Alt-righter plows into crowd of anti-racists in Charlottesville

[Town Heretic]

The right does not equate to conservatism...

Got it. You have this special definition for your grouping and how they behave. I'm not speaking to it.

What I'm talking about is the conservative cause as it is reflected by people and candidates who declare allegiance to it at large and within the power structure they currently control for the most part. Maybe, in a different way, you're speaking to that too. That conservatism, the Republican form of it, is drawing the wrong sort of crowd. They need to consider why that is and what they plan to do about it.

 

[kmoney]

Commies are socialist in nature, Nazi's are socialist in nature....always have been, always will be. Both are leftists....What's happening here in the United States right now is a fight between two left wing groups,,,Just like WW2. Germany hated Russia for their left wing brand of socialism...

So then the coin is socialism....how are you defining socialism?

 

[Yorzhik]

White Supremacists and Nazis with legit grievances? :think: Regarding their upbringing?


Seems like.


Okay. I agree that was handled abysmally. I'm not going to get into speculation about motives and the why, but badly done doesn't seem to cover it.


This new group of racial purists have nothing in common with the left, unless it's at the left extreme and in terms of a willingness to engage in violence to advance their aims.


I'm not an open borders guy, but I think we have a decent process set up. People should follow it legally and those who don't shouldn't be rewarded for breaking the law. I think building a wall on our southern border is a bad move.


This new group of racial purists have nothing in common with the left, unless it's at the left extreme and in terms of a willingness to engage in violence to advance their aims.


You just have to stop it. I get why the right wants that to be true, but it just isn't. They were Democrats, but not liberals. When the Republican party of Lincoln became the resistance to social change and minority empowerment the traditional bastions of support for the Democratic party largely abandoned it in the South, establishing that same power block for the right that it leans on today.


It depends on when and to what extent. It's largely been about power and status quo. Whoever has the former protects the latter. And, for a large part of our history you couldn't throw a dead cat in any party meeting of any major party without hitting a racist.


Actually, being right wing isn't a religious position and neither conservative nor liberal thinking speaks to eternal truths in that sense. Most White Supremacists and the like will be found among the right, mostly because it is from that side that they'll derive protection of the traditions that empower them.

Stewart was right. It isn't that if you're a right winger you like Nazis or the Klan, it's that if you're a Nazi or a Klan member you like the right. Just as minorities look to the Democrats for empowerment and advancement, whether or not they get what they pay for.

Perhaps our our failure to understand each other is in our definitions of left/right conservative/liberal and democrat/republican.

I look at these terms and define them fairly concretely I think. The belief in absolutes defines the right wing, the left does not believe in absolutes. If you haven't settled the argument in your mind of what I mean by absolutes in this context, then that should be our starting point. Believing in absolutes tends to lead to certain philosophical conclusions. Do you have a better definition that is also as solid?

I define conservatives as people that want things to either stay as they are or to go back to the way things were. This usually doesn't help much in general conversations because the way things are or were can vary so much that it could include any person in context.

A democrat belongs to the democrat party. They tend to be leftists. Republicans tend to oppose democrats so they tend to be less leftist. But that doesn't mean they are on the right. So this doesn't help in general conversation because only talking about 1 side doesn't get you to hear both sides.



Could you explain this more clearly? Or perhaps you could be more blunt? I suspect I don't understand because of our definitions of left and right, so this could help me understand what you mean:

There was an argument within the alt-right whether to let leftists in that said they would support the alt-right, specifically the Nazis.

This new group of racial purists have nothing in common with the left, unless it's at the left extreme and in terms of a willingness to engage in violence to advance their aims.

 

[Tambora]

Commies are socialist in nature, Nazi's are socialist in nature....always have been, always will be. Both are leftists....What's happening here in the United States right now is a fight between two left wing groups,,,Just like WW2. Germany hated Russia for their left wing brand of socialism...

:thumb:

 

[Town Heretic]

Perhaps our our failure to understand each other is in our definitions of left/right conservative/liberal and democrat/republican.

I'm looking at the whole, the elected representatives that serve them and the party raising the flag over itself. How individuals choose to thin the herd is another thing, as I noted with someone a moment ago.

I look at these terms and define them fairly concretely I think. The belief in absolutes defines the right wing, the left does not believe in absolutes.

Then I think you have a difficulty to overcome, as there are a good many on the left who are Christian and that necessarily carries with it the belief in absolutes. And there have been a number of conservatives without any particular faith, like the late Christopher Hitchens. I don't believe your belief will take absolutes from the former or imbue it in those like Hitchens. It's a political philosophy, not an article of faith.

In that sense I suppose it's a good bit like marriage, that can be wedded to a religious sensibility but isn't necessarily that in its nature.

I define conservatives as people that want things to either stay as they are or to go back to the way things were.

Certainly I've noted their inclination to preserve the status quo and traditions. Sometimes that's a good thing and sometimes it's not. The weakness of either camp to my mind is in their inclination to resist uniformly along ideological lines instead of finding common ground and agreement.

A democrat belongs to the democrat party. They tend to be leftists. Republicans tend to oppose democrats so they tend to be less leftist. But that doesn't mean they are on the right. So this doesn't help in general conversation because only talking about 1 side doesn't get you to hear both sides.

What I find is that people who are harder to the left or right of the spectrum have a habit of considering those who aren't less authentic in defense of a general political philosophy.

Could you explain this more clearly? Or perhaps you could be more blunt? I suspect I don't understand because of our definitions of left and right, so this could help me understand what you mean:

I believe the attraction of the right for racist movements is found in its resentment toward empowered minorities, its channeling of a diminished sense of power and privilege among white people, especially the older end of things, who grew up in and came into their majority in a far more favorable position. I think they resemble the extreme left in their willingness to advance their position using intimidation and violence.

 

[Lon]

:chuckle:

I wasn't feeling challenged on the point but thanks. That said, I am curious as to the reason for your impression, it being so alien from my own.

Likely the wrong dividing point, but it 'seems' he wasn't all that much for you either... :think:

I'd rather see a reflection in him of the principles, but good rhetoric then. I've heard him say he was in big with evangelicals.

Which was frighteningly familiar with GWB era....

Obama spoke to his Christian faith and how he valued it. Trump has said he doesn't recall asking for forgiveness. I'm not seeing the edge there.

No edge, by point, but even being sympathetic to them is a better stance. IOW, I'd rather have a friendly atheist than a supposed lemon-sucker in my own camp. I didn't feel Obama was always antagonistic, but I largely felt ignored for 8 years. SCOTUS too. It was not a good 8 years to be trounced upon trounced upon

I'm not a fan of how the powers that be handled it and have been up front on the point. But I think a lot of the racial divisiveness, as I noted, came from the success of Obama. It was fingernails on a racist chalkboard.

I believe, with you, it HAS to be true on point. That said, by example, I'd think Ben Carson would potentially might have done it better. No guarantee. Perhaps, Obama was better for the breaking in, but that second term really hurt. He took on way too many special-interest groups, not enough of 'us' when it came to "us vs. them" which is why he carries the label of division. He took on the cause of 'them.' It doesn't matter that 'them' was a part of us, because he'd already been in that divisive saddle, but he played to it, ineptly or not.

Score sheets of what? I'm not tracking it. And I noted that divides can be inherent when race is involved. That doesn't make him the divider. It makes him the issue for people who divide over race.

Yep, the presidency was stacked against him already, agreed. He would have been called 'white' for any sentiment toward the greater majority or even a bi-partisan deference toward Republicans, by even his supporters. At that, perhaps I can admire him a bit, but he really shouldn't have rocked the minority boat-interests. That wasn't a wise move. Granted SCOTUS and others in his party led the way as well, but a president does the leading by virtue of office to a large degree.

They also elected Trump. So...

No, not as much. It was very close this time. It was a lesser of two at that point. We've had a rough couple of decades by all our admission, candidate-wise, although I'm sure Democrats have been more or less pleased comparatively. I've seen quite a bit of brain-dead voting in my state, not all the next generation either. In my city (Tacoma) we just 'voted' to give Seattle money for a train that we will never see. Why? Not for our children's children, but because they think it would be a free ride to Seahawk stadium, not realizing they won't see it for almost 40 years :doh: I REALLY wish only those of us who read proposals all the way through would be the only ones qualified to vote. I think everybody 'should' be able to vote but ONLY if/after they are informed votes. We voted as a state on wolf and bear populations, as if any city dweller has the first clue as to how to handle conservation and farming issues :dizzy: Okay....end rant, but perhaps sympathy for any (the rest of us) who have to put up with inept voting across-board

Scored lower than one of the more popular and effective presidents in the modern era on what particular? What are these "sheets" speaking to? I've read historians putting him 12th best. From the CSpan survey:

Me too, but no surprise, democratic sympathy. If you look at the difference between ratings, C-Span lines up almost exactly with the Democratic vote by overlay.

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Dwight Eisenhower
6. Harry Truman
7. Thomas Jefferson
8. John F. Kennedy
9. Ronald Reagan
10. Lyndon Johnson
11. Woodrow Wilson
12. Barack Obama
13. James Monroe
14. James Polk
15. Bill Clinton

Interesting list. I bet you disagree with it as much as I do, however, and for similar reasons....

Everyone outside of their clique. Which is most people.

Respectively, or by the numbers?

I'm almost entirely color blind. If you don't put (link) out beside it or make a note I'm usually not going to see it.

It depends. I truly am regarding faith. Regarding needs? :nono: but then, that is where you aren't 'entirely' either. For me, I rather try to ensure when I am not colorblind, it is in concern and love and deference, as I suspect is yours. If I am correct, 'entirely' is too much. Perhaps 'mostly' or 'when it counts?' :think: :e4e:

That doesn't mean he thinks the caused it, Lon. Or that he did. I don't think he mitigated what he could have, but I think it was largely out of his hands and in the game plan of his opponents and their media outlet.

As I said, ineptly, or not, he surely propagated it by partisan sentiment and deference. On this, we are in stark disagreement. He surely was a large part of the cause. I do agree that other than being called 'white' he couldn't have done much against on one side of the coin, but he bowed to too many small interest groups along the way, thus perpetuated the 'minority' difference as well as fueled the stark divide over it. He did nothing to hinder it, everything to perpetuate it. As I posted, he is very well known as the Great Divider for it. Don't have your head in the sand on this one. I and they may be somewhat off for the fact that he was/is colored, but he surely played up to it and further in office. That definitely caused the divide we see, and absolutely not Trump, other than a 'white man' in office by contrast. We really need to think well, regarding the political climate and not get caught up in the mass-mentality. Some of this, is as natural as lemmings off a cliff by the observation for both sides of the aisle. I may be over the cliff as well, but at least I see it coming and try to avoid going off with everybody else.

How so?

1) you voted for him 2) your wife is a democrat.

Well, no. I've never seen any economist blame Obama for the collapse. How could they? Your timeline is wrong. The collapse started well before he was elected.

That 'was' my point. :up:

I thought he and his party did good work, but he let me down on a few things that mattered and I could see what was happening with the Republicans. I thought it would be better to end the division, that we were at a critical juncture where we needed decisive action to really spur growth and stop a potential back slide into the thing we'd just narrowly avoided. I'm still surprised that didn't happen.

"Agreed." Or perhaps "on the same page" is better.

No, I have some liberal notions and some conservative notions. I've taken the libertarians test. I come out just left of center in the Centrist square. You could as easily (if we have to make it a party statement) look from the left and say I have some Republican interests in terms of guns, market, abortion. Neither would be accurate reflections of my approach or position.

Again, I was more thinking of your wife on this note. Any love for her, is also a love and embrace for her thinking over matters. I would guess, out of the box or starting gate, she has a few definitive departures with the democratic mainline (not trying to drag her into this and I think this can be erased from your reply or need for it on this point). I'm simply trying to say such gives you a democratic sympathy that I don't carry nor can really empathize with on this side. My mother is democratic and I'm always trying to change her to Republican because of similar issues you carry that forbid you being a Democrat as well. I do think, however, that those particular lines are quickly disappearing. Abortion is nearly off my voting agenda, at least regarding Democrats and Republicans where I can barely tell the difference between them any more. It 'used' to be the great Christian divide, even voting against our pocket-books over it.

Again, that can be misleading. I'm pretty sure your reading and his aren't on the same page.

:nono: A political divide echoed the further divide. His own comments to trouble and call into question police actions, his deference to minority groups across board, etc. etc. There is no reading into it against the attribute.

Time will tell if history is against your notion. Historians already appear to be.

Democratic professors? :think: I gave the links. This country is yet divided, and over this too. "Because" of it, I assure you that Obama will always be associated with it. It is said, and I believe it, we are divided as we have not been since the Civil War as a nation. You bet, he will be remembered as President over exactly this time. It 'cannot' be otherwise. No spin-doctoring is going to fix that for history. Your 'historians' are wrong and ever must be, because Obama WILL be associated with history. Even his entry into office heralds the historicity of our time. History will see our nation as divided and Obama as the President during this time.

I don't think anyone can reasonably call MLK a racist or his "dream" a racist one.

Sure it was. He is celebrated during 'black' history month. He is the 'black' leader of this nation. Obama Avenue may replace some MLK Highways later on....

I said, I think you have to establish a truth before you can compare it.

No, it is established before I even mention the actions, by the actions themselves. I need only name them. His comments regarding black riots and black police confrontations speak for themselves. He did not side with his own government position, fueling the flame for rioting in the process. That is/was divisive. You at least, know he is called the "Great Divider." You saw all the articles linked on Google, if you looked.

It's not an argument. It's a position. You obviously can say anything you like, but if you want it to be meaningful to me you'll have to establish a thing before you can build on it. I think that's just bedrock rational necessity in any debate on points.

I STILL disagree. You have the where-with-all to look up anything and research a thing on your own. I've even given you a good many links. Communication is its own establishment. If facts follow those communications, all is good, if not, communication still is the vehicle. Debate is an attempt to establish facts, as that vehicle. Communication isn't always a win or a court case, it often carries its own weight and I believe it does so nicely here, simply because I know your and my prowess pretty well. I bank on that prowess, in fact, beyond what is or isn't established between us. You are no slouch. That's enough for me.

Ah, that's great the. Good news.

Again, beyond these forum walls, thank you for love, interest, prayer, and effort! Much appreciation and love, In Him -Lon

 

[Town Heretic]

Just a few points...

If you look at the difference between ratings, C-Span lines up almost exactly with the Democratic vote by overlay.

You think Democrats are putting Reagan at 8? What overlay are you looking at? :chuckle:

Interesting list. I bet you disagree with it as much as I do, however, and for similar reasons....

Washington starts my list because he secured its existence. You can't overstate the value of that. Lincoln is the right number two, because there's no continuing discussion without him. After that it gets dicier. Reagan and Clinton are both too low. I understand FDR, but he's not there on my list. Truman, meh. Kennedy isn't there if he doesn't die. Johnson did most of his work for him and then some. I like Ike. Yeah, it's an interesting list, but I'm moving a lot of it around.

Respectively, or by the numbers?

By popularity. At the end of his two terms he was among the more popular presidents in modern history. That's not how most people are going to feel about a Great Divider.

In terms of how the public felt about the president at the end of his run, since 1952 (which I presume is when we started charting it):

1. Clinton 66%
2. Reagan 63%
3. Obama/Ike 59%
4. Bush Sr., 56%
5. Ford, 53%

The others left with under a 50% approval rating. Interestingly, Obama's popularity has risen well into the 60s since Trump's administration has settled in. Clinton saw a similar surge. Even Bush Jr. has fared better, but then his popularity was in the low 30s so he had little room to move that wasn't up.

It depends. I truly am regarding faith. Regarding needs? but then, that is where you aren't 'entirely' either. For me, I rather try to ensure when I am not colorblind

No, I meant I'm literally almost entirely color blind. If you don't literally put (link) beside one and instead rely on coloring I'm likely to not see that you had one there.

As I said, ineptly, or not, he surely propagated it by partisan sentiment and deference.

When the other side is just saying no, running the Muslim, birth certificate, socialist memes steadily, I don't know a) that there's anything to really do or b) that I'd blame anyone disinclined to make much of an effort. To what end? If the girl doesn't want to go out, don't keep driving by her house.

he bowed to too many small interest groups along the way,

I think presidents play to their constituencies more often than at large, but that's the nature of the thing. I don't expect a Republican president to champion the civic virtue of the ACLU and I don't expect a Democrat to champion tax breaks for the rich.

Don't have your head in the sand on this one.

It just doesn't reflect the main. The Great Divider is a bumper sticker for the largely embittered right. It's not translating to the left and it's not gaining any traction with me in the middle.

1) you voted for him

Yes and no. Or yes then no, more accurately. I voted for the message. It was needed.

2) your wife is a democrat.

Sure.

Again, I was more thinking of your wife on this note. Any love for her, is also a love and embrace for her thinking over matters.

Not how it works with me. My wife has her ideas and I have mine. I think she'd tell you I've made her firm her positions and really chew on the why of it, but we agree and differ on any number of things. Where we differ I'm not sentimentally attached to them.

Some of that is my background. My father is a conservative and always has been. Business in his blood. Great guy. My mother is a former teacher/professor and has always been to the left of him except on certain social issues. They were progressive for their day in that regard. I took what I valued from each and never felt pressured to adopt either. Our dinner table was a conversational battleground, where any position was allowed if it was argued well and civilly. Humor was at a premium. So I never really thought of difference as division until I notice how many other people were doing it wrong.

Democratic professors?

I don't know what the mixture is. I expect that when it comes to justification professionals, leanings aside, take pride in their course of study. I'm sure you get some movement, but I'd be surprised if the rule wasn't serious consideration. Which is, again, how Reagan makes the top ten.

History will see our nation as divided and Obama as the President during this time.

I suspect the severity of division as a historical study will begin, in modern terms, with Carter. Acrimony became a more serious part of the parlance over a national irritation and disappointment. It fueled Reagan's rise to power and it took bumbling by Bush Sr., who threw away enormous popularity entering the office (as did his son) and ceded the field to Clinton and his rise. With Clinton the rhetoric reached new levels of vitriol, though as with Obama he survived it to exit one of the more popular modern presidents. More so even afterward, as he took the Carter model of active engagement on bipartisan friendly social engagement. I suspect Obama will do the same.

I think you moved off my focus on the next. I objected to the notion that MLK could be considered racist.

Sure it was. He is celebrated during 'black' history month. He is the 'black' leader of this nation.

Did you just shift into Obama?

Obama Avenue may replace some MLK Highways later on....

I'd be surprised. They'll probably find another street for him.

No, it is established before I even mention the actions, by the actions themselves. I need only name them. His comments regarding black riots and black police confrontations speak for themselves

To everyone. The question is do they speak the same. I suspect that's the rub.

You at least, know he is called the "Great Divider."

I know some people are invested in that, just as I know it isn't a popular position.

Else, :cheers:

 

[drbrumley]

From Lizzie Johnson via Twitter Police have completely disappeared from #Berkeley. People getting beaten up. Red flags being waved in the air.

Anarcho-tyranny reigns.

 

[drbrumley]

From Shane Bauer via Twitter Thousands of anti-racist protesters prevented the alt-right from rallying in Berkeley. Today, anti-racists won.

Against the 1st amendment?

 

[drbrumley]

Antifa terrorists attacking father and son in #Berkeley. No police in sight

 

[drbrumley]

From Ben Shapiro

We're coming to Berkeley September 14. We are not intimidated and we expect the police to keep the peace.

I say You're nuts. Don't go

 

[drbrumley]

Why would he go to Berkeley, except to make trouble?



I agree.

Oh look, I have a heckler....

Look bozo the clown, Shapiro has the right to go to Berkeley if he so chooses. Shapiro is also no white supremacist. You hate him because he is a conservative.

Sent from my SM-G920V using TOL mobile app

 

[drbrumley]

Don't study much history do you?

Sent from my SM-G920V using TOL mobile app

 

[Yorzhik]

I'm looking at the whole, the elected representatives that serve them and the party raising the flag over itself. How individuals choose to thin the herd is another thing, as I noted with someone a moment ago.


Then I think you have a difficulty to overcome, as there are a good many on the left who are Christian and that necessarily carries with it the belief in absolutes. And there have been a number of conservatives without any particular faith, like the late Christopher Hitchens. I don't believe your belief will take absolutes from the former or imbue it in those like Hitchens. It's a political philosophy, not an article of faith.

In that sense I suppose it's a good bit like marriage, that can be wedded to a religious sensibility but isn't necessarily that in its nature.


Certainly I've noted their inclination to preserve the status quo and traditions. Sometimes that's a good thing and sometimes it's not. The weakness of either camp to my mind is in their inclination to resist uniformly along ideological lines instead of finding common ground and agreement.


What I find is that people who are harder to the left or right of the spectrum have a habit of considering those who aren't less authentic in defense of a general political philosophy.


I believe the attraction of the right for racist movements is found in its resentment toward empowered minorities, its channeling of a diminished sense of power and privilege among white people, especially the older end of things, who grew up in and came into their majority in a far more favorable position. I think they resemble the extreme left in their willingness to advance their position using intimidation and violence.

Good to know we cannot discuss a thing in terms of conservative/liberal or democrat/republican without an unreasonable amount of context.

So that leaves left/right. You still didn't give your definition, though. Could you do that?

The fact that there are many Christians on the left doesn't mean they believe in absolutes. In fact, one of the greatest ways to tell if a church is losing its Christian foundation is how positions in said church change from one side to a contradictory side. Take homo-marriage, homosexuality in general, women pastors, views on paths to salvation, and a host of other topics. A lot of Christians believe in absolutes only as it suits their agenda.

To be sure, I understand what you mean when you say that right/left is not a religious tenet. We agree. But politics must always be on top of a worldview and it can never be the other way around.

BTW, how do you interpret Ecc 10:2? What did God mean when He put that in the bible?

 

[Tambora]

Oh look, I have a heckler....

It's a troll.

 

[annabenedetti]

Leaked Chats Show White Nationalists Planned Use Of Brutal Force In C’Ville

A steady stream of leaked screenshots from the now-defunct chat server used to organize attendees at this month’s deadly “Unite the Right” rally shows that the white nationalists who descended on Charlottesville, Virginia were well-organized and came with the intention of committing brutal violence.

Unicorn Riot, a volunteer nonprofit media outlet, received hundreds of chat transcripts from the app Discord through an anonymous source, and has been publishing them in edited batches since the Aug. 12 rally. Eli Mosley, one of the organizers of the “Unite the Right” rally, told Wired that the screenshots of the chats appeared to be legitimate.

In some of the chats, posters shared photographs of themselves mugging with semi-automatic weapons or homemade shields. In others, they discussed the ideal thickness of PVC pipes that could be used for “thumping” counter-protesters and shared GoFundMe links urging like-minded people to fund their road trips to Charlottesville.

Most strikingly, a number of posts joked about plowing cars into crowds of peaceful protesters. James Alex Fields, Jr. allegedly killed one such counter-protester, Virginia native Heather Heyer, and injured at least 19 others when he rammed his Dodge Charger down a crowded street at the height of the rally.​

 

[Tambora]

Leaked Chats Show White Nationalists Planned Use Of Brutal Force In C’Ville

A steady stream of leaked screenshots from the now-defunct chat server used to organize attendees at this month’s deadly “Unite the Right” rally shows that the white nationalists who descended on Charlottesville, Virginia were well-organized and came with the intention of committing brutal violence.

Unicorn Riot, a volunteer nonprofit media outlet, received hundreds of chat transcripts from the app Discord through an anonymous source, and has been publishing them in edited batches since the Aug. 12 rally. Eli Mosley, one of the organizers of the “Unite the Right” rally, told Wired that the screenshots of the chats appeared to be legitimate.

In some of the chats, posters shared photographs of themselves mugging with semi-automatic weapons or homemade shields. In others, they discussed the ideal thickness of PVC pipes that could be used for “thumping” counter-protesters and shared GoFundMe links urging like-minded people to fund their road trips to Charlottesville.

Most strikingly, a number of posts joked about plowing cars into crowds of peaceful protesters. James Alex Fields, Jr. allegedly killed one such counter-protester, Virginia native Heather Heyer, and injured at least 19 others when he rammed his Dodge Charger down a crowded street at the height of the rally.​

What do you want to do to those folks that posts those feelings and viewpoints on the internet?

 

[drbrumley]

An Open Letter to This Year’s College Freshman Class On the Subject of Fascism
By Thomas DiLorenzo
August 28, 2017


Dear Class of 2021:
As you begin your college career you will inevitably become confused about the subject of “fascism,” which has been in the news quite a bit recently.* On the one hand, you will be taught that there is nothing more evil, more insidious, more despicable than fascism and fascists.* You might even be invited to become a member of “antifa,” the violent criminal gang that sets buildings and cars on fire, clubs people with baseball bats, sprays mace in their faces, throws cinder blocks through store windows, hurls bottles filled with urine and feces at the police, etc., in supposed protests against “fascism.”* (“Antifa” is said to stand for “anti-fascism”).

 

[drbrumley]

But on the other hand you will also be taught that the very things that real, twentieth-century fascists believed in and stood for are what you should believe in and stand for, and that you should have zero tolerance for anyone who disagrees with you.* These things will not be called what they are – fascism – but pleasant-sounding euphemisms like “social justice,” “economic democracy,” “liberation theology,” or “democratic socialism.”* You will also be instructed that of all the politicians on the planet, the one whom you should revere and idolize is the seventy-five –year-old self-described socialist Bernie Sanders (who spent part of his honeymoon in Moscow, of all places, during the height of the Cold War).

 

[drbrumley]

The truth is that fascism – named “national socialism” by the German socialists of the early twentieth century known as the “Nazis” – was always a form of socialism.** Benito Mussolini, the founder of Italian fascism, was an “international socialist” before he started calling himself a national socialist.* Nationalist socialism was content to allow private business to exist – unlike the international socialists in the Soviet Union – as long as it was directed, controlled, and micromanaged by politicians with all kinds of regulations, controls, subsidies, bailouts, and taxes.