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.

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.

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 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.

http://nypost.com/2017/02/06/jogger-suspect-wanted-to-stab-all-the-girls-in-his-high-school/

Sad.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

https://youtu.be/6fPGPTl0ipo

Are you just making up your own reality now?

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.

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.

>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.

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]

#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!)

: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.

–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.”]