“We will get better aim.”


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.

Leftwing fascists: A protester at the Tucson office of Senator Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) was arrested after telling staffers there that the real solution to the “Republican problem” is “better aim.”

“You know how liberals are going to solve the Republican problem? They are going to get better aim,” he said. “That last guy tried, but he needed better aim. We will get better aim.” The protester was likely referencing last month’s shooting in Alexandria, Virginia.

Nothing to see here. So what that actual Republican congressmen were shot, one nearly killed, by a Democratic party supporter who had campaigned for Bernie Sanders? So what that actual threats and simulations of violence against Trump and Republicans can be seen almost daily in leftwing culture?

No. What we need to get outraged about is a silly tweet sent out by Trump

Share

21 comments

  • ken anthony

    They aren’t asking for a violent response; they’re demanding it. I expect it will happen like we’ve never seen. Probably by fat old bikers when they run out of beer. Did you ever see the endless bike rallies for Trump before the election? Four bikes wide for over a hundred miles.

  • Alex

    Mr. Zimmerman: The term “fascists”, which do you often very often, does not apply to those leftist described above, which should be called what they are in real: wimpy (Neo-)communist.

    Fascists – in contrast – emphasize values as natural hierarchy and order, support of own race and people, nation, glory, honor and decency, heroism, presentable appearance, bravery and so forth. Nothing from these properties is shared by your commy “fascists”. Think about that.

  • Alex: You are employing a typical leftist approach to debate, redefining the words so as to avoid their meanings. From Merriam-Webster:

    Fascism: often capitalized: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. [emphasis mine]

    So, besides being bigots (favoring race over individual achievements), fascists also like to impose their will on people, through the use of force. Sounds just like this particular leftist protester, who thinks the solution to dissenting Republicans is to kill them.

  • wayne

    Alex–
    I prefer the phrase “utopian-statists,” or simply “statists,” to describe all these “-isms.”

  • wayne: “statist” is somewhat accurate, but it is simply too nice, and takes away most of the negative connotations that should accompany the theories and practices of these tyrants (whether they are in charge or simply ground troops attacking innocent bystanders).

  • Dick Eagleson

    Robert,

    Yes, Fascism is a variant of leftist political philosophy. It’s inventor, Benito Mussolini, had, prior to founding this movement, been possibly the most prominent theoretician of the international socialist movement in Europe. Fascism was, in essence, a national, as opposed to international, form of socialism. WW1 seems to have given Mussolini serious doubts about the possibility of standing up a true international socialism on any reasonable time frame so he settled for an attempt at reinventing the Roman Empire along socialist lines with himself as Caesar.

    The emerging Nazis in Germany – Hitler, in particular – were abject Mussolini fanboys. The word “Nazi,” in fact, started out as the acronym for the official German name of the Nazi movement, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. To Mussolini’s Fascism, the Nazis added a whole superstructure of race theory with so-called “Aryans” at the top and everyone else as descending levels of “untermenschen” – literally, “under men.”

    The Socialist International and its Communist counterpart the Comintern, naturally enough, viewed these movements as, in effect, heresies against the Marxist-Leninist true religion. Hence, the insistence by Communists and fellow-travelers, right down to the present day, that Fascism and Nazism are “right-wing” movements. They’re not. They’re competing forms of socialism and irretrievably leftist to their cores.

    Jonah Goldberg’s excellent book ‘Liberal Fascism’ explains all this at considerable length and much else besides.

  • wayne

    Mr. Z.,
    The term “statist” is a bit too “nice,” but for me, it’s accurate. And I can generally call someone a statist to their face, without the conversation immediately crashing.

  • wayne

    Dick–
    good stuff!
    (ya beat me to it!)

    Jonah Goldberg – Liberal Fascism
    Heritage Book Event 1-9-08
    https://youtu.be/eYTrvutFsoE
    (1:07:06)

  • wodun

    No. What we need to get outraged about is a silly tweet sent out by Trump

    The media is just a wing of the DNC and they always cover for Democrats. Look at this article about BLM getting sued.

    McKesson was not immediately available for comment and Black Lives Matter leaders have denied accusations that their movement promotes violence against police.

    The article doesn’t add the many examples of real violence and calls for violence from BLM protests. Aside from the riots, there are videos of marchers chanting to kill cops.

    Last year, McKesson and two other activists sued the Baton Rouge police department and other officials over the arrests of nearly 200 demonstrators during mostly peaceful protests over police killings.

    Mostly peaceful? This is Orwellian and the media always covers for Democrat’s militant activists. But Trump tweeting a gif is actual violence against all journolists everywhere.

  • Alex

    Mr. Zimmerman:

    The term Fascist, similar as the term “Nazi”, becomes at present more and less meaningless as it is used by mainstream media and leftists/liberals/communists/cuckservatives, because it is used applied to “everybody” who did not share leftists’ or liberals’ own views. You use it also in a broad way.

    I do not redefine anything. I just describe the existing, real attributes of a term, in order to give it the original content back. If you are not able to recognize Communists and divide them from Fascist, I feel sorry for you. BTW, Wikipedia is no reliable source for political and historical facts, because it is steered and controlled by leftist activist groups.
    It is a misconception that Nationalsozialists were leftists in common sense. That is not true, not only because Hitler expelled NSDAP’s left wing in 1934 from his party. It is better say Nationalsozialists proposed a third way, beside Capitalism and Communism, which is based on natural order, heritage, nation, people and so forth. Hitler respected private ownership of means of production, because he was aware of ineffectiveness of Communist’s economy. Germany’s industry was overwhelmingly efficient also between 1933 and 1945. BTW, modern capitalism and communism systems share important “values” as internationalism and universalism in order to destroy nations, heritage, cultures and so forth.

  • Alex: Increasingly you reveal yourself. Previously you made it clear that you held bigoted views (see the comments in this post). Now you are going out of your way to defend Hitler and Nazism. Most interesting, but completely consistent. Anyone who believes that heritage, ethnicity, and racial background are more important than what each person actually does with their life would find Hitler and his Nazi ideology comforting.

    Moreover, you try to make a distinction between communism and fascism, but in the end they are the same. They both believe that some people are gifted with the right to rule over others, and are thus justified in using the mailed fist and the jack boot to crush any opposition.

    Finally, you say I shouldn’t use Wikipedia, but I didn’t. My source for the definition of “fascism” comes from Merriam-Webster, one of the more respected English dictionaries. If that isn’t good enough for you, how about these definitions:

    Cambridge Dictionary: Fascism: a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control of social and economic life, and extreme pride in country and race, with no expression of political disagreement allowed.

    Webster Dictionary: Fascism:
    n. 1. a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government; – opposed to democracy and liberalism.
    2. an authoritarian system of government under absolute control of a single dictator, allowing no political opposition, forcibly suppressing dissent, and rigidly controlling most industrial and economic activities. Such regimes usually try to achieve popularity by a strongly nationalistic appeal, often mixed with racism.
    3. Specifically, the Fascist movement led by Benito Mussolini in Italy from 1922 to 1943.
    4. broadly, a tendency toward or support of a strongly authoritarian or dictatorial control of government or other organizations; – often used pejoratively in this sense.

    #2 above seems to describe you and what you seem to believe in quite well. Which leaves me quite baffled. Why do you repeatedly come to my website? You do know that I am a Jew? Based on your beliefs, even discussing this with me might corrupt your purity.

  • wodun

    It is a misconception that Nationalsozialists were leftists in common sense.

    They were leftists in every sense. It was/is a collectivist totalitarian movement. The writings and ideology of the Nazi were very popular with leftists of the day. It wasn’t until the USA joined WWII that leftists in the USA turned against the Nazi but even then, they still shared many of the same beliefs.

    Just because Hitler also had leftist competitors for control over Germany and the world doesn’t mean that he wasn’t a leftist. The left eat their own all the time. The notion that there is no competition for control of the left and who sits at the top of the collectivist dog pile is false. Just because one faction of communism fights another doesn’t mean that one or the other isn’t communist.

    And any bird track off into the weeds about how one is socialist while the other communists is merely engaging in distinctions without differences.

  • wayne

    “Why Nazism was Socialism and why Socialism is Totalitarian”
    https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

    This is partially the reason I prefer the term “statist,” it covers the variants between internationalistic-communism and nationalistic-communism, and it by-passes the masterful twisting of the English language by the left.

  • Wayne: “[Statist] by-passes the masterful twisting of the English language by the left.”

    A very good point. At the same time, the language twisting of the left is how they have avoided being stained by the horrors they impose. As fascists and communists they kill millions, then twist the language so that later generations think those movements were “rightwing.” As I writer I am constantly disgusted at this, and insist on calling them on it.

  • wayne

    Mr. Z., —
    I hear you and don’t disagree at all. I do remember a time, when calling someone a fascist actually meant something.

    a multiple repeat from me, and always enlightening–
    “Politics and the English Language”
    George Orwell
    https://youtu.be/fBu0yPaGpsU
    35:44
    -Very good multi-media version of the Essay

  • pzatchok

    I feel threatened. Is this a micro aggression?

  • Edward

    Alex wrote: “I do not redefine anything. I just describe the existing, real attributes of a term, in order to give it the original content back. If you are not able to recognize Communists and divide them from Fascist, I feel sorry for you.

    When you do not use the generally accepted meanings of words — the dictionary definition — but use your own definitions, then it becomes difficult to communicate. Since the speaker or writer is responsible for getting his meaning across, it is best to use the dictionary meanings, not the colloquial meanings that may change from culture to culture or location to location.

    For example:
    https://xkcd.com/1860/

    I am often looking up words at Dictionary.com in order to be sure that they mean what I think that they mean, and that I am using them correctly. This way, if they are misinterpreted, it is the reader’s fault for not understanding the English language. (I try to use Strunk and White’s “The Elements Of Style” for grammar and punctuation usage, but I fear that I often get it wrong — causing unintended meanings of my sentences and providing confusion rather than clarity.)

    From Robert’s post: “So what that actual threats and simulations of violence against Trump and Republicans can be seen almost daily in leftwing culture?

    Robert meant this sarcastically, but threats, intimidation, and violence are actions that the NAZIs and fascists actually used. America’s Democrats are now using them liberally against anyone who disagrees with them — just as the NAZIs and fascists did. The communists use “reeducation camps” and gulags, yet left-wing (in American terminology) climate alarmists insist upon similar treatment for those who disagree with them about causes and effects of global warming.

    Alex wrote: “It is a misconception that Nationalsozialists were leftists in common sense. That is not true, not only because Hitler expelled NSDAP’s left wing in 1934 from his party.

    NAZIs, fascists, and National Socialists are only thought of as right-wing (in American terminology) or center-of-the-road by those who are farther left (in American terminology) than those philosophies. Those on the right (in American terminology) recognize the leftist (in American terminology) nature of the governmental-control and speech-suppression of these groups.

    Other countries may consider these groups as right wing, because the other countries (such as New Zealand and Alex’s country) may define the wings in a different way or in the opposite way. This is one of the lessons that we have learned here on Behind The Black.

    Alex wrote: “Hitler respected private ownership of means of production, because he was aware of ineffectiveness of Communist’s economy.

    No. Hitler favored central control through heavy regulation (like the US is beginning to do, these days) and central control of production quantities, and he favored private ownership (crony capitalism) because his government could not afford to own or individually run all the companies throughout Germany. The private owner was responsible for complying with all regulations and quotas. This allowed for better efficiencies from industry than the Soviet communists had, and Hitler needed as much efficiency as possible.

    Rather than use free market capitalism, where he would have less control over the means of production, Hitler used crony capitalism. Friends of the regime were favored over the others. In the beginning of the movie “Schindler’s List” we see Schindler getting photographed with a high-ranking NAZI in order to fool people into believing that he, Schindler, was worthy of government and Party favor. That is how he got his business started and how it eventually led to his list, neither of which would have been likely had he not been perceived as a crony. Also, notice, in the movie, the occasional reference to quotas that Schindler had to meet.

    By the way, free market capitalism around the world has only built nations, not torn them down, as America and Europe learned long ago, and as India and China are learning now. Heritages and cultures are not a purview of free market capitalism, but they belong to those who buy from capitalists, and customers buy what they want to buy. If the customers favor something different then they purchase something different. No one forces them to purchase any specific product. At least in a free market system (the US healthcare system no longer is free market). If this changes a heritage or a culture then that is the choice of the customer, not the choice of the capitalist.

    Free market capitalism is not what Alex refers to as modern capitalism. “Modern capitalism” would be better described as crony capitalism, where government chooses the winners and losers through central control, such as through overregulation. The farther from free markets that an economic system gets, the more chaos develops in the system.

    When there are changes in the economy or in people’s needs or desires, central controllers cannot react as fast as the owner or operator of a free market capitalist business can. Americans were taught this lesson in the 1930s, under Roosevelt’s attempts at wage controls, and again in the early 1970s, when Nixon tried price and wage controls, but few people learned the lesson either time. The US healthcare system is crony capitalism, and it is in chaos and is falling apart rapidly.

    Crony capitalism is not really capitalism, because for capitalism to work, it must be performed within a free market system. Otherwise it has less to do with freedom than it does with governmental central control of the economy — a left-wing (in American terminology) concept.

    wayne wrote: “the masterful twisting of the English language by the left.

    This reminds me of Orwell and a couple of his books, Newspeak, and some people being more equal than others.

    Robert wrote: “As fascists and communists they kill millions, then twist the language so that later generations think those movements were ‘rightwing.’

    Leftists (in American terminology) do the same in the United States, blaming Republicans for racism when it was the Democrats who ordered the Trail of Tears, favored and enforced slavery (to the point of starting a war), passed Jim Crow laws, started and ran the Ku Klux Klan, opposed the Civil Rights law as well as integration (both were favored by Republicans); and now insist upon the soft racism of 1. American Apartheid — er — Affirmative Action, 2. government giveaways that provide incentives for poor minorities to remain poor in order to continue collecting free stuff, and 3. the modern segregation movement (e.g. only black lives matter, whites unwelcome on university campuses for one day each year, separate graduation ceremonies based upon various minority status, etc.).

    pzatchok,
    It is probably a trauma trigger, and we should probably all be giving trigger warnings for each of our posts.

    Belatedly:

    *** TRIGGER WARNING ***
    If any of what I write here begins to induce a traumatic memory, please immediately and calmly evacuate to the nearest safe space in order to obtain proper trauma counseling and soothing, and avoid all my comments and replies forever after.

  • wayne

    Edward-
    Good stuff.

    [I’m supposed to follow the APA Style® format (American Psychological Association) but that’s only when I’m on the clock. If I can compose on the fly and not end a sentence with a proposition, I consider that good enough for the interweb.]

    Highly recommend Orwell’s short essay, “Politics & the English Language,” for anyone who writes (anything) or consumes any political writing. It holds up across Time surprisingly well, and it can be generalized across Subjects.

  • Alex

    @Edwards:

    Maybe we should talk at first what is meant if we use the terms „right“, “liberal” and “left” to clarify it for all times. Whereas I am respecting your will to support the discussion here, I have to make a joke: Are you an accountant? Your references to a US dictionary are quite borrowing.

    As I said several times here, in my view being “right” means to respect natural orders of things and differences, for example between men, people, cultures and nations, in contrast to liberals (also in their original appearances) and leftists, where first one try eliminate all this by force or just ignore it as in case of liberals. Both are dangerous paths. Liberals also do not know the differences between the “us” and “them”, in contrast to that aliens, which will replace them later.

    Liberals (incl. Libertarians) support a very strong kind of individualism, where the individuals are separated from each other and there is no connection between them aside that all follow same abstract laws. That is against human nature.
    Right wingers support another kind of individualism, whereas it is about promoting and respecting differences between people, in order to strengthen the nation or people at whole. Liberals do not even know such as people or real nation exists aside the framework of constitution. Right wingers (incl. real conservatives) recognize also, in contrast to (original) liberals, that man is not a loner type of animal as tiger for example, but a type of gregarious animal, who likes it to live in large groups, a fact which cannot ignored with all its consequences.

    As said Liberals/Libertarian (and also leftists) propose a system, which acts against the nature of man. The replacement of natural order by “artificial” rules as laws or a constitution (incl. democracy) functions only in a proper manner if ruled society is more or less homogenous in its basic properties. I think ethnicity is here a very important issue in addition to culture. I reject Universalism and Internationalism, because I think the political system has to adopt to the very nature of different peoples and nations, not the other way round as you propose.

  • Edward

    Alex,
    You suggested: “Maybe we should talk at first what is meant if we use the terms ‘right’, ‘liberal’ and ‘left’ to clarify it for all times.

    Did you bother to watch any of the “What We Believe” YouTube videos that I linked in another thread? That would be the American definition of right wing.

    As many of us have pointed out many times here, your view of being right is bigoted and racist. These are the exact opposite of America’s right wing and conform to America’s left wing, who think ethnicity is here a very important issue. American right wingers agree with Martin Luther King’s dream, where the character of a man is the important thing, not the color of his skin.

    In America, Libertarians are farther right wing than most conservatives (the “What We Believe” videos) and are not bigoted and racist, unlike your right wing.

    From your description, your right wing is similar to America’s left wing, and your left wing is similar to America’s right wing.

    So, the question is: do we use your definition for right and left wings, where we right wingers are racist bigots, or do we use the American definition, where the left wingers are?

    I have decided to go with Bill Whittle’s description, because it is closer to the one most people here use than yours is:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLD6VChcWCE&list=PL5_z6DAA07VQz_5GECnD3Ep0L_Bp0mxy3

  • Edward

    wayne,
    You wrote: “Highly recommend Orwell’s short essay, ‘Politics & the English Language,’

    Thank you for the recommendation. I have added it to my writing reference material, with Strunk and White’s “The Elements Of Style.”

    To misleadingly summarize Orwell’s essay: don’t use a big word when a diminutive one will do.

Leave a Reply

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