the way of The Party, but the moment they’re not useful anymore… Well… do svidanya, comrade. Under the bus you go or, more commonly, into the camps you go.

    My point here wasn’t to assert that the left is one giant, monolithic bloc, because it’s not, it was to illustrate just exactly what leftist ideology as understood and practiced by those who actually run the show is.
    Emperor Misha I recently posted..The Blogroll, It GrowsMy Profile

  21. 21
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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 generically, not as a proper noun for a particular party.

    Emperor Misha I: Which leads to the second misunderstanding in your post: Fascism, as well as Nazism, is not “right wing.”

    Of course it is. Nazis advocated extreme inequality, from an all-powerful leader to some racial groups being better than others. They also received most of their support in their rise to power from conservative groups, and were opposed by groups on the left.

    Emperor Misha I: For a more scholarly dissertation on the subject, see this post.

    Heh. With due respects to your scholar in behavioral science, historians and political scientists disagree.

    * Nazism and the Radical Right in Austria 1918-1934, Lauridsen.

    * The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right, Paul Davies.

    * The Culture of Fascism: Visions of the Far Right in Britain, edited by Gottlieb & Linehan.

    * Fascism Past and Present, West and East: An International Debate on Concepts and Cases in the Comparative Study of the Extreme Right, Griffin et al.

    * France in The Era of Fascism: Essays on the French Authoritarian Right, edited by Jenkins.

    * Fascism and Neofascism: Critical Writings on the Radical Right in Europe (Studies in European Culture and History), edited by Weitz & Fenner.

    Emperor Misha I: Yes, its focus is on Hitler, but it applies equally well to the Father of Fascism, Benito Mussolini.

    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, democracy. Political doctrines pass; peoples remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right,’ a fascist century.”

    Emperor Misha I: I can’t “conflate leftism with statism” because they’re the very same thing. Leftism means the supremacy of the state or “the common good” as we prefer to call it when we’re talking to those who are still clay.

    Um, no. There are non-statists on the left, even anarchists on the left. Left refers to the advocacy of equality.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

    Emperor Misha I: Were I still a leftist I would find it extremely amusing, for instance, that there is a whole nation of 300 million souls who, by and large, think that a party which promotes centralized government control of everything is “liberal.”

    If you are referring to the U.S., both major political parties advocate government interference in some aspects of society. Republicans generally advocate interference on many social issues, limiting immigration, and less regulation of business and guns; while Democrats generally advocate for more regulation of business and guns, less regulation of social issues, and fewer restrictions on immigration. Neither party, as a whole, advocates for “controlling everything”.

  22. 22
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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 the 50s. Since he described a template that is ultimately projected onto contemporary political ideology, it’s still relevant.

    He said, and I sh!t you not, “The political ideology spectrum is actually a circle. And if you go far enough along either direction – left or right – you eventually reach the other extreme at the far side of the circle.

    One form or another of this is sort of intellectually dishonest idiocy has been foisted on American history, sociology and policsi students in the U.S., again, since the mid-to-late ’50s. The exercise left to the student is to somehow divine how democracy – or, more accurately, a constitutionally-defined Republic based on representative self-governance and democratic institutions – is the “middle way” between fascism and communism. Those students have aged, written “scholarly” works of their own, and perpetuated this sort of destructive fantasy for decades. This is the intellectually dishonest idiocy that has totally confused young “Zachriel” here, along with so many others, for decades. Citing Wikipedia as an authority for the definition of Leftism is just one more symptom.

    The spectrum described by this faux “circle” (and other models like it) is just a bastardization of the old French “left” and “right”, manipulated so as to protect the reputation of socialism and its proponents from the misdeeds of mid-20th Century Socialism’s most notorious practitioners: Hitler & Mussolini. This was a propaganda promoted by Stalinists, followed by the Soviets, and spread by wannabe socialists like Duranty, FDR and their elitist, ideological ilk in the U.S. The fact that this confusing, broken model of political ideology appears in so much “scholarly” work on the subject does NOT make it valid, nor does it change the fact that fascism is, by definition, leftism/socialism. This train of “scholarly” work provides a stellar example of WHY Appeal to Authority is a fallacy, and is furthermore the only basis upon which an anarchist can be said to be “on the left”.

    In reality, the model that promotes this silliness is nothing more than a tool used by socialists for decades to confuse the issue and prevent a critical mass from recognizing the socially suicidal endgame of socialism, which is totalitarianism.

    Jonah Goldberg cracked this broken model when he demonstrated (see Liberal Fascism) that the only major difference between fascism and communism is the degree of nationalism applied to, or removed from, the social institutions implemented by one or the other. Fascism is nationalist (Hitler’s Third Reich or Mussolini’s Warrior Italy), communism is internationalist (Marx/Lenin’s “Workers of the WORLD“). The goal of this model is to promote precisely the sort of pseudo-intellectual, obfuscating exercise that Zachriel is engaging in here.

    This is not to single you out, Zach’, as this nonsense goes on pretty much everywhere that individuals simply cite academia’s bucket-brigade parroting of the fascism-is-not-socialism lie instead of thinking for themselves about whether the lie makes any sense at all. Trying to differentiate between Fascism and Communism is a ruse to obfuscate and misdirect from the real issue, which is the choice between Totalitarianism and Liberty. It is also a ruse to make socialism / communism seem more palatable since, as everyone knows, fascists are murderers and leaning in the “opposite” direction (per the broken left/right model) is only “common sense” (forget about the millions murdered by Stalin, Mao, Che, Pol Pot, Castro, et al.).

    Back here in practical reality, the only spectrum that is useful when judging the merits of a political ideology is one that places Totalitarianism – an Omnipotent State/Government – at one end and Anarchy – no State whatsoever – at the other end; left and right suffice, respectively, for these endpoints. And no, contrary to my confused instructor, this is not a circle, as these two states of civilization never “meet”, with the exceptional cases where an instance of a society at the far left (totalitarianism, politicization of everything, etc.) implodes due to its own weight and dissolves into one representing the far right (anarchy, lawlessness, etc.) – somewhat like the Fall of Rome and/or the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    The value of this more realistic spectrum is that Democracy sits pretty squarely at the center of this line, and a constitutionally-defined Republic based on democratic institutions facilitating self-government (as opposed to the mob-rule / oligarchy we currently enjoy) is actually slightly to the right of that midpoint. This is the cold, hard fact that explains why far-left liberals/leftists/progressives/socialists see truly limited government as “far-right extremism”.

    Unfortunately, using the terms “left” and “right” elicits the academically-supported confusion exhibited by Zachriel here, and that phenomenon is not easy to mitigate. The result is always something along the lines of claims that “Obama’s socialist (or fascist, or corporatist) policies aren’t really the textbook definition of socialism (or fascism, or corporatism)”, “leftism advocates equality”, and other fantasies.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  23. 23
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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 no strict dichotomy can capture all aspects of a political movement, the ideology of communism puts it on the extreme left; while the ideology of fascism puts it on the extreme right.

    Benito Mussolini (1932): “We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right,’ a fascist century.”

  24. 24
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    Zachriel says:We have provided not only the common usage, but multiple citations to scholars in the field.

    Demonstrating that you didn’t bother to actually read what I wrote and, thereby, provided a perfect example of my point.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  25. 25
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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 is the choice between Totalitarianism and Liberty. ” While both Fascism and Communism resort to totalitarianism, the means; they have different ideologies, the ends.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: The value of this more realistic spectrum is that Democracy sits pretty squarely at the center of this line, and a constitutionally-defined Republic based on democratic institutions facilitating self-government (as opposed to the mob-rule / oligarchy we currently enjoy) is actually slightly to the right of that midpoint. This is the cold, hard fact that explains why far-left liberals/leftists/progressives/socialists see truly limited government as “far-right extremism”.

    Well, you aren’t being very specific. The center has moved considerably left over the last several centuries. The original American republic had slaves, and limited suffrage to white men of property. Is that your ideal epoch?

  26. 26
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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 Wikipedia article derived from decades of misinformation on this subject to try to make your case. In some English versions, the sentence that immediately precedes your cherry-picked snippet reads “Political doctrines pass; nations remain“; in others, it reads “political doctrines pass, but humanity remains“. Enormous difference there, if we’re talking about ideology, e.g., national interests vs. human interests, state authority vs. human rights, etc. The original Italian reads “Le dottrine politiche passano, i popoli restano.“. See the problem? If not, you’re just not looking.

    Carry that to your quote (which John Scalzi has also somewhat famously abused, by way of sarcastically attempting to castigate Goldberg for revealing the facts). The original reads, “Si può pensare che questo sia il secolo dell’autorità, un secolo di «destra», un secolo fascista;“. This, correctly translated, is “You may think that this is the century of authority, a century of ‘right’, a Fascist century;“. Note well: not a century of THE right (as in the political right). This is supported by the obvious fact that in the preceding statement, Mussolini does NOT identify communism, et al., as “THE left” or even “left”. He’s making a distinction between revolutionary and authoritarian factions here, not abandoning his core socialist beliefs (see above regarding collectivism).

    This is a perfect example of the manner in which leftist/bolshevik/Stalinist/Soviet propaganda has twisted history to shield socialism from association with Hitler and Mussolini.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  27. 27
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    Zachriel says:

    We did read what you wrote.

    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.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  28. 28
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    AGoyAndHisBlog: The original reads, “Si può pensare che questo sia il secolo dell’autorità, un secolo di «destra», un secolo fascista;“.

    Destra, right, is the opposite of sinistra, left. What did you think it meant?

  29. 29
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  30. 30
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Already explained above.

    No, actually, you did not. What do you think “destra” means in context?

  31. 31
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    Zachriel says:

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Already explained above.

    No, actually, you did not. What do you think “destra” means in context?

    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.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  32. 32
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    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 here.

    Zachriel says:

    They also received most of their support in their rise to power from conservative groups, and were opposed by groups on the left.

    They most certainly did not receive “most of their support” from conservative groups. The support they did receive from conservative groups was mainly because said conservatives, while contemptuous of the Nazi populist rabble, were scared shitless of their even more totalitarian ideological brethren, the communists.

    As to “groups on the left” opposing them, that proves absolutely nothing. Internecine squabbling and mass murder between various brands of socialism is not uncommon. It’s pretty much the rule. And they weren’t so much “opposing” the Nazis as defending themselves from them. The communists would have done the exact same thing to the Nazis if they’d won.

    Zachriel says:

    Heh. With due respects to your scholar in behavioral science, historians and political scientists disagree.

    I’m well aware of that. So your scholars are better than my scholars? Noted. For the record, my daddy can beat your daddy too ;)

    Zachriel says:

    If you are referring to the U.S., both major political parties advocate government interference in some aspects of society. Republicans generally advocate interference on many social issues, limiting immigration, and less regulation of business and guns;

    Wait. Please stop right there. Ignoring the whole tu quoque fallacy for the nonce, are you seriously telling me that deregulation equals more interference in society? Please tell me you’re not, because that’s exactly what you just said. The only sort of actual interference you mention is tightening up immigration, and that’s not interference with society. That’s interference with outside societies’ ability to insert themselves in ours.

    Zachriel says:

    while Democrats generally advocate for more regulation of business and guns, less regulation of social issues, and fewer restrictions on immigration. Neither party, as a whole, advocates for “controlling everything”.

    And more regulation is less interference? Up is down, property is poverty, freedom is slavery and right is left.

    The problem here is, of course, your basic claim that leftism advocates “equality.” So does conservatism. The difference being that conservatives advocate equality of opportunity, leftists advocate equality of outcome. And the latter only inasmuch as it will help them gain power. Once they gain power, they historically tend to utterly forget even that. See Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Communist China et al.

    But you can’t have “equality of outcome”, because people are not equal. They’re equally human, yes. They have equal G-d given, unalienable rights, yes. But they are not, in any way, equal. Some are strong, some are weak, some are dumb, some are smart, most are in between. The only way of guaranteeing equal outcomes for unequal individuals is through complete control over those outcomes, so those more “fortunate” (“capable” is actually the correct word, but it doesn’t have the same ring to it and it doesn’t dismiss success as mere “good luck”) can fork over their “unfair” share of the pie to those “less fortunate.”

    Obviously, that’s bound to be met with more than a little resistance and general bad feelings by those being robbed of the fruits of their labors, they’re certainly not going to do so voluntarily, and so force must be employed to make them comply.

    The only way that the left’s version of “equality” can come about is through control of everything and the use of force. The two can not be separated.
    Emperor Misha I recently posted..The Blogroll, It GrowsMy Profile

  33. 33
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    AGoyAndHisBlog: 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.

    Not a problem. You obviously don’t have an answer.

  34. 34
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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 Appeal to Authority fallacies, and copy/pasting the latest version of glurge at Wikipedia.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  35. 35
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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, while those on the right advocate absolute inequality, and both justify violence to achieve their ends.

    Emperor Misha I: So your scholars are better than my scholars?

    You had suggested a scholarly dissertation, which was not forthcoming.

    Emperor Misha I: Please stop right there. Ignoring the whole tu quoque fallacy for the nonce, are you seriously telling me that deregulation equals more interference in society?

    Those on the American right are more likely to support laws against sodomy, drugs, birth control, etc., seeing these as a threat to established traditions.

    Emperor Misha I: The only sort of actual interference you mention is tightening up immigration, and that’s not interference with society. That’s interference with outside societies’ ability to insert themselves in ours.

    Nationalism is another value found more frequently in the right.

    Emperor Misha I: And more regulation is less interference?

    Not sure how you could misread our comments. Democrats generally want increased regulation of the economy, but less of social issues. Republicans generally want increased regulation on social issues, but less of the economy.

    Emperor Misha I: The problem here is, of course, your basic claim that leftism advocates “equality.” So does conservatism. The difference being that conservatives advocate equality of opportunity, leftists advocate equality of outcome.

    Yes, we understand the distinction. Another way to say that is that conservatives advocate for a meritocracy (natural inequality of outcomes), while liberals emphasize a social safety net (a minimum level of equality). This is where the center is now, which is far to the left of where it was in previous centuries.

    Emperor Misha I: The only way of guaranteeing equal outcomes for unequal individuals is through complete control over those outcomes, so those more “fortunate” (“capable” is actually the correct word, but it doesn’t have the same ring to it and it doesn’t dismiss success as mere “good luck”) can fork over their “unfair” share of the pie to those “less fortunate.”

    And that brings up the caricature based on the extremes. Absolute inequality is not attainable, but modern society incorporates both robust markets and basic social services.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: No …

    It was a simple question. You translated “destra” as “right”, which has many definitions in English. What do you think “destra” means in context?

  36. 36
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    Zachriel says:

    It was a simple question.

    And I provided a simple explanation, which you persist in refusing to read.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  37. 37
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    Zachriel says:

    You had suggested a scholarly dissertation, which was not forthcoming.

    I linked to it. Should I have copy and pasted the whole thing so you wouldn’t have to click on the link yourself?
    Emperor Misha I recently posted..Looking Out For ThemselvesMy Profile

  38. 38
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    Emperor Misha I: 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… :em03:
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  39. 39
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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 actual scholarly works concerning fascism and the political right. We’d be happy to provide additional citations for context.

    AGoyAndHisBlog

    It was a simple question. You translated “destra” as “right”, which has many definitions in English. What do you think “destra” means in context?

  40. 40
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    Zachriel says:

    We followed the link. It wasn’t a scholarly dissertation.

    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.
    Emperor Misha I recently posted..Looking Out For ThemselvesMy Profile

  41. 41
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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 for it. As such, it’s clear you’re focused solely on some sort of “gotcha” exchange here to preserve your fantasy of intellectual superiority. You’re clearly NOT interested in actually understanding what Mussolini was referring to, which I explained above and you, predictably, have refused to read.

    Meanwhile, you rather blindly assume that Mussolini’s “destra” is the effective equivalent to what you think of as today’s American right-wing. Yet you provide no support whatsoever for that assumption.

    You ALSO have completely ignored the more fundamental problem with the original quote you cherry-picked and copy/pasted from Wikipedia. That is this: the meaning you ascribe to that sentence can’t be resolved with Mussolini’s statement that “this will be the century of collectivism”, in which case he is clearly referring to what in today’s parlance describes the American left-wing. Don’t feel bad – people as sharp as John Scalzi have made this same error, which requires circular reasoning to maintain.

    This is the problem you refuse to acknowledge, and it’s the basis of your dismissal of Dr. Ray’s thesis, now that you’ve finally found and claim to have read it, instead of falsely claiming it was never offered as you did previously: the socialists long ago reoriented the meaning of political left and right in order to protect the reputation of socialism from its more infamous practitioners – Hitler and Mussolini. Any attempts to bring light to that distortion are labeled “redefinition”. You just engaged in exactly this sort of labeling, yet you provide absolutely no support for it.

    You don’t get any of this, obviously, because of your preference for willful ignorance, but that doesn’t negate it as fact.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  42. 42
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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 cherry-picking a tiny bit of the extensive information I provided, above, and ignoring everything else because you have no response for it.

    The claim was that fascism is not on the political right. We provided numerous references, including a quote from Mussolini. One statement from Mussolini can’t be considered definitive, of course, but it is relevant to the original issue raised. You, that is, you raised the issue of the translation of “destra”. This has been your opportunity to demonstrate how to avoid the problem of “willful ignorance”. You translated “destra” as “right”, which has many definitions in English. What do you think “destra” means in context?

  43. 43
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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 Europe during the ensuing two-plus centuries, including (F) the terms as used in Mussolini’s La Dottrina del fascismo to define two different means (authoritarian control vs. revolution) of achieving the same end (collectivism). I did indeed raise the issue of the translation of Mussolini’s work, and explained why – an explanation you persist in refusing to read.

    In NONE of the cases where you’ve mindlessly referenced some “scholarly” definition of fascism, socialism, right, left, etc., have you indicated which time period and what culture is being discussed, what the referenced meanings were in that particular context, or how any one of them applies to the left/right dichotomy in American politics TODAY.

    As for your cherry-picked Mussolini quote – and the context in which it sits – it is indeed absolutely relevant to the issue raised. And taken IN context, which you continue to ignore, Mussolini is absolutely not equating fascism with what is thought of today as the American right-wing, not when he states that the coming century of fascism will also be a century of collectivism. Only a willfully ignorant fool would attempt to conflate collectivism and today’s political right.

    And just for the record, you didn’t make any specific objection to Ray’s essay, you made a claim about it, one which you never supported.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  44. 44
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    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 desire, because I learned it before you were even a glimmer of desire in your parents’ eyes. Appeal to authority really doesn’t impress anybody around here much, as we’ve tried to point out to you numerous times, yet you persist in ignoring that. Stubbornly. No doubt hoping that your persistence will either force concessions or, at the very least, provide you with the “last word” that you so desperately crave.

    It is really very much irrelevant what you think of Dr. Ray’s credentials, and even more so how peer-reviewed the works of those you agree with are, primarily because those peers reviewing them all happened to agree with what they reviewed in the first place. Circle jerking people you already agree with does not equate with “credibility”.

    So, to stick with what you’ve offered so far, which isn’t a whole lot, you consider Dr. Ray’s thesis irrelevant because somebody else whom you agree with disagrees with him.

    That just won’t do, lad. What, specifically, in all of Dr. Ray’s evidence and argument, do you find flawed and why? No, “because those other people that I agree with say that he’s wrong” isn’t good enough.

    Be specific. You’re the one challenging his thesis, you bring the evidence.

    Or not.

    I can play this game too, as I already pointed out. I’ll keep repeating the same question over and over again until I tire of your refusal to answer, which I suspect will happen very shortly. At which point I’ll just ignore you because you’re not worth the time.

    Which is why I said “I think we’re done here.” Nothing you’ve said so far has suggested to me that we’re not. You’re spouting party ideology because The Party Is Always Right. That’s all. No substance, just contradiction.
    Emperor Misha I recently posted..In Other, Utterly Stupid News, Sorority Girl With Amazing Skills in Creative Profanity Resigns Due to Media HooplaMy Profile

  45. 45
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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 which time period and what culture is being discussed, what the referenced meanings were in that particular context, or how any one of them applies to the left/right dichotomy in American politics TODAY.

    Most of the citations were recent. While words do change meaning over time, the basic concept of left and right, liberal and conservative have not changed completely. Rather, you conflate two dichotomies, left-right and statism-libertarian. You might argue that most prominent U.S. politicians on the left tend towards state intervention in economic matters, but then again, most prominent U.S. politicians on the right tend towards state intervention in social matters. Being politicians, that’s not unexpected, but none advocate “centralized government control of everything.”

    Emperor Misha I (from above): Were I still a leftist I would find it extremely amusing, for instance, that there is a whole nation of 300 million souls who, by and large, think that a party which promotes centralized government control of everything is “liberal.”

    That’s right. A liberal is defined as someone who balances equality and liberty. Someone on what we might call the hard left would put equality above liberty. Similarly, conservatives want to preserve traditional institutions, while possibly granting the need for measured reform, while someone on the hard right would advocate the unrolling of modernity.

    Emperor Misha I: Appeal to authority really doesn’t impress anybody around here much, as we’ve tried to point out to you numerous times, yet you persist in ignoring that.

    Actually, you introduced the “scholarly dissertation”. In any case, when it comes to the definition of political terminology, then political scientists and political historians are certainly qualified authorities.

    Emperor Misha I: What, specifically, in all of Dr. Ray’s evidence and argument, do you find flawed and why?

    We already provided our argument. Ray redefines left and right to reach his predetermined conclusion, circulus in probando.

    If we call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog?

  46. 46
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    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 Classical Liberalism. It’s not the same as American “liberalism”.

    Begging the question indeed.

    We really are done here. Have a nice day.
    Emperor Misha I recently posted..In Other, Utterly Stupid News, Sorority Girl With Amazing Skills in Creative Profanity Resigns Due to Media HooplaMy Profile

  47. 47
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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 were recent. While words do change meaning over time, the basic concept of left and right, liberal and conservative have not changed completely.

    Yes, they have, and this is the rather important point you insist on ignoring, because as long as you ignore that reality, you can pretend, as Scalzi and others do, that “destra” as written by Mussolini in that single sentence is the same as “right” in the context of today’s political right, DESPITE THE FACT that Mussolini saw fascism as a form of collectivism, which is ANTITHETICAL to today’s political right. Keep ignoring that fact, as you have, but it’s not going to go away.

    … you conflate two dichotomies, left-right and statism-libertarian. …

    Not at all. Again, you’re not bothering to read anything.

    I do not “conflate”, I assert that the terms “left” and “right” have no inherent, reliable meaning with respect to categorizing political ideology in order to assess its value. This is validated by the terms’ remarkable evolution since before the French Revolution when, for instance, both the “left” and the “right” supported the idea of free market, laissez-faire capitalism (certainly not the case even just a few years later and absolutely not the case today). I further assert that the political left of today – meaning socialists – have intentionally confused these terms in order to separate socialism from fascism, DESPITE THE FACT that Mussolini himself was a lifelong socialist, and stated that fascism and collectivism – a core ideal of socialism – are one and the same (not opposed). I further assert that the only spectrum that has any value in terms of discussing political ideology and public policy TODAY is one that places Totalitarianism / Omnipotent State on one end and Anarchy / Nonexistent State on the other, as contrasted with the obfuscatory lie inherent in any spectrum that puts fascism on the right and communism on the left, in faux opposition, as socialists have been trying to do since the end of WWII, following the horrors visited on humanity by the murderous fascists of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party.

    Since BOTH of the historical (and logical) end states of socialism – fascism and communism – are empirically totalitarian, and because BOTH of these are built upon the leftist ideal of collectivism (notably, very different from equality), it makes perfect sense to assign the Totalitarian end of this spectrum to the political “left”. Similarly, because constitutionally-limited government, individual liberty, individual responsibility, etc., all represent ideals that are much closer to a Nonexistent State than an Omnipotent State, it makes perfect sense to assign the Anarchy end of this spectrum to the political “right”. Where else is it going to go, really?

    Aside from avoiding the ambiguity and confusion associated with the changing meaning of ‘left’ and ‘right’ through history, this spectrum also has the advantage of inherently including the ideologies of libertarianism and anarchism – by definition – which the socialists’ obfuscatory spectrum does not. These are simply points to the right of the center on a spectrum intended to do one thing: measure the degree of individual liberty afforded by a given ideology – not “in theory”, but in practical fact.

    Leftists/progressives/statists/socialists/”liberals” ALL have a problem with this characterization because it accurately depicts the empirical, real-world (as opposed to the theoretical, Utopian) consequences of Marxist socialism, which are – as Misha has already observed – politicization and control of EVERYTHING by the State, which requires the use of force, i.e., Totalitarianism. This spectrum accurately depicts the reality that communism is nothing more than authoritarian fascism dressed up in populist worker’s overalls, because human nature demands that both ultimately require the equivalent of a military dictatorship in order to maintain control.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  48. 48
    LC Roguetek growls and barks:

    what’s this ‘we’ shit, maggot. Are you keeping a pet turd in your pocket?

  49. 49
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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 in nearly all these tracts, it’s necessary to conflate the left generally with the most extreme elements. Indeed, the very recent attempt to politically redefine fascism as a movement on the left, contrary to generations of scholarship, is an indicator of the ulterior motivation. Next thing you know, Rand Paul will be teaching black history at Howard University. Preposterous!

    Given the former, that you mean “modern American liberalism”, it is a gross exaggeration to say they want to “control everything”. As pointed out before, the American left generally wants more government control of the economy with less control regarding many social issues, while the American right generally wants less government control of the economy with more control regarding many social issues. None of note advocate government “control of everything”.

    Emperor Misha I: What you quote is the definition of Classical Liberalism.

    Well, no. Classical liberals wanted freer markets with less government control. That’s because at the time, the monarchy issued legal monopolies through letters patent. Freer markets meant more equality, not less.

    AGoyAndHisBlog : The answer to the question is right there

    In the translation, you replaced “the right” with “right”. We asked how it changed the meaning, in particular, what definition of “right” did you think it meant in context. You have spent hundreds of words explaining why you won’t reply, but never replying to a simple question about your own claim. Readers can reach their own conclusions as to why.

    AGoyAndHisBlog : Yes, they have, and this is the rather important point you insist on ignoring, because as long as you ignore that reality, you can pretend, as Scalzi and others do, that “destra” as written by Mussolini in that single sentence is the same as “right” in the context of today’s political right

    You said “Note well: not a century of THE right (as in the political right).” Now, you seem to be saying something different, while never answering the question. Of course it is the political right, and he is contrasting it to “Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy”.

    AGoyAndHisBlog : DESPITE THE FACT that Mussolini saw fascism as a form of collectivism, which is ANTITHETICAL to today’s political right. Keep ignoring that fact, as you have, but it’s not going to go away.

    Collectivism, in context, is that the state is supreme over the individual. That’s authoritarian statism. Today’s political right is certainly not fascist, nor would we make that claim.

    AGoyAndHisBlog : This is validated by the terms’ remarkable evolution since before the French Revolution when, for instance, both the “left” and the “right” supported the idea of free market, laissez-faire capitalism (certainly not the case even just a few years later and absolutely not the case today).

    The distinction is still coherent. Liberals advocated free markets, when the aristocracy controlled much of the economy for its own benefit; while conservatives supported the ancien régime. Later in history, as the center moved left, liberals advocated for equality of opportunity, such as public schools, and the end of child labor; while conservatives supported the status quo. Still later, as the center moved left again, liberals advocated minimum work safety standards, and a social safety net. The conservative claim is that the political left has gone too far or too fast, as it often does.

    AGoyAndHisBlog : I assert that the terms “left” and “right” have no inherent, reliable meaning with respect to categorizing political ideology in order to assess its value.

    So you reject the conclusions of the original post, which is founded on the notion of the political “left”.

  50. 50
    LC Ohio Right Wing Nut growls and barks:

    LC Roguetek @ #:

    I keep thinking the same thing

  51. 51
    LC TerribleTroy growls and barks:

    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 spectrum than your circular model? And if not, why not?

    My vote is the linear model. Well Done AGAHB. Welcome aboard.

  52. 52
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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
    someone with a tapeworm
    best friend is a pooka
    dissociative identity disorder
    a bizzare pseudo-world affectation
    gaggle of grad students
    Jovian clique
    a group of concerned citizens

  53. 53
    Tango9 growls and barks:

    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.

  54. 54
    Tango9 growls and barks:

    Emperor Misha I says:

    Begging the question indeed.

    We really are done here. Have a nice day.

    You want we should kill it?

  55. 55
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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 a valid argument.

    left, equality
    right, traditional hierarchies
    authoritarian, strong government
    libertarian, weak government

    Related terms:

    liberal, balancing equality and liberty
    conservative, resistance to change, or perhaps returning to the recent past
    reactionary, advocates undoing modernity
    extremism, ends justify the means
    anarchy, no government or natural social governance
    fascism, extreme authoritarian nationalism, absolute inequality, hence right
    communism, an ideal classless society, absolute equality, hence left; (or the dictatorship that supposedly leads to the ideal)

  56. 56
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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 to pick which.

    You said “Note well: not a century of THE right (as in the political right).” Now, you seem to be saying something different, …

    Seems that way to YOU, 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 to pick which.

    Or… just go read Mussolini’s thesis in its entirety instead of copying and pasting Wikipedia’s cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes because you think they support your indoctrinated, morally adolescent worldview. Here’s a hint though, since you refuse, like a child, to acknowledge the comments already provided: Mussolini was referencing left/right notions as relative to HIS time – not relative to the distorted versions extant in ours, which have been corrupted by decades of post-WWII socialist propaganda aimed at setting fascism and communism in some unsupportable state of opposition.

    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). And as any self-professed “expert” on the usage of left/right terminology through history (as you represent yourself to be) would surely recognize, that is the only sense in which his doctrine differentiates the two. His use of destra had absolutely nothing to do with the distorted meaning of “the right” that had yet to be invented by some Soviet propagandist seeking to distance socialism from the horrors of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party. Go read it – there is exactly one reference to each of these terms in his thesis, and the references are not used to differentiate between socialism and ANYTHING that can reasonably be attributed to the political right in today’s world.

    Today’s political right is certainly not fascist, nor would we make that claim.

    Now you want to redefine collectivism? Sorry, sonny, that’s not your call to make. Furthermore, if you don’t recognize that the various policies supported by the “spectrum” of today’s political left all ultimately lead to a society where “the state is supreme over the individual,” then you are living in a fantasy world, and need far more in-depth counseling than you can get from replies to your insipid on-line comments.

    As previously noted, Mussolini stated outright that the century of fascism would also be the century of collectivism – a fact you persist in either ignoring or distorting but which, nonetheless, is the controlling factor here. Ultimately, if one relies on Mussolini as the expert – which one must – and applies his thesis to an empirical study of fascism and communism through the history that followed his thesis, it is clear that fascism differs from communism only with respect to the nature of the authority it claims (read: usurps) and the focus of the propaganda it uses to achieve exactly the same ends as communism, i.e., a totalitarian, collectivist society where “the state is supreme over the individual”. This is a difference in means only, which is completely orthogonal to the difference in goals beteween today’s left/right ideologies. Today’s political right, whether or not you’re capable of acknowledging it, is absolutely NOT pursuing the ends of a totalitarian, collectivist state in any way.

    Liberals advocated free markets,

    Not today they don’t, and that’s the whole point. Your copy/pasted history “lecture” only reinforces exactly what I’ve written and you, once again, have ignored in order to avoid your own cognitive dissonance.

    Today self-identified “liberals” – the progressives who populate the “spectrum” of the political left – forcefully promote collectivist, socially suicidal policies which are grounded in a distorted, morally adolescent view most people USED to grow out of by some point in their mid-twenties, i.e., when they were faced with the prospects of earning their own living, supporting a family (and extended family), paying a mortgage and taxes, raising children, making the car and insurance payments, feeding themselves, etc. Note that during the last several decades in the U.S., ALL of those activities have been inexorably diminished and/or pushed onto some form of public sector dependency through the extra-constitutional promotion of “social services”, entitlement programs and various attacks on the private sector which ultimately reduce gainful employment. This, coupled with the destruction of a classical education that at one time provided at least vicarious life experience, has effectively neutralized the factors that used to engender moral maturity.

    The product of these policies is a dangerous generational, pathological dependency on the State through punitive taxation, suppression of the private sector’s ability to generate real wealth. This is accomplished through ever-tightening regulation over every aspect of production, commerce and daily life – especially earnings – so that any wealth generated by the private sector can be readily redistributed by the public sector, using a cynical, deceitful formula guaranteed to keep the political elite in control.

    This isn’t a function of the center “shifting”; this is a function of socialism’s increasing influence, facilitated by the electorate’s decreasing ability to think critically and to recognize the ultimate consequences of the policies they’re witlessly supporting. The center is still where it always was: representative democracy, free enterprise, individual liberty, individual responsibility, equality of opportunity and the constitutionally-predicated rule of law – we simply don’t live in that world any more.

    So you reject the conclusions of the original post, which is founded on the notion of the political “left”.

    No. Get a reading tutor. Come back with a receipt for your first lesson, then we can discuss further.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  57. 57
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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 THE right (as in the political right).” Of course, he was talking of the political right; though the center has moved since then, of course. You’re claiming “right” means something different now, but that doesn’t seem correct when reading documents from the time and comparing them to documents from today. Mussolini said he was on the political right, and the vast majority of historians still place him on the political right. The only thing that has changed is a very recent attempt to redefine the terminology for transient political reasons.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Now you want to redefine collectivism?

    No, and we discussed this above. The term has more than one meaning. The general meaning, as used by Mussolini, is the supremacy of the group (nation) over individuals. It also refers to economic collectivization, but that is not Mussolini’s meaning, nor was it his economic program.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Furthermore, if you don’t recognize that the various policies supported by the “spectrum” of today’s political left all ultimately lead to a society where “the state is supreme over the individual,” then you are living in a fantasy world, and need far more in-depth counseling than you can get from replies to your insipid on-line comments.

    Well, you could make a slippery slope argument, but, in fact, you are just overgeneralizing.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: it is clear that fascism differs from communism only with respect to the nature of the authority it claims (read: usurps) and the focus of the propaganda it uses to achieve exactly the same ends as communism

    Well, no. The goal of communism is a class-less state-less society.

    Zachriel: Liberals advocated free markets,

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Not today they don’t, and that’s the whole point.

    Yes, that is the whole point, as we discussed above. The terminology still has the same meaning, but the center has moved.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: The product of these policies is a dangerous generational, pathological dependency on the State through punitive taxation, suppression of the private sector’s ability to generate real wealth.

    Again, you can make a slippery slope argument, but complete control by the government is not the goal of anyone of note. You may even think the U.S. has already moved too far towards statism, and that argument can be made. However, the political right has also increased government when it has suited their overall purposes. Perhaps you could argue the left is more to blame. But you aren’t making this balanced argument. None of this has to do with redefining terminology to suit.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: The center is still where it always was: representative democracy, free enterprise, individual liberty, individual responsibility, equality of opportunity and the constitutionally-predicated rule of law – we simply don’t live in that world any more.

    Always? Really? That was the political center in, say, 1750? Or 1850? Or 1950?

  58. 58
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    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, GeorgeMy Profile

  59. 59
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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 beliefs (see above regarding collectivism).” Anyone even nominally familiar with the original left/right dichotomy as represented during the French Revolution would have recognized that immediately. Those who understand ‘left’ and ‘right’ based only on TODAY’s common references would NOT have recognized that at all – this obviously includes you and people like Scalzi. Guess that’s why you’re now retreating back to the Appeal to Authority fallacy you started with. No surprise there.

    And no, the center has not “moved”. Society has been convinced – through deceit, propaganda and the electorate being dumbed down to the point where they’re largely incapable of thinking for themselves – to accept ever more invasive leftist, socially suicidal policies grounded in an adolescent morality.

    The general meaning, as used by Mussolini, is the supremacy of the group (nation) over individuals.

    Precisely. And in this context, that’s the only aspect that matters. When the state has supremacy over individuals, that – by definition – includes supremacy over their economic interaction. Pretending otherwise is just another exercise in the sophistry used to set fascism and communism in opposition based on theoretical differences between their economic models which don’t hold up in practical reality. That enterprise is not “free” which, though it may be privately “owned”, is meanwhile strictly controlled in its operation by the dictates of an increasingly unaccountable (and increasingly irrational) state.

    Well, you could make a slippery slope argument, but, in fact, you are just overgeneralizing.

    If I assert that perpetual deficit spending will ultimately bankrupt the Republic, that is not a “slippery slope” argument, it is a fact. In any case, there’s no need to make such an argument; we’re watching the collapse happen in real time. That the collapse is not acknowledged by our openly deceitful government or the corrupt media lapdogs they employ, and that “social services” and entitlement programs have all but eliminated the widespread existential impact experienced during the First Great Depression, does not obviate the economic and cultural destruction of the Republic directly resulting from leftist/statist/progressive policies.

    Well, no. The goal of communism is a class-less state-less society.

    Which is of course unachievable, Utopian bullsh!t. The goal of every communist REGIME to date has been anything but a “state-less” society – exactly the opposite, in fact. Since people live in practical reality, the theoretical goal of communism – relentlessly parroted by every useful idiot in modern history – is utterly irrelevant.

    The terminology still has the same meaning, but the center has moved.

    No. Once upon a time the “left” supported free markets. Today they don’t. The definition of “left” therefore changed. Claiming this is because “the center has moved” is nothing more than a baseless claim that may sound valid to you, but you have offered not one shred of support for it.

    Again, you can make a slippery slope argument,

    Again, I don’t need to because we are watching this happen in real time. See above.

    the political right has also increased government when it has suited their overall purposes.

    No. And this is critical if you’re really interested in learning anything practical about the political right, which I don’t believe you are based on your comments so far.

    Republican politicians (read: RINOs, in this case) have promoted leftist expansion of the state when it suited their perpetual incumbencies or benefited their future legacy. Big difference. Nixon’s EPA, for example, was not conservative policy advocated by the political right; GWB’s expansion of Medicare was not a conservative policy advocated by the political right, nor was his “ownership society” policy of prolonging Cuomo’s forced “affirmative action lending” program, which ultimately gave us the credit sector meltdown and started the slide into the Second Great Depression we’re now experiencing.

    Always? Really? That was the political center in, say, 1750? Or 1850? Or 1950?

    YES! That is a huge part of correcting the spectrum – the definitions of left/right/center remain constant. What changes over time is society, i.e., the ideologies along that spectrum they have used to define and implement their institutions. How the hell can you expect to learn from history if you’re basing your assessment of past cultures’ policies & outcomes on the transitory definitions of “left” and “right”, and a scale that shifts with the popular consensus of the moment? You can’t.

    left-right can be seen as orthogonal to authoritarian-libertarian

    Congratulations, that’s pretty much the point of everything I’ve been explaining to you, and it was the core motivation for re-thinking the traditional – utterly broken and useless – left/right spectrum employed by most academics in their circle-jerk peer review of the propaganda they’ve been churning out for decades, which forms the basis of your Appeal to Authority fallacy. That propaganda erroneously sets fascism in opposition to communism and asserts that somehow, by magic, the Republican form of Government guaranteed by our Constitution can exist as some sort of “compromise” between the two totalitarian states. Risible.

    Furthermore, both of these dichotomies are orthogonal to the only one that really matters in the context of assessing policy and/or ideology – at least from the standpoint of classical liberalism – i.e., to what extent does a given ideology/policy promote individual liberty and, conversely, to what extent does it promote a collectivist society which diminishes individual liberty, i.e., where “the state is supreme over the individual”.

    That is a rule that is not only easy to draw, and easy to apply, but which also provides intuitive points along its measure for all the odd ‘isms’ that the traditional spectrum can only accommodate through some sort of sophistry or another – like claiming the spectrum is actually a “circle”, that there are leftists (again, using today’s common usage, not Robespierre’s) who are also anarchists, etc.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  60. 60
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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 over individuals, that – by definition – includes supremacy over their economic interaction.

    In fascist regimes, all activities are in the service of the state, but free enterprise was generally allowed and encouraged as the fascists considered that the most effective means of economic development. Under communism, economic collectivization is central to the plan of eliminating class distinctions.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: If I assert that perpetual deficit spending will ultimately bankrupt the Republic, that is not a “slippery slope” argument, it is a fact.

    Well, not technically. As long as deficits are generally below the economic growth rate, then they can continue indefinitely. Of course, under countercyclical policy, deficits will vary depending on the economic situation.

    Zachriel: The goal of communism is a class-less state-less society.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Which is of course unachievable,

    Exactly so. And because they have decided the ends justify the means, it leads to continuing abuse of power.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Since people live in practical reality, the theoretical goal of communism – relentlessly parroted by every useful idiot in modern history – is utterly irrelevant.

    Of course it’s relevant. That’s what shaped communist societies for generations.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Once upon a time the “left” supported free markets. Today they don’t. The definition of “left” therefore changed.

    No. We explained this above, but you apparently didn’t read it. Left means advocacy of greater equality. During a period when the monarchy controlled markets through letters patent, advocacy of free markets was advocacy of greater equality. They were on the left of their day, while the monarchists were on the right. The meaning of left is still the same. The center moved.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: YES!

    You are saying the political center was the same in 1750 as it was in 1950? That’s very odd. In 1750, monarchy was widely supported. People kept slaves. Women had very limited rights. Child labor was the norm. You could be arrested for religious crimes. That was the political center. People who disagreed with these policies were considered radicals.

  61. 61
    AmericanBTGoG growls and barks:

    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.

  62. 62
    Tango9 growls and barks:

    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 no shit) have to catch my right hand as it reaches for my sidearm and/or blade. I shut down and go to “kill it before it infects someone else.”

    now, I’m civilized and I’m not looking to spend years in prison but the instinct is just… there.

    They really don’t want this to come to shootin’ because if it does? well… I don’t need to explain it.

  63. 63
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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, collectivism and socialism can't be "un-conflated" in practice. Any pretense that they're "different" – again, using some pseudo-intellectual theory as rationalization – dissolves as soon as they're observed in practical reality. Socialist societies are collectivist societies, inasmuch as they diminish individual liberty in order to promote the supremacy of the state.

    In fascist regimes, all activities are in the service of the state, but free enterprise was generally allowed and encouraged…

    That you fail to see the oxymoronic nature of that passage is both sad and funny at the same time. Meanwhile, in communist regimes, all activities are in service of the state as well; in both cases, this is the overriding characteristic. Again, you’re trying to differentiate fascism and communism using a theoretical economic detail that has never been observed in practical reality, since any “free” enterprise in a fascist regime that runs afoul of the state is immediately squashed and, therefore, anything but free.

    Well, not technically.

    Yes, technically, and every other way. You’re again retreating to theory and ignoring cold, hard reality. In this case you’re citing a scenario that requires truly free enterprise and, therefore, can never hold in any sort of leftist, socialist, collectivist, communist or fascist society, where all activities are either in service of or controlled by the state. In practical reality, endless deficit spending while cannibalizing the private sector to promote cradle-to-grave dependency (and the gargantuan government bureaucracy required to manage that, while producing exactly squat) chokes out wealth-generating productivity on multiple levels, and real growth slows to zero. This is not another of your “slippery slope” situations either – it has already happened in the U.S. and many other countries. This is why the U.S. labor force participation rate has been in steady decline since 1999, and in precipitous decline since 2007, when socially-suicidal leftist policies took total control of our economy.

    Of course it’s relevant. That’s what shaped communist societies for generations.

    No, it has NOT shaped communist societies in any way; it has been used as the rationalization for communist societies, which ALWAYS devolve into a totalitarian police state – anything but “state-less”.

    No. We explained this above,

    By claiming that the center “moved”, which is unsupportable gibberish and, therefore, not an explanation at all. The political center never moves; relative to Totalitarianism at one extreme, and Anarchy at the other, the center is always the center. What “moves”, from culture to culture, is the ideological nature of the institutions people/nations settle upon to organize their society.

    Left means advocacy of greater equality.

    No. Left means the side of the body on the north, when facing east. This is a particularly instructive term, in fact, because identifying which side is “left” can’t be resolved without overlaying another frame of reference, just as none of the “isms” have any practical meaning unless one overlays upon them a frame of reference that resolves the degree to which they either diminish or promote individual liberty.

    Just like all the other language moral adolescents attempt to co-opt, “left” has no inherent meaning in the context of ideology. Rather, it has a commonly accepted meaning, based on consensus, which changes depending on the time period and culture where it’s used. Today, the commonly accepted meaning of “left” is collectivism/progressivism/pseudo-liberalism, and denotes an agenda which promotes the state at the expense of the individual’s liberty, using the false promise of equality while, in practice, employing policies which guarantee inequality (and, ultimately, societal collapse).

    You are saying the political center was the same in 1750 as it was in 1950?

    Yes. With respect to human affairs, the political center has always been the same and will always be the same. Again, what “moves”, from culture to culture and from one era to the next, is the ideological nature of the institutions people/nations choose to organize their society.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  64. 64
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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, democracy. Political doctrines pass; peoples remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right,’ a fascist century.”

    Mussolini is contrasting socialism, liberalism, democracy, with fascism on the right. Pretty straight-forward. He equates authoritarianism (extreme inequality) with the far right, a return to the period before the rise of democracy. This is very much how the term is used today.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Meanwhile, collectivism and socialism can’t be “un-conflated” in practice.

    Socialism is a broad term, and can include everything from cooperative ownership to state control. However, it usually refers to government ownership.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Socialist societies are collectivist societies, inasmuch as they diminish individual liberty in order to promote the supremacy of the state.

    That’s not true in practice. Socialism coexists within democratic societies. Indeed, most developed countries, including those with strong cultures of individual liberty, are mixed economies.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: That you fail to see the oxymoronic nature of that passage is both sad and funny at the same time.

    It is not a contradiction. Fascist regimes usually had strong private economic sectors, while communist regimes attempted to eliminate the private economic sector as a matter of ideology.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: No, it has NOT shaped communist societies in any way; it has been used as the rationalization for communist societies, which ALWAYS devolve into a totalitarian police state – anything but “state-less”.

    As we said, it shaped communist society, as it formed the rationalization for extreme measures, such as collectivization.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Left means the side of the body on the north, when facing east.

    And if you take a few steps to the left, what was to your left before is now to your right.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Yes. With respect to human affairs, the political center has always been the same and will always be the same.

    It is indisputable that the political center in 1750 was monarchist. It is indisputable that the political center in 1950 was not monarchist.

  65. 65
    LC Grammar Czar, G.L.O.R. growls and barks:

    LC Roguetek @ #:
    I thought Misha was the only “we” around here…

    Pretentious little gasbag is Zachriel.
    LC Grammar Czar, G.L.O.R. recently posted..Today is Pearl Harbor DayMy Profile

  66. 66
    LC Ohio Right Wing Nut growls and barks:

    Zachriel says:

    It is indisputable that the political center in 1750 was monarchist. It is indisputable that the political center in 1950 was not monarchist.

    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?

  67. 67
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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 HE lived. Judging his translated prose based on your own indoctrinated sensibilities is what’s getting you into trouble here.

    Mussolini began his political life as a socialist (to use today’s consensual understanding of the word) and never abandoned its core principles. His doctrinal quibble with the “socialism” of his day (i.e., communism, in our present-day parlance) was that it was implemented through a radicalized, revolutionary mongrel proletariat (read: leftist) faction which cynically manipulated democracy using a faux-liberalism, and ultimately served only to impose a tyranny of the (duped) majority, as herded by the whims of their nomenklatura rulers. See his disparaging reference to bolshevism, which he rejected as exactly this sort of revolutionary (literally: leftist) abomination of socialism.

    Mussolini’s goal, when he rejected this radical, baseless implementation of socialist principles and penned his doctrine, was to instead employ a nationalist, authoritarian rationale – not a revolution of the proletariat using liberal rhetoric as a lever. This nationalist, authoritarian theme runs throughout his writing. It’s virtually indistinguishable in most ways from the nationalist, authoritarian themes used by Hitler to implement socialism in Nazi Germany. Interestingly, Hitler didn’t feel compelled, as Mussolini did, to separate his socialist movement terminologically from that of the radical, revolutionary bolsheviks.

    More interestingly, once Mussolini’s nationalist rhetoric is replaced by rhetorical worship of a demagogue – a cult of personality – this set of themes is virtually indistinguishable from Stalinism & Maoism. What should concern anyone paying attention in the present day is the fact that all this is virtually indistinguishable from the rhetorical worship – and worship-in-fact – of Obama that we see today, as he cynically manipulates liberal ideals to foment class warfare, ignores the limits placed on his office by the Constitution, insults the nation with cynical abuse of “executive privilege”, and flushes our Republic down the toilet while deceitfully pretending to support the middle class. Obama is seen by many as, alternately, fascist, communist and socialist because he is repeating the pattern of past, infamous fascists, communists and socialists. Obama’s strategy seems amorphous in this way because he pursues a “middle way” – between radical revolution and authoritarian nationalism – to implement socialist ideals, i.e., he simply lies.

    Also, look up “authoritarian”; it doesn’t mean what you think it means – in practical reality, it’s not the opposite of socialism. This provides the exact evidence showing how Mussolini was contrasting opposing means of achieving core socialist goals. He was NOT contrasting socialism with fascism but, rather, contrasting radicalized proletariat revolution, as incited by deceitful factions using liberal rhetoric (read: left), with the “pure” authority of the state, as conferred by race and national imperative (right). But “everything in service of the state” and “state ownership of the means of production” are, again, indistinguishable in practice. As such, communism and fascism are indistinguishable, whether or not they’re “intended” to be different in theory. We don’t live in theory, we live in reality.

    Socialism is a broad term, …

    So is collectivism. And in practical reality – as opposed to the rationalizing theory you persist in falling back on – they are essentially indistinguishable.

    The reason for this is that there can never be such a thing as state-less, “cooperative ownership” of anything – not on the scale of nations. That is another Utopian fantasy. Such “cooperation” can’t be accomplished without employing some form of state structure to organize, manage and enforce it. The trick is in constructing a state that doesn’t eventually begin functioning solely for the benefit of its own interests – as all governments and other hierarchical bureaucratic organizations eventually tend to do (also see: Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy). [Note: this is what our Constitution was designed to prevent, but the caveat was that its support and defense requires at least three things: perennial renewal through the oaths of those elected to implement it, a well-educated electorate capable of thinking critically through the consequences of the policies they support (and recognizing bullsh!t when they see it), and a well-armed citizenry, possessed of individual firearms comparable to those used by the organized military, capable of throwing off tyranny by force when government corruption threatens citizens' freedom and makes it necessary. When those requirements aren't met, the state is free to seek its own ends at the expense of the individual. Again, we're watching this scenario in real time.]

    This is something “progressive” ideologues can never comprehend until they grow OUT of the adolescent morality which tells them that there’s a magic ideology somewhere (“socialism”) which – if only it were “properly” implemented – would change human nature and transform an entire society into a nation of people who always “do the right thing” (according to their stunted definition of morality). This is Utopian fantasy which, as such, only appeals to the intellect of a moral adolescent who has not experienced – whether through refusal or by being insulated in a parental-, academic- or state-supported cocoon – how the real world functions.

    Socialism coexists within democratic societies.

    The two are orthogonal, so this says exactly nothing. Democratic institutions can be corrupted – given a sufficiently dumbed-down, detached electorate – to “authorize” practically any policy. And that includes the various socially-suicidal policies associated with socialism.

    It is not a contradiction.

    OF COURSE it’s a contradiction. A private sector in service of the state is not FREE enterprise.

    And if you take a few steps to the left, what was to your left before is now to your right.

    No. This is a perfect example of the morally adolescent self-delusion used to rationalize moral relativity. It’s driven by narcissistic moral adolescence, and based on the fantasy that “you” who have moved northward are the reference point. You’re not.

    You’re doing nothing more than conflating left/right – relative measures – with absolute positions in space. The fact is that once you’ve moved, your left is still left – YOU have simply moved yourself to a different place. You want to pretend that this new spot is now “normal”. This is precisely how perennial compromise with moral adolescents pushes a society into collapse, over time. But the fact is that the spot on which you were standing has not moved. It remains constant, i.e., the absolute political center never changes. It’s your position that is changing and, in the case of leftward-shifting politics, increasingly radical (and, in the case of society, untenable).

    It is indisputable that the political center in 1750 was monarchist. It is indisputable that the political center in 1950 was not monarchist.

    No. Again, you’re conflating relative and absolute measures. The political center has never changed. The ideological nature of institutions used by societies to organize themselves has changed.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  68. 68
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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, 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.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Also, look up “authoritarian”; it doesn’t mean what you think it means – in practical reality, it’s not the opposite of socialism.

    Of course not. You don’t seem to have read our position, but are responding to something you thought we said. Socialists can be authoritarian, libertarian, or something in between. Most forms of socialism are associated with the state, though, either communists countries, or modern mixed economies.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: This provides the exact evidence showing how Mussolini was contrasting opposing means of achieving core socialist goals.

    No more so than achieving the goals of liberalism and democracy. “Fascism stands for liberty”. “Fascism … is the purest form of democracy”. Mussolini specifically opposes socialism. “Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism”. In any case, fascism left markets largely intact.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: there can never be such a thing as state-less, “cooperative ownership” of anything – not on the scale of nations.

    We agree. We were discussing ideology. Just because a hippie commune where everyone is “equal” and all property is shared inevitable disintegrates doesn’t mean that the hippies aren’t left wing socialist anarchists.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Such “cooperation” can’t be accomplished without employing some form of state structure to organize, manage and enforce it.

    As the world has seen, total state control of the economy is also inherently unstable. On the other hand, every major developed country is a mixed economy, with a strong public sector, as well as robust markets.

    Zachriel: Socialism coexists within democratic societies.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: The two are orthogonal, so this says exactly nothing.

    Yes. You had said, “Socialist societies are collectivist societies, inasmuch as they diminish individual liberty in order to promote the supremacy of the state.” In most major developed countries, the state has a sphere, and markets have a sphere. There is a rough and changeable balance.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Democratic institutions can be corrupted – given a sufficiently dumbed-down, detached electorate – to “authorize” practically any policy. And that includes the various socially-suicidal policies associated with socialism.

    Sure. Let’s go further. Democracies, like all governments, are inherently corrupt. The difference is that modern democracies pit various power centers against one another to limit the influence of any one group.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: The fact is that once you’ve moved, your left is still left – YOU have simply moved yourself to a different place.

    If you are standing somewhere, and someone asks if the tree is to your left or to your right, and you say left, then you move to the other side of the tree, and someone asks again if the tree is to your left or to your right, then your answer will change.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: The political center has never changed.

    Well, if you define the political center as a position that almost no one holds, well, then, if you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog?

  69. 69
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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 the term socialism. The end result of these two systems is indistinguishable from the viewpoint of the common person in practical reality. Therefore, any terminological difference used by Mussolini to promote his doctrine, and any theoretical differences used by present-day pseudo-intellectual apologists for socialism, generally, are equally, utterly moot.

    No more so than achieving the goals of liberalism and democracy.

    Liberalism and democracy don’t have inherent goals. They are ideologies employed – whether honestly or deceitfully – to rationalize or achieve human goals.

    “Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism”.

    Again, he is terminologically separating his ideal – fascism – from bolshevist communism (here, labeled “socialism”) which is, in his stated view, a bastardized version of socialism invoked by a radicalized, mongrel proletariat employing revolutionary (“leftist”) methods.

    In any case, fascism left markets largely intact.

    Except for those which – in the ruling class’ opinion – do not serve the state. Duh.

    We were discussing ideology.

    No, you’re discussing theory. In theory, I can label myself anything I wish. Whether my self-identified label has any relationship to or impact upon reality at large is another matter entirely. This is something narcissists don’t comprehend until they mature beyond their narcissistic attitudes.

    In most major developed countries, the state has a sphere, and markets have a sphere. There is a rough and changeable balance.

    You’ve just contradicted yourself here, apparently without realizing it. Most likely that’s because you’re falling back on theory and ignoring practical reality.

    In practice – unless checked by the electorate – government evolves to serve its own interests (i.e., keeping and expanding power), not the markets’, or the people’s (i.e., promoting individual liberty and improving the median quality of life). Government has the advantage of being able to force markets to conform to its own interests. The reverse, not so much. As such, what develops over time in the absence of electoral intervention is in fact an enormous overlap of these spheres. And the more overlap, the more unstable the society becomes – see your comment regarding the instability of total control. Control does not have to be total in order to cause instability, as the last 7 years have clearly demonstrated.

    Democracies, like all governments, are inherently corrupt.

    No. Democracies, governments and pretty much all human endeavors are corruptible. Enormous difference. The trick is to design a system where those who would corrupt it are, instead, inclined out of self-interest to support those policies which promote individual liberty and general prosperity.

    Democracies are not actors unto themselves – they don’t pit anything against anyone. The human individuals who rise to power and influence WITHIN the democracy use this tactic. In the case of America, this is the far-left Democrat party, which attacks the 1% (class warfare), attributes opposition to its socially-suicidal policies to “racism” (race warfare), invents a “war on women” (gender warfare), promotes policies which pit the elderly’s extra-constitutional entitlement benefits against the interests of a younger generation who will be left paying the tab (age warfare), etc. This isn’t done to limit the power of any one group; it’s done to procure the political support of the demographically larger group in each case. Democracy doesn’t do the “pitting” here; democracy is in fact exploited and corrupted by human individuals in this process.

    If you are standing somewhere, and someone asks if the tree is to your left or to your right, and you say left, …

    Again, this only works in the world of the narcissist, where everything is relative to “you” and wherever “you” happen to be standing at any point in time. Since this question will be answered completely differently by every unique individual, the answers provide no information. You can’t determine an absolute or reliable measure based on this methodology, you can only determine consensus. Since consensus can be completely corrupted by misinformation, it is useless as a gauge in determining the value of past systems.

    Well, if you define the political center as a position that almost no one holds, …

    You have this exactly backward. And now you’re simply retreating to an Appeal to the Majority fallacy to support it. The center is the center no matter where a given society happens to have positioned itself at any point in history. You’re intentionally obfuscating the difference between political center and political consensus.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  70. 70
    LC Ohio Right Wing Nut growls and barks:

    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, the center never moves, mathmatics tells us this, whether it is a line or a circle, no matter the dia. of the circle or the length of line the center is always right smack dab in the middle of either one.

    Our founding fathers saw the political graph as a line with the left as 100% tyrannical control and the right as 0% or total anarchy, they tried to find a balance somewhere in the middle, what they actually set up with our Representative Republic was right of a Democracy, (mob rule) but left enough (just enough government) to stay away from anarchy.
    This is the only thing you should be comparing our current political climate to.
    You may be right in your assesment that fascism may be right of a monarchy, dictatorship, etc. but to try and make the case that it is on the far right is laughable.

  71. 71
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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 person in practical reality.

    No, they’re not. Under fascism, the state is absolute. Socialism can exist many different forms, but even in its extreme forms, such as under the Soviet system, it was very different from fascist states in terms of the common person. Fascism was based on radical racial and national inequality, while communism was based on radical economic equality through the elimination of class distinctions.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: In practice – unless checked by the electorate – government evolves to serve its own interests (i.e., keeping and expanding power), not the markets’, or the people’s (i.e., promoting individual liberty and improving the median quality of life).

    Checks in modern democracies work at all levels of society, with power balanced throughout, from the division of government into executive, legislative, and an independent judiciary; to the division of government into federal and local; constitutions and treaties, rule of law, corporations, political parties, robust markets, citizen action groups, trade unions, individual liberties including the rights of free speech and free association, private property, etc.

    Zachriel: Democracies, like all governments, are inherently corrupt.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: No. Democracies, governments and pretty much all human endeavors are corruptible.

    What a pollyannaish view. Corruption and ignorance occurs at every level of society, from top to bottom, and there is a constant push and pull throughout the system to maintain equilibrium.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: And now you’re simply retreating to an Appeal to the Majority fallacy to support it.

    It’s not a fallacy as the center is defined by the prevailing political milieu. To claim that the political center has always been representative democracy, when representative democracy wasn’t even a notion for much of history, is simply an untenable position. Advocating for representative democracy in the reign of Henry VIII would have meant advocating the overthrow of the foundations of society, the fount of British liberties, certainly not a centrist position.

    LC Ohio Right Wing Nut: What you are describing was the political norm, not center, the center never moves, mathmatics tells us this, whether it is a line or a circle, no matter the dia. of the circle or the length of line the center is always right smack dab in the middle of either one.

    The dog has four legs.

  72. 72
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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.

    And yet you still think it can tolerate genuinely free enterprise. You really haven’t examined this position very carefully.

    Checks in modern democracies work at all levels of society, …

    None of the glurge in this sentagraph refutes what I wrote in any way.

    What a pollyannaish view.

    What a silly statement.

    It’s not a fallacy as the center is defined by the prevailing political milieu.

    The center is defined by the endpoints, i.e., Totalitarianism vs. Anarchy. The political consensus is determined by prevailing sentiments. Take a logic course.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  73. 73
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: The center is defined by the endpoints, i.e., Totalitarianism vs. Anarchy.

    We have provided citations, and we have provided examples showing why your understanding of the terms do not comport with what people mean by left-right. Redefining words does not make an argument.

  74. 74
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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 observe that today’s leftists are not the radicalized proletariat revolutionaries to whom Mussolini was specifically referring when he used the term “left” in his fascist doctrine. I also observe that today’s leftists (and that includes their demonstrably NON-conservative RINO enablers) support statist policies, i.e., massive expansion of government (along with its enormous, parasitic supporting bureaucracy), politicization of everything (so as to regulate everything), general erosion of individual liberty, dictatorial control over the means of production by a political (usually un-elected, unaccountable) elite, and incremental disarmament of the civilian population so as to transform sovereign citizens into the equivalent of tax-revenue-generating serfs. As such, if it makes you feel better to tell yourself and your “we” that I’m therefore “conflating” statism with the political left, go right ahead.

    We have provided citations, and we have provided examples showing why your understanding of the terms do not comport with what people mean by left-right. Redefining words does not make an argument.

    And yet you want the freedom to redefine what “left” means based on the latitude upon which you happen to be standing at any given instant. OOPS!! Meanwhile, copying and pasting citations hardly demonstrates an ability to think critically on your own, does it.

    The fact is that none of these terms needs redefinition in order to form an argument: inherent in the argument must be the observation that their meaning in common usage has changed, in some cases drastically, over time and from one culture to the next, through consensus. Moral adolescents leverage this phenomenon constantly while deceitfully denying it has occurred. Referring to themselves as politically “liberal” or “progressive” are perfect examples. Pretending that the term “left” is used today to mean the same thing as “left” in Mussolini’s doctrine is another example. But one needs to move beyond parroting others’ thoughts, via citations and Appeal to Authority fallacies, in order to recognize that.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  75. 75
    Darth Venomous growls and barks:

    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 provided examples

    Fourth – drop the “we” bullshit.

    Misha is the only one around here that gets to use “we”. If you’re using your account as an individual, it’ll be “I”, “me”, “my” & “mine” from this point going forward.

    And if you’re part of some group that’s using this account, you will be dumped post-haste.

    Capice?

  76. 76
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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 RINO enablers) support statist policies ….

    Many, but not all, leftists support statist policies. So do many, but not all, on the right, such as support for drug laws, laws against sodomy even for married couples, support for religious institutions, restrictions on contraception, support for an expanded military and security apparatus, etc.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: And yet you want the freedom to redefine what “left” means based on the latitude upon which you happen to be standing at any given instant.

    At one time, it was considered reasonable that the Church should decide matters of conscience. At one time, it was considered reasonable that the only source of social stability was the aristocracy. At one time, it was considered reasonable that children should work from the time they were able to walk, and that education was for the few. It took radical ideas to change each of these traditional aspects of society, radical in that they involved disruptions of existing institutions. Conservatives, even those who may have been sympathetic to the goals, would resist change, as too rapid of change can bring unintended consequences. That’s the distinction people mean when they talk of left and right. Those on the left push for social reform, more equality, equality of conscience, equality of social rank, equality of opportunity. The right seeks to preserve traditional institutions, and slow the rate of change.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Referring to themselves as politically “liberal” or “progressive” are perfect examples. Pretending that the term “left” is used today to mean the same thing as “left” in Mussolini’s doctrine is another example.

    Each of those terms have somewhat different meanings. Left, advocating equality. Liberal, balancing equality and liberty. Progressive, advocating the use of government for reform. As for Mussolini, he clearly states that fascism is on the right, and generations of people, both scholars and laypersons, have placed fascism on the right. It is your use of the term that is inconsistent with what most people mean.

    Darth Venomous: First, no they don’t.

    We’ve provided a number of citations and historical examples. We’d be happy to provide more. Here’s another fairly authoritative citation to the meaning of words.

    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 for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.

    Darth Venomous: the “we” bullshit

    http://nicedoggie.net/?p=8026#comment-36485

  77. 77
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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 frustration of that struggle … back when I used to “think” like you do.

    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. As such, your argument is based on a common fallacy – especially given that it ignores the actual, you know, reality of how these terms have been used over time. This false dog/leg/tail analogy you keep parroting doesn’t change that.

    Many, but not all, leftists support statist policies.

    Clutching at more straws. Apparently you’re forgetting – but I’m happy to remind you about – your own “Nearly every historian…” claim. You acknowledge that not all historians agree with you, which would invalidate your position based on this latest statement.

    At one time, …

    Thank you for making my point that consensus changes over time.

    …he clearly states that fascism is on the right, …

    He does. And I’ve already explained your confusion on this to you two or three times now. You simply refuse to acknowledge it. But thanks for providing a perfect example of how moral adolescents seek to obfuscate by using words whose meanings have changed from era to era and culture to culture, to pretend they mean the same thing here and now as they did there and then.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  78. 78
    LC Grammar Czar, G.L.O.R. growls and barks:

    Zachriel says:

    Darth Venomous: the “we” bullshit

    http://nicedoggie.net/?p=8026#comment-36485

    group of poseurs

    My money’s on that one.

  79. 79
    Tango9 growls and barks:

    Ok, lots of comments, not much time but I just want to dick punch Zachriel.

    Flight, Halt! At Ease.

  80. 80
    Tango9 growls and barks:

    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?

  81. 81
    LC Grammar Czar, G.L.O.R. growls and barks:

    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.

  82. 82
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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 trying to find one who will disprove what I have come to understand about them, i.e., that it’s their narcissistic moral adolescence that attracts them to historically discredited, demonstrably socially-suicidal leftist ideology.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  83. 83
    LC TerribleTroy growls and barks:

    Those on the left push for social reform, more equality, equality of conscience, equality of social rank, equality of opportunity.

    :em05: 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 same uniform? Drive the same car? What I wanna know is, what is it our society that drives this inequality?

    “equality of conscience”….Ok, what the fuck does this even mean? LOL You want us all to subscribe to “group think”?

  84. 84
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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 on the meaning of words. We have provided scholarly citations, and multiple historical examples.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Thank you for making my point that consensus changes over time.

    Of course it does. For instance, abolitionists were considered radicals, slave-owners were the conservatives who wanted to maintain (conserve) the long-established institution of slavery, and Lincoln was somewhat centrist politically, who campaigned on allowing the South to keep its slaves, but stopping its expansion to new territories in the West. Today, allowing people to keep slaves is not a centrist position. The political center has moved.

  85. 85
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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: “equality of conscience”….Ok, what the fuck does this even mean?

    It’s from Martin Luther, that conscience should be free from the compulsion of the law.

  86. 86
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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 public discourse about policies that affect everyone and which, predictably, are often misrepresented by those who work to create a consensus that can then be pointed to as “the will of the People”.

    The political center has moved.

    No. Consensus has changed. The political center hasn’t moved because it can’t.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  87. 87
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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 for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: No. Consensus has changed. The political center hasn’t moved because it can’t.

    So Abraham Lincoln was an extremist, because he would have allowed the continuation of slavery. Was that the extreme left or the extreme right?

  88. 88

    Tango9 @ #: 80

    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?

    :em01:
    LC IB CiSSnarl5.7 Imperial Foreign War Correspondant recently posted..We Didn’t Stop Loving You Today, GeorgeMy Profile

  89. 89
    LC Roguetek growls and barks:

    I have observed, over time, certain things.

    One of those things is that the more words that a man uses, and the larger they are, the higher the probability he’s trying to pull something over on you.

    On a related note, does anyone else notice this guy’s style is a lot like DJ’s?

  90. 90
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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 is simple: if totalitarian communism is at the “left” end of the spectrum and totalitarian fascism is at the “right” end, then – by definition – an ideology such as the Republican form of self-government guaranteed by our Constitution can not exist. That is, one can’t strike a compromise between two totalitarian ideologies and magically produce a self-governing democracy.

    So Abraham Lincoln was an extremist, …

    No. Neither position regarding slavery, per se, was “extremist” in Lincoln’s time.

    What made Lincoln an extremist was his imperialist, extra-constitutional overreach in resorting to military conflict to enforce membership in a “voluntary” union and, when that effort flagged, his deceitful exploitation of the slavery issue to build consensus in support of his actions. Almost one million dead Americans, billion$ in squandered wealth – plus, perhaps most destructively, the permanent, national racial resentment he created, which one doesn’t find in other nations where slavery was allowed to die of natural causes – was an extreme price to pay just to push forward by some minimal period the date upon which slavery in the U.S. was no longer a viable institution. But that’s a topic for a different thread.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  91. 91
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Neither position regarding slavery, per se, was “extremist” in Lincoln’s time.

    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.

  92. 92
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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, specifically, antebellum / post-Civil-War – sensibilities, not those sensibilities extant at the time in question.

    In Lincoln’s time there was no question of “allowing” States to operate as they saw fit. The central government had yet to arrogate to itself power over the States with respect to issues where the Constitution did not expressly grant Congress the authority to act. Slavery was clearly a 10th Amendment issue.

    The push to prevent expansion of slavery had less to do with freeing human beings from bondage and more to do with competition between agrarian vs. industrial interests. As such, there was fairly equal consensus both for and against preventing the expansion of slavery. That equally split position was part of what led to secession and, eventually, armed conflict. A minority consensus (i.e., an “extreme” view) on either side would have resulted in political capitulation.

    So the bottom line is that your question doesn’t make any sense from the standpoint of 19th Century politics. But it does reveal a good deal about why you can’t make sense of Mussolini’s doctrine, relative to contemporary popular interpretations.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  93. 93
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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, and as you defined thepolitical center as individual liberty and equal opportunity, then Lincoln in 1860, supporting as he did the continuation of slavery, must have been far from the center, at least as you defined it. Your position is incoherent.

  94. 94
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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 struck – I missed the edit deadline. I think the point was still clear though.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  95. 95
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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 the constitution demands it — But we must, by a national policy, prevent the spread of slavery into new territories, or free states, because the constitution does not forbid us, and the general welfare does demand such prevention.”

    The reason the South seceded is because of demographics. The population of the North was exploding due to immigration. Unless slavery spread west, eventually abolition would reach a critical mass so that slavery could be amended out of the Constitution over any feasible political obstruction. Lincoln also saw that if the Union fell apart, the grand experiment in Republican government would fail, that the freedom of everyone was tied together, including the possibility of freedom for the slaves. Hence, the South fought to preserve slavery, while the North fought to preserve Union.

  96. 96
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    Zachriel says:

    The reason the South seceded is because of demographics.

    Which is why Lincoln’s election triggered their secession.

    Got it.

    :em05:

    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 which the nation was fairly evenly divided, i.e., neither position could be considered “extreme”.

    The extreme nature of Lincoln’s politics had nothing to do with slavery, per se, and I’ve already described that, above. His overreach destroyed the Union in order to preserve a militarily enforced “union”, and it flipped the power structure from the strong-States-weak-central-government that was originally specified by the Founders in the Constitution, to a nation of States subordinate to the military force of the central government.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  97. 97
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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 as “extreme” is silly.

    By applying your definitions, we show their incoherence. So Lincoln’s position on slavery was centrist or not?

  98. 98
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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 not?

    Based on 19th-century consensus, Lincoln’s campaign statement on slavery was an ostensible compromise and, as such, the very definition of centrist.

    Lincoln’s stated position on federal power was extreme leftist, however, as it amounted to a declaration that, despite the clear language of the Tenth Amendment, the federal state can issue any edict it likes as long as it is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution, and some non-specific claim can be made that it serves the general Welfare in some way. This, despite the fact that reference to the general Welfare in the Constitution does NOT grant Congress any additional authority outside that specifically enumerated in Article I, Sect. 8.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  99. 99
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    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 of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.”

    And this,

    Speech of Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens: “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.”

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Either way, this says nothing about the fact that secession was triggered by Lincoln’s election.

    Georgia Declaration of Causes: “They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.”

    South Carolina Declaration of Causes: “He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.”

    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.”

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Based on 19th-century consensus, Lincoln’s campaign statement on slavery was an ostensible compromise and, as such, the very definition of centrist.

    So, allowing slavery was once a centrist position. But the political center doesn’t change.

  100. 100
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    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 was not in a position to disallow an institution like slavery in any State where it was already established. This is the part you keep missing. Lincoln proposed an ostensible compromise – one which both sides knew was designed, over a short time, to engineer an electoral consensus that would support ending southern slavery legislatively. Now, not only is compromise a centrist position, but Lincoln’s clear goal was to ultimately end the practice of slavery, not to “allow” it. So your entire premise here is not only incoherent, but intellectually dishonest as well. Once again, you’re intentionally confusing the difference between political center and political consensus.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  101. 101
    LC TerribleTroy growls and barks:

    Remind me again….what political party was Lincoln affiliated?

  102. 102
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    AGoyAndHisBlog: None of this addresses the fact that Lincoln’s election triggered the secession.

    Sure it does. As their words indicate, they saw Lincoln’s election as the thin end of the wedge that would lead to the end of slavery.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: So your entire premise here is not only incoherent, but intellectually dishonest as well. Once again, you’re intentionally confusing the difference between political center and political consensus.

    To “not disturb slavery in the states where it exists” certainly wasn’t a consensus!

    Another example would be the French Revolutionary Period. The left were those who wanted to end the monarchy. The right were those who supported the ancien régime. Except that the monarchy was a regime with highly stratified power centered on a very powerful monarchy. That would make supporters of the king on the left, or something like that. And centrists supported a constitutional monarch still retaining significant powers. But as the political center can’t change, that means people today who support a strong monarchy are centrists.

  103. 103
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    Zachriel says:

    …they saw Lincoln’s election as the thin end of the wedge that would lead to the end of slavery.

    Exactly as I’ve been saying. Lincoln did NOT “support the continuation of slavery”, as you falsely claimed back in #93. Since he was never supportive of slavery, this whole “gotcha” construct you’ve been so ham-handedly shooting for breaks down irretrievably.

    To “not disturb slavery in the states where it exists” certainly wasn’t a consensus!

    There was no clear, national consensus. The nation was divided, remember?? Secession?? Civil War??? North vs. South??? Ringing any bells??

    Furthermore, this was precisely the sort of issue the Founders were addressing with the addition of the Tenth Amendment, which recognized the sovereignty of the States with respect to resolving extra-constitutional issues like the prospect of eliminating slavery. Only after the Civil War did the U.S. become a militarily enforced “union”, where some distant monarch collection of elected officials could dictate policy to the individual colonies sovereign States on an issue which (a) did not directly affect the central government and (b) over which they had no legitimate authority.

    In the meantime, the limits of the federal government of 1860 inclined Lincoln to campaign on compromise, and take a centrist position on the issue. Probably one of the first really substantial instances of Clinton-style triangulation. Lincoln’s campaign position on slavery was not only centrist with respect to the competing views of the day but, ALSO – given that his clear goal was to end slavery within what he viewed as the loose constraints imposed by the Constitution – centrist with respect to the absolute political spectrum described above. So you’re wrong twice.

    Another example…

    Ooops!! You never actually presented a legitimate first example, and now you’re simply changing the subject after your lie about Lincoln has made it clear how untenable your position is here. Sorry, you’ll have to have that argument with the other members of your “we”.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  104. 104
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    AGoyAndHisBlog: cExactly as I’ve been saying. Lincoln did NOT “support the continuation of slavery”

    Lincoln: “We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the Constitution, and the peace of the country both forbid us”.

    Using the standard definitions of the terms, on this issue, Lincoln would be to the left of Southern politicians, and to the right of the radical Republicans. That would put him somewhere near the center. Your heterodox use of the terms leads to contradictions.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: There was no clear, national consensus.

    That’s right. You gave us a choice of centrism or consensus, and it wasn’t consensus.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Furthermore, this was precisely the sort of issue the Founders were addressing with the addition of the Tenth Amendment, which recognized the sovereignty of the States with respect to resolving extra-constitutional issues like the prospect of eliminating slavery.

    Which Lincoln supported short of secession.

    AGoyAndHisBlog: Ooops!!

    Another example would be the French Revolutionary Period. The left were those who wanted to end the monarchy. The right were those who supported the ancien régime. Except that the monarchy was a regime with highly stratified power centered on a very powerful monarchy. That would make supporters of the king on the left, or something like that. And centrists supported a constitutional monarch still retaining significant powers. But as the political center can’t change, that means people today who support a strong monarchy are centrists.

  105. 105
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    Zachriel @ #:
    I see you’ve now abandoned any pretense of trying to make sense. You persist in confusing political center with political consensus. Enjoy discussing this with the rest of your “we”.
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  106. 106
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    LC TerribleTroy: Remind me again….what political party was Lincoln affiliated?

    Lincoln was a Republican, a coalition of former Whigs, and other parties, such as the Liberal Party, who wanted to use legal means to end slavery. Lincoln was more moderate than many Republicans, and came out against racial legal equality. On the slave issue, using standard terminology, Republicans were to the political left, while Democrats, who wanted to protect their long-standing institution of slavery, were on the right. Many Republicans were known as Radical Republicans for their strong opposition to slavery and their support of civil rights.

  107. 107
    Darth Venomous growls and barks:

    Oh, and Zachriel, Darth Venomous is administration here. You really DON’T want to piss him off.

    Too late.

    Darth Venomous: the “we” bullshit

    http://nicedoggie.net/?p=8026#comment-36485

    No, now it’s Darth Venomous: (click, click)

    Take a week and learn proper self-pronounage – then, if anyone still gives the proverbial flying fuck at the rolling doughnut about how your honeyboy Oxford defines fascism, you can have your very own Open Thread™ to talk about it.

    (For the record, Zach – no, I haven’t deleted your account – just made you to shut up for a while ’til you come up with something new to say, and can figure out how to say it in first person singular.)

  108. 108
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    Oh man, this is precious.

    Darth Venomous, you just gave the pompous little prick then one thing that he so desperately craved, which is to be shut out from a “right wing fascist blog”, but I don’t hold it against you, my friend, because he was getting rather tedious in his desperate attempts to make up=down and left=right.

    But if AGAHB wishes to continue the relentless Clue-Battering of the sad little retard, he is more that welcome to it, so let’s let “Zachriel” continue to make an utter self-contradictory idiot out of himself in public.

    But that’s up to AGAHB who is henceforth to be known as LC AGAHB, Patron Saint of Hammering Idiotarians With the Cluebat of Logic.

    And to you, LC AGAHB, it’s amazing how our daft our former comrades are, isn’t it? But, then again, we remember how clueless we were back then. We got better, thank G-d, I’m not so sure about them. All I can say is that in infuriates them that we read their damn book. And your skewering of the little prick is pure beauty. :)
    Emperor Misha I recently posted..Now Here’s a Video That We Can’t Get Enough of WatchingMy Profile

  109. 109
    Darth Venomous growls and barks:

    Sorry, boss. It’s just that he was thumbing his nose at us, in doing what I told him not to do – encroach upon the royal “we”, which is yours & yours alone here. (And yeah, being most tedious whilst doing so.) One can liken it to having had too much to drink at the neighborhood Christmas party, and getting louder & louder & louder…

    Besides, like I said – his account isn’t trashed, it’s just Ban Hammered™. That can be backed out at any time (in fact, I can do it now if you’d like).

  110. 110
    Zachriel growls and barks:

    Banning is always easier than providing a substantive reply. Good luck with that.

    [Oh that's just precious, Comrade. If the responses you've gotten had gotten any more substantive, we'd have had to set up a second site to handle the load. F.Y.T.E. -- Emp. Misha]

  111. 111
    AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    Emperor Misha I says:

    But that’s up to AGAHB who is henceforth to be known as LC AGAHB, …

    I will wear that proudly. I am honored, sir.

    … Patron Saint of Hammering Idiotarians With the Cluebat of Logic.

    And flattered as well… though patron sainthood may be a bit over the top for the act of responding to willful blindness with what amounts to a simple flashlight. ;-)

    … it’s amazing how our daft our former comrades are, isn’t it? But, then again, we remember how clueless we were back then. We got better, thank G-d, I’m not so sure about them.

    I keep thinking that the generations behind mine must be REALLY dumb or REALLY emotionally compromised. Though it took me until into my 30s – when the pure idiocy of the early Clinton administration finally made me sit up and pay attention – if I could “get it”, anyone should be able to. Apparently not.

    And your skewering of the little prick is pure beauty.

    They do make it necessary, it seems. I’ll give young Zach’ one point though – even with some intentional prodding, his responses remained civil. That’s actually fairly rare in my experience. But the standard pattern of moral adolescence is still there: the babbling incoherence at the end, re: Lincoln, once the game was obviously up, and the choice to change gears to another topic (on which we’d have had exactly the same exchange). Almost scripted. ;-)
    AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  112. 112
    LC Ohio Right Wing Nut growls and barks:

    Darth Venomous says:

    That can be backed out at any time (in fact, I can do it now if you’d like).

    I vote yes, ain’t had us a good troll around these parts in a while.

    WHERE IN THE HELL HAS MUZZIE(The ignorant slut) BEEN?

  113. 113
    LC LOBO growls and barks:

    Zachriel says:

    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
    someone with a tapeworm
    best friend is a pooka
    dissociative identity disorder
    a bizzare pseudo-world affectation
    gaggle of grad students
    Jovian clique
    a group of concerned citizens

    Him and whatever small furry animal the tards are shoving up their asses this week to get off.

  114. 114
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    Darth Venomous says:

    Besides, like I said – his account isn’t trashed, it’s just Ban Hammered™. That can be backed out at any time (in fact, I can do it now if you’d like).

    I trust your judgment now as always, buddy. Not questioning your decision in any way. You’re Staff.

    If AGAHB P.S.o.H.I.W.T.C.L., on the other hand, would like his chew toy back. Well, it has been entertaining and highly educational. Heck, if Comrade Zachriel hadn’t shown up, I might have had to invent him myself in order to provide a perfect example of the blinkered, indoctrinated Idiotarianism I was talking about.
    Emperor Misha I recently posted..Now Here’s a Video That We Can’t Get Enough of WatchingMy Profile

  115. 115
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    AGoyAndHisBlog says:

    And flattered as well… though patron sainthood may be a bit over the top for the act of responding to willful blindness with what amounts to a simple flashlight. ;-)

    Hey, you earned it. And we’re not known for modesty around these parts ;-)
    Emperor Misha I recently posted..Now Here’s a Video That We Can’t Get Enough of WatchingMy Profile

  116. 116
    LC AGoyAndHisBlog growls and barks:

    Emperor Misha I says:

    If AGAHB P.S.o.H.I.W.T.C.L., on the other hand, would like his chew toy back. Well, it has been entertaining and highly educational.

    Pretty sure the plastic is already chewed through on that one, as any further exchanges will only be a repeat of the above.

    Although I am still trying to envision a mindset which can assert that la Terreur was even remotely associated with “equality” – as opposed to envy and class warfare, which form the left’s recurring notion of “equality”. His other insane (or, at least, obsolete) notions aside, IMHO that’s one thing Mussolini got “right”. ;-)
    LC AGoyAndHisBlog recently posted..Eeyores, Hope and why Breitbart mattered (past tense)My Profile

  117. 117
    Darth Venomous growls and barks:

    Well, FWIW, he (they?) isn’t (aren’t?) taking it very well (and you know this, Sire, since you saw it and replied in-comment). He’s being quite butthurt about the whole thing; you can almost hear the quavering in his words, the tear running down his cheek.

    So much so, in fact, that I’ll likely relent and bring him back Friday or so. (And Zack? You could even speed up that process by sending a “mea culpa; won’t do it again” concerning the royal “we” crap to this email right here. The pups are right – you’re too valuable of a chew toy to throw away (which is why I didn’t just delete your account outright – they hate it when I do that), so I (along with Misha, who owns the site and thus rates the only royal “we” here) do think you should hang around.

    Don’t take it personally – you were thumbing yer nose at me, and I just needed to get your attention, that’s all.)


Other websites that have referenced this:

(Always a sign of good taste -- especially since they bothered to link to us) Go Check them out
  1. THE WEEK THAT WAS : PART TWO | RUTHFULLY YOURS
  2. House of Eratosthenes