There's not a lot of time left, so let’s go for the carotid on a couple of major political points that could benefit from a little ‘judo.’
== Republicans denouncing the subornation ==
Remember Madison Cawthorn, the rising young Republican star Congressmember, who was suddenly dumped by the GOP, for revealing ‘orgies’ amid upper ranks of the party? That huge over-reaction - destroying him for offhand (and likely stoned) remarks on shock radio - reflected almost-certain desperation to silence truth; otherwise he'd a got a slap on the wrist.
But was it true? I've long posited that the behavior of so many top GOPpers – e.g. Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz – can only be explained by blackmail. Mere corruption is insufficient, because any merely-corrupt official can say ‘that’s enough bribery for this year; if I keep saying more shit, I’ll look suspicious or insane.’
Blackmail, on the other hand, is insatiable. You simply keep doing whatever the blackmailer demands, even if it makes you look like an idiot, or hypocrite, or both, as in the multiple times when Graham tried to say "I'm done with Trump!" hoping that it would end his ongoing humiliation... followed the next day by utter groveling.
I mean, do you have an even remotely plausible alternate theory?
This isn't new. Russian secret services have been expert at ‘honeypot traps’ ever since the czars. Look up the Moscow US embassy Marine guards (1980s) as just one example.
Seriously read this. It’s not getting the attention it deserves and this fellow is at least partially a hero. Or watch this.
== It’s the Republican defectors who will make the biggest difference, stupid ==
Above, I showed how an honest and decent conservative Congressmember has stepped up to denounce the blackmail subornation of his party. Others recently used insane rhetoric and mad conspiracy theories about hurricanes as their own excuse to step up and partially reject the madness.
Not as much courage as we need from them. But we'll take what we can get.
Then of course there's the long list of former Trump officials – his ‘adults in the room’ during Trump v1.0 – who have nearly all denounced him. From Tillerson & McMaster to Kames Mattis and John Kelly, to even far-right schmucks like John Bolton and Bill Barr. As many as a hundred have said "even I can't stomach the insanity and treason."
To which Tump's answer is that in Trump2.0 there will be NO adults in the room. Total brownshirt time.
Which is why I urge the zillionaire oligarchs, murder sheiks and "ex" commissars who have pulled Trump's puppet strings for decades to watch the movie Cabaret, especially the last 5 minutes. Because if he does get back into office on a MAGA sig-heil-wave, none of those masters will ever again ‘control him.’ Not with blackmail or anything else.
In fact, you oligarchs and Kremlin guys need yet another film... watch Angela Lansbury’s chilling soliloquy near the end of The Manchurian Candidate to see what Don will likely do to his former masters, once the strings are cut.
But let’s add yet more pertinent movie overlaps! This interview with former Trump Communications Director Scaramucci is interesting. “Scaramucci on Trump: "He's going to lose because he's getting boring."
Dig a little, and you'll see that the Mooch is describing the "Howard Beale Scenario." (Watch the last 10' of Network and get truly scared!)
Still, the part of his interview that I resent - because if it does happen, Mooch will get all the prediction points - is when he gives 40% that odds ol' Two Scoops won't even make it to the election or inauguration.
While I was there lots earlier - with lower odds - I hedged it with the election that actually matters - the Electoral College. Which is where the fix may be in.
== It’s the Electoral College, dummy ==
Okay, three big points about the Electoral College, America’s weird (insane) but unchangeable Constitutionally gerrymandered gimmick favoring Red America.
Make that four points. The first? Um why are there two Dakotas? And shouldn’t just one state – Ida-Wyo-Mont – span the northern Rockies?
But no, let’s get practical. The core aim of the Trumpists has been openly declared… for GOP governors and others in some Harris-won states to refuse to certify enough electors, so that the count for president will be invalid, so that the choice will be ‘thrown to the House.’ Hence, even if Dems win a sweeping, crushing victory in November, you might still see Trump get in!
Because at that stage - in another insanely dumb Constitutional provision - the House votes by delegations – one vote per – and Republicans have 26 delegations vs 24 for dems.
Now, that nightmare assumes there won’t be brave and patriotic Republican Congresswomen or men in some of those reddish delegations, who decide to put country first, the way Alexander Hamilton (bravely) swung the 1800 election to Jefferson, instead of Aaron Burr. That might happen.
Or else some of YOU will be heroes who help swing just one or two of those delegations blue. In some cases it could come down to just one Congressional race. Look around. There may be some tight races you can help with. And that's where $100 could make a lot more difference than donating to Kamala.
== More Electoral College partial fixes within reach! ==
Okay, two more. I have elsewhere ruminated on the Wyoming Rule. If the dems get real power in Congress, they should pass it, so that all Americans get at least roughly equal representation in the lower house, as was intended. And if that happens, not only will blue states get more representation in the larger (~560 members) House, but the coloration of the Electoral College will change forever.
Only let’s swing to another of my proposals, One which no one else has broached, but that could (well, maybe) make a real difference this year.
In Polemical Judo I mentioned a possible action by one hyper rich person (say a Mark Cuban?) A bold yet totally legal move that could (possibly) get us past whatever tricks the Project 2025 schemers have in mind, to screw up certifications and throw it to the House.
Briefly: rent a whole mountaintop luxury hotel with minimal - highly vetted - staff. Then announce that for two weeks ...
"Only certified Electors may come as guests. Upon arrival from their home states, they can just stroll and enjoy the views and meals and discuss with each other anything they like. Or else they could - at their own volition - convene the first actual Electoral College in U.S. history. As would be their prerogative! And this year, such a gathering just might be one more bulwark against shenanigens."
Again, no coercion or persuasion. Just show up by individual choice, eat, stroll and chat with others who just happen to be there at the same time, without any of those others being anyone but fellow electors (and minimal staff of trusted cooks). And if you just happen to decide to convene a meeting - formal or informal - well…
Suppose this happened. Watch how quickly the stalling states would rush to certify!
Though note. No matter how carefully Trumpists have ensured the GOP elector slates are party hacks – and most dem electors would likely be loyalists as well – some would likely talk it over, suddenly moved by the genuine (not ceremonial) power in their hands.
Moreover, as one of the candidates (you-know-who) fulminates volcanically against this "trickery!!" just enough of them might listen to their conscience and reason…
… and act to save the Republic.
318 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 318 of 318Is this Spencer fellow speaking in Whale?
Seriously, I think most people around here recognize the fact that the #1 indicator of a fascist is that he accuses everyone he doesn't like of being a communist.
Hey Lena, can you please quote me calling someone a communist? Thanks.
Remember the 2020 election? Trump declared victory while he was ahead, saying only votes counted on election day mattered.
I am at Caltech getting Disting Alum… and hence unable to participate fully.
Puzzed, I pondered whether "Spencer" was adding anything beyond silly-snarking. Not worthany further benefit of the doubt.
(Said Pelosi to Biden)
Larry,
Fear drives $$. The Democrats are not above using that technique.
But yes. The game hasn't started yet. The teams are still scaring up resources and engaging in psy-ops.
Also... Nate Silver points out that the tiny shifts in the odds for who wins the Electoral College are in the statistical noise. The difference between 50/50 and 49.8/50.2 splits in EC chances results in about one more winning run out of 100+ simulated elections for the candidate at 50.2%. Not something over which we should get worked up.
A 49.8/50.2 split in the popular vote is very different, but that's not how one wins.
Okay, I thought Potemkin Village was a Stalin-era term, as that's the only context I've heard it in. I looked it up, and it goes back to the Tzars - Catherine the Great, to be more specific. My brain!
Paul SB
Alfred Differ:
Fear drives $$. The Democrats are not above using that technique.
I know, I know. I get multiple texts a day begging for one more donation even if I just gave one.
The thing is, at this point, I'm not convinced that the candidate who is ahead in donations--and therefore able to run more ads--is "winning", i.e., is changing the minds of more potential voters. One might as well write a check directly to the media and leave the middleman out of it.
Except in one state--Arizona I think--where he was behind. His supporters were literally chanting "Count the votes!" in one state and "Stop the counting!" in another state.
Serious snarking, not silly. I mean what I say.
So what are we supposed to conclude or do from what you say? What are you trying to convince us to do? Vote for the drooling, senile fascist instead of the younger, vibrant vice president because Biden is old?
1) Stop being so dramatic.
2) Be honest with yourself.
Okay, but I really don't appreciate being falsely labeled a "fascist" on a knee-jerk reaction to something that wasn't ever a reference to communism.
By the same logic presented above, "the #1 indicator of a communist is that he accuses everyone he doesn't like of being a fascist" would apply equally here. But really, neither this theoretical statement nor the inverse is true.
Agreed, Alfred.
It is equally amusing as disturbing to see so many convince themselves they're "saving democracy". Please, fellow citizens, come back down to Earth. You aren't special, you aren't heroic, we're all just little people.
Also, let's not keep pretending the billionaires are unilaterally aligned with left or right.
Between Cuban, Emhoff, Thiel, Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Musk, etc., besides sore feelings on either side, what is actually the specific criteria being used to oh-so-conveniently sort these American billionaire folks into cartoon heroes and villains?
Whoops, mixed up a name: *Hoffman*, not *Emhoff*, haha
I will after Republicans do.
Fascist-enabler, then.
Spencer,
Sorry. I deal with fascists every day, so whenever I read anything that smacks of it, I call it out. Since 80% of the Republican party supports a wannabe fascist dictator who gets his applause lines from Mussolini and Hitler, there’s a lot of fascists around these days.
"the #1 indicator of a communist is that he accuses everyone he doesn't like of being a fascist" would apply equally here. But really, neither this theoretical statement nor the inverse is true.
Here, however, you are absolutely dead wrong. Fascism is at its base and anti-communist, and every fascist there ever has been has accused his opponents - truthfully or (very often) not - of being communists, socialists, and/or Marxists.
I can’t blame people for not knowing this. At the end of World War 2 it was pretty clear that the Free West was going to get into some kind of big kerfuffle with the Soviet Union and their Eastern Bloc puppet states. Naturally, Western propagandists wanted to downplay the fact that the fascists they were fighting were on their side where it came to Russia. It’s been 30 years since the Cold War ended, and they are still using McCarthyism to motivate ignorant people to vote for them.
As far as most people are concerned, all they know about those two isms is (in Orwell’s terms): Communism baaaad! Fascism baaaad! And since we’re apparently God’s Chosen People, we can’t be either of them. So when you tell people the actual truth, they just get mad and deny reality. You would think in the Age of the Internet that people would take advantage of so much access and actually try to find out what the truth is, but most people would rather just be told that their biases are actually the truth, rather than going to the effort to find out.
So how about a few quotes from the fascists themselves?
Quotes from Uncle Benny, the Father of Fascism:
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
― Benito Mussolini
“State ownership! It leads only to absurd and monstrous conclusions; state ownership means state monopoly, concentrated in the hands of one party and its adherents, and that state brings only ruin and bankruptcy to all.”
― Benito Mussolini
“The definition of fascism is The marriage of corporation and state ”
― Benito Mussolini
“Democracy is a kingless regime infested by many kings who are sometimes more exclusive, tyrannical and destructive than one, even if he be a tyrant.”
― Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.”
― Benito Mussolini
“The truth is that men are tired of liberty.”
― Benito Mussolini
“We do not argue with those who disagree with us, we destroy them”
― Benito Mussolini
From Uncle Adolph himself, the poster child for fascism:
"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The Universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country ... Without law and order our nation can not survive." Adolph Hitler, 1932.
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Franco’s general Gonzalo de Llano
"Our brave legionaries and regulars have taught the cowards of the reds what it means to be a man. And, by the way, also to women. After all, these communists and anarchists deserve it, have not they been playing free love? Now at least they will know what real men are and not sissy militiamen. They will not fight, no matter how hard they struggle and kick.”
Haha, saying you'll be honest with yourself only after someone else does it is quite fascinating.
That's cute, Larry, but no.
I meant "I will" stop being so dramatic after Republicans stop forcing doctors to let women die of pregnancy complications or threaten to sic fully immunized police and soldiers on those they disagree with and a myriad of other stuff like that.
I already am honest with myself. You could use a dose of that yourself if you think that President Biden's age makes the entire Democratic Party and liberal constituency worse than Trump and his MAGAt followers.
Yeah, I'm not vibing with this unduly didactic vibe. You should see how easily the inverse can be argued just as easily.
"Fascism is at its base anti-communist, and every fascist there ever has been has accused his opponents - truthfully or (very often) not - of being communists, socialists, and/or Marxists."
Let's try this another way.
"Communism is at its base anti-fascist, and every communist there ever has been has accused his opponents - truthfully or (very often)
not - of being fascists, cryptofascists, and/or protofascists."
Or something like that.
In a sense, there's a grain of truth there. Hitler's Gestapo often called their victims some variation of Marxist, and Lenin's Cheka called their victims some variation of Fascist.
yuh-uh.
Well, if we're finally to the point where we're admitting to ourselves that Pelosi and Co. aggressively ousted Biden, that would be a good launching point for serious discussion.
Ok, I'll actually bite. What would you perceive of as being more honest with ourselves? What would that look like? "Recognizing that..." what?
Brilliant argument.
Let's start with Biden being actively ousted from the running by his peers.
Yes, the Democratic establishment ousted Biden as the candidate because they perceived--accurately I would now say--that the voters didn't trust him to last four more years at the rate he was showing decline.
They did not oust him as president. They did not, for example, invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him from office. Despite what the senile opposition candidate seems to think, Kamala Harris is not the president. That Biden could not be expected to continue his unparalleled record of achievement until 2028 does not reflect on that record itself, or on the fact that he can manage until January.
Yeah, as I said, from the running.
At what point did you decide Biden was mentally declining? A rough date when you decided the public perception was correct.
...And sorry, but I'm still confused as to your motive for posting here. Since you seem to be narrowly focused on President Biden's age, and since Biden is not currently running for anything, I ask again what we're supposed to be more honest about.
Just admitting that the Democratic Party establishment made a judgement call about Biden's electability? Ok, but so what? I mean what follows from that?
And in what sense were we not being honest about that already? Because (some of us) are liberal? We want women to be treated as human beings and not to have government-sanctioned thugs accost us for our political or religious beliefs? That's somehow being dishonest about Biden's age?
So's yer old man.
Well, you'd better inform Alan Brooks and David Brin himself that Biden is in mental decline.
I thought the whole response to the debate was an "overreaction"?
I'm trying to figure out this play on words, "Yer old man is a brilliant argument." lol
At what point did you decide Biden was mentally declining? A rough date when you decided the public perception was correct.
The public perception was not correct. He's slowing down as all older people eventually do, but what he shows signs of is tiredness, not the sort of senility that Donald Trump has been recently displaying.
The perception that I said was correct was Pelosi et al judging the mood of the electorate.
The perception that no one including Nancy Pelosi and myself were correct about was how ready Kamala Harris was to take the reins. She may not quite be Hillary Clinton, but she's no Hillary Clinton. [sic]
I'm also curious about what methods people here are using here to "acknowledge their whiteness" in their personal lives.
Is this new form of *indulgentia* a one time payment or a monthly subscription?
There's a Trump-supporter in my neighborhood (formerly displaying a "Let's go, Brandon" sign) who has a new sign on his lawn saying "Say no to [ ]amala" where what I mean by [ ] is a hammer and sickle sign implying that Kamala Harris is a Stalin-type communist. I've gotta laugh, because this community is mostly young parents who move here for the excellent school, and they most likely weren't alive or weren't of age when the Berlin Wall fell. The McCarthyism just doesn't stick the way it used to.
I'm not sure what the comparison to Hillary Clinton is supposed to mean. Is it the Dick Cheney-ish-ness? Gaddafi and all that business, or what?
See, this is why I wonder if "you" are an AI bot in training. Where the eff did that particular accusation come from? How about throwing in references to "Defund the police" or "Math and logic are white colonialism" while you're at it.
Now, I see that when you say "Be honest with yourself," you mean we should denounce philosophies that we never advocated in the first place. Why didn't you just say so?
Yeah, Harris and Biden are Clinton-esque neoliberals, not communists.
For that matter, I wish people associated the hammer and sickle with Lenin as equally as Stalin. In some ways the Cheka is scarier than the KGB in that so much of the latter's activities were predestined from the beginning by the former's ethos.
Who is "we"? This is interesting.
Spencer,
Your attempt to create a false equivalence here neglects history. Marx published his idea of communism in 1848. Mussolini started writing against communism in 1914. The vagaries of communism, capitalism, and socialism were being debated vigorously debated around the industrialized world when Uncle Benito was in diapers.
Add that to the fact that communists are extremely few in numbers these days outside of China, and maybe a few FARQ graybeards. Not much of anyone can look at the shit show that was the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc and think it's a good idea. That and actual communism - not the fake communism that Stalin said he was creating - couldn't possibly work. America has a tiny Communist Party with about 30,000 members, and a massive Republican Party, that, like all fascists, accuses their opponents of being communists. Not many of them know what that word means, either.
Paul SB
Yeah, again, this didactic tone isn't worth it.
1914 places Mussolini as a contemporary of Lenin. Why are the two not comparable, exactly?
Also, I'm unsure of the statistic analysis one can do by comparing official card-carrying members of an ideology to a theoretical population of non-card-carrying members of a different ideology.
I mean, if we're gonna talk about numbers, lets be disciplined about it.
AI bot in training or sealion? Hard to tell the difference. Doesn't seem to matter much, though.
Just answer the question. It does matter too much, the fate of democracy throughout the universe depends on your answer, pal.
While there hasn't actually--yet--been a Helvetian War, this description of the lead up to that war from Earth sounds an awful lot as if it was torn from today's headlines.
"The smart ones saw Brazzaville coming and prepared. They saw to it that all the reasonable Helvetian and Cayman ministers were assassinated or drugged and that every attempt at compromise, even surrender, was rejected."
Spencer
The only thing that you are complaining about is the way that the Dems replaced Biden??
Looking from abroad it seems to me that Biden actually orchestrated the whole thing!
He "looked" a bit old and tired - and kept on looking a bit old and tired until the GOP had put its head into the noose
Then he yanked the cord!
It was just far too well timed to be an accident!
Biden is in his 80's - but "Dark Brandon" still had the horsepower for one final coup
And have you noticed that in Biden's later appearances he has lost the "appearance of fragility"?
He does not look like he "was robbed" - he looks like the cat that got the cream
Political fanfiction is funny, but not convincing. Now we’re at the point people are telling themselves that Joe Biden’s wife leading him around various venues like a blind mutt was actually a genius strategy straight from Sun Tzu.
Spencer - you appear to believe all sorts of shite with absolutely no evidence - Biden has repeatably shown that he is much much smarter than any of the GOP idiots that he has encountered - remember the last "State of the Union"
You aren’t claiming to have seen anything different. You know he was literally being physically dragged around like a mannequin in a suit. Remember, your argument is not that this kind of thing didn’t happen, but that it was actually part of a super secret plan only Biden himself knew.
Let’s take a gander. What exactly was the goal of this theoretical plan to pretend senility on the public stage? What exactly was there to gain by doing this?
What exactly was there to gain by doing this?
Let the Republicans flog the issue of candidate age and mental decline and then leave Trump hanging out there as the one who is obviously senile?
Sounds more plausible than anything you've suggested--except that of course you haven't suggested anything. I still don't see what you're aiming at, even were we--I mean "any of us"--to concede all of your hypotheses.
Joe Biden’s wife leading him around various venues like a blind mutt
Ok, now we know that you're getting your "news" from right-wing media.
He was muddled at the debate against Trump, and subsequently sometimes appears tired. That's all. Meanwhile, he's getting deals done to stave off a potentially-devastating longshoremen's strike with the same skill he used in flipping the strategic reserve to the tune of a ten BILLION dollar profit.
If Biden is as decrepit as you claim, then what does that say about your boys who keep getting rolled by him? "Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fools who get fooled by one?"
"Yes, the Democratic establishment ousted Biden as the candidate because they perceived--accurately I would now say--that the voters didn't trust him to last four more years at the rate he was showing decline."
- Larry Hart
If the perception is accurate, how do you believe both these things at the same time?
First you say the establishment outed Biden because of a *correct* perception of his decline.
Then, he's also a super-genius only pretending to be senile (too bad Pelosi believed it, eh?)
Do you rank him above or below Hillary Clinton, by the way? Since you mentioned her earlier.
Easy. That's not even a good "gotcha" question.
The perception that the voters are losing faith in the candidate is accurate. The electorate was not accurate in their assessment of Biden's current abilities, though they might have had cause to doubt he'd last another term.
I can believe both that the candidate is a great president and that the media narrative is convincing voters not to support him for another term. The one does not contradict the other.
This bit summarizes President Biden's term accurately in my opinion:
Listen, surely I've exceeded
Expectations. Tried for three years.
Seems like thirty. Could you ask
As much from any other man?
Ah, so all this was a very long-winded way to say that the voters are wrong. Hilarious.
Then, he's also a super-genius only pretending to be senile
That wasn't me, though it seems more plausible than not.
(too bad Pelosi believed it, eh?)
In that scenario, she either would have been in on the plan or else the three-dimensional chess player knew what she would do.
Now, for someone who keeps harping on being honest, isn't it about time you admitted your own political leanings? It's fairly obvious you're in the bag for Republicans, so when did you first suspect that Donald Trump is a drooling imbecile who can't finish a sentence without forgetting how he started it? Was it as early as "covefefe"?
Yeah, that's cute, but again, all the above was just an over-engineered way for you to say the American public is wrong.
I belong to no party and I've never given money to a political party, and never will. Party soldiers can't imagine a world outside their tiny hell.
It is also amusing how exasperated you get when anyone mentions honesty as a basic standard.
And since you mentioned Hillary Clinton earlier, do you rate Biden above or below her?
Spencer, you confuse me.
What are you actually hoping to accomplish? You're clearly not trying to convince any of the folks here to change their minds, since you're just playing word games with them, trying to "gotcha" them, mostly by intentionally misconstruing their responses, or by posing questions in the form of Complex Question, ad Hominem, or similar fallacies, none of which are likely to convince the target of the question.
I similarly don't think you are trying to make up your mind about who to vote for.
So what are you doing? Do you just get your jollies by trolling? Or is there something more going on?
I'm asking who exactly Larry is referring to by "we".
Since you mentioned Hillary Clinton earlier, do you rate Biden above or below her?
Both about the same - both great "Team Leaders" - with the same "Team"
Spencer
Ah, so all this was a very long-winded way to say that the voters are wrong. Hilarious.
Considering that a huge minority of American voters are still thinking about voting for the Orange Cockwomble - traitor and criminal - then I would say that "The voters are wrong" is a bit of an understatement
From my perspective it looks as if there is some sort of brain eating disease endemic on GOP voters
This actually disturbs me. Like I asked earlier, is it the Dick Cheney-esque propensity for involvement in foreign conflict which attracts people to her? I'm thinking about Libya specifically, just for example.
It is also amusing how exasperated you get when anyone mentions honesty as a basic standard.
You're not taking it personally enough. It's when you mention honesty. And not because it's a bad standard, but because you're projecting your own dishonesty on everyone else--or maybe just on me. Either way.
It's as amusing as you getting exasperated about being called the Republican that you obviously are.
But I'm not a Republican. Do you literally think independents do not exist, Larry? Explain.
It's one thing to say that they're wrong because they're voting for a conservative or a fascist, and I don't like that. It's another thing to say they're wrong because they're voting for Donald Trump because he'll bring down grocery prices, since he won't. Or that they're voting against Kamala Harris because she's complicit in genocide, even though she isn't but Trump would be.
There's wrong and there's mostly wrong, and Republicans are all of the above.
To the extent that you can mind-read that I'm not being honest with myself, I can mind-read that you're a Republican. You explain. I actually sleep some times.
Yes or no, do independents exist, Larry?
Spencer,
You have mistaken me for an ideological ally. I'm not.
You aren't special, you aren't heroic, we're all just little people.
This is why. You spout the lesson of learned helplessness.
I happen to know (from experience) it is bullshit.
Me too. I don't mind them asking, but I think we are near or at saturation level.
Alfred,
Humility isn't helplessness. People should stop framing themselves as noble heroes. They aren't. People are just people, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Spencer,
Why Lenin and Mussolini aren't comparable is because the comparison is irrelevant. Your contention was that all communists call their opponents fascists, a statement that's pretty silly historically speaking. As I pointed out, the idea of communism was around for half a century before Mussolini invented the word Fascism. Communists in those days usually referred to their opponents as Imperialists or bourgeois. The whole business about fascism only really applied to a few decades in the 20th Century. After WW2, when fascism was supposedly defeated, the communists mostly went back to using their older terminology. And since then communism has been pretty well dying out, while fascism is experiencing a strong resurgence. So no, calling a fascist a fascist does not mean you're a communist - either the fake communism that Stalin created or the actual communism that never happened, and never can. The right-wing morons going back to yelling "commies!" like they did in the '50s only shows one of many fundamental problems with conservatism. When change happens, conservatives sew their eyes shut and pretend it isn't happening.
The fact that you brought up Lenin shows that either you didn't understand, or were deliberately trying to obfuscate. Both are reasonable interpretations, as conservatives in America are not known for either their intelligence or their honesty.
As far as quantifying the unquantifiable, like the contents of people's thoughts, the MacNamara Fallacy is unnecessary here. 25% of registered voters in America are Republican, 27% Democrat, 41% are registered no party preference. The remaining 7% goes to the Libertarians, Greens, the American Nazi Party, the Socialist and Communist Parties, most of which are too tiny to have much effect on any given election. If you are claiming to be independent, it is kind of revealing that everything you have written here has been fascist propaganda. So you say you're an independent, but you act like either a Republican or ANP.
BTW: I once had a couple members of the ANP try to recruit me when I was in a library. I wasn't about to punch them out, and they wouldn't leave me alone, so I decided to ask them questions. I said to them that since they know their candidates are never going to get elected, who do they actually vote for? The answer was immediate. "Republicans. They're just like us, they just aren't willing to go far enough. And besides, the Democrats are a bunch of communists."
Paul SB
Lest we forget, you called someone a fascist because you saw the word “Potemkin”. This is some kind of severe disorder.
Besides this, communists kept using the word “fascist” very often after WW2. Even Tom Wolfe was called “fascist” by them for writing Radical Chic. *Tom Wolfe*.
Finally, this library story sounds like an other-dimensional Captain Planet episode faultily rewritten from memory by a paranoid schizophrenic. Imagining yourself heroically (contemplating the idea of) engaging in fisticuffs and so on. What cartoon village do you live in where all the political toughs spend their time at the local library, by the way? LOL
Really, I love the idea of you randomly running into skinheads at the library (presumably all three of you are hanging in the self-help or maybe the bodice-ripper section). You’re thinking to yourself, “I’m not about to punch these guys out” as if this is a serious a choice you have, because you’re basically Steven Seagal (the Mad TV version played by Sasso).
Very true. When your other messaging here suggests you practice what you preach, we can talk.
Really? Sealion wasn't enough for you, so you had to go full-blown asshole?
Enough. I'm out.
I haven’t framed myself as a hero.
Dunno, Larry.
Labeling people based on split-second word association is an asshole move. That, or just totally oblivious.
Spencer,
You're very good at giving the impression of confidence - the trick of every conman. Presumably you have known me since the day I was born and have been stalking me all this time, so you can confirm or deny the veracity of my own experiences. And, like man-children generally, you dish out ad hominem by the gallon then accuse everyone else of the same - what psychologists call projection.
So how about we take a different tack. Obviously you believe every lie your chosen politicians tell you, so you may actually believe that everyone you don't like really is a communist, along with the ones hiding under your bed. It isn't that hard, though, to prove a positive. I haven't personally lived under a fascist regime, the very conservative city I grew up in made it clear what would happen if they are allowed freedom from prosecution. Umberto Eco, on the other hand, did, and his book "How to Spot a Fascist" clearly pegs you and the rest of your buddies. So let's look at his 14 characteristics of Fascism:
Umberto Eco: The 14 Characteristics of Fascism
In his 1995 essay "Ur-Fascism", Umberto Eco lists fourteen general properties of fascist ideology. He argues that it is not possible to organize these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it". He uses the term “ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical forms of fascism. The fourteen properties are as follows:
1. “The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
The Republican Party has called itself a guardian of tradition for many decades. This is especially the case in jurisprudence, where “originalism” is the standard. And yet, when it is convenient, they ignore the original meaning, as when they redefined citizenship to occur at the moment of conception in spite of the Constitution clearly spelling out birth as the beginning of citizenship. Or think about the Proud Boys’ claim that they are “Western chauvinists.” Of course, their interpretation of tradition is not really very traditional, being based on stereotypes and ignorance.
2. “The rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
This, of course, is entirely characteristic of the Religious Right, which rejects all science because it superficially contradicts their traditional beliefs. This madness has been part of the Republican tradition for quite some time, but really got a huge boost from the Reagan Administration. In 1980, about 45% of professional scientists in America were registered Republicans. Today it is 5%.
3. ”The cult of action for action’s sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
Among the first people ridiculed by Fascists are always intellectuals, especially university professors. Republicans commonly claim that anyone who has a college education has been “indoctrinated” and that all professors everywhere are universally liberal. Personally, I did not find a whole lot of liberal professors where I went to college, especially in the History department, which was entirely dominated by extremely conservative people. That should be unsurprising, since conservatives strongly appeal to tradition and history.
4. “Disagreement is Treason" – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
You really couldn’t get more anti-American than this, and yet, anyone who disagrees with the Republicans about anything is automatically accused of being a communist and a traitor to America. Oh, and they eat babies, too.
5. “Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
Hitler was particularly famous for scapegoating, and scapegoating is standard operating procedure for the Republican Party. When Trump claimed that immigrants are a bunch of rapists, murderers, and drug dealers, he was appealing to stereotypes that American conservatives have held to for more than a century. Never mind the fact that immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans. Facts don’t really matter to Republicans, when innuendo and dog-whistles work so well.
6. “Appeal to a frustrated middle class”, fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
The primary lower social group that has had Republicans in arms since the dawn of the 20th Century has been African-Americans, who, like immigrants, have been stereotyped as criminals or lazy welfare leeches. Hitler did exactly this with the Jews when he described them as parasites in the second chapter of “Mein Kampf,” and both Nixon’s “War on Crime” and Reagan’s “War on Drugs” and his constant harping on “welfare queens” were always targeted primarily at black people. Nixon said very specifically that, “Everyone knows it’s all about the blacks, but we can’t say that in public.” Then there’s that quote from Reagan’s chief advisor and Bush’s campaign manager, Lee Atwater: “You start out in 1954 by saying, “N----r, n----r, n----r.” By 1968 you can’t say “n----r”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N----r, n----r.” More recently, the Black Lives Matter movement, where 96% of protestors were peaceful, has been painted to be nothing but rioters by right-wing media. Fox News even ran out of footage of American cities burning, so they started putting footage of burning cities in Somalia. I guess they figured their 99% white audience wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.
7. “Obsession with a plot,” and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's "fear" of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
Remember when they were claiming that putting fluoride in the water was a communist plot? Even better was Joseph McCarthy and his Commission on UnAmerican Activities, which labelled pretty much anyone who did not toe the Republican party line a communist. And any time the people try to hold Republicans accountable for their crimes, it’s a “witch hunt.”
8. Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as “at the same time too strong and too weak". On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
Republicans are constantly portraying their opponents as “elites” - even when the majority of the American people disagree with them (as with abortion, freedom to marry, and student loan forgiveness). This is, of course, quite ironic, given that most Republican leaders come from super-rich families and have Ivy League educations (yes, even Trump). Then there is the promotion of big business over labor unions. Hitler kept a portrait of Henry Ford in his office, who he admired as the greatest industrialist of all time. He also emulated Ford’s policy of hiring thugs to beat up union leaders, and within 3 months of becoming chancellor in 1933 passed a law which gutted Germany’s union movement. So much for claiming that Hitler was a socialist!
9. “Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy” because “life is permanent warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
This idea of life as permanent warfare has relevance beyond just massive military spending. It is a reflection of the pseudoscience referred to as “Social Darwinism” - which is actually neither, since it is anti-social and Darwin hated it. The idea is that all life is a struggle to survive, a competition for survival of the fittest (a phrase often attributed to Darwin but was actually coined by Herbert Spencer). The Confederate claim that slavery was justified by the supposed racial superiority of whites, the American Eugenics Movement (from which Hitler took inspiration) and the Republican assertion that cut-throat capitalism is morally virtuous are all manifestations of this belief.
10. “Contempt for the weak”, which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
Republican fear of “the mob” is clear here. They have nothing but contempt for a majority of the American people, in spite of the exaggerated but superficial patriotism they flaunt. Social Darwinism is also a factor here. Republican leaders see themselves and the corporate executives they feed tax cuts to as the “strong men” of society. In fact, one of their most common criticisms of Democrats is that they are “weak.” Yet it never seems to occur to them that a “strong man” is bad everywhere else in the world, but in their eyes a good thing here.
10. “Contempt for the weak”, which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
Republican fear of “the mob” is clear here. They have nothing but contempt for a majority of the American people, in spite of the exaggerated but superficial patriotism they flaunt. Social Darwinism is also a factor here. Republican leaders see themselves and the corporate executives they feed tax cuts to as the “strong men” of society. In fact, one of their most common criticisms of Democrats is that they are “weak.” Yet it never seems to occur to them that a “strong man” is bad everywhere else in the world, but in their eyes a good thing here.
11”Everybody is educated to become a hero”, which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.”
In Hitler’s Germany, all Aryan men were natural warriors. Thus the Republican’s huge emphasis on the military, even to the point of defending American war criminals. True Americans, they contend, are soldiers who defend our glorious nation, because after all, “Freedom is not free.” But then, they are always trying to weasel their way out of paying the taxes that pay the soldiers.
12. “Machismo”, which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality”.
To Hitler, traditional sex roles were biological, and any deviation from those traditional roles, abominations. Thus he fought against the idea of women working for a living, just as American conservatives fight against feminism. In the Western tradition, men are strong warriors and women are incubators for those warriors. Republicans are obsessed with sexuality and its control, not only in their constant persecution and scapegoating of homosexuals, but in their attempts to control fertility through abortion and contraception laws. Hitler, by the way, passed one of Europe’s most restrictive abortion laws, which wasn’t repealed until 2022. Meanwhile, the Proud Boys display their misogyny on a regular basis, as does Trump himself, and engage in intimidation and violence against anyone they disagree with. It’s no surprise that Republicans have cheerfully adopted Mussolini’s “Lions, not sheep,” as their motto.
13. “Selective populism” – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people”.
It’s funny how Republicans are constantly claiming that everyone in Washington is out of touch with “the people” when they are, themselves, in Washington. If they win by a single vote, they claim to have the mandate of the people, and anyone who they disagree with is not a “real American.” Apparently only Republican leaders can decide what it means to be a “real American.” They have appointed themselves the interpreters of the popular will.
14. “Newspeak” – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
Nowhere is this more obvious than with their use of the terms “politically correct” and the new version, “woke.” The idea behind calling something politically correct has always been to shut down any actual discussion of anything (and to assuage the wounded egos of people who are tired of getting dirty looks when they say the n-word in public). Politicians have always engaged in bumper-sticker sloganeering, but with today’s Republicans it has been reduced to a handful of catch phrases that they wield as accusations while avoiding any kind of substantive discussion. This is really clear in the Birtherism conspiracy myth, which claimed that former President Obama was really an African Muslim. Calling him a Muslim was nothing but an accusation meant to paint him as an enemy of America, never mind that the First Amendment guarantees all Americans the freedom to follow whatever religion they want. Likewise the claim that America is a republic, not a democracy, which ignores the fact that a republic is a form of democracy (and demonstrates the general illiteracy of the Republican base). If you have ever read George Orwell’s novel “Animal Farm” you can’t miss how much the Republican rank and file act like the sheep, bleating out, “Four legs good, two legs bad!” so loud they drown out all other sounds.
Joseph Goebbels once said that the best persuasion happens when you don’t know you are being persuaded. Benito Mussolini said that acquiring power is best done like plucking a chicken, one feather at a time. Combine these two concepts and you have what the Republican Party has been doing since Nixon. Too bad Trump tried too hard to persuade, and grabbed too many feathers at once.
C-plus: Spencer, ... What are you actually hoping to accomplish?
First the factory, then the city, then the continent, then the planet, then the universe, all in service to one goal: maximization of paper clip production. Whether A.I., bot, or troll, this is the modern version of computing Pi to the last digit.
There's a marked irony to this, given that just above your comment, there's a gigantic, pointless copy paste of Umberto Eco. lol,
I still stand by my statement that it is an asshole move to call people "fascist" when prompted by seeing vaguely Russian words.
Again, I'd like to see a quote of myself calling anybody communist. You'll have to scour this page for words like "vodka", "and such -- maybe Lena could count something like that as proof.
Spencer,
Irrelevant, yet again. Even if you didn't come out and say that in this instance, you are here spreading fascist propaganda. That includes your claim that anyone who points out that you are a fascist is a communist. The commie ship set sail, on fire, thirty years ago. The prow might still be sticking out of the water a little bit. You and your Mango Mussolini are just using the same lies the right wing has been using since the end of WW2.
Paul SB
"That includes your claim that anyone who points out that you are a fascist is a communist."
I actually said neither claim is true. Neither yours nor the inverse. Go up and check.
And it is still relevant that you label people based on (for example) split-second word association.
Again, communists did keep using the word "fascist" just as much as any other in their lexicon after WW2. Angela Davis and Sartre and anyone else you can name didn't suddenly revert to using words like "bourgeoise" *instead* of "fascist". They used both, and you know it.
Like I said earlier, even people like Tom Wolfe (just for example) were called "fascists" by communists. Which was hilariously untrue.
Okay, you just might be right there. It's still irrelevant. You came here to spout fascist dogma, so I am not the least bit bothered that you are offended for being called what you are. You and at least 80% of America's right wing have been groomed for their fascist putsch for literally generations, so you think that you're the good guys even when you riot and murder people, that you are for "freedom" when you constantly scapegoat people and take their rights away, and that the real enemies of freedom are anyone but yourselves. Sorry, but you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not a lot of the people who hang out here are going to buy the elephant shit you're peddling.
Paul SB
What dogma? Quote me.
Ha ha ha!
Then let's see you walk away from this place hero boy.
Betcha can't bring yourself to do it.
Nah, I’m good.
Okay. Spencer, here's a few of your own words:
Harris says there's nothing she'd change from Biden's policies.
- Not true, she has stated that she will do things her own way on more than one occasion, but fascist party dogma is that “four years of Harris will be another four years of Biden.”
It's quite a surprise to find out who over the years have become party soldiers. David Brin is one of the last names I suspected.
- If you think Dr. Brin is a party soldier, you don’t have a freaking clue. But right-wing extremists have always claimed that anyone who is not on their side is the enemy.
As an aside, are we really just discovering that honeypots exist? Eric Swallwell's foreign agent escapade was a few years ago now, right?
- Eric Swallwell was acquitted because there was no evidence. But right-wing dogmatists tend to assume that being accused means you’re guilty if you’re not on their team.
Anyway, this is all nearly on the same level of someone like Howard Stern, who (just for example) cloistered himself in his house for *several years* during COVID out of some (self-described) neurosis of political devotion.
- Obvious dogma here. Donald the Grope, America’s Most Obvious Conman, at first claimed that Covid was just a flu, and his witless followers continue to cling to his lies about it in spite of more than a million Americans dying of it.
Haha, that's my point, pal. Shouldn't the not-husk be running for the big job, then?
- This is a very standard talking point of the current fascist right. “Oh, those evil Democrats! Look what they did to poor Sleepy Joe!” As if anyone believes they give a rodent’s equid about the fate of Joe Biden. They’re just upset because they were more certain of beating him.
Agreed, Alfred.
It is equally amusing as disturbing to see so many convince themselves they're "saving democracy". Please, fellow citizens, come back down to Earth. You aren't special, you aren't heroic, we're all just little people.
Definitely party dogma here. Donald the Grope has said very clearly that he will be a dictator on day one, that he wants to ditch the Constitution, he’s even now saying he will use the military to persecute his opponents, then there’s that little thing about the insurrection. And now that the fascists on the Supreme Court have given the president carte blanche to commit any crimes he wants without threat of prosecution as long as he declares that it’s an official act, if he gets elected he can just call off all future elections and declare himself king. So anyone who votes against this twisted sicko traitor actually is defending democracy. That’s really obvious, except to someone who has swallowed the Guyana Punch the Repugnant Party spews.
Need I go on? You made it clear from the very beginning that you’re a partisan stooge.
Paul SB
Let's take this one at a time.
You're saying Howard Stern was actually correct to turn his mansion into a covid isolation bunker for several years?
I mean, Stern himself openly described it as a neurosis, even while he was still doing it. I don't understand what the connection to fascism is.
As goes RFK Jr, so apparently goes Jill Stein.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Oct21-5.html
A recent poll from Noble Predictive Insights shows that Stein may be hurting Trump more than she is hurting Harris. The company, founded by Mike Noble, hired David Byler, who used to be The Washington Post's answer to The New York Times' Nate Cohn, as chief researcher and seems to be a neutral pollster. When voters were asked if they preferred Harris to Trump, it was Harris 49%, Trump 47%. But when Stein was added to the mix, it became Harris 49%, Trump 46%. This suggests that Stein is pulling more support from Trump than from Harris. Of course, this is only one poll and national polls don't really count, but it is still noteworthy because is contradicts the conventional wisdom that Stein hurts Harris the most.
One moronic extreme hardly represents the whole. That's one of the many, many problems with the conservative mind: they are too lazy to take individuality seriously, so they lump everyone into as few boxes as their little brains can manage.
Paul SB
Yeah, that’s literally what you’re doing in this comment.
Bottom line is most voters, including Democrats, think Biden unfit to run, hence his removal from the running.
Are they all “fascists”, too?
Gotta say this is classic trolling back from usenet days. Disengage then block at some point if it's an actual issue for Dr. Brin Emeritus. It just wastes everyone's time and space.
Wow, this makes me almost as nervous as a Libyan in the vague proximity of Hillary Clinton.
Yes, Biden is under “great pressure” from his peers to get the hell out.
Bill Maher put it succinctly: He's fit to President, but not to run for President.
Joe has the wits and ability (and the staff) to still be a fine President. He just no longer has the energy to present himself as well as he needs to convince yokels like you that he still has the right stuff. Guys like you who think that every flub from a stutterer who was known for being a gaff machine is obvious proof that he is senile.
He's done the job, he's done it well, and he doubtlessly can continue to do the job. What he can't do is present himself so that all doubts about him are dispelled. That is why he was pressured to leave. Don't forget it.
Hmm, Rey, I think you mean “yokels” like Pelosi and Co, in addition to the majority of voters, haha
By the way, maybe the Hillary-Libya relationship is not a good enough illustrative example of how much I’m shaking in my boots at the mighty wrath of internet strangers.
Maybe my sense of awe at this terrible swift sword is more akin to the sense of dread the average Middle Easterner experiences (when haunted at night by the vampiric astral projection of Dick Cheney).
Stonekettle, responding to Trump telling a rally that hydrogen cars will explode and make them unrecognizable to their loved ones...
https://www.threads.net/@stonekettle
Where did this even come from? No one is building hydrogen combustion or hydrogen fuel cell cars, outside of some not-for-market experimental machines. The hell is this guy talking about? There are literally ZERO reports of exploding hydrogen cars on America's roads.
This is just another made up Republican bogeyman, like immigrant caravans and involuntary trans surgery in grade schools. These people are so desperate to be afraid they have to make up stuff to be afraid of.
Not even close, Spencer. Clearly you still don't understand what that word means. All you have shown here is innuendo, whataboutisms, plain ignorance, and immense (unearned) CONfidence.
Next
home again, home again///
and now
onward
onward
I guess it means something to do with Potemkin, little buddy. Or skinheads hanging out in the crochet section of the town library or somethin’. I dunno.
Anyhow, I’m *still* trembling before your righteous fury, like a poor Libyan living on the same planet with Hillary Clinton, the most-loved political figure in the entire Middle East. Just for example.
*and Africa and Eastern Europe
Post a Comment