mlah The “culture” that has evolved here isn’t conducive to sissies

July 28, 2005

Circles

Filed under: Politics — mlah @ 10:11 pm

Circles

extremists.

as we watch the left scramble to find something to justify a filibuster with, and we watch the commercials by the right trying to rush bush’s supreme court nominee through, consider the two ends of the political spectrum they sit on.

right and left.

do they really?

the whole notion of right and left came about after the french revolution. just before napolean, when robespierre stalked the streets of gay paris.

the new french parliament was a jumble. people who disagreed didn’t like sitting with each other. so over a very short month or so, the conservatives began to always congregate on the right side of the chamber. the liberals began to sit on the left side. in the bleachers. no kidding.

the left and the right was born. the french also liked to call it the mountain and the plain. but that never really came over to english.

we live with this legacy now. everybody talks about the political yardstick. measuring where you stand in the political spectrum.

are you on an end? or in the middle? extremists and centrists.

in high school. when this was first presented to me, the whole yardstick simile. i never bought it. call me a rebel!

to me, the political spectrum has always been better defined by a circle. or a disc maybe.

think about it. look at the lunatics on the other end of the spectrum. doesn ‘t matter if you are a conservative or a liberal. look hard at the very extreme end on the far side of the stick. look at the people there. now look just a little past it and you’ll see the end of your side of the spectrum.

don’t believe me? want an example?

hitler and stalin. german workers national SOCIALIST party. union of soviet SOCIALIST republics. i’m normally very fond of pointing out that they are both socialists. to socialists. but in this example, pay attention to their record and goals. mass murderers. totalitarians. extremists. world domination. who would call adolph a centrist? who call’s stalin a centrist? the more you look at their history, the more the two appear to be alike. so far out on each end of the stick, that they are at the same point.

the left is fond of calling the right violent. have you seen all of the attacks by the left on the wto? they’re brownshirts.

yep i called the wackos on the left protesting the wto brownshirts. how are they any different? using violence? well sometimes you have to use violence right? extremists think so. and only they are right. the other side are wackos. thought nazis.

i’m especially fond of the extreme left who label the right as fascists. if you watch their arguments closely, those same people all too often are advocating forcing their own beliefs on someone. because ‘they’ really know the truth. everyone else are just poor misguided fools. they need to be shown the truth!

same thing the nazis said. germanic culture being superior and all.

my only quandary right now is where to put some other political beliefs on the circle. or disc. i’m beginning to think it is a disc. there are so many more systems. so many more motivations that drive people. maybe it’s a sphere?

especially with islam. i’m beginning to think they are locusts. they just eat everything in their path. but that’s another post.

13 Comments »

  1. You make some good points, and some really bogus ones, per usual. Here is a good starting place:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
    They show all sorts of different ways of looking at it.
    I took the politicalcompass.org test (see link on above page) and got: Economic (traditional right vs. left axis)= -7, and on the Libertarian/Authoritarian axis = -6.82
    C’mon, everybody, show off where you stand! We’ll see how far away from each other we really are.

    Yes, Hitler and Stalin had totalitarianism in common, one from the extreme right (fascism) and the other from the extreme left (communism), respectively. Hitler was not what we think of when we think of a Socialist, that’s a misleading link you (again) make between them. (P.S. They were mortal enemies, too; communists were anti-Nazi long before us heroic Americans.) Anyways, they show up the limitations of a one-axis “yardstick”

    And why are you calling Paris gay, man? That’s such a low blow.

    How much violence came from the WTO protesters, exactly? Nobody died, so shut the hell up. This was not organized State violence like the Brownshirts, but rather grassroots and anarchistic. Citizens (or “citoyens”, in French Revolutionary terms) fighting the Powers That Be.

    And I’ve already schooled you on Fascism, but I guess it didn’t sink in.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
    “–exalts the nation, (and sometimes the race or culture) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
    –stresses loyalty to a single leader.
    –uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.
    –engages in severe economic and social regimentation.
    –engages in syndicalist corporatism.
    –implements totalitarian systems”

    Some of the above are consonant with contemporary Conservatism; none of them are consonant with contemporary Liberalism.

    Comment by f'in-cheney — July 29, 2005 @ 1:39 am

  2. “And why are you calling Paris gay, man? That’s such a low blow.”

    Dude, you’re an idiot.

    Comment by medium john — July 29, 2005 @ 4:37 pm

  3. That was a joke, mediumjohn. I actually typed the word “joke” inside a pair of those pointy brackets to make sure everyone knew I was joking, but the comment software must have tried to read it as real HTML and rejected it as invalid.
    I’m the idiot?! Out of all the issues I outlined in my comment, all you can relate to is the gay one?

    Comment by f-in_cheney — July 30, 2005 @ 7:37 am

  4. ummm, Gus, you might want to go back and re-read those salient points you’ve thrown up as indicators of “fascism.” Almost all of them equally apply to the “communist” model employed by Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, Mao, Kim, et al. Or are you being purposely blind to that truth ala the New York Times?

    What sourcing does the wikipedia use, anyway? Isn’t it one where any old Joe can write an entry?

    And since when has the ancient (well, early 20th Century) label of “gay Paris” been a problem for you? You too much of a militant activist to not allow the word “gay” to be used in its original form versus that which has been coopted by the homosexual movement?

    Comment by yup — July 31, 2005 @ 8:26 am

  5. while I’m at it, Gus, it’s only “violence” if someone gets killed? It’s OK if it’s just a bunch of anarchists getting together doing their thing, causing millions in damage to public and private property, transit snarls, overtime costs for police and emergency workers, and leaving tons of debris for the sanitation department to haul off? A little harmless fun, right? Moron.

    The brownshirts were state-sponsored? Go back and read your history books, moron. The brownshirts were not a state-sponsored organization. They were a bunch of hooligans out protesting for their beliefs (much like those anarchists against the WTO you so admire), as were the Communists at the time. The Weimar Republic was not a supporter of these groups. Hitler became the government — as in, capable of state-sponsorship of an organization — AFTER the brownshirts were disbanded and he had killed off their leadership.

    Comment by yup — July 31, 2005 @ 8:34 am

  6. Yup, Fascism came up in relation to Mlah complaining that *contemporary* Conservatives get accused of it by *contemporary* Liberals. He said my side, today, is more fascistic; I disagree completely. Historical Communism has nothing to do with what this question.
    You almost have the concept of Wikipedia right– anyone can submit content, but it must stand the glare of verifiability. Feel free to test it for bias on something controversial like this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_conflict
    See my explanation above, for the “gay Paris” thing, silly.
    “They were a bunch of hooligans out protesting for their beliefs”
    Bullcrap. They were chosen for their brawn and pugnaciousness and were under the Nazi party’s– before they were in official power, I stand corrected– command and control. They were organized, to the point of wearing uniforms. They did not represent themselves– WTO protesters do.
    Yes, there *is* a huge difference between vandalism and just saying the word “violence” without any other context, which very nearly implies assault and such– *personal* violence. Any city hosting a WTO meeting now must be willing to find the money for those extra costs, they know what they’re getting into, and that city’s merchants know, too. And how many days of violent anti-WTO protests have there EVER been– maybe 8 total?! Yeah, big problem! Really worth mentioning as representative of the Left! I disavow their methods myself– I am not an anarchist– so you can quit tagging me with their actions and I’ll quit tagging you with the actions of cross-burners, I think that’s fair.

    Comment by f-in_cheney — July 31, 2005 @ 3:12 pm

  7. come on guess. they were chosen for their brawn and pugnaciousness? they didn’t join of their own volition? your belief exonerates any and all of them for any warcrime they commited.

    brownshirts joined. brownshirts were expressing their own beliefs gus. just like the asshats that clip on dreadlocks and drive daddy’s bmw to the protests of today.

    NO! gus, their is not a huge difference between vandalism and violence. i assure you, asshat liberals smashing my car with a bat is VIOLENCE. and will beget more.

    once again gus. please re-read das kapital b y marx so that you may debate the finer points of communism from an informed point of view. stalin WAS a fascist. the simple blueprint marx laid out for a solcilaist state awaiting transition to communism involved a ‘dictatorship of the proletariot.’

    that’s commonly called fascism.

    and no, i don’t care how benign their intent. fascism is fascism. stalin was just using the communist ideal as a means to retain/seize power anyway.

    and yes. i repeat my claim. modern day liberals are fascists. agree with us or attend our re-education camps. you will conform!

    they have no respect for diversity. they say they do, up until it becomes time to do the deed, and then it’s all…. you must be just like me!

    Comment by mlah — July 31, 2005 @ 6:47 pm

  8. “come on gu(es)s. they were chosen for their brawn and pugnaciousness? they didn’t join of their own volition? your belief exonerates any and all of them for any warcrime they commited.
    brownshirts joined. brownshirts were expressing their own beliefs gus.”
    Wikipedia on Brownshirts:
    “In Munich in the fall of 1920, Hitler himself created the Ordnertruppen; a body of muscular Nazis, ex-soldiers, and beer hall brawlers in order to protect his speeches and Nazi Party gatherings from Communist disruptions. It originally functioned as a group of bodyguards to enforce order at Nazi gatherings. It was shortly changed to Sportabteilung, a cover name meaning “Sports section,” and came to be known by the initials SA.
    “The SA carried out numerous acts of violence against socialist groups throughout the 1920s, typically in minor street-fights called zusammenst”sse (‘collisions’).”

    http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=3078
    “The SA was banned in various parts of Germany in 1927 and 1928 but continued (to) expand rapidly with a lot of new members due to the large amount of unemployed who joined the SA to receive clothes, food and payment.”

    In sum, they were for direct intimidation and skull-cracking of political opponents. Not symbolic vandalism, but personal violence. They relied on the Nazi Party for cash money. They were punk-ass paramilitary crackers, just like you. Nothing would exonerate them for warcrimes. They joined of their own volition and they performed the bidding of their overlords. The defense of “following orders” didn’t hold water at Nuremberg. Someone expressing their own beliefs doesn’t have to join a group with an known agenda of violence; anarchists don’t join groups.
    Fascism was originally Mussolini’s right-wing version of Totalitarianism, opposed to the other prevailing left-wing trend at the time, Communism. The same holds true for Franco’s Fascism. Stalin was Totalitarian, too, but Fascism retains a specifically right-wing connotation, wrapped up as it was in *corporatism* (not a left-wing idea). I’m not defending Stalin, dumbshit.

    “asshat liberals smashing my car with a bat is VIOLENCE”
    No, sorry, that’s just property damage.

    Comment by f-in_cheney — August 2, 2005 @ 4:29 pm

  9. OK, so all these Leftists and others who just want to act out their violent fantasies against “the Man” — for example at the wto riots — are exonerated by Gus because they’re not REALLY banded together into a group, they’re just a group of like-minded individuals out for a lark.

    “symbollic vandalism” and “just property damage” might aptly be applied to kristallnacht…..

    but Gus betrays his hard-core Leftist beliefs here, when he says that it matters not if he or his ilk destroy your property. what’s yours is his, after all, and if he’s willing to destroy it, then you have no right to complain.

    Comment by yup — August 3, 2005 @ 4:09 am

  10. Look, dipshit, I said I don’t agree with their methods. The specific topic here is narrowly whether the far Left today is more or less “fascistic” than the far Right today. The far Left is anti-corporate, leaderless and doesn’t harm people. The far Right gets off on following leaders, intimidating people and protecting the status quo, which is more in line with Benito and Adolph’s original conceptions. That’s all I’m saying, and it’s plainly objective.
    Invoking Kristallnacht is so off-base it’s sick. Starbuck’s and McDonald’s were not, the last time I checked, persecuted minorities. They’re many-headed, cash-sucking corporate colonizers with no allegiance but to their shareholders.

    Comment by f-in_cheney — August 3, 2005 @ 5:05 pm

  11. Corporations bad, Communism good! — to paraphrase Gus here. And I really enjoy spinning the poor little guy up like this! 🙂

    Comment by yup — August 4, 2005 @ 5:14 am

  12. Don’t flatter yourself, Yuppy. You’re not “spinning (me) up”, whatever the hell that means. I get a positive kick out of dismembering what passes for logic and rhetoric around here. (And I’m above-average in height, as well as most other things, baby.)
    Again, I am not a Communist. How many times do I have to tell you that? It’s always awfully convenient for you to attempt to smear me with that (over & over & over!) right after I make some relevant points. Coincidence? It would be OK if I had indeed advocated Communism, but alas I have not. As near as I can tell, it’s just shorthand among dumb clucks such as you and Mlah for “People We Hate But Don’t Really Understand, Arrrggghhh!”

    I mostly dislike McDonald’s and Starbuck’s from the ethical and aesthetic angles. They shamelessly displace local businesses everywhere, and serve sucky, tasteless crap. McDonald’s isn’t really even a food company anymore– most of its revenues come from real estate! And for years they didn’t care how evil their ingredients were.

    One thing I will bitch about re: Capitalism is how US courts consider corporations to be *people*, basically. This has led to lots of ridiculousness. And the legal requirement that a company must consider its shareholders before anything, at all times, guarantees their heartlessness, which permeates our culture and more recently the entire world.

    Why are you taking their side? Are you heartless and tasteless, too?

    Arrrggghhh!

    Comment by f'in-cheney — August 5, 2005 @ 4:18 am

  13. Not heartless at all, I just consider my property to be my own, and Mlah’s property to be his own, and even yours, Gus, as well. Not everyone else’s to do with as they please. And I also own shares of big corporations in the hopes that revenues from said instruments will aid me in my dotage, since I WILL NOT see any Social Security. That’s all being spent for selfish Boomers who didn’t think about saving for their retirement because their whole life was all about “me” regardless of any pablum they spouted about “the people” and “society.” How else do you explain Disco??

    In all seriousness, why the hell don’t you start or join a movement that will economically force corporations to behave in a more socially-aware manner? I’m not talking about rabble like your WTO-rioting buddies, because “the people” in our society tend to disregard or come down against such tactics. I’m not talking about legislating form the bench, which has become the favored tactic of the Left in the past coupla decades. I’m talking about a good old-fashioned economic boycott, which Jesse Jackson is very keen on. Such a move worked wonders in forcing the government of South Africa to change its apartheid policies and release Nelson Mandela. (I know, your memories from the 1980s are hazy because of all the drugs you took, Gus, but trust me on this.) “The people” boycotted companies dealing with South Africa, made them feel the economic pinch, and they dropped many of their projects in that country until the government reformed. Now the South African government has abolished apartheid, represents tha black majorities of its society, and is as corrupt as any in the world. Hooray!

    Yes yes, so that was a political end, but I’m talking about the means to that end. You think McD’s doesn’t pay attention to the popular will? Why you think they suddenly offer so many salads and non-fried alternatives? You think Starbucks is so evil, then why do they suddenly start going for the socially friendly coffee bean growers?

    As for McD’s replacing Wings House of Deep-fried Roadkill in Beijing, umm, don’t you think the franchises abroad are flourishing because THE PEOPLE THERE choose to consume their corporate goods? You think that the foreign governments are FORCING these people to go to the greedy heartless American corporate outlets? NO! These companies get their business because people WANT to consume their goods.

    Oh, corporations are bribing the governments to get their stores established. So what? The French are past masters of such tactics. You have a problem with Airbus or French Fries? Didn’t think so. But if you have a problem with the US corporations doing the underhanded things to get their operations in a foreign country, then hit them at home with an economic boycott.

    And like I’ve said before, most Americans really don’t give a shit about greedy corporatism, because that way they can go to Wal Mart and buy their cheap Chinese (prisoner-produced) goods and still have money to go waste on a Hollywood film and some French Fries at McDonalds.

    What you advocate will only be produced by a dictatorship of the masses, which is what the Communist government of China calls its form of governance. Except they call themselves “Socialist with Chinese characteristics.” Because you, Gus, insist everyone think like you do, and for the Social aims you desire, you advocate Communism.

    Comment by yup — August 5, 2005 @ 6:42 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress