Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 28, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Weather Extremes Will Be the Norm As World Warms




The Chain
Joan of Arc


Truthdig Bazaar
Dissent: Voices of Conscience

Dissent: Voices of Conscience

By Colonel (Ret.) Ann Wright and Susan Dixon
$15.00

more items

 
Report

‘Electronic Brownshirts’

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 18, 2011
Davide Restivo (CC-BY-SA)

By Amy Goodman

Judy Ancel, a Kansas City, Mo., professor, and her St. Louis colleague were teaching a labor history class together this spring semester. Little did they know, video recordings of the class were making their way into the thriving sub rosa world of right-wing attack video editing, twisting their words in a way that resulted in the loss of one of the professors’ jobs amidst a wave of intimidation and death threats. Fortunately, reason and solid facts prevailed, and the videos ultimately were exposed for what they were: fraudulent, deceptive, sloppily edited hit pieces.

Right-wing media personality Andrew Breitbart is the forceful advocate of the slew of deceptively edited videos that target and smear progressive individuals and institutions. He promoted the videos that purported to catch employees of the community organization ACORN assisting a couple in setting up a prostitution ring. He showcased the edited video of Shirley Sherrod, an African-American employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which completely convoluted her speech, making her appear to admit to discriminating against a white farmer. She was fired as a result of the cooked-up controversy. Similar video attacks have been waged against Planned Parenthood.

Ancel has been the director of the University of Missouri-Kansas City’s Institute for Labor Studies since 1988. Using a live video link, she co-teaches a course on the history of the labor movement with professor Don Giljum, who teaches at University of Missouri-St. Louis. The course comprises seven daylong, interactive sessions throughout the semester. They are video-recorded and made available through a password-protected system to students registered in the class. One of those students, Philip Christofanelli, copied the videos, and he admits on one of Breitbart’s sites that he did “give them out in their entirety to a number of my friends.” At some point, a series of highly and very deceptively edited renditions of the classes appeared on Breitbart’s website. It was then that Ancel’s and Giljum’s lives were disrupted, and the death threats started.

A post on Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com summarized the video: “The professors not only advocate the occasional need for violence and industrial sabotage, they outline specific tactics that can be used.” Ancel told me, “I was just appalled, because I knew it was me speaking, but it wasn’t saying what I had said in class.” She related the attack against her and Giljum to the broader attack on progressive institutions currently:

“These kinds of attacks are the equivalent of electronic brownshirts. They create so much fear, and they are so directed against anything that is progressive—the right to an education, the rights of unions, the rights of working people—I see, are all part of an overall attack to silence the majority of people and create the kind of climate of fear that allows for us to move very, very sharply to the right. And it’s very frightening.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Ancel’s contact information was included in the attack video, as was Giljum’s. She received a flurry of threatening emails. Giljum received at least two death threats over the phone. The University of Missouri conducted an investigation into the charges prompted by the videos, during which time they posted uniformed and plainclothes police in the classrooms. Giljum is an adjunct professor, with a full-time job working as the business manager for Operating Engineers Local 148, a union in St. Louis. Meanwhile, the union acceded to pressure from the Missouri AFL-CIO, and asked Giljum to resign, just days before his May 1 retirement after working there for 27 years.

Gail Hackett, provost of the University of Missouri-Kansas City, released a statement after the investigation, clearing the two professors of any wrongdoing:

“It is clear that edited videos posted on the Internet depict statements from the instructors in an inaccurate and distorted manner by taking their statements out of context and reordering the sequence in which those statements were actually made so as to change their meaning.”

The University of Missouri-St. Louis also weighed in with similar findings and stated that Giljum was still eligible to teach there.

On April 18, Andrew Breitbart appeared on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program, declaring, “We are going to take on education next, go after the teachers and the union organizers.” It looks as if Ancel and Giljum were the first targets of that attack.

In this case, the attack failed. While ACORN was ultimately vindicated by a congressional investigation, the attack took its toll, and the organization lost its funding and collapsed. President Barack Obama and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack apologized to Shirley Sherrod, and Vilsack begged her to return to work. Sherrod has a book coming out and a lawsuit pending against Breitbart.

Let’s hope this is a sign that deception, intimidation and the influence of the right-wing echo chamber are on the decline.
 
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 900 stations in North America. She is the author of “Breaking the Sound Barrier,” recently released in paperback and now a New York Times best-seller.

© 2011 Amy Goodman

Distributed by King Features Syndicate


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 5, 2011 at 11:56 am Link to this comment

You say you think, Anarcissie in your
following posts on this thread:  June 1 at 8:00
am, June 1 at 8:04 pm, & June 3 at 8:04 pm.  Are
you making reference to a process of thought,
i.e., NO Way, WRONG Way, and Way? — or are
you making reference to YOUR beliefs when you
say, “I think?”

I suspect that you are making reference to YOUR
beliefs and that thought is not involved.

**

From your June 1 at 8:15 am post—What dream
world do you live in, Leefeller? —YOU
are the one that stood in defense of Adolph
Hitler with OzarkMichael and
NightGaunt, and I was in opposition.

I have always thought of you as being a
harmless dummy that is a “Pete and repeat” of
whoever your mind of the moment is, so please
inform whoever your mind of the moment is, that
you are following at present, that although “you
people” use “Mein Kampf” written by Adolph
Hitler as a play book for day to day operations,
my interest is strictly academic.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 5, 2011 at 7:36 am Link to this comment

From this article by Amy Goodman, using Brownshirts in the title has a strong significance to the events of the day. Far as I can tell much of what is happening seems to be a new authoritarianism.  One which can be construed as fascistic.

Why not? The old group of Fascists did not win in the end so maybe the new improved one will work out better for those supporting it?  So not black or brown shirts roaming the streets and no ovens for select peoples whom happen to be in the way of the mother land.  Maybe the authoritarian (fascists) of today are smarter then those of history and the ignorant masses of today have been keenly manipulated to be less inclined to complain, so the idea is not to let history repeat itself? 

Geeze! ...I sound like a conspiracy clown? Well, give me my foil hat then!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 5, 2011 at 7:35 am Link to this comment

Leefeller—I found the ‘zombie politics’ thing kind of diffuse.  I couldn’t figure out who the zombies were other than people the author didn’t like.  I was tempted to post a version of my ‘progressive authoritarianism’ message of a few days ago, but I don’t think anyone wants to engage the issue.  Like fascism, authoritarianism seems to be a non-specific insult to tag the other team with.  Doubtless it will come flying back.  Remember ‘racism’?

Shenonymous—if everyone is born a little atheist, where do religions come from, and why are they so popular?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 4, 2011 at 10:04 pm Link to this comment

To wrap up the evening… Just replyin’ Not too much disagreement for the first part of your post and I’ve had occasion before to read the Wikipedia entry about the VW Beetle and the Nazis.

GM declared bankruptcy and it was completed July 10, 2009, when they were unable get loans from any of the New York banks. The government loaned them the money until they could restructure themselves. The banks that held GM bonds wouldn’t agree to refinancin so GM was forced to file.

The situation has brightened up. GM has refinanced their loans, got rid of or quit producing four well-known vehicles, Hummer and Saab, Saturn and Pontiac. They should emerge from bankruptcy this summer. Many feared that people wouldn’t buy cars while gm was in bankruptcy but that hasn’t been the case.

From the NTY May 5, “...after one of the biggest corporate collapses in history, the new company made one of the biggest rebounds ever. The new G.M. is far smaller and leaner.” Brands like Saturn, Hummer and Pontiac were shut down or sold. Hourly labor costs were cut by more than two-thirds, to $5 billion from $16 billion in 2005.

This government bailout was primarily to save jobs which is a liberal function the government ought to have done and it was a success.  Also Chrysler traveled a similar bailout path and is doing extremely well. 

True, “proper fascists would not dismantle a centralized educational system; they would take it over and make it serve their purposes, just as they would media, libraries, and any other source of public information…A bunch of private and semi-private schools would be antithetical to a classical fascist program.” Taking over the schools is exactly what the Republicans are trying to do, along with constructing “a bunch of private and semi-private schools,” for which they will apply for federal dollars to build and which I declare is a new and meaner much more organized fascism.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 4, 2011 at 9:13 pm Link to this comment

What?  What is going on?  Is there a fire sale on ants?  Would they be fire ants? 

The argument of the existence of god is the question. I don’t want to quarrel with you ITW. My experience with other atheists and my study of atheism is different than yours. A lot of things are believed about atheists and what they believe.

I am not sure what exactly you are saying about being a Jew and the world not ever letting you forget your heritage having anything to do with atheism or agnosticism. Of course you are right you can’t prove a negative, I never said you could. There is the ordinary view of atheism which you have stated and many confused religionists hold that view. Simply put, atheism is the absence of belief in any gods. This is different from any discussion about proof. Don’t you agree?

With a dose of epistemic agnosticism in my own brand of atheism, I do not hold a belief in a deity of any kind because there has been no justification presented to me that warrants that belief. I keep open the possibility to believe if anyone can produce a reason why belief in a God is correct and morally right for me to believe. 

It’s often claimed that atheists “cannot prove that God does not exist” which relies on the misunderstanding that atheists claim “God does not exist” and further then that they should prove this. In reality, atheists merely decline to accept the theists’ claim “God exists” and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer.

I don’t suggest you are atheist. You are what you say you are. But you have modified what I said and changed my words to speak about proof when I said no one has given me justified reason to believe.  If you want to contend that there is no difference I would disagree on the basis that because it is impossible to prove nearly anything, except perhaps in mathematics, proof is not the way to settle one’s belief or disbelief at least on the topic of god(s). 

I think you have a view of agnosticism that is not the ordinary view. In my studies it has to do with knowledge and whether or not one can know anything, the existence or nonexistence of deities is just one of those things that cannot be known. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge. It was originally adopted to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not. Also there is a popular belief that agnosticism is a more “reasonable” position and that atheism is more “dogmatic,” and therefore is ultimately not distinguishable from theism except in the details and that makes atheism a “religion.” This is not a tenable position to adopt because it misrepresents or incorrectly understands everything involved: atheism, theism, agnosticism, and the nature of belief itself. It also happens to reinforce popular prejudice against atheists, often the intention of believers.

There is more than one kind of atheism so it is also possible we understand the concept differently as well.  What’s the name of that religion of atheists called?  Atheism?  Then what of those atheists who do not practice their unbelief as a religion? The way you put it, it is quite muddled and self-contradictory. Surely an intellect such as yourself can see that?  And what kind of ritual do these religious atheists practice? Atheism is not easy to describe. If you are really interested you might look at the Wikipedia entry on atheism for a fair treatment of the variants. The one you express is only one among the many. 

Our long time friend Antichrist (AC for short) described himself as atheist from birth because no religious talk was ever held in his home. Even though able to learn at high speed, all children are born atheists because they have no ideas whatever and have unfocused random thought, nor able to form true or justified beliefs about itself, its environment, or others.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 4, 2011 at 5:26 pm Link to this comment

The historical, classical fascists—Mussolini and Hitler—had big social programs and government projects.  Government participation and control of industry was deep and wide-reaching.  See, for instance, the relationship between the Nazis and the Volkswagen, described in the ‘Volkswagen Beetle’ article in Wikipedia.  (The design and production of the ‘people’s car’ was very much like the program proposed for GM by a number of people when it went recently bankrupt: government takeover, infusion of funds, vehicles designed and production directed by central authority rather than guesses as to market acceptability.  Just sayin’.)

As another point of difference between fascists and Republicans, as I pointed out some time ago, proper fascists would not dismantle a centralized educational system; they would take it over and make it serve their purposes, just as they would media, libraries, and any other source of public information.  A bunch of private and semi-private schools would be antithetical to a classical fascist program.

Of course, I suppose you all may be proposing that there is a new, kinder, gentler, more disorganized fascism out there.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 4, 2011 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment

A contract between aardvarks?  ‘All the ants you can eat—unless I get them first!’

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 4, 2011 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment

Anaccarssie, I may be beginning to understand the political meaning of aardvark;... the practice of supporting smaller government which only requires a hand scrawled contract of passivity allowing individual choice of dining alone only on ants!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 4, 2011 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment

In the current smelly political winds, instead of focusing
on jobs and the economy as they promised and were elected to do, Republicans have used the excuse of budget crises whether real or not, to take rights away from many Americans. In the first part of the 20th century, this is what fascists in Europe did using an economic crises to gain power and that is precisely what Republicans unconscionably are doing these days. To create a police state, they are using the financial crisis as an excuse to upend all the social programs that would tend to create a stronger middle class and eliminate the poor that would tend to kill them off without the resources that have sustained them.  It is not really the entitlement programs that have caused the financial crises regardless of how much that is the mantra, it is the ridiculous notion of trickle down economics that have miserably failed to get those who have the money to invest it in the working and industrial class production domain. 

The relationship between Republicans and the classic fascists.  Part 1
Republicans are frighteningly similar to fascists in the culture wars they have perpetrated.  They talk about democracy but in actuality they reject it.  The preach morality and inauthentically talk about how great America is as they put all their effort, a united effort, into decimating this as a country of the people and for the people.  Many vociferous Republicans actually called for violently overthrowing the government if the 2010 midterm elections did not go the way they wanted and engaged in viciously attacking liberalism.  Liberalism is that ideology that is based in the health and welfare of the people of a nation.  In this country that is the constitutional interest. Fascists support militarism, and reject world peace and internationalism.  Republicans have been agitating for the US to withdraw from the UN ever since the 50s and for the last decade has been the party of war and we needn’t list the wars and hot spots for which they are fussing to engage of stay engaged.  Fascists promote heroism, physicalism, and violence.  Republicans see themselves a robustly doing “manly” activities, ala Palin and Cheney and their guns, the rough and tough actors Reagan who became president, Charlton Heston from Moses to the epitome of the Marlboro Man.  Their call to shoot liberals in the forehead and the threats of the second amendment by Bachmann as a remedy for those who disagree with their whittle the government down to support the wealthy class beliefs.

Fascists and Republicans also agree on social issues.  Republicans are always talking the talk about family values, but they have a pretty skewed view of what those are.  Fascists banned and burned all literature on birth control and abortion by extending punishment for both as a crime against the state.  Republicans constantly rant against birth control and have attempted to force their idea of abstinence as if they have always practiced it themselves. Hypocrites! And they are attempting to ban abortion, considering laws to legalize the killing of abortion providers and laws that destroy Planned Parenthood and allow hospitals to let women die rather than give her a life saving abortion.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 4, 2011 at 2:13 pm Link to this comment

The relationship between Republicans and the classic fascists.  Part 2
Republicans have launched an unprecedented attack on unions that represent professions held by mostly women such as nurses and education and have been highly critical of single mothers who work.  But also because unions historically protected the worker’s safety and brought them benefits that elevated the worker to having value as humn beings.

In an assault on education, Republicans and fascists alike also have that in common.  A hot button issue these days as it erupted in Wisconsin and is currently happening in a broad spread of states. Republican regular attempts to destroy public education is nothing more than an effort to create private schools designed to do their ideological bidding. Conservative private school can deny an education to anyone and can discriminately hire any teacher they wish which means an army of conservative teachers that will only teach the Republican ideology and their view of history. Fascists created their systems of education to glorify their movement and sought to inform students of its historical and political importance to the nation. It attempted to purge ideas that were not consistent with the beliefs of the fascist movement. Republicans push this kind of nationalism as well.

Like the Fascist states, Republicans are relentlessly pursuing policies of social indoctrination through propaganda in education and the media and attempt to regulate the production of educational and media materials. They consistently portray the founders of America as Christians that wanted Christianity to rule the state. See the amazing book, “Monkey Girl” by Edward Humes. They are forcefully trying to abolish the Department of Education and at every opportunity intend to slash education spending to a bare minimum. Republicans and fascists hate the well educated because they want the people to be stupid in order to manipulate them. Fascism tends to be anti-intellectual and so does the Republican Party. This is well documented in Susan Jacoby’s “The Age of American Unreason.” Both Republicans and fascists hate the highly educated because they want people that is stupid so that manipulation and exploitation is that much easier.

Using their own news network that uses brazen lies and misinformation to splatter liberalism as evil. Fox News is directly responsible for spreading hate and fear on behalf of the Republican Party and even promotes Republican candidates with total disregard to acceptable journalism ethics.

As for freedom:  Many Republicans are against Freedom of the Press and have even detained journalists against their will for asking questions. 

There is so much more, but I will save the part about Republicans are like the Fascists in their love affair with the corporate world for the next time.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 4, 2011 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

I see a lot of authoritarianism in ‘progressive’ discourse.  The primary instance is, of course, a fondness for ‘big government.’  The central idea of government is coercive force.  The imperial stance of the U.S. government, created in the 1940s, and many of its imperial wars, were instigated or carried on by ‘progressive’, ‘liberal’ or at least Democratic administrations.  So was the anti-Communist witch-hunt of the Truman years.

Another interesting recent instance—there are many—has been the way in which anthropogenic global warming was argued, not with science, but with reference to authority, for example ‘423 scientists say….’, which is the form of an appeal to authority, not reason.  This approach has turned out to have a bad political effect, but it goes on.

I could go on, but I think most of you will get the idea if you want to.

The reverse of this sort of authoritarianism is the pusillanimity I’ve complained about elsewhere.  When mid-level authoritarians, those further down the pyramid in an authority system like the education industry, are challenged by bullies, they often cave in, for the bullies act just like their bosses and they can’t tell the difference.

I don’t see any fascism in this yet, but a broadly passive-authoritarian population is a herd of sheep waiting to be led to the wolf.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 4, 2011 at 8:09 am Link to this comment

Political ignorance is enhanced when it is meshed with religion, the late in the day Christians show little monopoly on ignorance. A little bit more with the crypticology?

FYI:... Thanks to a “ghostofwatergate” a poster on TD “Geithner and Goldman, Thick as Thieves, Robert Sheers articel ” The following link on Zombie Politics gives one of the best and more comprehensive explanations on what is going on in this bastardized Democracy of ours, ... even includes some worthy explanations on why Fascism is not the black and white definable thing most people relish on, I found the following so damn enlightening, though a bit longer then what we are used to here on TD.


“Zombie Politics, Democracy, and the Threat of Authoritarianism - Part I”

http://www.truthout.org/zombie-politics-democracy-and-threat-authoritarianism-part-i/1306932037

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 4, 2011 at 7:33 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, June 3 at 8:04 pm Link to this comment

I certainly don’t think authoritarianism and totalitarianism in America is confined to the Christian Right.
*************
Maybe not, but they sure have a corner on the market!

Of course, Corporate America is interested in the same thing and see the religious right as something to be used and manipulated in that course.

Funny think, despite the TeaParty’s lifeline being the Koch Brothers, they DO assert their opinion quite forcefully.  I may not agree with a damn thing they stand for but it’s pretty funny to see them telling Congressmen: “No, you better NOT raise the debt ceiling!” Which the dems and the corporations want.  The Dems want government to keep functioning.  The Corps know a federal default will be devastating to THEM.

The pet pit bull keeps biting his owner in the ass!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 4, 2011 at 7:25 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 3 at 8:12 am Link to this comment

That is where you and I disagree ITW. In the definition of atheism. Atheists do not as a rule say there is no God, they say there is nothing offered that justifies belief in a God. Agnosticism is not strictly an order of belief within the province of unbelievers. Agnosticism says it is not possible to know whether there is a deity or not. Both theists and atheists may be agnostics.
**************

Not really, She.  I just grew up where Atheists I knew defined themselves primarily as OM does: Deniers of the existence of God on faith.

So, my personal definition of Agnosticism was challenging the concept of faith and refusal to accept faith as valid where I find it within myself.

I’ve realized over the last few years that many Atheists, particularly those that aren’t Marxist ditto-heads, have a similar POV and analysis as I do?

Does that make me an Atheist? I don’t think so, but it puts me far closer to them than to the knee-jerk deniers who were emblematic of the Marxist states.

I’m a Jew. I may not believe, but the world NEVER lets you forget your heritage—that French Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, was always the “Jewish Cardinal” to others.  Still, I find the world of the Reform Temple (especially the most liberal ones) to be comforting and familiar, yet the world of the Chassidic Jews, and the Chabad, to be as foreign and alien to me as the Taliban—and almost is demanding and dogmatic.

So, in that light, your description of Atheists as deniers, not on faith, but on lack of proof, after all, you can’t prove a negative, you must prove a positive, to be far more acceptable.

Yet the Atheists of OM’s world of Atheists palsy-walsy with Communists and Fascists is NOT a philosophy of thoughtful analysis and decisions, it’s a world were free thinking is “against The People’s State”.  Therefore their “Atheism” IS a religion, demanding faith and unity with the “The People’s Democracy”.

This differs 180 degrees from my long-time definition of Agnosticism, and, from the new, emerging definition of Atheism. (maybe not so new, but DEFINITELY emerging from the shadows of the Marxist sect).

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 3, 2011 at 10:31 pm Link to this comment

Somewhat cryptic, but okay.  I certainly don’t either. But that does not
mean authoritarianism and totalitarianism do not describe the Christian
Right; viz., where two negatives is a positive. Besides the OT Christian God is
authoritarian and totalitarian (The 10 Commandments is the testimony.). 

I did not limit a portrayal of the affliction to only one political chariot, though
the Christian Right is the political faction I singled out.  The pathology could
easily describe as well what I call the Hard Left, only they approach climbing
the horse drawn vehicle from a different angle.  I am reminded of a Janus coin.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 3, 2011 at 8:04 pm Link to this comment

I certainly don’t think authoritarianism and totalitarianism in America is confined to the Christian Right.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 3, 2011 at 2:57 pm Link to this comment

The idea of self-ministry sounds a whole lot like self-reliance in the sense of Emerson, and that is an attitude I highly appreciate. Except Locke and Jefferson had a slightly different polish to their ideas.  My having been a Baptist for many years in my young life between the ages of 6 and 16, and otherwise a Catholic prior and for a couple of years after the First Baptist Church, before seeing the light of religious hypocrisy, I have some sense of what is being talked about.  I’ve certainly been schooled in religious studies. Locke rejected the Trinity and Original Sin, but held onto many Christians beliefs. He knew of Deism, and was influenced by Polish Unitarianism on social issues. It has to be kept in mind that the Age of Reason was a separate movement from the later radical French Enlightenment. Called a Christian, Socinian, Unitarian, and a Deist, Locke understood that Christianity hinges on Paul’s revelations and claims on Original Sin. If a literal Adam and the “Fall,” formal Christianity comes unglued along with the Trinity, then certain belief systems fall and come unglued as well.  So Locke was not a Christian in the technical sense, but he believed in revelation. Belief in revelation is clearly outside of Deism and perhaps so is Socinianism (or belief in nontrinitarianism). His belief was beyond atheistic Voltaire and the bloody left-wing French Revolution. whatever religion is, clearly Locke was a cultural Christian and a rationalist. His political view was predicated on the right of individuals to live life as they choose, and one owns oneself, therefore cannot enslave nor be enslaved to anyone else. For him, government is needed to overcome inconveniences found in an absolute state of nature, and mostly has to do with laws and their enforcement, keeping out of the lives of others as all have the same inalienable right to property and life. He advocated that either state or criminal aggressors against property or life is justly punishable by execution or imprisonment. Likewise, Jefferson believed that each has the right to believe whatever is wanted, that beliefs are nearly always in the province of the individual when he said “as long as their belief neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Freethinking, the bane of religious conservatives, was described of Jefferson, who they called an atheist (as well as Thomas Paine). Such freethought demanded a government based on human rights and reason rather than the authority of a divine authority. If we go with the premises that an educated public is a flourishing society, and that the Republicans want a society that will bend to its will, then an educational system for all is counterthetical to the their efforts and justifies their desire to decimate the education system.

As chronicled by Adolphe Meyer, Jefferson would not have totally believed in the precinct of self-ministry since he proposed a law that never was enacted but shows his thinking, that provided democratic, even though limited, and elitist ideals that provided that promisingly intelligent sons of poor parents be given subsidy to continue their education through college at public expense. It was not passed as legislature because the provincial Virginia farmers were not interested in paying taxes for education for the children of the common people. Very typical libertarian self-serving sentiment against Jefferson’s liberalism.

While I did credit Paxton with a description of fascism not a definition, it would be true that if it his a diagnosis of a disease, then of course it could show up in any quarter of society, conservative or otherwise. But I submit that if it is a disease then it could be one that shows to afflicts the Christian Right more than any other group and perhaps they ought to seek a cure. It might be an illness that affects the anemic minded.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 3, 2011 at 8:59 am Link to this comment

Far as I know fascists exist and they are the bullies we see taking over the red states. Fascists as authoritarians have clearly been working overtime to offensively attack segments of the population, just like the Nazis did, except so far it appears to not have been the Jewish people yet.  So far it has been the poor, the minorities and not so minorities the illegal aliens, the working class unions, teachers, womens rights, civil service employees at the state levels, ( I may be missing some) and finally targeting the elderly by gutting Medicare. 

If these are not fascists doing the attacking then what are they if not bullies and a minority at that, from the poles which they do not beleive in with a Chaney obnoxious belittling “so”!

As for the existence of god, Antichrist who in the past was a TD poster of repute,  once stated here on these unhallow TD threads; sic, “Atheists do not believe in the existence of God’, unsic!... which may have also been followed with a…. “Thank you Bertrand Russel”. ...  I assume with one of my famous unsound assumptions that most atheists also do not believe in the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or in the rantings of morons like Russ Limbaugh, which automatically makes them Communists if not Pinko Communists?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 3, 2011 at 8:29 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous—The problem with Paxton’s ‘definition’ is that it is not so much a definition as a diagnosis of what he regards as a pathology.  One cannot get very far in understanding the minds of others if one starts out by assuming that they are diseased (or evil), even if they are diseased or evil.  The elements I chose previously apply to fascism whether it is viewed by fascists or by others.  If fascism is a thing rather than just a collection of accidents and chance perceptions, then I think we want to identify it in a way that both fascists and non-fascists would recognize.  This is why I pay a lot of attention to Mussolini.

I don’t think you should be so quick to dismiss the ‘priesthood of all believers’.  After all, it is the root of liberalism.  It’s the stem from which the thought of Locke and Jefferson grow.  It will probably remain effective in breaking up totalitarian schemes among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists today—remember that 30%—unless, of course, they are terrorized into the same pusillanimity I have complained about in others, not by religion, but by violence.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 3, 2011 at 8:12 am Link to this comment

That is where you and I disagree ITW. In the definition of atheism. Atheists do not as a rule say there is no God, they say there is nothing offered that justifies belief in a God. Agnosticism is not strictly an order of belief within the province of unbelievers. Agnosticism says it is not possible to know whether there is a deity or not. Both theists and atheists may be agnostics.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 3, 2011 at 8:04 am Link to this comment

The charge is that atheism and atheists are a good fit with communism and basically are communists. A parochial view that is typical of Christian fundamentalistism either the Protestant or Catholic evangelical variety. Also believed is that socialism is a milder form of communism. Thus, atheism they believe, should be vehemently rejected since socialism and communism are evil. Evidence that bigotry and prejudice towards atheists in America is public behavior is credible largely due to anti-communist activism that is combined with anti-atheist activism by conservatives Christians in America, and the contrived connection has serious implications for American atheists. As witnessed on this forum it was an immediate reaction by the conservative element.

Furthermore, it is an automatic and almost unconscious assumption made on the part of such Christians that their religion is somehow equivalent with capitalism and atheists are slaves of social communism. Any observer of America’s Christians Right will not be the least surprised because conservative Christianity and right-wing politics have become almost synonymous. As common knowledge no reference is required. They behave and act as if certain pre-specified political and economic positions are necessary in order to be “good Christians.” No longer are faith in Jesus and God sufficient. Now one is required to have ‘faith’ in market capitalism and small government or no government as believed as part of their essential nature by anti-liberal libertarians or anarchists. Since so many of these Christians have digested the attitude that anyone who disagrees with them on any one point must therefore be in disagreement with them in, on and about everything, and it would not be surprising that some evangelicals assume that all atheists are communists. This belief is the precursor to their fascistic ground rules. 

Naturally, the fact that Communism in the 20th c. has been almost entirely atheistic in nature. Be that as it may, Communism is not inherently atheistic. It is not a genetic characteristic. One can hold communist economic views while being a theist and many theologians do, and on the other hand, it isn’t at all rare to be an atheist while staunchly defending capitalism, or some combination of capitalism and socialism as I do, and such a combination is often held by Objectivists and Libertarians, for example. Their existence alone demonstrates, without question, that atheism and communism are not the same thing. Except it is a myth held by the Christian Right that they are joined twins even though the belief has been disproved. But, it would be attention grabbing to see if it wasn’t the Christians who actually got things backwards. Moreover, wouldn’t it be ironic if it was Christianity that is basically communistic?  There isn’t anything in all the gospels or the bible for that matter that so much as hints of a divine preference for capitalism. To the contrary, much of what Jesus said directly supports many of the emotional foundations of socialism and communism. Didn’t he specifically say that people should give all they could to the poor and that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God?” But of course that is negligible, right?  Why take the biblical words of Jesus as having any force?

There really are two kinds of Christianism. One essentially serves political and economic masters and teaches that a reward is a better life in the hereafter.  This is the common variety today and which is, are we surprised? typical of those who attack atheism and communism in the same breath.

The other Christianity that in contradistinction emphasizes compassion and leadership in the struggle against oppressors, in the struggle for a better life here and now.  It is this type, conscientious atheists such as myself can abide.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 3, 2011 at 7:00 am Link to this comment

OM:
You deliberately misuse “Atheism”.  “Atheism” as practiced in the Communist world WAS a religion, by every meaningful definition. It demanded faith. It demanded a belief in a “higher calling” that substituted for a deity.  It demanded a belief in an “inevitability” that was analogous to a god’s will.

It was, in fact, a terrible corruption of the concept of Atheism.  You might as well say the Taliban is typical Moslem, or that Erik Rudolph or Scott Roeder is the typical Christian.

I became Agnostic because of that taint of “Atheism” by the Communists.  The concept that belief is not a valid form of developing knowledge was once, and is becoming again, a principle of Atheism, but has always been part of being an Agnostic.

Atheism is changing.  Formerly, I would say that the difference between an Agnostic and an Atheist is that an Agnostic does not believe in God, but an Atheist believes there is no God.

It’s a critical difference, since the Atheist (at least in the Communist world) took it as AN ARTICLE OF FAITH that there is no God.  Whereas the Agnostic does not accept the existence of God without data/evidence.

So, yes, that kind of “Atheist” did fit with Communism.  BUT IT’S NOT WHAT MOST ATHEISTS OR AGNOSTICS ACCEPT AS VALID HERE!  In fact, modern Atheists are now much closer to my Agnostic concepts than the old Stalinist ones (where, of course, Stalin was a demi-god, “The Greatest Genius in the History of Mankind”).

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 2, 2011 at 11:01 pm Link to this comment

Fascism, the word, crops up in the most moral and reputable turf these days. It is being slinged about like a badminton bird back and forth between the hard left progressive political faction in this country and the intransigent right conservative. It has more or less been requested that a look at the history of the appearance of fascism in the US, which necessarily would include the phenomenon’s psychology and sociology.  But to have a civil dialogue about that word, however, we must be prudent to use the term not only decisively but precisely.  To be brief but precise, the word’s etymology comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a “bundle of rods containing an axe with the blade projecting.”  Carried before a superior Roman magistrate, as a symbol of power over life and limb. The sticks symbolized punishment by whipping, the axe head execution by beheading.  The Fasci were groups of men organized for political purposes which had been a feature of Sicily since c.1895.

Fascism, as Robert O. Paxton describes it, is “a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”

To put it in a time perspective, it was originally used in English 1922 in its 1920 Italian form, fascism. It was used again in reference to similar groups in Germany starting from around 1923.  As I noted earlier, it is now applied to everyone since the rise of the Internet.  LOL


As a bonafide movement as it is exposed in cults such as the Tea Party, the renewal of the John Birch Society, and others, acute parallels are obvious between totalitarian movements in the early 20th century and now in a highly-organized, well-funded (read Koch Brothers) and slick militant religious adaptation that I call 21st millennia Christianism through its evangelical extremity.  That “in the Evangelical tradition there is a priesthood of all believers,” merely says ordained clerics are not necessary. As a matter of fact, the necessity of “priestly” or cleric ordination of an intermediary with God such as Catholics have is actually frowned upon. This hardly has any relevance with respect to the fascism that is practiced within the Christian Republican Right effort to create a pure and Christian nation. 

In a fine complexity of interconnected organizations, these insidious architects of American society believe that America is a putrid swamp and that its only salvation lies in “taking back America” for Christ. What prevents this takeover and escorting the Kingdom of God to America are the intellectual, or otherwise, liberals, the liberal courts, and a secular government. Except the reality is that the Republican intentional dumbing down of America by shrinking education is producing a dumb America, the courts are decidedly conservative, and the government for the previous president for 8 years was decidedly conservative whose policies have brought this country to the brink of financial disaster and the current president, who happens to be a Democrat, is having a hell of a time correcting those previous administration’s mistakes.  “Times are a changing” as Bobby sings.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, June 2, 2011 at 10:40 pm Link to this comment

“Far as I see it religion fits very comfortably with Fascism.”

As opposed to communism, unfortunately yes that is certainly true.  ‘As opposed to communism’, ah that is Mussolini’s evil genius at work. But lets not leave anyone out. Lets be inclusive in finding a good fit for everyone here.

Is there a good fit for atheism? Yes there is.  Atheism fits perfectly comfortably with communism, like a hand that animates a glove, since atheism is the sine qua non of communism.

In fact, the major contribution that atheists en masse have foisted upon fellow citizens isnt liberty, but communism. In return, to ensure its continued power, communism must vigorously promote atheism while suppressing religion.

The historical and theoretical relation between Communism and atheism is much closer, and more exclusive, than the one between Fascism and Christianity. Fascism has to bind several scattered competing elements to itself, which might be news to you. Fascism has to entice Christianity and thus tie it to itself. Atheism by contrast has a magnetic affinity for Communism, no enticements need to be made, it is already a unity, ready-made.

Furthermore, atheism fits fairly comfortably with fascism, too. Looking at the overall picture of Communism/Fascism together, it seemss that atheism is a more valued customer by the modern totalitarian governments than Christianity is. Not that it proves a thing about any individual here. I know that.

But if the cicadas attempt to hook Christianity to Fascism, they are making two mistakes. First, you are steering towards a grim future for Christians. To do my small part to avoid that future i will throw the chains you press upon my brothers and sisters right back in your face. 

Second, the theory and the practice of totalitarianism in the last century suggests that atheists have quite a lot to answer for. Answers which are never given. My reply to your accusations against Christianity and Fascism will be to demand that answer about Atheism and Communism.   

Anyway. I agree with Anarcissie about aspects of Christianity:

One can try to manipulate people through religious ideas and succeed with some of them, but in the Evangelical tradition there is a priesthood of all believers, and any man (or woman) may interpret the Scriptures.  In addition, one is not saved by virtue, knowledge or right reason but by faith and faith alone in the person of Jesus.  This means that there is no centralized authority to cow or cut a deal with. A certain number of outliers and dissidents among the believers are guaranteed.

A much lesser number(unfortunately) if the believers are Pietists, because they leave too much power to the state. A much greater number if they are Evangelicals.

Anarcissie, I would say that your quote also applies to many groups, including atheists. For you to write that quote, and demonstrate specifically how freedom/liberty is embedded in people who are usually counted as fascist, is refreshing to me. i appreciate your attempt to be kind in this matter.

Although if the definition of ‘fascism’ is the usual old ABC:

1)‘A’merican
2)‘B’ible Believing
3)‘C’onservative

it tosses any discernment(a la Anarcissie) out the window and finds millions upon millions of fascists (a la Chris Hedges).

Perhaps we will examine the Communist roots of Fascism soon. i would establish Mussolini’s strong credentials as a Marxist to start.

I cannot tell if anyone wants to know about what happened after the official interview between Fallaci and Nenni. My account is probably very accurate, although i did add the fact that “Il Duce” was a Communist nickname, and like much else about Mussolini, it carried over into his fascist image. I did that to inform Martha/Thomas especially. “Il Duece!” Priceless!

I will find the reference for myself at least. If anyone wants the reference i will give it.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 2, 2011 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller—One can try to manipulate people through religious ideas and succeed with some of them, but in the Evangelical tradition there is a priesthood of all believers, and any man (or woman) may interpret the Scriptures.  In addition, one is not saved by virtue, knowledge or right reason but by faith and faith alone in the person of Jesus.  This means that there is no centralized authority to cow or cut a deal with.  A certain number of outliers and dissidents among the believers are guaranteed.

The fascist solution to this problem was to imprison or kill inconvenient people, not manipulate them through their religious ideas.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 2, 2011 at 5:52 pm Link to this comment

From Dr. Britt.

“8.  Religion and Government are Intertwined. 
Use of the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.” 

Recently heard; ...‘I am going to pray to God and see if I should run for president?’ or Buish saying;... ‘God told me to go into Iraq!... I know I am missing some!... Bush said he talked to God every week when the Pope was not bending gods ear. 

Anaccissie, why would the religious not be manipulated any easier then the non religious? Seems to me they are ready made for manipulations?  The intertwining of the Tea Bags and religion seem similar in the membership, the anti abortionist kill in the name of god? Far as I see it religion fits very comfortably with Fascism. 

The evangelicals could easily be molded into a Fascist stance if not already there! All they need is faith, for they already seem ready to force their will or belief on others. What of the Air Force Cadets?

I also see your loose cannon point, supposedly this is what happened to the Republicans, but maybe because the Republicans of several years ago were not radical enough for the evangelicals?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 2, 2011 at 5:26 pm Link to this comment

The problem with religions for fascists is that religions generally propose an alternative system of values and authority outside or alongside the state.  For this reason authoritarians and totalitarians of all flavors have generally tried to get control of religion or at least downplay it.

Suppose the Republicans in the U.S. were actually fascists—they might well find their religious support problematical because they don’t control it.  In fact the supposedly rightist Evangelicals include a substantial liberal and leftist minority.  They generally remain on speaking terms with their rightist brethren, too.  Religion is definitely a loose cannon in the fascist worldview.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 2, 2011 at 3:47 pm Link to this comment

Eric Hoffer explains very well the fanatics blind belief in their causes.  If I recollect,.... probably a little less accurate than OM’s recollecting, a fascist according to Hoffer could easily become a Communist and vis versa.  The idea of need in a cause was to address a real or perceived grievance! I will have to dig back into Hoffers book to review some of my fuzzy thoughts on the subject.  Time for a refresher and review!

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, June 2, 2011 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment

I prefer slug. Not only over ‘dung beetle’ but also over ‘fascist’. Ah, i prefer slug over ‘protofascist’ ‘homophobic’, ‘racist’, and all the rest too.

Although I promised to be direct for my last post i got creative instead. But not too creative. That story was my recollection of something Fallaci wrote, and my memory is pretty reliable. What i dont remember is where I read it. if anyone is interested i will try to search it out, but it will take me some time because I already failed after looking high and low before I wrote it in the first place. If you are interested it would be my pleasure. 

Anyway, think of the Fallaci story as an introduction, an invitiation to a study of Fascism. i would not rely on that anecdote alone to develope a sophisticated theory.

The next step would be to understand what really happened, how fascism came about not as the antithesis of communism, but first as a heretical sect of communism. (whether we capitalize the ‘C’ of communism or not is probably a distinction with no difference. Just like whether we write ‘Fascism’ or ‘fascism’ makes little difference)

After that we get down to the bottom line…  who is actually related to fascism today? in what way? how is that bad?

So here it is direct and short: communism is the root of fascism, not only because of some similarities but historically, by pedigree and paternity as it were. That truth is perfectly illustrated in Mussolini. One can see which communist doctrines he kept, which communist doctrines he modified, and then watch what happened as the years went by, how fascism changed even more.

Some will respond to what I have written thus far, no doubt make a commendable bustle and rush through Mussolini, creating a finished product of opinion in a few moments of reading on the internet.

Regardless, when we come down to the bottom line, which involves taking the concepts apart instead of rushing, critique instead of keeping ‘fascism’ in your weapons cache(as an accusation), ah, that is where we will run aground.

A little creativity on my part might pique your interest, but it wont keep you from buzzing for very long. Its happened already. There isnt much point in saying more.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 2, 2011 at 11:30 am Link to this comment

Take your pick, Leefeller, I always like to give choices, conservative slugs or dung beetles, either one works for me in counteraction to being called a liberal buzzing cidada.  Slugs do move much slower than dung beetles, in the way liberal legislation and Obama’s appointments (ala Elizabeth Warren and a couple of judges) move through Congress.

I’ve no argument, anarcissie.  Unions to some extent have been derelict. But that does not dissuade me from supporting the union mechanisms that protect workers. I don’t automatically forget the good they do when something troublesome happens. Those not living up to their original purpose and being of service to the people need to have drastic revisions. But the people as a group themselves must take the initiative. I disagree, however, that their abandonment comes from fascistic impulses. All corruption is not a matter of ordinary autocratic fascism but is more a falling into self-serving corruption. I believe the current conservative Republicans tend to be fascistic as evidenced in my following list of 13 distinguishing items of faith that fulfills a commonly accepted political definition of fascism as a theory-based ideology that advocates an authoritarian hierarchical government in opposition to democracy and/or liberalism.

1. Forceful stock expressions of nationalism caught up in a fanatical frenzy, often with catchy slogans or denigrating nicknames such as demagogues by real demagogues and “buzzing cicadas.”
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause and usually accompanied with a suspicion of things foreign, immigrants, or say, middle easterners that often borders on xenophobia.
4. A public expression of the supremacy of the military and zealous militarism.
5. Beyond the simple fact that the national culture is male-dominated, the Republican political organization indubitably view women as second-class citizens. They are pertinaciously anti-abortion and homophobic. 
6. While not limited to Republicans but more characteristic of them, there is exercised a more subtle power that ensures media orthodoxy. Methods include control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the MSM are often politically compatible with the powerful Republican elite. This results usually in the success of keeping the general public unaware of the Party’s and its members excesses.
7. Has an obsession with national security, particular its southern borders.
8. Religion and the ultra-right-wing conservatives are tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. 
9. They shelter the power of corporations as a rule.
10. Intentional suppression of labor and labor-protecting unions eliminated.
11. They want to suppress and have contempt for intellectuals and the arts.  They think academic freedom is subversive.
12. Excessive and commonly practiced cronyism along with corruption of taking advantage of the various less privileged classes such as seniors, immigrants, middle income citizens.
13. Are frequently accused of fraudulent elections in the form of public opinion polls that usually are spurious.  Actual elections are often perverted by the Party elite through the power of a conservative court beholden to the power elite to get the desired result. The most quotidian methods include maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters (recent example in the news is the requirement of photo ids, destroying or disallowing legal votes.

This is sufficient for me to think of Republicans, in general, as tending to be fascistic.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 2, 2011 at 9:06 am Link to this comment

After reading She’s post, I almost feel the desired need to change my avatar. The word fascist has been like so many other words taken over by bastardizations and demography through the osmosis of time.

Fascism moves ever so slowly and methodology, so the charge is seldom noticed by the people living in it. I suspect our alleged great country is aiming in the direction of the F word,... either F word works for me!

Dung beetles,... I thought it was the slime of the slugs?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 2, 2011 at 5:47 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous—In the cases given in the current story, in the case of Sherrod, in the case of ACORN, and in others, there has been a pattern on the part of the Democrats and organized labor of abandoning people attacked by thugs like Breitbart.  That kind of behavior invites further thuggery, regardless of whether one categorizes it as fascistic or not.

The reason I am concerned with this kind of pusillanimity is that, in reading history, I have noticed that the fascist takeovers were often preceded by it on the part of liberal or conservative governments and parties.  That is, my concept of fascism isn’t just a means of calling some group of people by a bad name, but is part of an analysis identifying political risks which I think are significant.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 2, 2011 at 12:17 am Link to this comment

And the cicadas and dung beetles are at it in blazing
colors, I see.  Yippieee

The problem with the current trendy idea of using the word fascist is that the word has become so used up that it doesn’t scare the people enmass in American society and hence becomes meaningless. To see it used so freely on this forum appears to be a comedy. The fanatical right and hard left both use it to call each other thugs of a sort. Although the meaning of the word might be apropro, it’s become a caricature of any idea of the real violence it represents and has become depleted of any real effect. And if fascism is spreading across the United States, then both the right and the left are spreading it. I mean, come on now, who is shrinking on this forum from seeing the word fascism in print? The word is used so much on this forum it is hilarious. 

The travesty leveled at Shirley Sherrod is a permanent shame. Breitbart was caught in his criminal cut/paste crap. Caught once is food to think he libeled again. Of course the exonerating statements by Provost Hackett after an investigation produced a report that cleared the two Adjunct Professors of misconduct is evidence. It was not her opinion. 

Exerting fascism by corporations or anyone is subverting God’s will? I’d like to see proof of that. Corporate control is practiced by manmade organizations composed of men who control humans, no deity is involved. Of course there is no proof either way.

Nor is it illegal to be a communist in this country. It doesn’t matter if the college professor said he was a communist, (I use a small ‘c’ with that word) particularly in a history class. And helping students understand the concept of revolution is not a crime either nor against academic course content. It is called teaching and if revolution is the concept then there are various ways to teach about it. There is nothing said that he was teaching to be subversive to the American government. Soviet communism does not exist today and yes it was bad which is why it does not exist today. 

Decidedly there are many cowardly liberal Democrats in politics today. Not all of them are contemptuous. A Socialist liberal, Bernie Sanders is most assuredly not pusillanimous.  It is up to the population, that 70% and then some, who must decide who will represent them and also to get rid of those who do not. The recall in Wisconsin that will replace 6 or more Republican politicians is a knockout start. Kathy Hochul is also a hair-raising beginning.

While unions have deserved criticism for occasionally not defending their members, or for the one union official who acted as a prick, blanket statements about the unions not doing anything good for American workers is pusillanimous and blatantly wrong. Maybe there are a couple of brown shirts, but unions are responsible for safe working conditions, child labor laws, minimum and fair wages for hours worked, reasonable work hours, employer based health coverage. There has been some attempted negotiations when members have not been defended well, but this is not the usual case. They do defend their members, Women’s rights in the work place being just one of those successes. The only antidote to organized greed is organized workers.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 1, 2011 at 8:04 pm Link to this comment

I find it kind of hard to believe that a clever Italian journalist like Fallaci would have been unaware of Mussolini’s socialist history.  However, she did grow up fighting the Nazis and Fascists rather than studying in school, and became a reporter in her teens, so maybe the frantic pace of her life left some gaps in her political education.  Her latter-day diatribes about Mexicans and Muslims, at least those I have read, showed considerable ignorance of both logic and history.  But she was nevertheless a great journalist and a great writer.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, June 1, 2011 at 7:31 pm Link to this comment

He was the old socialist, an honorable man who in middle age was so disgusted with Stalin’s invasion of Hungary that he gave back the $25,000 Lenin prize that he had been awarded earlier. 

She was a young atheist, an aggressive reporter and writer who proudly called herself a socialist too. He was Pietro Nenni near the end of life. She was Orriana Fallaci, the best interviewer of her generation, perhaps the best ever.

The end of every interview was like the end of a life, it was a good time to reflect.

Her last question was about regrets, did he have any? He mechanically went through a few. The interview was over but Pietro Nenni was pensive, he had something troubling him.

“It was sad about Benny.” he muttered, “dont you think?”

“Yes.” she said, trying to remember a ‘Benny’ who came to a sad end, but she couldnt imagine who the great Pietro Nenni was talking about. Yet she knew that this might be the best part of their discussion, because the old man was speaking with some emotion. It was an unfiltered sort of truth, the kind that reveals more than two hours of interview. And this might be the last interview for the grand old man who held the Communists and Socialists of Italy together.

“It didnt have to be that way,” he objected to whatever he was thinking about. “Earlier we had been thrown together into a jail cell after protesting the war.” he looked at her for recognition and she nodded, although she was only pretending, she had no idea who ‘Benny’ was or which war they protested. If only he would drop some clue. 

“We became friends, you see.” His voice trailed off and then his hands began shaking a little so he pressed his palms together, “What a shame. What a disaster.” he continued pensively, “People have forgotten. Maybe its best that they never remember, but I cannot help remembering. i even remember every word of our last conversation. We both failed to compromise, perhaps I could have done better. We got angry with each other, we each blamed the other for being stubborn, we tried to embrace for the sake of our long friendship, but then we started arguing again.” He stopped, as if the story was over.

Orriana could not for the life of her make anything out of this. She needed to know who he was talking about or she couldnt ask the right question that would keep him talking. Just then he looked up at her, and he could tell from her eyes that she was perplexed, so she blurted out, “Benny? I dont know for sure which Benny you mean.”

“You dont know?” He asked with an edge of anger in his voice, “You dont know Benny? You are stupid one. Benny! Benito! Benito Mussolini!”

This was news. She thought she knew all about fascism. As a teenager she fought on the side of the Italian Resistance against Hitler and Mussolini. As a young reporter she sided with the downtrodden people and if that meant the communists, she had no problem with that. She was like the great Pietro Nenni that way. Except now he was calling her a stupid one because he knew something that she and the rest of the world didnt know.

“Benny.. Benito.. was an ardent Communist and I was a Republican when we were in jail. He was so certain about Marxism, everyone called him ‘Il Duce’ because he was a born leader of the comrades. He was the one who convinced me that I ought to give Marxism a fair chance.”

At that moment a fault line in the solid Leftist philosophy of Oriana Fallaci began to shift under her feet. Benito Mussolini had been a comrade of Pietro Nenni?  ‘Il Duce’ was his Communist nick-name?  She never expected this.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, June 1, 2011 at 10:42 am Link to this comment

Leftists like to enumerate the characteristics of fascism, and some do so repeatedly as if reciting their ABCs. These “characteristics of fascism” are tailor made, created during some current political disagreement in order to weaken and intimidate American conservatives by ‘proving’ a similarity to fascism. That may gain the desired immediate result for the Leftist, but it is short sighted and in the long run very dangerous. I have in previous posts explained why and you can read back over the days, weeks, and years if you care to learn about it.

My recent post supposedly showed how everyone is fascist. In case you misunderstood, that was irony. It was sarcastism and poetry. Its goal was to show that the term ‘fascism’ is used too freely by Leftists to the point that it has no specific meaning and anyone can be accused of fascism.

Long ago, when i ‘proved’ that Martha/Thomas was a fascist, that was also ironic. 

My next post will be direct. No irony. I will do far more to explain fascism than the Leftists who make accusations of fascism so often and so freely.

I will also show why the term ‘fascism of the Left’  is imprecise and awkward, akin to a double negative in grammar.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 1, 2011 at 10:18 am Link to this comment

{i]Well, by deductive dialectic and logic based upon a unity of balance, using x=x sublation that forms a proof, “mein Fuhrer” can only mean one thing: “my First”.  InheretTheWind
*********

You actually take the “wit” out of being a nit-wit.

“The Furor” was coined by Richard Armour, who wrote comic texts like “It All Started With Columbus” and “It All Started With Europa”.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 1, 2011 at 8:15 am Link to this comment

Zionist once again brought out in the petty childish debate on Hitlers getting to first base before Mussolini under the cover of god?

Please tell me why zionists are even touted? Is is because the N word is out of vogue even in lala land?

As for the definitive fascist,... Martha A, a scholastic expert of noda,  eminent in her own mind spouts nonsense as fact and has seemingly for so long defended in more ways then one, ...for some time now emulates and defends dearly her “Der Furor” as “mein Fuhrer”,  which makes it sound personal and possessive to me?

By the way Fascists are really bullies a small number of people who as opportunists take over control of governemnt while using divisive tactics separating the people calling attention to differences some minorities of people and those who do not tow the rope.  Fascisim is a slow growing of separation of government from the people. Very slowly this takes place.  Fine lines between fasicism and dictatorship seem to cross over at time, the collusions at the top with a larger number of cronies and bullies may be the only difference?  Religion may or may not be a large part of the scheme depending on the opportunists.

It seems to me, Fascism has many more similar characteristics which makes it fascist then a dictator has to make one a dictator. 

God may be present, in either,  but only in the minds of those who wish it so.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 1, 2011 at 8:05 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, June 1 at 8:00 am Link to this comment

I think one of the important features of 20th-century fascism was that it was not strongly connected with gods or religions (unless you consider the fascist party itself as a sort of religion).  As I said previously, the introduction of a religion, at least one not directly controlled by the rulers, brings about a break in the monolithic totality of the state, which is antithetical to the fascist ideal.
*********

I’m not sure I completely agree with the first sentence, but the latter sentence is very astute and, of course, dead-bang accurate.  A fascist state cannot have ANYTHING that people can worship that the state doesn’t have full control over.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 1, 2011 at 8:00 am Link to this comment

I think one of the important features of 20th-century fascism was that it was not strongly connected with gods or religions (unless you consider the fascist party itself as a sort of religion).  As I said previously, the introduction of a religion, at least one not directly controlled by the rulers, brings about a break in the monolithic totality of the state, which is antithetical to the fascist ideal.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, June 1, 2011 at 3:47 am Link to this comment

Interesting that the Inheret The Wind cubicle appears to be operated on a shift basis.
Also, that 7.5 comments have been churned out daily, by zionist types with vivid but
distorted fantasies. Also, that the thousands of years old, israeli habit of
scapegoating contrary opinions is the basis of practice.
None are more prejudiced religiously and “racially” than such persons, who claim to be
non-religious. 
It is an honor to be classified as a fool by such demented “racist” types.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 1, 2011 at 3:27 am Link to this comment

“If you argue with a fool, two fools are arguing.”
So I won’t argue with one I consider a nasty, unprincipled, racist, anti-semitic fool.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, June 1, 2011 at 2:33 am Link to this comment

Well, by deductive dialectic and logic based upon a unity of balance, using x=x sublation that forms a proof, “mein Fuhrer” can only mean one thing: “my First”.  InheretTheWind

“Your” attempt to verbally rebuke MarthaA is about as appropriate as the fantasy creations by whomever was occupying the cubicle when you and OzarkMichael exchanged your written garbage, a few blogs back. 

It continues to reflects your scapegoating of messengers with ideas that do not coincide with those of your leadership. Anyone with knowledge of German knows the meaning of the term, “mein Fuehrer.” 
Which meaning is not replaced by trite jargon created by minds that consistently churn out scapegoating with “Jew-hater,” “racist” and similar pedantic terms.  Nor is the scapegoating trend altered by rebuking with complete sentences, instead of one-word, puke-outs.

Anyone who misuses space on Truthdig to present a pun about Hitler, which joke consists of inaccurate fantasy information, is better qualified for exclusion from Truthdig than MarthaA.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 31, 2011 at 7:50 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA:

A word to the wise, just something I’ve observed but not actually brought about:

If you make shit up about other posters as you are doing, and then posting it, and if you don’t post it as humor or sarcasm (which is why my hero, Leefeller, gets away with it), you’ll find out what others who deliberately lie about those they don’t like at Truthdig have found out:

They become ex-posters.  This is not a threat because I have no power here, no insight into TM (The Management), no say whatsoever.  I can’t ban you or discipline you, or even do more than push “Report this”.  But I am an observer and a realist…and, of course, a survivor here of many such attacks.

Keep your voice here.  Don’t lose it by being stupid.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 31, 2011 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment

God was not connected with the Bolsheviks, Anarcissie, and
to have Fascism, the face of God is necessary; the Bolsheviks
rejected the face of God for Communism, because of the EXTREME
Fascist oppression of the Tzars combined with the Greek Orthodox
face of God.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 31, 2011 at 4:08 pm Link to this comment

“The first order of business is to settle who was the first
fascist.”
—OzarkMichael, May 30 at 9:03 pm
YOUR words NOT MINE, OzarkMichael

“any state where the religious aspect combines with power,
which Martha/Thomas insists on”
—OzarkMichael, May 30
at 9:03 pm
YOUR words NOT MINE,OzarkMichael

“Did you know, Martha/Thomas, that Benito Mussolini was
called “Il Duece”, because he came in second to Hitler?”

By OzarkMichael, May 31 at 4:49 am
YOUR words NOT MINE,
OzarkMichael

“And did you know that Hideki Tojo was called “da Tojo”
because in Japanese “da Tojo” means “the Third”?”?”
—By
OzarkMichael, May 31 at 4:49 am
YOUR words NOT MINE,
OzarkMichael

“Which leads us to the Hitler, who was
always saluted by
Mussolini and Hideki with the title “mein Fuhrer”.
What does “mein
Fuhrer” mean? Well, by deductive dialectic and
logic based upon a unity of balance, using x=x
sublation that forms a proof, “mein Fuhrer” can
only mean one thing: “my First”. “?”
—By
OzarkMichael, May 31 at 4:49 am
YOUR
words NOT MINE,OzarkMichael

With regard to your use of x=x sublated unity of
equal balance in your post, OzarkMichael, to determine the use of
Fascism down through the ages, you have to a
surprising degree properly used the method of
x=x sublated unity of equal balance, but, other
than that, you have spoken for YOURSELF with
YOUR WORDS—NOT MINE.

Because YOU are an admitted Hitleresque
advocate of the dialectic and sophism of Adolph
Hitler in “Mein Kampf,” I understand your
motivation to reemerge from your self imposed
exile and defend a fellow advocate of Hitleresque
sophistry and fascism.

You people of Hitleresque ilk have made your
own issue with regard to the “first fascist” and
are arguing both sides of the issue as a means
of distracting dialog from sophistry and dialectic
with regard to how sophistry and dialectic is
defined, used, and constructed.

As I have said, Fascism has been around for
thousands of years
and I do not have a rats ass of care who the first
fascist was.

Fascism is “Corporate Governance with a
Religious Face” and both
you and Inherit The Wind practice
sophistry and dialectic
as advocated by Adolph Hitler in “Mein Kampf;”
this is the limit of
my interests with regard to Fascism and the use
of sophism and
dialectic in support of Fascist Governance with
regard to YOU and
Inherit The Wind.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 31, 2011 at 3:49 pm Link to this comment

Unfortunately for you, Inherit The Wind, and the rest of your
Right-Wing Hitleresque sophist ilk, what you have said will
be logically and reasonably defined by an x=x sublated unity of equal
balance, rather than by YOUR own self serving sophistry, and that is
the way it should be.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 31, 2011 at 6:49 am Link to this comment

OM, you created further fuss about “Der Furor” (LOL!)

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, May 31, 2011 at 4:49 am Link to this comment

Did you know, Martha/Thomas, that Benito Mussolini was called “Il Duece”, because he came in second to Hitler?

And did you know that Hideki Tojo was called “da Tojo” because in Japanese “da Tojo” means “the Third”?

Which leads us to the Hitler, who was always saluted by Mussolini and Hideki with the title “mein Fuhrer”. What does “mein Fuhrer” mean? Well, by deductive dialectic and logic based upon a unity of balance, using x=x sublation that forms a proof, “mein Fuhrer” can only mean one thing: “my First”.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, May 31, 2011 at 4:34 am Link to this comment

Paul Erdös, the mathematician, used to call God ‘the Supreme Fascist’ (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Erdös).  To quote from Wikipedia: ‘He had his own idiosyncratic vocabulary: he spoke of “The Book”, an imaginary book in which God had written down the best and most elegant proofs for mathematical theorems. Lecturing in 1985 he said, “You don’t have to believe in God, but you should believe in The Book.” He himself doubted the existence of God, whom he called the “Supreme Fascist” (SF).  He accused the SF of hiding his socks and Hungarian passports, and of keeping the most elegant mathematical proofs to himself. When he saw a particularly beautiful mathematical proof he would exclaim, “This one’s from The Book!”. This later inspired a book entitled Proofs from THE BOOK’.

This is a rather loose use of the word fascist, however.  Likewise, my calling the Bolsheviks ‘fascists’ has to do with their behavior rather than their professed intentions.  Perhaps they weren’t very good fascists.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 31, 2011 at 1:05 am Link to this comment

First thomething fithy is going on, this does not thond like the real OM to me, (damn writers lipth) Simply put (got it back) their is a bit of humor in the post, and OM has never shown a humorous side, least which I can recall?

Whomever you are, what have you done with the real OM?

Secondly whom ever you are as not the real OM, the end of your post says; “The first ‘fascist’ would be God, because He forced Adam off his land without a trial”

Not being a biblical know it all, I still can say with little certitude, OM must not forget according to the story,... God supposedly made OM in God’s own image,... which would (dare I say it?) make OM a fascist. On the other hand since I am a cicada,... I cannot be a fascist,...who ever heard of a fascist cicada?

Where in the world is OM?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, May 30, 2011 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment

The conversation here has become a bit murky. Although i signed off this thread i would like to help sort things out.

The first order of business is to settle who was the first fascist. Anarcissie stated that Mussolini was the first person to coin the political word, to define the concept, and then to implement it.

MarthaA chided Anarcissie with this:

If you have the ability to use your own brain, rather than to rely upon and pedantically parse what someone else wrote about, you would know that the practice of Fascism has existed for thousands of years, and that the act of your knowledge of someone writing about Fascism did not magically bring Fascism into existence.

Let me settle this for you guys, because I believe you all have so much in common there is no need for you to disagree about this.

i have read everyone’s posts for years now, and to be consistant with your past posts you have to admit that Martha/Thomas is right on this one. After all, if conservative people who dont know they are fascists can be called ‘fascist’ by every Leftist here, why not do the same to people who lived before the political term ‘fascist’ was coined? They didnt know what fascism was, but you can label them ‘fascist’ anyway. 

I think Anarcissie has already agreed with Martha/Thomas on this by labeling the Bolsheviks as “fascistic”, even though their organization predates Mussolini’s concept.

So lets sketch out some concepts that you can all agree to. First, you all agree that fascism has been around for thousands of years, the example given as proof was the Pharoahs. The Pharoahs were those in power who held other people as slaves to do their work. Thats fascist. Hence, we must admit that George Washington was a fascist since he had power and he held slaves. Thomas Jefferson… also a fascist.

Second, anyone who advises others how to expand their political power is fascist. You will agree for example, that Macchiavelli is a fascist since his writings are fascist in nature, written for future fascists. Plato’s Republic was fascist. Hence, Plato was a fascist, and all philosophers after him are tainted with his fascism.

Third, any state where the religious aspect combines with power, which Martha/Thomas insists on. The Chinese emperors who used Confucious were fascists.  All the Christian Kingdoms in Europe were fascist, likewise the Islamic governments starting with Mohammed and right down to this day, including the one that is about to form in Egypt. All fascist states.

Fourth, any state using patriotism and culture to justify their conquests. The Chinese with their Art of War, Alexander of Greece with his Aristotle, the Mayans with their sacrificial temple. Fascist, fascist, fascist. King David in the old Testament, another fascist.

Fifth, anyone whose behaviour in the political realm is not ethical, such as Nixon, can be called fascist.

Think of anyone who ever exaggerated or told only one side of the story to get elected.  Thats going to include all politicians. For example, while trying to get elected Ralph Nader doesnt tell the other side of the story, so he is a fascist.

Now think of anyone who ever exaggerated or told only one side of the story in the public realm.  Thats a lot of people. Brietbart for one. Chris Hedges also leaves out many details and is quite one sided so he is fascist too.

And then dont forget that you, dear reader, rarely put forth both sides of the story. You trumpet one side and leave out the rest to make your point. Yes, you do. It is the sort of editing that would make Breitbart proud. So you are a fascist too.

An intriguing discussion. But we havent declared who was the first fascist. Lets try.

Perhaps Cain, since he was the first person to use violence to obtain something?

Perhaps Adam, because he lied?

Not quite.

The first ‘fascist’ would be God, because He forced Adam off his land without a trial.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 30, 2011 at 7:36 pm Link to this comment

What has been said by both of us should be on this thread for all to see, and for those watching the dialogue to all know you for what you are.
**********

That’s the first thing you’ve been right about in weeks.  They know I am fact-driven, rational, and capable of altering an analysis when those facts change.  A rational man, stubborn in the face of inanity, lies and false facts, but adaptable when confronted with valid evidence I had not been aware of.

You, OTOH, will appear to them as rational and logical as Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann. (and I’m being kind)

I know history. I’ve studied it all my life. Unlike you, I don’t make it up as I go along.

Shame? I’ll NEVER be ashamed of being rational and labeling the irrational as such.

And you, madame, are irrational.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 30, 2011 at 3:02 pm Link to this comment

You, Inherit The Wind, as a sophist, are trying to
establish YOUR words as mine, and to then establish that I said
what, in fact, YOU said; this is what people like you always do.

I have been as patient with you as with a willful child and tried to
help you work your way through whatever it is that YOUR problem
is, but YOU are disingenuous in intent.

YOU started out by trying to make a joke of Hitleresque sophistry
and dialectic, saying it was ROFLMAO, and then YOU
misrepresented what I said, and asked me to account for what
YOU said for me, in order to distance yourself from trying to make
a joke out of Hitleresque sophistry and dialectic.

If YOUR sophist behavior is something that you are not ashamed
of, it is because you have no shame as a sociopath.

What has been said by both of us should be on this thread for all
to see, and for those watching the dialogue to all know you for
what you are.

You should be ashamed of yourself, although, I know you are not.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 30, 2011 at 1:55 pm Link to this comment

Mussolini was only the leader of Italy, Inherit The Wind,
NOT the leader of the Fascist Axis Powers.   Adolph Hitler
was the leader of the Fascist Axis Powers.  It appears
you are choosing not to admit there were Fascist Axis
Powers
in World War II?  If so, why are you choosing not to
admit there were Fascist Axis Powers in World War II?

Which country is mentioned 1st in the following reports, Germany
or Italy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers
http://ushistory.pwnet.org/resources/II.7.a.php

You may recall “W’s” Saddam Hussein deck of playing cards—or,
do you as a Lite-Right or Hard-Right sophist figure “W” is a
triumphant exception in this regard and parse down past that bit
of gestalt understanding—1st out from the leader is the duce.

Imagine a picture where the pattern of the picture is composed of
pixels, and some fool trying to parse the structure of a few of the
pixels to replace perception of the pattern of the picture; and
then, imagine that the same fool used singular ideological
definition to define and establish the certainty of their parsing of
the structure of the pixels to replace the certainty of the pattern of
the picture, rather than acknowledge a unity of balance between
the pattern of the picture and the structure of the pixels.

Then, imagine that that same fool claimed that the singular
certainty of their parsing of the pixels to obfuscate the overall
pattern of perception of the picture was not sophistry;—would
you not have a low opinion of such a person?—and think that if
they were not a fool that they must certainly be a sophist?  What
say you in this regard?

Do you or do you not agree that anyone who would do such a
thing should be ashamed of themselves?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 30, 2011 at 11:06 am Link to this comment

Duce has more than one meaning.

What is the duce in a pack of playing cards?

Answer

deuce1 (d?s, dy?s)

[Middle English deus, from Old French, two, from Latin du?s
masculine accusative of duo.]

noun

    A playing card having two spots or the side of a die bearing
two pips.
    A cast of dice totaling two.

Deuce in a Deck of Cards…

First of all, it’s spelled…......“Deuce.”

The answer to the question is…...... “Deuce -  The 2 of any suit
(also called a “duck”).”

************

Now who’s the sophist liar trying to weasel her way out of her ignorance?  You are!

“Il Duce” was Mussolini’s title long before Hitler achieved power. It means “The Leader”.  This is what the historical record shows us, from newspapers and news film, to all the historical analyses. 

It doesn’t refer to second, deuces or ducks.

And you know it and are trying to pull a GRYM to get out of it.

The only one here who should be “ashamed”  is the one trying to lie her way out of mess up instead of having the decency and courage to admit her mistake.

Go ahead: Try to convince anyone but yourself that “Il Duce” isn’t Italian for “The Leader”.

You accuse someone of sophistry and then turn around and engage in the worst sort yourself.

You are a dishonest POS who is trying to smear my reputation with falsehoods.  No matter how many trick phrases like “dialectic” you try to toss in.

It’s been tried before—and everyone who tried has failed.

I won’t ask if you are ashamed.  I know you don’t have to decency to know what shame is.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, May 30, 2011 at 9:30 am Link to this comment

MarthaA—I left religion out of my list of the components of fascism because it doesn’t seem to have been important to the fascist parties and regimes I know about.  Note—I’m using ‘religion’ in the usual sense, not as a metaphor for any old belief system.

Traditional religions in fact often impede totalitarian revolutionaries because they propose alternate systems of truth, knowledge, value and authority outside the control of the totalitarian leaders.  Both Mussolini and Hitler had uneasy relations with the religious organizations of their time and place, and of course the Bolsheviks, whom I regard as fascistic, opposed religions altogether.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 30, 2011 at 7:19 am Link to this comment

“This isn’t sophistry—”—Inherit The Wind, May 29 at 9:28
pm

It is about gestalt perception and structural perception combined
in an x=x sublated unity of balance, so that turkeys, like you, do
not pedantically parse structure until the pattern of perception is
lost in the increasingly smaller and smaller parsing of structure;
this is the very nature of what sophism is all about, and you and
all of the other Hard-Right and Lite-Right
sophists that are working hard in this regard know it.

If what you are doing is not sophistry, demonstrate the x=x
sublated balance of what you have said that brought you to the
point where you are, that you are whining about.

Duce has more than one meaning.

What is the duce in a pack of playing cards?

Answer

deuce1 (d?s, dy?s)

[Middle English deus, from Old French, two, from Latin du?s
masculine accusative of duo.]

noun

      A playing card having two spots or the side of a die bearing
two pips.
      A cast of dice totaling two.

Deuce in a Deck of Cards…

First of all, it’s spelled…......“Deuce.”

The answer to the question is…...... “Deuce -  The 2 of any suit
(also called a “duck”).”


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_duce_in_a_pack_of_playing_cards#ixzz1NqR8Mvy
z


You should be ashamed of yourself.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 29, 2011 at 9:33 pm Link to this comment

drbhelthi, May 28 at 12:21 pm Link to this comment

“You aren’t qualified to treat a rock, much less a disturbed human being.” = InheretTheWind

Your qualification to judge my professional qualifications is not demonstrated in any of the vitriolics posted by any shift workers of the InheretTheWind cubicle. Your consistent condemnation of my posts reflects your biased value system.  Youse fit in well with the union of NAZI/Zionists.

********************

If you want to be a wit, you can’t get there when you start by sounding off like a nit-wit.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 29, 2011 at 9:28 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA, May 28 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment

Mussolini taking instructions from Hitler:

“Hitler and Mussolini discussed for three days, and the Fuhrer finally had his way. On September 15, Mussolini approached him and said, “I have come for my instructions.” The instructions were very harsh:
A new Fascist republic would be established in Northern Italy under Mussolini, but the Germans would assume control of its foreign policy and many of its economic resources and would govern part of the country.”

http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=23597

*****

Are you a troll? Did you even READ the article you cited so, so, so….ineptly????  By the time that quote you so ingeniously misused was spoken, Mussolini’s 21 year reign over Italy had collapsed and Hitler had to rescue his ally and mentor.

Yes, mentor.  Mussolini was ruling Italy while Hitler was getting himself tossed into the slammer for attempting to start a rebellion in a Munich beer hall.  (Mussolini’s March on Rome: 1922. Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch: 1923).

Do you actually have any idea of the chronology of how Fascism arose in Europe, or even where the term “Fascism” comes from?  It comes from Mussolini’s party, based on its use of the old symbol of Rome of the Fasces (Used to be on the back of our own Mercury dimes). 

Or is it more of your Lucy van Pelt interpretations like the inane “translation” of “el” (sic) “Duce” as “the second” rather than “Il Duce” correctly as “The Leader”.

This isn’t sophistry—it’s getting historical fact correct. You can’t analyze history based on incorrect information.  (Actually, you can, but then you are just writing pure crap—Fox Noise and its loudmouths do this all the time).

Your “interpretation” of history is about as accurate as that Christo-fascist “museum” that shows dinosaurs living with humans a la Fred Flintstone.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 29, 2011 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment

What is your point?

Your list totally left out God’s Will——a religious face. 

In the case of America’s pursuit of life, liberty, and pursuit of
happiness with freedom and justice for all, God’s Will of Fascist
governance was “Manifest Destiny.”

In the case of Adolph Hitler’s Germany, God’s Will of Fascist
governance was in pursuit of God’s Chosen People.

When God’s Will is left out, Fascism is NOT Fascism. 

Do you, Anarcissie think that the Roman Emperors and
the Pharoahs left God’s Will out of Fascism?——NO, they did not.

Do you think for a moment at the present time in America that
Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Fascists of the Republican
Party leave out God’s Will as the face of Right-Wing Fascism in
America?———NOT a chance.

Right-Wing REPUBLICAN Conservative Corporate EXTREMIST
Fascist
politics in America has the face of God and presents
itself as doing God’s Work, and that they are performing God’s Will.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, May 29, 2011 at 7:58 pm Link to this comment

As I see it, the fascist theory has these principles:

1.  Some people are naturally superior to others (because of chance variation, or breeding, or because they happen to have the right ideology, or belong to the right ethnic group or religion.)

2.  It is possible for the superior people to recognize one another, to know themselves as a class.

3.  This class of superior people have a right and duty to rule the others, and to take whatever steps are necessary to create and secure state power, including the use of violence.

4.  The state, being governed by superior persons, should be total, as in Mussolini’s formula: ‘Everything within the state, nothing outside of the state, nothing against the state.’

Hannah Arendt put (4) another way when she said that totalitarianism was ‘the absence of private life’.

That sums up my idea of fascism.  I mentioned the emperors of Rome and the Pharaohs as examples of a much looser definition of fascism; I don’t think they belong in the category I’m proposing above, and I would not usually say they were fascists.  Your critique is invited.

Hitler had many interesting qualities, all too many, but apparently an ability to think and write about political theory was not one of them.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 29, 2011 at 11:40 am Link to this comment

Fascism is corporate governance with a religious face,
Leefeller, a way of using government to implement God’s
Will.

With regard to Adolph Hitler, Adolph Hitler was the preeminent
Fascist with regard to lesser Fascists of the Axis Powers of
Germany, Italy and Japan during the World War II Era, in this
regard Adolph Hitler was first, not as the first Fascist ever, but as
the preeminent Fascist in an era where many Fascists existed.

It would be well to understand that in today’s political Zeitgeist
that a Right-Wing Republican EXTREMIST and a
World War II Right-Wing Fascist are the same thing, and
bear in mind what it is that is being enabled when Right-Wing
EXTREMIST Fascism
is condoned and tolerated as legitimate
political representation in American politics and leadership of the
government of the United States.

Report this
Lee Oates's avatar

By Lee Oates, May 29, 2011 at 11:35 am Link to this comment

Does the work “mental masturbation” stike a bell. While your highschool debate team is working overtime, real people whose behavior could be classified as Fascist behavior, are impacting the states, like Arizona, in a very negative fashion.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 29, 2011 at 11:20 am Link to this comment

“in discussing political theory I prefer clear
language, evidence, logic, all that sort of thing.”
—Anarcissie, May 29 at 7:15 am

“The pharaohs and the emperors of Rome were
‘fascists’.”  —Anarcissie, May 29 at 7:15 am

That “The pharaohs and the emperors of
Rome were “fascists”
can be
demonstrated by x=x sublated unity of balance,
logic, Anarcissie.

If what you say, that “In discussing political
theory I prefer clear language, evidence, logic, all
that sort of thing.”
is true, what happened
with regard to your claim of ignorance with
regard to x=x sublated unity of balance that is
the language of logic in your prior posts?

Are you advocating sophist logic, bastardized
logic of propaganda or what?

Logic is not based upon singular definition of
ideological definition, logic is based upon a unity
of balance, x=x sublation that forms a
proof.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 29, 2011 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

You know I find very occasionally I learn something here on Truth Dig, obviously some people when given the chance to learn something they inherently choose to ignore it and continue basking in their pigheaded ignorance.

I would also like to expand, by saying this seems the apparent reason our country is being manipulated by opportunists, in my mind seemingly fascist opportunists.

I remember quite fuzzily the Shester got into this same song and dance fascist routine with Martha A, and as far as I can tell Martha A seemingly has a comprehending problem or she just enjoys pulling peoples chains?

Who gives a shit if Hitler instituted fascism first? Seems about as relevant in the scheme of things to me as the town drunk saying he knows the name of the fist person who designed the Waning crescent moon on an outhouse door!

“Liberal fascism” by Jonah Goldberg which could be one way of looking at fascism but I suspect fascism is clearly undefinable just from what I have read. So damn many contradictions, apparently the word fascism has been bastardized and used for political disparaging about the same time as the word socialism was.

Dogmas find the need to use disparaging words helpful in their usual hypocritical pointing of fingers.

Actually…I don’t need no stinking book to tell me that Fascism’s can be from the left. .  Because, I have written proof here on TD. Proof which supports my premise of the existence in left wing fascists…. As a mock display of politeness I refuse to mention Martha’s name!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, May 29, 2011 at 7:15 am Link to this comment

MarthaA, May 29 at 6:29 am:

“The first person I know of who wrote about fascism…” —
Anarcissie, May 28 at 7:49 pm

‘When you say “The first person that I know of who wrote about
Fascism,” Anarcissie, you, in effect, say that from your
perspective that Fascism did not exist until whoever you know
about wrote about Fascism. ...’

Well, again, we find there is a big question about what people mean by what they say.  If fascism is a specific ideology and the practices which were inspired by that ideology, then, yes, it didn’t exist until someone invented it.  If the word is used more loosely to mean any form of authoritarian domination, then of course it has been around for thousands of years at least.  The pharaohs and the emperors of Rome were ‘fascists’.  Or the word can be used even more loosely, as by so many on this web site, to mean ‘people I don’t like—the other tribe.’  The looser our usage, the less we can say.  On the other hand many people feel that the only legitimate forms of speech are emotional outbursts and ritual incantations, as on television, so they would prefer vague language no one had to think about too much.  Eventually one could get down to grunting and moaning.  There is a time and a place for everything, including grunting and moaning, but in discussing political theory I prefer clear language, evidence, logic, all that sort of thing.  However, to each his own.  It’s a free Internet (so far).

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 29, 2011 at 6:29 am Link to this comment

“The first person I know of who wrote about fascism…”
Anarcissie, May 28 at 7:49 pm

When you say “The first person that I know of who wrote about
Fascism,” Anarcissie, you, in effect, say that from your
perspective that Fascism did not exist until whoever you know
about wrote about Fascism.

If you have the ability to use your own brain, rather than to rely
upon and pedantically parse what someone else wrote about, you
would know that the practice of Fascism has existed for thousands
of years, and that the act of your knowledge of someone writing
about Fascism did not magically bring Fascism into existence.

It may be beyond your ability to think beyond pedantic parsing,
and it may be that you can think beyond pedantic parsing and you
do not do so, because pedantic parsing is convenient for the
application of sophism; whichever is the case, I do not know, and I
do not care——— the problem is yours, and yours to deal with, my
part is whether or not to accept YOUR false framing based upon
pedantic parsing, and I do not.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, May 28, 2011 at 7:49 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA—when I talk about fascism I am talking about a set of ideas and a form of social organization.  The first person I know of who wrote about fascism clearly was Mussolini; he also seems to have been the inventor.  If you prefer Hitler, all I can say is to each his own.  The little I’ve read of Hitler’s writing and speeches seem to me like the barking of a vicious dog, not the thoughts of a political theorist.  I don’t think he had much of a political theory beyond killing and enslaving as many people as possible.  Sure, Mussolini was sucking up to him in 1944.  What choice did he have?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 28, 2011 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment

Mussolini taking instructions from Hitler:

“Hitler and Mussolini discussed for three days, and the Fuhrer finally
had his way. On September 15, Mussolini approached him and said,
“I have come for my instructions.” The instructions were very harsh:
A new Fascist republic would be established in Northern Italy under
Mussolini, but the Germans would assume control of its foreign policy
and many of its economic resources and would govern part of the
country.”

http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=23597

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 28, 2011 at 4:09 pm Link to this comment

You are trying to talk pedantic parsing based on sophism,
Anarcissie, and I am talking about who the leader was of
the Axis Powers in World War II that I accept as the primary
authority with regard to Fascism, and that is without a doubt
Adolph Hitler.

How is it that your pedantic parsing diminishes Adolph Hitler’s role
as a supreme authority with regard to Fascism?

If you have something to say with regard to Adolph Hitler’s
authority as being first in defining the nature and application of
Fascism, get on with it.

Otherwise, if all you have to say is irrelevant pedantic parsing like
a petulant child who does not understand the conversation, go
back to your room and play with your toys, so that the grown ups
can talk without you creating a disturbance.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, May 28, 2011 at 2:56 pm Link to this comment

Marthaa—Duce means ‘leader’ in Italian, from a similar Latin word.

I suggest you look at the Wikipedia article on Mussolini (or any other similar historical overview).  Take note of the dates of the creation of fascism and of Mussolini’s accession to power (1914, 1922), and compare them to Hitler’s corresponding dates, and find out who was following who.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 28, 2011 at 1:55 pm Link to this comment

You said that, Leefeller, I said Hitler was the first, Mussolini
was two, and Tojo was three in the Axis of Power—Fascism started
with Hitler.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, May 28, 2011 at 12:21 pm Link to this comment

“You aren’t qualified to treat a rock, much less a disturbed human being.” = InheretTheWind

Your qualification to judge my professional qualifications is not demonstrated in any of the vitriolics posted by any shift workers of the InheretTheWind cubicle. Your consistent condemnation of my posts reflects your biased value system.  Youse fit in well with the union of NAZI/Zionists.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 28, 2011 at 11:29 am Link to this comment

Yeah! Lets keep it simple, the only true pure as Ivory Snow fascism is Hitlers fascistic Germany….. we sure as hell don’t want to confuse things with Franco’s Rice a Ronnie nor Pinochet’s Texas Chile!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 28, 2011 at 11:29 am Link to this comment

Yeah! Lets keep it simple, the only true pure as Ivory Snow fascism is Hitlers fascistic Germany….. we sure as hell don’t want to confuse things with Franco’s Rice a Ronnie nor Pinochet’s Texas Chile!

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 28, 2011 at 10:06 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, duce means two or 2nd
and el means the.

Hideki Tojo was No. 3 on the Axis of Power.

El Duce Mussolini was No. 2 on the Axis of Power.

Adolph Hitler, The Fuhrer, was No. 1 on the Axis of Power.

Therefore, I accept Adolph Hitler as the Prime
Example of Fascism,
although El Duce and Hideki Tojo are also good
examples of the very flower that
IS Right-Wing EXTREMIST Governance;
Fascism.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, May 28, 2011 at 7:48 am Link to this comment

MarthaA, May 27 at 9:35 am:

‘Adolph Hitler is the standard for Fascism….’

I would say Mussolini.  At least, Mussolini gave the clearest expression of the fascist idea of the supremacy and totality of the state.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 27, 2011 at 11:06 am Link to this comment

For some strange unknowing reason, I seem to be missing Ommmmypoo!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 27, 2011 at 10:41 am Link to this comment

Dr. Quack:

The only one racist and anti-semitic out of OM, you and me is…...YOU!

Every word and every idea you drop—you bought into the racist crap that Obama is Kenyan, you cheered the use of “Mocha Saviour” to describe him, and you anti-semitism is clear and on the record.

You are just trying the old trick: Accusing others of what YOU are doing….

You aren’t qualified to treat a rock, much less a disturbed human being.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 27, 2011 at 9:46 am Link to this comment

drbhelthi, May 27 at 8:12 am,

I appreciate your frank expression of awareness with regard to
Hitleresque dialectic as regards OzarkMichael and
Anarcissie.

All who are aware of the use of Hitleresque sophism and
Hitleresque dialectic and are in support of a “unity of balance,” the
Left, have a moral obligation to spread awareness, rather than to
be passive observers.  In your post, you have declared yourself in
this regard.

I hope you and others will continue to do so in a growing
movement to shed light on Hitleresque sophism and Hitleresque
dialectic for what it is with regard to its function as the hand
maiden for Fascism.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 27, 2011 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

Adolph Hitler is the standard for Fascism, Anarcissie, and the
World War II Holocaust is the causal
effect of Fascism that defines the Hitleresque Standard of
Fascism
; this causal “Standard of Fascism” can be
meaningless only to those who are ignorant or unaware.

So long as culture passes down this causal “Standard of Fascism,”
only the ignorant and unaware will perceive Fascism as
“meaningless.”

When we no longer see Fascism as a threat that rises to the level
of Hitleresque Fascism with World War II causal effects of
Holocaust, we as a society will no longer feel the need to actively
discuss and roundly condemn Fascism; at that time Fascism
will be rehabilitated
, and the whole Dumb Show of World War
II Fascism and Holocaust will regenerate as a seed and regrow
into Fascism on the level of World War II Fascist Holocaust.

The following post was made on Truthdig’s, ‘This is what
Resistance Looks Like’
at the request of Gary Mont
to explain x=x sublation to Gary Mont, perhaps it will be
of benefit to you, Anarcissie, also to explain x=x sublation:

Science and mathematics are “two”
examples of the use of a sublated “unity of balance.”

Do you find science and mathematics to be meaningless?

For you personally, Gary Mont, I suggest that you think of
a “unity of balance” in the following way; on one side of the equal
sign you exist in the form of your human body, and on the other
side of the equal sign you exist as the organs and structure that
makes up your human body.

What would the balance of your human body be on one side of the
equal sign, if an organ on the other side of the equal sign was
missing, say your liver?

Would there be a “unity of balance” on both sides of the equal
sign if your liver was missing on one side of the equal sign?

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, May 27, 2011 at 8:12 am Link to this comment

“You, OzarkMichael, as a sophist, have supported and continue to support Hitleresque
dialectic,- - ”  MarthaA (Flaminghouse)

Martha, after having re-reviewed some blogs of Ozark Michael and Inherit The Wind, I have
drawn two conclusions.  One, is that Ozark M. is qualified for a leadership position in the
Brown Shirts for consistent presentation of “hitleresque dialectic.”  However, InheretTheWind
is on the opposite side of the fence, yet blogs similarly.  This person, or the workers in
this computer cubicle, are qualified as water-boy for the group who scapegoat with the phrase,
“Jew hater,” “racist”  and whatever other similar terms their Zionist leadership dictates for
usage.  Both dogmatically refute accurate and insightful information.  One in support of
“Brown Shirt-types,” the other in support of Zionist types. 

Ozark Michael´s blogs are what I would expect from George Bush Jr., if he has adequately
overcome MKUltra programming to the extent that he can drive a computer, without assistance,
and present spontaneous thoughts.  The variety of trains-of-thought presented by
InheretTheWind, suggests a computer cubicle, with male/female shift-changes.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, May 27, 2011 at 7:23 am Link to this comment

‘Real radicalism on the Left’ would be a radical commitment to peace, freedom, and equality.  I certainly support it, but its protagonists are mighty thin on the ground.  Most people seem to feel that we have quite enough peace, freedom and equality and would like to see a bit less of them.  At least, that’s what they vote for and the way they act otherwise.  To me, that is more of a problem than a few thuggy people doing questionable things to advance one agenda or another.

I think that the term ‘fascist’ has been thrown around with great abandon in this discussion.  Words which are thrown around with great abandon soon become meaningless.  I suppose much emotional satisfaction can be had from barking, though, so please yourselves.

MarthaA—In spite of my supreme sophistical parsing expertise, I can’t make about what you’re talking about, and so I find I am unable to refute your charges, whatever they are.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 26, 2011 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment

OzarkMichael, May 26 at 11:02 am,

The foundation of your blogging and your influence on this
Truthdig forum is, has, and continues to be, Hitleresque
sophism and Hitleresque dialectic
, rather than dialectic as x=x
sublated balance, that is both positively and negatively balanced
on both sides of the equal sign.

You, OzarkMichael, as a sophist, have supported and
continue to support Hitleresque dialectic, negatively balanced
dialectic to condemn those who YOU,OzarkMichael,
accuse, condemn, denounce, and want to destroy, and positively
balanced dialectic to support the Right-Wing EXTREMIST
Republican Party in a Hitleresque fashion, in accordance with “Mein
Kampf,” and you have, without shame and with pride of purpose
used both negatively balanced dialectic and positively balanced
dialectic in combination with sophism in the same way as was
used and advocated by Adolph Hitler.

Now, OzarkMichael, you are whining that you are leaving
the Truthdig forum because no one wants to continue to listen to
and be guided by your Hitleresque dialectic and Right-Wing
EXTREMIST sophism; what a shame—no one misses Hitler and no
one will miss you.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, May 26, 2011 at 11:02 am Link to this comment

My first point to all the Leftists: You are willing to support real radicalism on the Left while you denounce what is only a flimsy supposition of radicalism on the Right.

You have no answer to that. Essentially you accept the point as true but arent worried about it.

Only scanty evidence is needed for you to condemn fascism, but a signed proclamation “i am a Communist!” is not enough to make you worry about communism. Our blogging was based on a misunderstanding, since i used to think you were afraid of all potential authoritarianism, but now i see that isnt true. 

I think accusations of radicalism from the cicadas are completely meaningless. i used to take it seriously and defend against it. That was an unequal dialogue between us.

That inequality has been the foundation of our blogging here all along. This makes real dialogue possible only if I am willing to compromise with the inequality which you foist upon me. It took me a long time to detect it, and lately to protest it, and now to formulate it. I am a little embarrassed it took me this long to figure out.

As you know i am not willing to accept the inequality anymore. So instead of a dialogue i pretty much just yell at you. I know you dont like it. i dont like it either.

Any further points I was planning to make about these topics would be unimportant to you, so I am done on this thread.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 26, 2011 at 9:58 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, May 26 at 8:06 am,

What you are saying is that YOU want to argue
pedantic parsing of
sophism, rather than working toward
establishing a “unity of
balance”, x=x sublation

When Pi times Diameter was established to
determine what a circle
is, a “unity of balance” was formulated to define
a circle and what
constitutes a circle; this is an example of x=x
sublation
.

One can parse a circle till Hell freezes over and it
will still be Pi times the Diameter, because there
is a “unity of balance,” x=x sublation.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, May 26, 2011 at 8:06 am Link to this comment

We have to recognize what the 70% say they want, or vote for, not just what we think would be in their interests.  If it’s at variance with what we think, then we need to try to change their minds (or maybe change our minds), meanwhile tolerating the difference of opinion.

My critique of a union official who fires a union member from a union job because of a highly edited, slanderous video without establishing the facts of the matter is a much more limited, practical one which applies to any group or organization, not just to those which share my particular ideology.  In this case I would like to change people’s minds, if only indirectly, about bowing and scraping before authoritarians and their slanderers and spies, even if they remain social democrats or conservatives or libertarians or whatever.  I’ll work on our ideological differences later.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 25, 2011 at 5:43 pm Link to this comment

I find it unsettling a bit myself, Leefeller, but I will find a way
to deal with it.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 25, 2011 at 5:18 pm Link to this comment

Martha A, I don’t like when that happens!

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 25, 2011 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment

This is a watershed moment that seldom happens, but I find myself in
agreement with Leefeller.

Report this
Lee Oates's avatar

By Lee Oates, May 25, 2011 at 3:19 pm Link to this comment

Good God, I have never read so much verbal bullshit in my life.  The student deliberatey tryed to screw up the teacher to gain attention. Fascism is a reality and spreading across America. Speak clearly and quit trying to impress us with pseudo-intellectual ramblings.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 25, 2011 at 3:04 pm Link to this comment

“The Fascist are not coming”, is a bit late Ommmy poo, they are already here on the right. I would suspect they could just as well be from the left, but right now the Repulicants are doing a nice job of bullying, just about anyone who does not belong to their club,  women, the unwashed masses, aliens, the elderly, teachers and anyone who is not one of the good old boys who believe in the concept ’ I got mine and it is going to stay that way’... this of course includes the voting against their own best interests Tea Bags and both and some Democrats who happens to dance to the money bagged piper the ‘wealthy elite ‘benefactor Corps are us’ such as the Kochs and the like so I am not just talking about Fox lop sided News.

Palul Ryan the other day said he did not believe or listen the poles; I don’t think he was talking about the country; then he went on to say the 80 percent number who do not want him to touch Medicare does not matter to him, because he doubts the number and since he in his mind is a leader among men and (I suppose women)  and as such a leader he is supposed to lead and not listen to what the people say or want.

Paul Ryan is at best a fascist in the making or he could be taking lessons from Gadabout in Libya?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 25, 2011 at 2:42 pm Link to this comment

If you sincerely feel the way you say, Anarcissie, you had
best throw your lot in with the American Populace Left, the
insignificant Left as you say, the 70% majority common population,
so that the current crop of Right-Wing Fascists can be controlled
before the current Hindenburg Government in the United States is
dissolved into a dictatorship and the Night of the Long
Knives
is knocking on YOUR door and YOU are hearing the Raven
say, “Never More”.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, May 25, 2011 at 11:10 am Link to this comment

I recognize that everyone does not think as I do.  It concerns me when a major part of the population, including their leaders and organizations, fail to defend their own, because thereby they encourage predators who will not only eat them up but me and people like me as well.  That’s why I mentioned Von Papen, whose ill-starred history you can read about in Wikipedia or Shirer’s Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 25, 2011 at 10:54 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, May 24 at 9:46 pm,

Why should the majority populace Left care that the Democrats, as
representatives of the Lite Right, do not preserve, protect, and
defend the Middle Class as a Lite Right Left-Wing Faction?  What
does that matter to me?

I am a part of the American Populace, the 70% Majority Common
Population of the United States, the populace Left, that is NOT
politically represented in the United States in the making and
enforcing of legislated law and order, and I don’t have a rat’s ass
of care about the whining of the Lite Right to the Hard Right that
the Hard Right is not representing the interests of the Lite Right.

Tell me, if you can, why I, or anyone else in the populace Left, the
American Populace, should give a care about the whining of the
Lite Right Middle Class losing benefit to the Hard Right, when it is
an internal Right-Wing problem, and BOTH are involved in
denying political representation and benefit from the making and
enforcing of legislated law and order to the populace Left, the
American Populace?

Also, here is a significant little tidbit that the Corporate Lite Right
of course has gone along with to bring the cost of labor down in
the United States while not decreasing the cost of living, which
hurts only the populace Left that you, of course, don’t even
recognize, as you say “There is no significant Left as I
count the Left in the U.S. :”

http://www.alternet.org/story/151074/reverse_offshoring_or_yet_more_evidence_of_corporate_america’s_squeeze_on_workers?akid=7010.130864.MEW8PY&rd=1&t=15

YOU don’t count the populace Left, but, I count
the populace Left to be a 70% Majority Common
Population in the United States that has no representation in the
making and enforcing of legislated law and order and needs
representation in the making and enforcing of legislative law and
order.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, May 25, 2011 at 9:26 am Link to this comment

What is the meaning of freedom of speech, OzarkMichael,
when freedom is defined by sophistry and negatively balanced
dialectic; YOU are a Right-Wing Republican Conservative
Corporate Welfare Government and War Christian, a Corporatized
Fascist sophist,
that spouts negatively balanced dialectic to
define the Left, and positively balanced dialectic to
define the Right, as did Adolph Hitler, and as we all
know this resulted in the Holocaust and World War II.

YOU should be ashamed of yourself.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 25, 2011 at 3:38 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, most things do not seem to work as intended, I suspect unions are no different. My experience with unions agrees with your comment, though I feel unions are the only thing between sweat shops and fairness for ones personal commodity which is labor.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, May 24, 2011 at 9:46 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA—There is no significant Left as I count the Left in the U.S.  But my complaint about the Democrats and the non-Left Left (such as the AFL-CIO) is not that they are not leftists, which we already knew, but that they are pusillanimous and do not defend their own people or even give them an even break.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, May 24, 2011 at 6:17 pm Link to this comment

Now that everyone had a chance(and even had a second chance) to look at the material involved, and no one has changed their tune, I have a few points to make. Today i will make the first point, which is about radicalism, entitled:

The Fascists are coming!:

To all the Leftists who have posted,

What we have here is your hand wringing about the Right’s ‘fascism’, which even you have to admit is non-proclaimed, un-professed fascism, guilt-without-any-association fascism, and therefore heavily dependent on a judgment call from you.

In the tape that Brietbart released, one of the professors announces that he is Communist, and we saw how he helped his students explore the concept of revolution.

For all your concern about fascism, I notice you all gladly defended the self proclaimed Communist. He talks the talk and walks the walk.

You want him to have his teaching slot back?

You want the Left to stand up for its own?

Some of you want the student who exposed him to be placed in jail?

You want something done to silence Brietbart?

You are standing up for a flimsy accusation of fascism and that is more important to you than freedom of speech.

When political prisoners in the young Soviet Union were dragged through town, the people were taught to say “the fascists are coming!”  Those prisoners were Christians who didnt give in, conservatives who resisted the Communists, and some were even Leftists who criticized the regime. But they were all called ‘fascists’. The accusation was based on ignorance, prejudice, and fear.

Today when you accuse ‘fascism’ without evidence it is an echo of those ignorant, prejudiced, fearful townsfolk who were taught by Communists to condemn political prisoners as they were dragged into town, “Its the Fascists!”

That is the terrible past that you echo, but it also a future dystopia that you foreshadow.

Now I think of all those prisoners. Good people, sometimes the best and the bravest people, who were arrested and dragged to humiliating death, not just a few, but millions. I weep for them just as much as I weep for the victims of real fascism, and I make a vow in both cases: ‘Never again!’

I will not enjoy the luxury of friendships here if it means being your codependent while you echo that dreadful past, while you work towards that dreadful future. 

What of that future? What of the Christians who are already easy prey in many parts of the world? In a future where the mere accusation of fascism will carry the death penalty, it will even come to your own doorstep if you are a good and brave person who resists.

Communism is that bad. Read Trotsky. Even the one with the least blood on his hands was a monster.

We conservatives know Communism to be just as deadly as Fascism. We conservatives denounce both Fascism and Communism. In both cases free speech gets trashed.

Today, in this case, you have knowingly sided with a Communist, and that isnt just my accusation against you, its a fact. He proclaims it and teaches it. I notice you all were unconcerned about that. Not one word. Not one word except demanding that the Left needs to stick up for him and get his job back.

This is my first point expressed in one sentence: You are willing to support real radicalism on the Left while you denounce what is only a flimsy supposition of radicalism on the Right.

I give you all a chance to respond. My next point will be about ‘methods’.

Report this

Page 5 of 6 pages « First  <  3 4 5 6 >

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook