The darkness of the Fascism Smear

Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds asks : Why does the left uses fascism smear against rivals?

Comment:

Reynolds is way too easy on them. They use it because they think it works for them. It has worked for them in the past, but it may be losing its punch. Why? For the first time, those who use this tactic aren't relegated to the fringes of the party. The leaders of the party did not use this tactic, until the Dark Brandon speech. It only works for them if at least they have a credible appearance of moderation. This party is not "moderate" in the least. Neither in word nor in deed. It's not only Brandon, but Hillary as well who has used this tactic lately. It's no longer a lunatic fringe tactic.

There has been discussion recently of a liberal named Paul Krugman, who writes for the "New York Times". His book, The Conscience of a Liberal" has been mentioned here. That book was published in 2007. His thesis in the book is that the "polarization" has been due to the "hard right's" influence on the GOP. So, let's take a deeper dive into that book. The reason is that this tactic has a long history. It has been used long before 2007.

He claims (in his book) that Democrats haven't moved left : He fails to mention old Solid South, and the loss of a conservative element in the Democrat party, 2) since his book came out, Nancy Pelosi went from being against impeachment ( supposedly) to being for impeachment of Trump. The radical wing of the party was calling for the ouster of Trump all along, thus 3) The party has been taken over by the radicals. 4) Obama was America's first leftist president. Obama was mentored by a communist. Those are indisputable facts. Here's another one: Since 1968, the Democrat Party has been moving leftward. Yet, Krugman claims that they are the same as always.

Something must have changed because the polls say so. The direction of the country poll has not been above water for nearly all of the new century. That's quite a long time. The election of Obama did not change it for long. It may have been above water for a short time. When it went under, did not go back up for the rest of his two terms.

Krugman's argument is about who owns the middle. But the "middle" is just the old dialectic mentioned over and over again here. Marxists love to use this, as it comes from Hegel. Hitler didn't mind using it either. The point is to disarm the opposition and render them helpless. It is easy to win when you demand that the other side not defend itself, and the response is obliging. As it can be seen, Liz Cheney is certainly obliging.

What does "hard right" mean for Krugman, if it isn't a subliminal comparison to Hitler? Krugman didn't make that connection in his 2007 book, but it is understood. If it wasn't, did Brandon just now discover it? Did Hillary just now discover it? What better way to disarm your opponent than to call them an infamous name? If you dare to defend yourself, then you are just being "mean". Easy to win that way. Hard to understand the obliging response of some in the GOP, like Romney.

What do these "hard right" types talk about once they get amongst themselves? There was a CPAC convention, with the 2012 candidates ( in 2012) mentioned here It is pretty much plain vanilla stuff. According to the "hard left", old fashioned American patriotism is no longer respectable. In fact, it is fascist. Usually, the conservatives talk about limited government and freedom. This isn't fascism. Freedom and fascism doesn't go together.

Compare that with what Hitler said himself in his book "Mein Kampf".

Shirer: The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

At the very least, the comparisons of the "hard right" are not apt. But they might be apt for what the Democrats have become. Is it really necessary to list the reasons why it has become an apt comparison for Democrats these days? Or are memories that short? Or has the opposition become too intimidated to say anything in response? This goes for everyone, not just Republicans, but those in the Democrat party who may have given in to the "spiritual terror" thrown their way.

So, why do they do it? It has worked for them in the past. If it works for them again, it will become a feature of politics for the foreseeable future. The only way to stop it is to defeat it resoundingly. Perhaps a Pavlovian response will persuade them not to do it again. Well, at least one would hope so.

Instapundit link---Brandon's Philosophical Moment

Brandon's Philosophical Moment

Here's a quote captured from the link:

Comments:

It is worthwhile to discuss philosophy, but when it comes to the philosophy that Brandon is referring to, he cannot cite a single instance to support his assertion. If he did, no source of information with regards to the speeches in question actually cited anything at all about the "underpinning philosophy" to which Brandon references. Such an assertion is merely a claim that Brandon makes. Unless he supplies the facts, he cannot honestly make the claim.

The actual philosophy of the founders is what the GOP CLAIMS to be their own. The trouble is that they often don't live up to it. The philosophy of the founders is what Brandon and his ilk OPPOSES while they work tirelessly to undermine it. Many of Brandon's followers denounce the founders as racists. Some statues of historical figures have been toppled. Yet Brandon claims that he is upholding the Republic. If so, whose philosophy is Brandon actually following?

If he is referring to violence, perhaps he is referring to Nietsche. Perhaps. If he was, to my knowledge, the no GOP figure has EVER referred to Nietsche at all. If he is referring to Hegel, the same goes. Both Hegel and Nietsche formed a lot of the basis of Hitler's philosophy, according to Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". Is Brandon accusing MAGA Republicans of being followers of these two philosophers? Or does Brandon actually know what he is talking about? It would seem that Brandon greatly exagerrated his scholatic achievements. He claimed to finish near the top of this class, but he actually did the opposite.

A deeper dive into the philosophy of Hitler may prove embarrassing to the Democrats. It would seem that there's a political opportunity here for the GOP. But the GOP never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. According to Brandon's former presidential boss, Brandon never seems to miss an opportunity to screw up.

That deeper dive is indicated. For Hitler did like political violence. Who likes violence these days, but the Democrats? The GOP has an allergy to any type of confrontation at all. The Democrats don't want any confrontation at all, not even verbal---which they mislabel as "violence". If there's a problem with the GOP, as far as Hitler would be concerned, it would be their utter passivity in the face of an enemy. They are as far way from Hitler as you can get. But Brandon and Co? They may as well be bosom buddies with old Adolf and his Brownshirts.

Aesop's Fable about the wolf and the lamb is often mentioned here. Yet the lamb was at least willing to defend itself verbally. The lamb may not have had the means ( like F-15's and the like) to defend itself physically, but the lamb AT LEAST had something to say in defense of itself. What exactly is the GOP doing to defend itself? Whatever it is, Hitler would not have approved.

Who is really kicking our ass

Ass kicking

China's life expectancy has surpassed the USA's. The link above has a title that says "China is kicking our fat woke ass". But is it that? Or is it something else? There's not much doubt that something is wrong. All the polls have consistently said so.

What is at the source of this decline? The article mentions that white people's life expectancy has gone down more than the colored people's. They say it was because of white people's resistance?!?

I've offered the same explanation as always. It is deceit on an epic scale. We have a ruling class that has declared war on us. Yet the people don't perceive it that way. You can be assured that when you are getting lied to on an epic basis, that something is definitely up. In the "Art of War", Sun Tzu said warfare is all about deception. If you want truth from these people in the ruling class, you will definitely not get it. It is a sure sign of HOSTILITY. The war is killing people.

Perhaps people cannot wrap their minds around the notion that their "leaders" are lying to them. You can bet your sweet bippy that this is a very big mistake.

The evidence of it is all around. Yet people have allowed themselves to be blinded so that they cannot see it. Or refuse to see it. That is, if you believe the polls. But the polls too can be a source of deception.

The one way that we have left, and this way may already be compromised, is the right to vote. This is an election season. In this election season, it is only necessary for the deception to continue for just a little while longer. If it succeeds, matters will continue to go downhill. The biggest issue is inflation, followed by the economy in general. It so happens that Brandon has emptied the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to fool the public into thinking that oil prices are stable. This WON'T LAST. Those responsible for this know that full well. They are fooling the public in order to improve their chances in this election. Once the election is over, the deception is no longer necessary. They'll have us by the gonads.

There's not much time left, and too many signs say that the status quo won't be changing much, if at all. If anything, things are about to get much worse.

Same old same old

If the polls keep saying the direction of the country is on the wrong track, then how to explain the fact that nothing seems to change?

Again, if the polls are correct, there's not going to be any real change here. Even if the GOP takes both houses, it won't change Brandon any. By change, it would take a very large majority, with a clear mandate, to at least bring legislation to his desk. Even then, he could veto it. You'd need 2/3rds in both houses to override. That's not going to happen.

The most likely thing is narrow majority, perhaps in both houses. We've been there before, done that, and nothing is going to get better unless there's a real change in direction.

It really doesn't make sense, but there it is.

Larger majorities for the Democrats won't help either. After all, they're the ones in charge of this mess. If Democrats were to be in full charge, with large majorities, what would they do any differently than what they are doing now?

If it is bad, then why keep on with it?

Does anyone honestly believe that larger Democrat majorities will bring about better results than this?

So, either the polls are wrong, or we're going to be in the same boat for at least two more years.

Credibility

Before writing this post, I considered making just an addendum to the previous post about Philosophy. Well, that post isn't about Philosophy per se. It included that to some degree, though. The source for my information is what I need to include. It is primarily the Shirer book---The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

I did read a bit about what others say about Shirer. It should be noted that he has a good "pedigree". He had an association with Edward Murrow, who name ranks right up at the top in broadcast journalism. The name of Edward Murrow is not heard much these days, but it was quite well known in his time, which is the time of Adolf Hitler himself.

Therefore, I tend to take Shirer's work quite seriously. I think it may well be about as authoritatiive source of information about the Third Reich that you can find.

This allows me to segue into the topic of credibility. One should ask oneself WHY you believe what you believe. Why do you find someone to be credible? Why do you find someone to NOT be credible?

The comparison being made so frequently to fascism has no basis in credibility if it doesn't have a source of information that itself is credible. Otherwise, it is nonsense and can shown as such to anyone who has any respect for truth and accuracy. I think that those type of comparisons to fascism lack credibility. It includes most defintely the leading voices of the Democrat party---Brandon and Hillary Clinton primarily.

Brandon is a known plagiarizer. Hillary Clinton is simply not a credible source. Now, if she would like to cite where she gets her information, and can show why and how her accusations have any basis at all, then I suppose it could be taken into consideration. I am quite confident that she does not. That's because of my information which I have mentioned here.

If anyone would like to show why Shirer's work is wrong, I'm all ears. But I am doubtful that anyone would be so foolish as to try.

Starting on page 142 of Shirer's book is a discussion of some of the philosophical underpinnings of Adolf Hitler regime. The comparison with Trump is simply not credible. Again, show me where I am wrong, and I will take it into consideration.

Much is said about "misinformation" these days. Those making the accusations may not have the slightest idea of what they are talking about. If they do, then that makes them a liar. It is hard to say what the case may be sometimes, but it is likely to be one or the other.

Philosophy

Philosophy

Here's a thought from the book by Robert Ringer: There are leftist politicians that have been Winning Through Intimidation for years. Ringer wrote this in the introduction to his first book by that name. Ringer didn't mean intimidation in the same way that it might be commonly understood. When asked why, he replied "ala Ayn Rand", "for the reasons that make you afraid of it." Somehow, the idea that it is naughty to disagree has to go. There is nothing to fear from disagreements.

There's a lot of fear being generated out there, and it is for a reason. That reason is for political control. Winning Through Intimidation in politics could mean the "otherization" of people who disagree with the controllers. That is hardly compatible with an open and free society. Intimidation should not to be used that way. In the USA, it is against the law to silence dissent--- "Congress shall make no law" in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

But there is a philosophical underpinning that provides the basis for intimidation. You can otherize someone if you were to call any disagreement as "extreme". Attach that to "right wing", and the label "fascist" pops up. The philosophy of Hegel figures prominently in Marxist thought. Hegel may have invented the concept of the dialectic, which Marxists use extensively in their political ideology. This is where the term "right-center-left" comes from. It is a dialectic. The dialectic can be abused thusly, and the entire point is to intimidate the opposition into silence.

It is so often used and abused in political discussion. Any time someone disagrees with a "leftie", they are somehow transformed into a fascist---the latest incarnation of Hitler and so forth. The left seem to want no dissent at all, instead of honoring honest disagreements, and a willingness to debate the pros and cons of the issues of the day. It is easy to "win" elections if there's no real debate. The "choice" could be between "dumb and dumber".

So in the USA, there's two political parties. However, it has become common to see that these two parties don't really disagree as much as the hype says that they do. Any deviation from the "norm" becomes "extreme". If there is no way to change anything, it is because it seems TOO SCARY to change anything. If the government is obviously doing a terrible job, the ones responsible seek to avoid responsibility and accountability through the use of this labelling. Therefore, if anyone challenges Brandon, they are "fascist" and "extreme". If nobody can challenge Brandon then, what is the point of elections? Do the lefties think they are divinely appointed to hold the reins of power forever?

Somehow, the GOP has to grow a spine and actually become an opposition party. The sure way to a one party dictatorship is to do exactly what Adolf Hitler DID DO. Hitler banned all other parties besides the Nazi party. If the Democrats really meant what they say they mean by "democracy", then why would they want to emulate Hitler? Instead, they should honor our Constitution, which is the law--and our Democratic tradition to boot. A loyal opposition should be honored, not sent to prisons.

The GOP should not be ashamed, nor INTIMIDATED out of offering a real alternative to the political left. If they are TOO INTIMIDATED, they cannot be leaders, nor should they be. If the political left succeeds in their attempts to WIN THROUGH INTIMIDATION, the GOP has nobody to blame but themselves if they allow it. If the left succeeds in producing the "monolithic" quality that the Soviet leader "Comrade" Khrushev referred to in his book, then we all lose something that may be impossible to regain. After all, the controllers could say that we "chose" it.

There is a philosophy to freedom. There is also a philosophy to tyranny. You ought to make yourself aware of that before you make a choice that cannot be undone.

OTC contraception

What is the US waiting for?

The answer to the question above is that this is an election season, and the Democrats want to use abortion as an issue. Consequently, they will not make Over-the-counter contraception available without a prescription.

Do the Democrats have moral objections to it? Not likely. There are moral objections to abortion. That doesn't seem to bother them any.

There are those in the GOP who MIGHT have moral objections to it, but it might not be enough to doom the bill. It takes a solid block of one party versus another to block the bill.

This appears to be a party line vote according to the information in the link. It COULD pass if party politics were not involved. It DOES appear that the Democrats are blocking it. The only reasonable explanation is that the Democrats are using abortion as a campaign issue. Clearly, they believe this helps them politically. Some of them have said so openly.

But it doesn't go with the line that they care about women's issues, now does it?

Pet Peeve

There was an election in Italy over the weekend. The so-called "right" won the election. At least, that is how it is being reported.

You may say that it has become something of a pet peeve to hear opposition being referred to being "on the right". This is in some cases unthinking. Maybe it goes along the lines of "everybody does it". So, the logic of that is what you may have heard your mother say when you were a kid. If you did something "everybody else did", your mother may have asked you the question: "If everybody was jumping off the Empire State Building, would you do it?" There is no logic in following the crowd, unless the logic is that the crowd is always right.

Crowds can be wrong, unfortunately. Following the crowd is not fail-safe. It may actually be quite dangerous. When the Jim Jones cult decided to "drink the Kool-Aid", they must have been following the "everybody is doing it" brand of "logic". It cost many people their lives.

The term "drinking the Kool-Aid" means to mindlessly follow the leader, or the group. Likewise, it would seem that the use of the term "right" in reference to a political opposition is much over-used. It is so over-used that it is becoming dangerous. It is dangerous because the ideology behind the use of such a word is inherently dangerous. That would be the ideology of Marxism. Those using that term either know this or they don't. If they know it and are using it in reference to all opposition to certain others who identify as "progressive", they may well be swallowing the Kool Aid. The Kool Aid crowd would have you believe that all opponents to them are a reincarnation of Hitler. This is not mere speculation. You have Brandon saying this, not once, but several times now. Hillary has also jumped into the mix.

It's nothing new, this Marxist paradigm. You might even say that it has made it into the culture so much that people may not be aware of it. If that is the case, and if people are unthinkingly using it, then it is out of ignorance. Ignorance can be cured, but stupidity cannot. At least try not to be ignorant. If you are just stupid, then you cannot help yourself.

One might have patience with stupid people, but ignorance is not easily forgiven. Information is widely available. Nobody should be ignorant of what these words mean. People are not fascist just because they disagree.

It has become a pet peeve.

Movie day again

It's been about movies lately. There are two others to discuss a bit. Not new movies. In fact, one of them was from the eighties, another 'Dirty Harry' flick. This one was called "Sudden Impact". I hadn't seen all of it completely beginning to end. This time, I tried sitting through it all, but failed. However, not for too long. I went back and finished watching it all.

The movie might have laid it on too thick. Maybe that's why I turned it off, before going back to it. It actually turned out to have an interesting statement to make. That statement is the nature of justice, and what should be done about that. This is the point that is being made in all of the three Dirty Harry movies that I've seen. There are two more flicks in the series. It would seem that to go back and watch those would be overkill, so to speak.

The movie is categorized as "vigilante". That term is meant to disparage those who seek justice by any other means than the legal system. But what if the system fails to deliver justice? This is not a casual issue. There are those who want to keep it "by the book" all the way, all the time. But if that doesn't happen, then what? It is not a perfect world in which we live. What happens when the system fails? What happens when a grievance cannot be redressed by a government that only adds insult to injury?

The other movie also covers the same idea from another direction. Instead of law enforcement, it is about foreign policy. It was the Jason Bourne movies. In particular, this one was the last one, which was called "Ultimatum". The resolution seemed to be that when the system gets out of control, that others would step forward and make it right. The "bad guys" were arrested. The "good guys" prevail. Jason Bourne was vindicated. It seemed a satisfying ending, but was it really?

One thing about it was satisfying. If something goes wrong, the system shouldn't start killing people left and right. In the Ultimatum installment of the series, the system turned on itself. That is largely what the Jason Bourne series was about. It started as one agent seemingly going rogue ( Jason Bourne), and ended when the premise of the entire program was determined to be flawed. Or so it seemed. ( I tend to be quite skeptical of a moralizing media.)

There can always be disagreements about things. But there are times when it may well to question why the hell you are doing what you are doing. This is particularly important when the subject is government power. What happens when the government goes wrong? How do those grievances get redressed?

The way the system is supposed to work is to have a free and open discussion of what went wrong, and what can be done about it. A system that is really out of whack cannot be corrected in an atmosphere of secrecy and intrigue. It only compounds the problems. Just saying.