How past fascist dictators took power


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Link here. The process as described in this quote should sound very frightfully familiar:

Under the leadership of Benito Mussolini, the Fascist Party of Italy seized control of the country in 1922 with the “March on Rome.” Before marching on the nation’s capital, Italian fascists committed violent acts across most of northern Italy. The king of Italy, fearing more bloodshed, appointed Mussolini Prime Minister of Italy. No election took place, and the Italian fascists used violent tactics to achieve power.

Spanish fascists came to power through a military coup, after the military leadership did not like the results of the most recent election, and the coup resulted in a civil war lasting from 1936 to 1939.

In Germany the fascist path to power was longer and more complicated for the National Socialists, or Nazis. Hitler attempted to mimic Mussolini in 1923 with the Beer Hall putsch, an attempt to overthrow local authorities. It did not succeed and resulted in a few deaths and the arrest of several Nazis, including Hitler. After the failed coup, the Nazis decided to use the democratic process to take over Germany. Yet not until the election of July 1932 did the Nazis become the largest party in the German Parliament. Despite winning a plurality of votes (37 percent), the Nazis did not receive a majority of the votes needed to form a government. The Nazis refused to join any coalition, which resulted in another election in November 1932. In that election the Nazis again won a plurality but not as large as before (only 33 percent). Despite the loss, the Nazis refused to form a coalition until Hitler was made chancellor, which occurred in January 1933. Once Hitler was chancellor, he ordered another parliamentary election.

In March 1933, the election was held and the Nazis again received only a plurality of the votes (43 percent). This would be the last open election until after World War II, because Hitler decided it would be easier to consolidate power through terror, fear, and even political murders, rather than trying to work with other parties.

So, what’s the pattern? How do fascists take power? First, they are angry with election results or how the country is being run. Then fascists use militant tactics to force the population into supporting, or acquiescing in, their cause, even though most citizens don’t actually support the fascist agenda. [emphasis mine]

This is a detailed educated illustration why I use the term fascist to describe the behavior of much of the most militant wings of the left and the Democratic Party. It is what they have become, and what they are doing.

I pray that in America we will not do what was done in Italy, Spain, and Germany, and acquiesce to the use of violence and terror to make us bow to the will of dictators.

Share

58 comments

  • wayne

    Excellent post Mr. Z.

    I don’t want to go all-tangential, but I would highly recommend this movie.
    Hitler – The Rise
    https://youtu.be/dSjkpaXlXIE
    (2:32:26)
    -There are some historical problems with this movie (it’s a movie, not a documentary), but it does an excellent job of presenting the conditions in which Hitler thrived.
    (Covers the period just prior to WW-1 to 1933.)

  • BSJ

    I see it differently.

    The European fascist movements had a common denominator. Charismatic leaders with larger than life egos. And followers willing to do violence in their names.

    I fear extremists on the right will use the old, ‘They did it first’ argument to justify their own violence.

    I feel Trump is a megalomaniac at heart, and he being who he is, will condone just a bit of ‘knocking heads’ by his supporters, thinking he’ll be able to control it. But it will soon spiral out of control. And given his profound lack of knowledge of the Constitutional restrictions of his office will start demanding he be given ‘special’ powers to ‘Save the country’. And many will clamor that he should be empowered thusly.

    And in the end Al Qaeda will have done what they knew they couldn’t do own their own. They knew the only thing that can destroy America is America itself. A divided house can not stand, and we are oh so divided now.

  • wayne

    BSJ–
    Have to disagree with you.

    Q: Who are the “right wing extremists” in our current situation?

  • BSJ

    Typo correction: On their own.

  • BSJ

    You do realize White Supremacist and Neo-Nazis are real? So far it’s just been the nuts that have done the shooting. But for how long can or luck hold out if the extremists on the left keep up their antics?

  • wayne

    BSJ–
    There’s maybe 20K “White Supremacists or Neo-Nazi’s” in the USA, maximum. (on a good day and if you double count them all)
    There are far more card-carrying Jihadi’s, Communist’s, Socialist’s, and Statists wondering the streets. (and those “10 million homeless” people are going to magically re-appear soon.)
    We just had 8 years of the most hard-turn towards the left, since FDR.

    We don’t need any new laws or special-powers. We just need to enforce the laws we have, equally against all.
    In Berkeley, for example, responsibility starts with the rioters themselves, School Administration, the Mayor of Berkeley & Chief of Police, and the Governor of California.
    But they don’t want, to stop it.

  • I want my readers to recognize what BSJ is doing. He apparently has no outrage at the violence and rioting at Berkeley, committed by leftist radicals, that successfully shut down the first amendment rights of a speaker. No, what he wants to talk about are right wing extremists and the threat they pose, even though there is little evidence that they are doing any violence or pose any significant threat. More important, at the moment it is not they who are committing the violence, but leftists.

    This is basically misdirection to distract us. It also illustrates exactly the point of my post. The right is appalled by violence, no matter who does it, the right or left. The left makes excuses or tries to ignore the violence committed by their fellow travelers.

    I should also add that I actually agree with one comment by BSJ in this thread. The difference between the fascist activities of these leftist protesters now and that of the fascists in Italy, Spain, and Germany is that the leftist fascists today do not have a charismatic leader. This is good. It means this American fascist movement is essentially weak, and can be stopped if our present leaders have the courage to take the right actions, such as simply enforcing the law justly.

    BSJ will next try to paint Donald Trump as that charismatic leader. This will once again be misdirection. The reason Trump won is because the American don’t like leftist rule, which has dominated our political life now for almost a century. They want real change, and saw Trump as an opportunity to achieve it. Trump meanwhile has done nothing so far outside the law, and in fact has been using the law quite correctly to bring about that change.

    Is it possible that Trump could become a bad guy? Of course. I worry about this all the time. I also am willing to watch honestly and recognize what he is really doing. I wonder if BSJ can do the same.

  • pzatchok

    The left does have a charismatic leader.
    He is experienced and motivated.
    He has an established nationwide political party.
    He has the financial backing and the street organization to send out terrorists to disrupt anything he wants.
    And he has a HUGE following that will do almost anything for him if he just asks. Possibly as high as 30 percent of the US population. It only took around 15% of the American colonists to wage a revolution against the strongest power on the planet at the time.

    All he needs do is keep a hand in politics and organizing and then to just speak against the present political power in office.

    Obama is the most dangerous man in the US at this moment, not Trump. Trump has the law and counter politicians to stop him. Obama has none of that, he can do and say a most anything. Even jail time could and would be turned to his favor.

    Obama is exactly what our founders feared.

  • Des

    I completely and utterly condemn violence by anti Trump protestors. They devalue the peaceful protests of millions of ordinary Americans. BSJ makes a good point. Who is the charismatic populist leader on the left who will exploit this violence? I agree with Robert that there is none.

    @pzatchok Obama was too weak in face of violence abroad as leader and now he is going to become a violent revolutionary at home, really?

    Hitler used the violence by communists on the streets as justification for imposing an authoritarian police state. I’m not saying that is likely to happen with Trump, but it is more likely than any other fascist outcome of current violent priests. Trump has repeatedly expressed his admiration of leaders like Putin and Erdoğan, because of their authoritan tendencies, not despite of those tendencies.

  • LocalFluff

    A piece of context is that the Germans had been ruled by an emperor, the Holy Roman Emperor actually(!), very successfully in the decades around the year 1900. Democracy was popularly viewed as some kind of imposed foreign enemy infiltration of the Versailles treaty, not as the establishment which it is today. Hitler was viewed as a modern more rational version of the emperor.

  • BSJ

    No Bob you are absolutely wrong. I believe extremism is simply wrong. Both from the left and right.

    Saying I don’t trust Trump in no way implies I celebrate the left’s extremism. My statement is in a future tense, so to speak. I fear what Trump MIGHT become. And given the fact that he is in power now, HE has the ability to act. The left isn’t in power so they only have the ability to agitate. Because of Trump’s thin skin, he responds to agitation by increasing his divisiveness. He ratchets up, never down.

    You seem to be stuck in the binary thinking mode that so many are today. It’s US against THEM. The politics of division. Anybody that isn’t US, has to be THEM. And US have to hate THEM.

    In my mind, Clinton and Trump are equally horrible people. Equally bad for this country. Just because Trump isn’t Clinton doesn’t make Trump good!

    Obama got elected in part because he wasn’t Bush. Trump got elected in part because he wasn’t Clinton/Obama. Choosing our leaders because they aren’t the other guy is CRAZY!
    Reagan was able to ultimately defeat his political opponents because he built support from both sides. Despite the left’s constant agitation, I will add. Trump’s only instinct is to attack! Never build. (Golf courses don’t count)

    Our country works best when it works together. And we are so greatly divided that we are racing down a path of self inflicted destruction. Focusing on destroying the other side, be it left or right, will only leave destruction.

    There has got to be a better way.

  • BSJ

    Yes Des, Your last paragraph is exactly the point I’m trying to make.

  • LocalFluff

    BJW, But the Clinton-Bush-Obama socialist/fascists have caused greater conflict within the US and greater defeats and hostility world wide than any other presidents ever. They reigned with the openly stated purpose to destroy the USA! They wanted a poorer, more violent and weaker US, and they delivered it.

    Aren’t you ashamed to lie that Hillary Clinton, who wanted to murder all LGBTQ, abolish human rights for all women, import terrorists and arm warring tyrants and dictators throughout the world and giving them nuclear weapons; with Donald Trump!?? The Clintons, Obamas and Bushes were islamic agents owned by the stone age tyrants who bribed them. Their total destruction of society was not an accident, it was purposefully on design, as ordered by their masters who literally crucify dissidents. If you want to live in a nomadic stone age tyranny, why don’t you move to Kabul, your paradise on Earth, the only possible consequence of your political actions?

    The arapes hate the US because the Americans have something of value to steal. It is as simple as that. As long as you have wealth, you will be hated by the islamists and other socialists who out of stupidity are incapable of creating anything. Brutal force is the only language they understand. The only way to cure the parasite’s hate is to react immediately on any slightest disobedience they indicate, with total escalation of blind brutal violence. Negotiation must be replaced by extermination. One has to talk to them in their own language.

  • wayne

    Barry Goldwater:
    On the Failed Liberal Agenda
    https://youtu.be/PzrHR9-LdTM
    (2:03)

  • Alex

    @Wayne:

    This very detailed documentation of NSDAP and Hitler rise seems of much higher values to me as your proposed movie.
    You can use translated undertitel function.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpPNFID3lbU

  • pzatchok

    Des

    “@pzatchok Obama was too weak in face of violence abroad as leader and now he is going to become a violent revolutionary at home, really?”

    Obama stayed out of the violence abroad because his followers did not want the US influencing other nations or participating in more foreign wars that didn’t effect us at home. He was a non-interventionist. Liberals are of the opinion that America has to much power and should not be expressing it because it upsets some people. You now, the communists and dictators.

    But at home all he needs do is rally the people to his side again all the while just letting the violence continue.
    He will not denounce the violence because its just a very small portion of the people and they are just expressing their rights. He will not openly encourage it either.
    All the while he will be denouncing the present leadership and its actions and proffering his party and his style of leadership. Maybe someone in his party will even say that since he has been out of office for one term he is again eligible to take the lead.
    Just elect him and his party and all this violence will end. the flowers will grow again and the world will be a safer and happier place.

    Now lets see if Obama sits back and quietly fades away like past presidents or will he stay in the public’s eye and keep fanning the flames of discontent.

  • pzatchok

    “Trump has repeatedly expressed his admiration of leaders like Putin and Erdoğan, because of their authoritan tendencies, not despite of those tendencies.”

    Has he said its because of their authoritarian tendencies?
    Maybe he is doing exactly what the left has accused him of not doing. Treating a fellow world leader with a little public respect. Or would you like him to antagonize them also?

    I can admire a vial person for one or two aspects of their life and still denounce all other actions they have done.
    Like Hitler. I admire how he took his poor and embarrassed nation from the ashes of WWI to a world power in a short time. All the while denouncing his treatment of the Jews and other minorities that fell under his influence.
    Or OJ Simpson for his football carrier but not for his treatment of his ex-wife.

    As an adult I have that power and intelligence. i am not a child who will NEVER talk to my sister again because she took my toy and I will hate her forever.

  • Andrew_W

    The consistent features of fascism are authoritarianism, calls of nationalism and efforts to build up hatred against minority groups within a country, along with efforts to demonize domestic opponents along with foreigners in general.

    Fascism is built around populist appeals to hatred.

  • pzatchok

    As a deplorable I am getting used to being hated and marginalized.

    You don’t need classic nationalism the left calls for unity in the face of aggression. Aggression by the right and those conservative deplorables.

    They have been building a “nationalist” movement for the last 50 years. It has always had a violent side and has always attempted the overthrow of the elected government.
    They thought they had finally won with the election of Obama and they thought they had driven the last nail into the conservative coffin with Hillary’s election. But she lost and they lost BIG.

    The Nazi’s were never the majority of the population of Germany and neither is the left the majority of the US. But they both are acting the very same.
    Hitler was finally given full power in hopes of stopping the violence caused by his very own brown shirted (black masked anarchist) Nazi’s.

  • Edward

    BSJ wrote: “I feel Trump is a megalomaniac at heart, and he being who he is, will condone just a bit of ‘knocking heads’ by his supporters, thinking he’ll be able to control it.

    Maybe so, but the evidence is otherwise:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDM5EWieJzg#t=48
    I am so saddened to hear that, and I say stop it.

  • Edward

    BSJ wrote: “You do realize White Supremacist and Neo-Nazis are real?

    Yes, but the KKK were Democrats (remember Senator Byrd?), and NAZIs were and are socialists. NAZI stands for Nationalist Socialist German Worker’s Party. Both groups are left wing, not right wing.

    I linked this one just yesterday, but it applies here, too:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeEPSjOBzRA (7 Minutes, Bill Whittle: “American Fascists”)
    “But it is interesting, isn’t it, how the left will disrupt a peaceful expression of differing opinions with violence, and then accuse the people holding those differing opinions of starting the whole thing.”

    Now BSJ accuses Trump and the right of future fascism.

    Robert Zimmerman is right that BSJ is using misdirection to get us off the topic of the violence of the left. But just as with Robert Reich, who used Berkeley’s cancellation of Milo Yiannopoulos’s speech as evidence of Berkeley supporting free speech, BSJ used violent left wingers to prove that it is the right wingers who are the violent ones. BSJ’s problem is that he believes the propaganda that only righties are white supremacists and NAZIs when the truth is the reverse. The left has successfully shouted their lies long enough and loud enough to get people to believe the lies, once again using misdirection. Wasn’t that also a NAZI tactic, used successfully by Goebbels? Now BSJ adds to the shouted lies.

    You see, differences between the right and the left can be seen through the differences between the Tea Party protests and Wednesday’s Berkeley protest, the many cancellations of right wing speakers on many campuses around the country, the lawless Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, the New Pink Panthers movement – er – Black Panthers, the violent Only Black Lives Matter movement, the anti-gun movement, etc.

    The leftists are quick to use NAZI and fascist tactics in order to get their way. The rightists are not willing to even consider them.

    The rightists are not willing to even consider them.

    BSJ wrote: “You seem to be stuck in the binary thinking mode that so many are today. It’s US against THEM. The politics of division. Anybody that isn’t US, has to be THEM. And US have to hate THEM.

    Once again, this is projection of leftist thinking onto rightists. Since the leftists think in binary and hatred, the assumption is that rightists must, also.

    These are some of the fundamental differences between the right and the left. The length of time necessary to transform from liberal to conservative is why it took Ronald Reagan some time in order to change enough from leftist Democrat to rightist Republican to be able to articulately state conservative views.

    Trump’s transformation from liberal Democrat to faux conservative Republican began when he registered as a Republican in order to run on the Republican ticket. Trump still cannot define conservatism, because he does not really know what it is. He just figured that saying that he was conservative was a good way to get votes away from those primary candidates who do know what it is, because he figures righties must be as gullible as lefties.

    BSJ wrote: “Reagan was able to ultimately defeat his political opponents because he built support from both sides.

    Hilarious. Trump was able to ultimately defeat Clinton because he had support from both sides; many Democrats broke ranks and joined Trump against the lawless Clinton and the communist Sanders. The Democrat side that joined Trump just wasn’t the violent extremists. However, the violent extremists were able to make it look like Trump’s supporters were the violent extremists, and BSJ bought that lie, too.

    BSJ wrote: “Our country works best when it works together. And we are so greatly divided that we are racing down a path of self inflicted destruction.

    Our country will not work well at all if we work with the violent extremists. Since they are unwilling to change or compromise, working with them will drag us down to their level and we will become a terrible, violent, extremist, evil country, just as the left already calls us. Once again, the left projects itself onto the entire country.

    Pzatchok wrote: “Like Hitler. I admire how he took his poor and embarrassed nation from the ashes of WWI to a world power in a short time.

    I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but Hitler’s methods were to stop printing money (a good thing) and to steal from the Jews that he mistreated in order to replace the loss of the printed money (a bad thing). When he ran out of other Germans’s money (the Jews’), he started annexing territory and stealing from those people, too.

    Andrew_W,
    Another important feature of fascism is the forcible suppression of opposition, such as Milo Yiannopoulos’s views.

  • Andrew_W

    Edward, the number of people using violence in their opposition to Trump is a very small proportion of those who oppose his policies, just as it’s a tiny fraction of antiabortionists that commit violence against those involved in abortions, so I think it’s as much a misrepresentation to ascribe the anti Trump violence to “the left” in general as it would be to blame all those opposed to abortion for antiabortion violence.

    It has been a well documented fascist ploy to blame and punish large groups for the actions of a few.

    Those of us on the true right don’t support collective responsibility or collectivism in general.

  • Cotour

    “Fascism is built around populist appeals to hatred.”

    Andrew W, is this not populism also?

    https://youtu.be/-qj12auOgVE

    The masses worshiped at the alter of their Leftist, One World Government savior, Hillary, who was rejected in the electorial vote but won in the POPULIST vote which is determined exclusively by the left and right coasts. And now the extremists among them point their pasty finger at the winner and call him a “fascist”, and a populist, and Hitler etc, etc, and they riot and cause anarchy. Our country has been dragged soooo far Left that they begin to believe that that is the new “normal”. The job of dragging the country back to a reasonable center of the road position has fallen to the right person, Trump.

    You claim to be the real and “true” right, your so right you are now Left.

    The Liberals / confused Democrats are still very much in shock and many of them, regular everyday Democrat idiots talk of violence and the dispatching of the new power in the White House. The Left / Leftists / Liberal Democrats will do anything, and I mean anything to retain some measure of power. ANYTHING. They are soooo far down the rabbit hole and are continuing to dig to the point that their power may vanish for the next 20 or 30 years. Our country, and when I say “Our” country I mean the meaty middle and not the left or right coasts, are tired of this un American and indeed anti American activities and policies of the last 8 and even the last 16 years, they must end!

    Trump, probably thee only person “crazy” enough to accomplish what must be accomplished will do what is necessary as best as he can I have no doubt, buckle up, it is probably going to get messy. (thats how EFD up we have allowed this thing to get)

    You of the “real” right and your Leftist brothers are going to have a continuing bad day. And I look forward to it.

  • Andrew_W

    “Andrew W, is this not populism also?”

    Are you trying to argue that the disappointment shown somehow is a demonstration of fascism?

    “The masses worshiped at the alter of their Leftist, One World Government savior, Hillary”

    I don’t recall Hillary ever advocating One World Government.

    “. . . who was rejected in the electorial vote but won in the POPULIST vote which is determined exclusively by the left and right coasts. ”

    You’re confusing the terms “popular” and “populist”, easy to do if English is your second language.

    “Our country has been dragged soooo far Left that they begin to believe that that is the new “normal”. ”

    Sadly as countries get richer there’s less resistance to the arguments of big government advocates, people can afford to lose an increasing proportion of a greater income to “help the poor” etc, one sensible way to combat Government subterfuge in requisitioning so much of our income is the single tax policies advocated by Henry George over a hundred years ago, unfortunately the conservative “right” is unable to understand that the best way to combat bigger government is to restrict taxation to the most visible and therefore unpalatable form of taxation. Lets face it, most on the Conservative “right” only give lip service to reducing the size of Government.

    “The Liberals / confused Democrats are still very much in shock and many of them, regular everyday Democrat idiots talk of violence and the dispatching of the new power in the White House. ”

    You’ve obviously not thought about my point above, that “many” is actually very few when measured in a meaningful way (as a percentage).

    “Our country, and when I say “Our” country I mean the meaty middle and not the left or right coasts,”

    Exactly why I think Conservatives are just another brand of leftists, it’s not your country anymore than it is any other Americans country, those who you deride as un American and anti American are as legitimately American as you, your logic is the typical form of leftist thinking that oneself is superior in judging what is good and proper to those who disagree with you.

    “You of the “real” right and your Leftist brothers are going to have a continuing bad day. And I look forward to it.”

    Since I don’t expect to be significantly affected by Trump’s it’s not going to be a bad day for me at all. What I believe will be the most significant effect of Trump’s policies from my perspective is a hastening of America’s decline as an important player in international politics, Trump has made it clear that he intends to build walls (not that wall, I don’t care about that wall) between America and the rest of the world, he appears to be building Fortress America – cutting down on free trade, which will be bad for the US economy and America’s global influence.

  • wayne

    Mark Levin-
    “history & essence of the populist movement”
    (audio 03-17-2016)
    https://youtu.be/_t35rDkRFsw
    (50:18)

  • Hondo

    Or France? Chaos itself is often the goal while the left sorts out its pecking order. Whatever happens, will be highly localized and regionalized.

  • Cotour

    “Are you trying to argue that the disappointment shown somehow is a demonstration of fascism?”

    No, Populism, fascism is about a form of economic and political control.

    Think about all of the times you have seen Hillary on the TV over the years, always in just the right place to comment on the situation that the world finds itself. https://youtu.be/pSQFySxzznw And then comes Trump, IMO the only person on the political scene that could have taken her out.

    “You’re confusing the terms “popular” and “populist”, easy to do if English is your second language.”

    Do you really think that I have confused the two? Really?

    ” he appears to be building Fortress America – cutting down on free trade, which will be bad for the US economy and America’s global influence.”

    You are interpreting Trump much too literally, Trump is manifesting fear, leverage and capital in order to use it later on in negotiations with whom ever. He is setting up new rules of operation. If you had a choice would you rather go into negotiations in a perceived weak / appeaser condition (Obama) or have your opponents in fear of who they were about to do battle with (Trump)? The answer if you are confused by the question is #2.

    “You’ve obviously not thought about my point above, that “many” is actually very few when measured in a meaningful way (as a percentage).”

    Most Democrats do not understand that their party’s leadership has been taken over by Leftists and they stick by them just as a function of reflex. The Democrat leadership has become leftist as demonstrated by their many nonsensical justifications of actions such as the Iran deal, Obamacare, allowing the Chinese to do as they please in international waters, etc, etc, the list is long. IMO there are more of “us” then there are of “them” in America, you just here a lot more about them then us because of the medias agenda to promote confusion and fear (yes, they use fear also. Fear and confusion equals eyeballs and clicks, equals dollars. This is Trump world and Trumps game).

    Trump is in the process of shuffling the deck because the deck has been “fixed” for the many reasons that it has been “fixed” over the years. This certainty about America in the world community has spawned this thinking that there can be a One World style government where America is hamstrung / neutered and must surrender its sovereignty and we are only good in the roll of the enforcer.

    Trumps biggest problem, as we are witnessing, is the beaurocracy of the entrenched government (and that is as it should be to a degree), just like we are seeing in Britain with the Parlement attempting to putting the breaks on BREXIT. This will be a test of determination and will, I think Trump is probably the only individual able to accomplish what must be accomplished, as much of it as can be accomplished anyway. As an extension, who really controls the country and the world right now is the FED (a private consortium) , if and when they turn on Trump because he becomes too much of a threat to their overall agenda, thats when it all blows up. We will see who he appoints to head it.

  • Cotour

    A demonstration:

    Why won’t Trump say anything against Putin is the question.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/todd-grills-pence-on-trumps-russia-comments-why-cant-he-say-a-negative-thing-about-putin/

    And “There is no moral equivalency” says one GOP Senator.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/there-is-no-moral-equivalency-gop-senator-says-he-doesnt-know-what-trumps-doing-with-putin-comments/

    Q: Why would someone (Trump) who is more than likely attempting to somehow break down the China / Russia alliance, which will be very difficult to do do to the actions of our last president and his inherent weakness, not begin to attempt to repair or appear to repair our relations with Russia?

    What is so hard to understand about this? Now from my point of view non of these powers can be trusted one inch, but the game must be played and the game has been played very poorly for the past 8 plus years.

    Know the game, play the game, win the game. This was a foreign concept to Obama and not within his ability to understand nor accomplish. Obamas only international agenda was to empower Iran with an essentially treasonous nuclear deal that long term ensures Iranian dominance of the middle East and his concern with “climate change”. Thats it.

  • wayne

    Andrew_W–
    btw–nice to see your name pop up again recently,even when I differ with you on some things.

    –We are broaching some interesting & deep Topics, but I fear we might be talking past each other in some respects.
    (I recall a lengthy thread wherein definitions-of-words, became a major stumbling block. That’s what it felt like to me at times.)

    “Populism,” “Nationalism,” “Conservative,” “Liberal,” to name just 4, if we don’t start from some sort of shared definition of what these words actually mean in practice, I think we (I for one) get lost.

    –Mr. Z., goes out of his way to functionally-define “fascism” in theory & practice. (I appreciate that, and I agree with his general definition.)
    ( I’ve mentioned before I prefer “Statists” but that lacks a visceral whallop component of more historically charged words.)
    –tangentially, the Left has totally coopted the Language. (For that I would refer anyone to Orwell and Hitchen’s.)

    Input by anyone on this?

    [I’m particularly interested in having a common definition of “progressive,” “populist,” and “nationalist.”]

  • pzatchok

    Edward

    :Pzatchok wrote: “Like Hitler. I admire how he took his poor and embarrassed nation from the ashes of WWI to a world power in a short time.”

    I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but Hitler’s methods were to stop printing money (a good thing) and to steal from the Jews that he mistreated in order to replace the loss of the printed money (a bad thing). When he ran out of other Germans’s money (the Jews’), he started annexing territory and stealing from those people, too. ”

    Your not breaking my bubble. But I might just break yours. The German Jews did not have enough cash to finance Germany for one day let alone years. Like most people around the world their wealth is not in cash but in property, either actual land or in businesses. And you can’t finance a nation by stealing and selling a grocery store.

    He financed Germany by just issuing more cash in any amount he needed. Until a million mark bank note was common. And that still didn’t get you a loaf of bread.

    Sadly the Jews of 1930 Germany were just an excuse. Hitler really did hate them and blamed them and other Christian Germans for losing WWI, but he just used them as an intimidation tactic against the rest of the German population. As long as it was just the Jews and eventually their collaborators being rounded up and sent away the rest of Germany was relieved it was not themselves.
    They assumed the people in power knew something about the Jews they did not and as long as they did not see them shot in the street they assumed the Jews were just sent to other nations.
    Though many German Jew were hailed as Heroes of WWI I can find no time in German hystory when Jews were given equal rights as the average German.

  • Cotour

    From the New Cotour Dictionary:

    #1 Progressive : An adopted code word for “Democrat” Liberal / Leftist political operatives. The purpose of the term is to instill a positive imagery in the minds of the population that identifies themselves with traditional Democrat values. This word deception is based in the Alynski social war model and provides cover for those radicals who would find themselves at the levers of power do to their ability to deceive. Who could argue with an ideology that professes “Progress”? The very subjective question remains, what exactly do you consider “progress”?

    (Radicals : Knee jerk haters of Capitalism and Democracy. Empowered and enabled by both Capitalism and Democracy they become bent on the idealized “more perfect” social / political model of socialism / Marxism which does not exist. They also become fixated on destroying that which in fact gives them power, this is a mental illness. As an aside, the Constitution is not a suicide pact!)

  • Andrew_W

    Wayne, I pretty much agree with the wiki definitions, though with Fascism I define with a stronger element of hatred towards other groups, Social Liberalism I see as more willing to compromise aspects of freedom in the name of the greater good (I expect you agree with me on that one), Conservatism I try to use a US definition, you no doubt see this philosophy more positively than I, I see it as largely reactionary, with no set principles being dragged along by society as it is changed by “progressives”, Nationalism I see more as the other side of the coin to patriotism, patriots emphasize the positive about their own country and people, nationalists emphasize the negative about other countries and people, Populism – I agree with the wiki definition.

    Trump is decidedly negative about other countries, he is coming across as very authoritarian, he nicely fits the wiki definition of populist, and there’s no doubt his approach to most things political is radical. But I wouldn’t call him a fascist – yet.

    Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism.

    Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Whereas classical liberalism emphasises the role of liberty, social liberalism stresses the importance of equality.[4] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.

    Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. . . . There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus conservatives from different parts of the world—each upholding their respective traditions—may disagree on a wide range of issues.

    Nationalism is a complex, multidimensional concept involving a shared communal identification with one’s nation. It is a political ideology oriented towards gaining and maintaining self-governance, or full sovereignty, over a territory of historical significance to the group (such as its homeland).

    Populism is a political style of action that mobilizes a large alienated element of a population against a government which is seen as controlled by an out-of-touch closed elite that acts on behalf of its own interests. The underlying ideology of Populists can be left, right, or middle. Its goal is to unite the uncorrupt and the unsophisticated (the ‘little man’) against the corrupt dominant elites (usually the orthodox politicians) and their camp followers (usually the rich and the intellectuals). It is guided by the belief that political and social goals are best achieved by the direct actions of the masses. Although it comes into being where mainstream political institutions fail to deliver, there is no identifiable economic or social set of conditions that give rise to it, and it is not confined to any particular social class.[1]

  • wayne

    Still absorbing everyone’s input, but just real-quick:

    >Weimar Republic 1921-1924-ish, was the period of hyperinflation. We had the “roaring 20’s,” they had hyperinflation. (We got an FDR, they got themselves a Hitler.)
    (tangentially-there are some good texts on the “economic organization of Nazi-Germany,” but I don’t have any handy.)
    very brief–after the Nazi’s took formal control, they had to finance their military via Central Bank Note issues that disguised the true purpose. Initially at least, they kept up the pretense of cooperating in international banking & commerce, and Hitler was highly resistant to overtly placing the entire german economy on a war-footing. They inordinately stressed consumer-goods, pretty much up until Albert Speer completely reorganized war-production.
    Concurrently, the 1930’s saw us here at home, engaged in a major Depression and the focus shifted inward.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W ,
    You wrote: “the number of people using violence in their opposition to Trump is a very small proportion of those who oppose his policies, just as it’s a tiny fraction of antiabortionists that commit violence against those involved in abortions, so I think it’s as much a misrepresentation to ascribe the anti Trump violence to “the left” in general as it would be to blame all those opposed to abortion for antiabortion violence.

    Interesting argument. It sounds like you think that violence is OK just so long as it is limited to a very small proportion of those on that side of the argument. Which would make the antiabortion people’s violence OK, yet it was the antiabortion people themselves who were the most vocal critics of that violence. Every single time. Which brings us to the questions of:
    How long ago was the last incidence of antiabortion violence? How much left-wing violence has occurred since that last incident of antiabortion violence? Hasn’t there been far, far more left-wing violence just since the election than there has been of antiabortion violence in all of history?

    It isn’t just a few left wingers. It is hundreds of students urging on the violence at Berkeley; tens of thousands of Only Black Lives Matter chanters all across the country calling for dead cops, which then happens, also all across the country; how many thousands were violent in Washington DC on Inauguration Day; hundreds of violent protests on each of the university campuses that then cancelled right wing speakers; hundreds of crimes and rapes at the many, many Occupy camps across the country, only to discover that the organizers were terrorists hell bent on blowing up bridges; the Black Panthers violently enforcing their unauthorized authority; calls for Trump’s death, and now a call for a military coup in America (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4185168/Sarah-Silverman-calls-military-coup.html ), how peaceful that is; and so on and so forth.

    These aren’t just a few, they are the many. The outrage of their violence does not come from the tacitly approving left but from the right; the leftists remain silent or blame the right wing for the violence of those on their own side. Those hundreds of leftists who were present at the Berkeley riot openly cheered the violence, rather than booing the actions and walking away from the scene in order to avoid implied acceptance of the violent actions.

    Compare that to the violence of the Tea Parties. Talk about it being “a well documented fascist ploy to blame and punish large groups for the actions of a few,” you are blaming a large group, the right, for the actions of the other side! Just like the anti-gun lobby blaming and punishing all gun owners for the actions of the Democrat mass shooters – whom I should have included in the list, two paragraphs above. Then you claim to be “on the true right [and] don’t support collective responsibility or collectivism in general.” Just as Bill Whittle said: “But it is interesting, isn’t it, how the left will disrupt a peaceful expression of differing opinions with violence, and then accuse the people holding those differing opinions of starting the whole thing.

    Apparently, I can repeat that Whittle quote over and over yet no one on the left gets it, do you Andrew_W?

    Instead, you look at violent actions committed by hundreds of thousands across the country and decide that “a very small proportion” are responsible. You fail to see the support and approval of the rest that allows the violence to continue, just as you failed to see that the criticism from antiabortionists quickly stopped the violence of antiabortionists.

    Which brings us to the questions of:
    How long ago was the last incidence of Tea Party violence? How much left-wing violence has occurred since that last incident of Tea Party violence? Hasn’t there been far, far more left-wing violence just since the election than there has been of Tea Party violence in all of history? Can you even point to one single incident of Tea Party violence?

    You wrote: “Exactly why I think Conservatives are just another brand of leftists

    Thus you give away that you do not consider yourself to be a conservative after all. But then, the rest of us have known this for quite some time.

    You wrote: “ “your logic is the typical form of leftist thinking that oneself is superior in judging what is good and proper to those who disagree with you.

    Untrue. We know that their ideas are inferior because the left is afraid to allow the debate of ideas. Our evidence that our ideas are superior is that the left loses the debate every time it happens as well as the evidence that leftist philosophies have run into the ground every country that tried them. Individual liberty and freedom have brought prosperity to every country that have tried them. Even China and India have started accepting some of these conservative ideas of liberty, freedom, and free market capitalism, and they have brought about half of their respective populations out of poverty.

    The superiority of the conservative philosophy is demonstrated in the practical application, not in the logic. It is the left that uses poor logic to conclude that socialism should work, if only they could start with a rich, successful, capitalist country. It is the left that fails to heed Frédéric Bastiat’s words and continues to be fooled into thinking that that which is not seen does not exist. It is the left that fails to accept William Bradford’s hard-learned lesson, that it is in the keeping of one’s own hard labor that creates the incentive to work hard at producing prosperity, not in the promise of benefiting from someone else’s hard labor.

    You wrote: “Since I don’t expect to be significantly affected by Trump’s it’s not going to be a bad day for me at all.

    Once again, you miss the significance of the terrible effect that the liberal Democrat Trump is going to have on you. Just because you do not detect the effect of the useless destruction of the American economy, does not mean the effect is not there. Trump’s rotten rule of the United States (where he is supposed to lead, not rule) will have a similar effect as a lowering tide. A rising tide may lift all boats, but a lowering tide could ground many boats.

    The effects of the loss of prosperity in America will be felt around the world as its trade wanes. As with Bastiat’s broken window story, what will not be funded in New Zealand due to the loss of prosperity in America? If we had lost that prosperity a decade ago, would Rocket Lab be funded by America? If it had been lost half a century ago, would the “Lord of the Rings” movies been funded? You would not miss them and you would not feel their loss, but you and your fellow countrymen prosper a little more because of them. It is like Bastiat’s shopkeeper’s shoes, which he can buy because the window did not break, so it was not just one person prospering by six francs, the glazier, but it was two people who each prospered by six francs, the shopkeeper and the cobbler.

    To quote Bastiat: “When we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: ‘Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;’ and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end — To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly, ‘destruction is not profit.’

    As for definitions of words, I will stick with dictionary.com’s definitions, as Wikipedia.com can be changeable at the whim of the editor of the hour. Of course, the New Cotour Dictionary probably has not been seen outside of Behind the Black. Once again, with three different definitions between three different people, we are likely to be at odds about meanings for a long, long time. Apparently we are people separated by a common language (paraphrased from Winston Churchill, Bernard Shaw, or Winston Churchill; three people separated by a common quotation). Where is the Tower of Babel when you need it?

    pzatchok wrote: “And you can’t finance a nation by stealing and selling a grocery store.

    Which is why they had to annex other territories every time that they ran out of other people’s money.

    pzatchok wrote: “I can find no time in German hystory when Jews were given equal rights as the average German.

    Of course not. They were the same kind of outsiders that Robert Reich blames for the Berkeley violence. Make someone else the bad guy, preferably someone you don’t like. Viola, Hitler and Reich distracted attention away from the true cause of trouble (their lousy left-wing policy), and the gullible among the population becomes willing for them to get rid of their antagonists. It becomes just as OK to send Jews to ghettos (and later to other places) as it is to shut down opponents’ speeches.

  • Andrew_W

    ” It sounds like you think that violence is OK just so long as it is limited to a very small proportion of those on that side of the argument. ”

    Only to the deranged, my point remains that nearly 100 million Democrat voters are not responsible for a few hundred violent protesters.

    “tens of thousands of Only Black Lives Matter chanters all across the country calling for dead cops,”

    Simply a lie, there were tens of thousands of Only Black Lives Matter chanters all across the country, but The Black Lives Matter movement does not promote violence.

    ” you look at violent actions committed by hundreds of thousands across the country and decide that “a very small proportion” are responsible. ”

    Another lie, if there were violent actions committed by hundreds of thousands across the country there would hundreds of thousands of victims, there are not.

    “Thus you give away that you do not consider yourself to be a conservative after all. But then, the rest of us have known this for quite some time.”

    You think you’ve shown yourself as clever, but you’ve only demonstrated your senility, this is the third time you’ve exposed me as not being a Conservative, and his is the third time I tell you yes, I am not a Conservative! And that I think Conservatives, with their authoritarian tendencies, are little different to socialists.

    ” you miss the significance of the terrible effect that the liberal Democrat Trump is going to have on you.”

    And then you ruin it all by pointing out a couple of examples of those “terrible effects”: RocketLab, and LOTR. What can I say? Yawn.

    I had a look at the Dictionary.com definitions of the words under discussion, I thought them less precise than the wiki definitions that I’ve pasted in.

  • Cotour

    I stopped at this statement: “Simply a lie, there were tens of thousands of Only Black Lives Matter chanters all across the country, but The Black Lives Matter movement does not promote violence.”

    https://youtu.be/6fPGPTl0ipo

    Are you just making up your own reality now?

  • wayne

    Andrew_W.
    –just real quick:
    There’s not 100 million “Democrats” in the United States.
    Our total population is roughly 325 million, and in the last Federal election 125 million votes were cast. I believe our eligible voting pool is roughly 200 million, and the turnout is in the 50-60% range, depending on locality.

    (turnout is always 107% in greater Chicagoland, and dead-people always vote Democrat. Buts that’s another thread entirely.)

  • Andrew_W

    Wayne, possibly the total number of Democrats is larger than the number of Democrats who actually vote, but OK maybe there are only 70 or 80 million “Democrats”.

  • Cotour

    Maybe not so clear cut to you, but it is pretty clear to me.

    2016 https://youtu.be/SelnsAFlVq4 violence.

    2015 https://youtu.be/IRhZL3QLtEQ violence.

    Your delusion is magnificent https://youtu.be/e4FFeQYbJKw you keep it going.

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour

    You will obviously see this video as proof that the US armed forces routinely commit war crimes and that such crimes are encouraged by officers. I know you would want to be consistent and blame the entire US armed forces for the actions of a few.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioIRsLSG9gg

    I, on the other hand, am sensible enough to recognize that the actions of a few acting outside the rules doesn’t make those actions representative of the entire organization.

  • Andew_W comments in this tread once again demonstrate again the point I made in this post:

    There is one difference between these peaceful anti-Trump demonstrators and the tea party demonstrators that is important however. The former have rarely shown horror at the kinds of violence seen this week on college campuses and perpetrated in their name. They might mouth distaste for the violence, and might never do it themselves, but they have no outrage about it and if asked usually express some satisfaction that those bad conservatives or the bad people who support Trump got silenced. Too often, they celebrate the violence, even if they won’t do it themselves.

    Among every tea party protester I have ever met (and I have met a lot of them), such behavior was always considered absolutely unacceptable. The idea of committing violence against their opposition was horrifying to them.

    This distinction is important. It points us to the source of our modern political problems.

    Andrew_W continues as always to make excuses for the ill behavior of his fellow leftist travelers. People should note this, because it once again illustrates the central cultural problem of today’s society. For some reason, among the left such misbehavior by the left must always be ignored or excused.

    Violence by anyone must be condemned, period. No excuses. No mealy-mouths claims that “the right does it too!” or that “Trump could do it!” That is misdirection and an blatant effort to minimize or excuse such leftist violent behavior. It is shameful, and is actually an accessory to the crime.

  • Andrew_W

    Mr. Zimmerman’s contention that US Conservatives never condone violence is patently ridiculous. He is evidently unaware that capital punishment is widely supported by US Conservatives or that the US has started several wars at the behest of Republican Presidents. Mr. Zimmerman will argue that on those occasions the violence was justified, on the grounds that it was retaliation or justice. The problem with that illogic is that the perpetrators of violence, no matter what their political stripes, will always claim, and earnestly believe, that the violence that they perpetrate is only done in the name of retaliation or justice.

  • Andrew_W

    I should also point out that I can find plenty of comments by right wing bloggers celebrating the violent deaths of people they see as leftists, including the murder of Kayla Mueller.

  • LocalFluff

    The number of Democrats seems to be an issue here. Well, the number of Democrats quickly approaches zero because of the mass murders from the wars, the nuclear proliferation and the criminal violence which is the definition and consequence of Democrat’s’ politics. Socialists and islamists are incapable of manufacturing any items, such as tools or life supporting supplies. To be a Democrat is to be unable and unwilling to survive.

  • wayne

    LocalFluff–
    You bring up a good point that Victor Davis Hanson has made many times—the 3rd world is parasitic of 1st world technology and especially weapons, of all sorts.
    They can’t actually manufacture, by themselves, most of the weapons they use against us. (crony capitalists sell them everything.)
    They can’t even built AK-47’s, or the ammunition used therein, in mass quantities.

    Andrew_W– let us not conflate “right wing” in the European sense, with “conservatives” as the word is used in the United States.
    “Capital punishment”— give me a break.
    “70-80 million ‘Democrats,’ in the USA? — give me a break.

  • Cotour

    No, No Zman, Andrew W is a “Libertarian” and he properly illustrates my point from long ago that Libertarianism is just a kind of naive philosophy and creates a paradox within those who identify with it and makes them unable to distinguish between good and bad, right and wrong. Everything is subjective from that individuals perspective, there can be no objectivity. (Libertarianism is solely a personal philosophy, as soon as it attempts to emerge the only thing that can follow is chaos)

    Libertarians, although they see themselves as “reasonable” and “objective”, they are neither, they are a danger to themselves and more importantly are a danger to everyone else. Andrew W can not even distinguish between reasonable and lawful defence and abuse of power in an engaged military context.

    Just like the word “Progressive”, who could disagree with progress? The Libertarian is all about “Liberty”, who does not like Liberty? The undeveloped, naive and ideologically “superior” (be afraid) identify with these types of mind games. When you dig down and come to understand the thinking behind it, if you are able to you slap yourself in the face and bring yourself back to reality you become lost in your failing and self limiting ideology.

  • wayne

    Cotour–
    Have to differ on your characterization of Andrew_W. (9:23am comment)
    I have heavy libertarian leanings, small & capital-“L” variety, but I’m totally confused as to Andrew_W.

  • Cotour

    Yes, I know, reread what I wrote and think about it. Libertarianism is solely a personal model of operation it does not belong outside of that context. There is no reasonable way to integrate personal Libertarianism thinking into an operational organization or political party thought process.

    Andrew W is a common variety version of the problem with that kind of thinking. Maybe because he lives in the Southern hemisphere and grew up upside down? Who knows.

    I have hope for you.

  • Andrew_W

    Perhaps, you should redefine your politics Wayne, or perhaps I should redefine mine (or Johnson should redefine his?). I find myself in agreement with Gary Johnson on almost everything, though I’d call myself a classical liberal rather than a libertarian.

  • wayne

    Andrew_W-
    –I think we’re totally caught up in semantics in large part over “Libertarian.” (and most if not all of the other Nouns in this thread. I get the distinct impression we’re probably talking past each other, more than not…)

    A random example (but not an ideal one); I classify Prof Richard Epstein, as a quintessential American classical-liberal. Where as, he is often tagged as a straight Libertarian.
    (I for example, would roll back the Administrative State to, say, 1895 levels, and go from that point.)

    To respond directly– “Johnston should redefine his politics.” He put back the cause of libertarianism, big-time, with his recent performance.
    — Lot-o-Statist stuff, out of his mouth last year.

  • Andrew_W

    There are no definitive definitions of political labels. Regarding Johnson, he didn’t get all that much coverage down here, so I’m relying on how he defines his political position in published material.

  • wayne

    Andrew_W
    Johnson didn’t really get all that much coverage here.
    He has shifted demonstrably over time. He does profess a number of “legit” libertarian views, but in some key area’s, he morphed into a Statist Progressive type.
    -The National Libertarian Party convention of 2016, was not a high-point in their history.

  • Cotour

    Johnson turned out to be one big fat joke of an irrelevant presidential candidate, if you did not hear.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “Only to the deranged, my point remains that nearly 100 million Democrat voters are not responsible for a few hundred violent protesters.

    Check your numbers, there were not 100 million Democrat voters. There aren’t even 80 million voters, even when the dead ones are included. It is easy to look up. There were only 65 million votes for Clinton, including the deceased voters. And, yes, these voters are tacitly approving of the violence, since Clinton had explicitly encouraged many of the violent groups, and that makes them responsible, just as those who vocally rejected right wing violence are explicitly responsible for the lack of violence from the side you disagree with (you being not conservative, and all).

    I showed that Democrats tacitly approve the violence that comes from the left, and which is why it continues and escalates. I showed that the right wing (obviously, not your “true right” wing) explicitly and vociferously rejects any violence coming from the right, so any violence that happens stops as soon as it starts. The difference is stark.

    If you remain with your deranged point after my explanation, we understand you a little better than before. My conclusions about you in our previous long threaded interaction remain true.

    The right is always outraged by violence, and the left always likes it. If the right gets violent, the left blames it on the right. If the left gets violent, however, the left blames it on the right. Just like you did, Andrew_W. You may be trying to use America’s definition of “conservative” but your leaning is America’s definition of liberal.

    I explained the difference between the right rejecting violence and the left cheering it, but I’m deranged.

    You assumed that there are 100 million Democrat voters, but I’m deranged.

    100 million is not a small proportion of America, but I’m deranged.

    You didn’t understand the Whittle quote, but I’m deranged.

    You still have yet to reject the violence, but I’m deranged.

    You used moral equivalence to show that violence by the left is acceptable, but I’m deranged.

    Even after Robert pointed out that you have yet to reject the violence, you continue your moral equivalency attack on conservatives. Even to the deranged extreme of rejecting self-defense! Or are you saying that violence on the Berkeley campus is OK because self-defense is accepted by almost the entire world? Plus, you still have yet to reject the violence.

    You wrote: “The Black Lives Matter movement does not promote violence.

    Yours is the lie. See Cotour’s video of the actual chants of Only Black Lives Matter. And yes, it is clear cut. Your link to fake news is unconvincing, because Cotour’s video shows that the chanters carry Only Black Lives Matter signs, which does not date back to 2014, as Only Black Lives Matter did not exist until summer of 2015. You aren’t paying attention.

    You wrote: “Another lie
    Another truth. You are not paying attention to what is happening in the US. You are nicely safe in your remote island paradise, but we are in the midst of a violent liberal backlash against the rejection of corruption, tyranny, and violence.

    You wrote: “I am not a Conservative!

    This explains why you do not reject violence and use moral equivalence. I notice that you distinguish the named group with an upper case letter, while I used the philosophical lower case letter. You have, in the past, claimed to be a Libertarian, which in the rest of the world is to be a conservative. Subtlety of language is not your strong suit. I will attempt to describe you, from now on, as being “on the true right.

    I stand corrected that your claim to being “true right” is not the same as belonging to the Conservative Party in New Zealand. Apparently, below the equator the philosophies are switched so that “true right” in New Zealand believes in more government, less liberty, more tyranny, and free stuff for everyone except those who actually do the work to make the stuff. This might explain why “There are no definitive definitions of political labels.

    It has been terribly difficult discussing things with you, as you have different definitions, often backward definitions, to the rest of us. Senility is not the problem so much as your upside down definitions.

    You wrote: “And then you ruin it all by pointing out a couple of examples of those “terrible effects”: RocketLab, and LOTR. What can I say? Yawn.

    I stand corrected. You believe there is nothing good or unique about New Zealand. Sorry that you are stuck there. Perhaps you may consider becoming American, once your precious, snowflake left wing (“true right” wing, to you) stops being violent. On second thought, we do not need another liberal who tacitly approves of violence. Stay safe in the land that you consider to be useless.

    You wrote: “possibly the total number of Democrats is larger than the number of Democrats who actually vote

    You are the one who said “Democrat voters.” Now you try changing it to include those who do not vote just so you can get higher numbers.

    You wrote: “I, on the other hand, am sensible enough to recognize that the actions of a few acting outside the rules doesn’t make those actions representative of the entire organization.

    Two words: Abu Grabe.

    You may be the only sensible person in the world, because the entire world (except maybe you) blamed the entire US military for the actions of only a few. This reminds me, there is always one crazy person on the bus. When you look around, if you can’t see him, then it is probably you.

    You wrote: “I should also point out that I can find plenty of comments by right wing bloggers celebrating the violent deaths of people they see as leftists

    If you think that you should, then please do so. You made a claim, you provided no links, yet it is the leftists who celebrate the deaths of conservatives, such as Reagan and Thatcher (as in Brits chanting “Ding Dong the witch is dead”). You project onto others your own feelings, and perhaps actions. Or do you have comments of when Ted Kennedy passed away?

    Oops. I forgot. Right wing means to you what left wing means to the rest of us, so, yes, I believe you when you say that plenty of your “true right” wing bloggers celebrated the deaths of what you would consider to be leftists. You need not produce links. I saw plenty of those, too, such as when Reagan and Thatcher passed away. Twits were all over Twitter about Thatcher.

    Let’s get back to your earlier statement: “just as it’s a tiny fraction of antiabortionists that commit violence against those involved in abortions, so I think it’s as much a misrepresentation to ascribe the anti Trump violence to “the left” in general as it would be to blame all those opposed to abortion for antiabortion violence. It has been a well documented fascist ploy to blame and punish large groups for the actions of a few.

    All antiabortionists were painted as violent, despite their rejection of violence, so it is your “true right” side that “blame and punish large groups for the actions of a few.

    Wayne wrote: “I think we’re totally caught up in semantics in large part over ‘Libertarian.’

    As I wrote earlier, “we are likely to be at odds about meanings for a long, long time. … Where is the Tower of Babel when you need it?” Apparently because the Wikipedia definitions differ too much from the standard English language dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is no Tower of Babel.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You assumed that “the number of people using violence in their opposition to Trump is a very small proportion of those who oppose his policies,” so let’s look as some numbers.

    Although they were not protesting Trump, I believe that we can use a the proxy of last Wednesday’s violence at UC Berkeley. I have been in the plaza where it took place, and since we have some pictures of the event, there are some numbers that I can use with a fair amount of confidence. I have passed through that plaza as various speeches and rallies were being held, and I have a somewhat calibrated eye for the size of the crowd vs what the news media said it was, and the crowd last Wednesday looked to be a good 2,000 or maybe 3,000, depending upon just how many were there behind the cameras.

    About 30,000 undergraduates and another 15,000 graduate and PhD students attend Berkeley. There are plenty of students who are conservative or independent, but I will assume that half are liberal. That makes the crowd to be around 10% of the liberal population. (This is, of course, US liberals. I do not know what they call the same philosophy in New Zealand.)

    10% may seem to you to be a “very small proportion,” but I consider it to be a measurable proportion. Especially when the crowd develops mob mentality after they see that nothing happens to those smashing windows and burning property, so off the mob goes, through the streets of Berkeley, smashing windows of the shops they were in only that morning, especially the Starbucks where they used the free WiFi to organize the destruction — er — riot — er — peaceful protest. Nice guys, those lefties. I mean: American lefties; you may consider them to be the “true right?” It is hard to tell what your definitions really mean.

    By the way, you still haven’t rejected violence. I can only conclude that your “true right” believes in and condones the use of violence. Thus, it continues to seem ”like you think that violence is OK just so long as it is limited to a very small proportion of those on that side of the argument.” Call me deranged (who knows, maybe I am), but you are still the one not rejecting violence.

    As far as I can tell, your “true right” (whatever that means) is clearly, terribly wrong.

  • ken anthony

    This thread of comments gives me hope. …and the left keeps redefining terms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *