And the Reason IS!


A friend of mine, on facebook, was posting the vexed question of why communists think nazis are right wing, and therefore accuse anyone to the right of Lenin of being fascist.

The discussion — as far as I could see of it — went all over the map, as it always does, but the question should still be fascinating: both of these are totalitarian regimes, both claiming to be in the name of the people (one, people singular, the other “workers of the world”) and both really favoring the well connected and/or powerful of one form or another (but neither of them much favoring the aristocracy, if one is in place when the regime emerges.)

So why call one “right wing” and one “left wing?”  Both are for central control.  Yeah, sure, communism theoretically expropriates the factories and gives “ownership” to the people, while fascism allows the owners to keep the property (or gives the factories to the well connected in their party.)  But we all know — we know. There’s almost 100 years of practice to look on — in reality communism too “gives’ the factories, or the profit of them to a handful of well connected.  The workers might theoretically own all of the factory, but they certainly aren’t taking weekends on their Dacha in the volga river, or shopping in the capitalist capitals of the world. No, those are for a few of the apparatchiks who are supposedly working tirelessly for the people, day and night.

They are two regimes more alike than not. And when you say that, people say “politics is a mobius strip. The opposites touch.”

Yeah, no. That is one of those things that was all over Europe in the seventies, pushing people towards the “sensible” mixed economy, which btw means private business retains theoretical ownership but is either commanded or hemmed in by the government. Aka socialism, various forms of crony capitalism, or even soft fascism.

So, why the left/right dichotomy?

My normal answer is that people who say fascism is right are relying on the European spectrum.  You see, in Europe the right is nationalist and blood and soil.  They can be (and at least in Portugal’s case, and probably in France’s ARE) as socialist as the left. But by gum, they make sure the fruits of the redistribution are given to people of the right genetic heritage, or at least people who can fake it. They are also likely to extol the homeland, and intend to defend it.

The left, OTOH is internationalist.  It turns out in its final phase this devolves to suicide through open borders and a pathological hatred of your own country (because that’s the only way to get people to agree to commit suicide.) but Marx, the father of most (even he couldn’t manage all) bad ideas thought workers of different lands had more in common with each other than with the “capitalists” of their own land, and therefore would unite across all borders and study war no more.

And if you believe any of that crap, I have a dacha on the Volga, free of ice two months a year, and you can have it for only a million dollars plus slave labor.

His successors, who figured out the workers weren’t going to revolt, at least not spontaneously, overlaid a patch of “ethnic justice” under which anyone from a shithole country is automatically exploited, and the revolution will come from them.  (It’s Magic Tan Human. Just add bigotry.)

In one respect, this theory fails. See, the right in Europe is blood, soil and G-d.  And the G-d in question is the G-d of the country.  Okay, yeah, they’re Christian, but still, the right wing in say Germany should be Lutheran.  In Southern Europe they should be Catholic. Etc.  Does this hold for fascists?  Oh, hell no.  Hitler invented a whole new paganism.  Mussolini was pretty hard on priests, (at least those who wanted to follow their religion), etc. Not very different than your average commie, in fact.

So, again, what is with the certainty they are so different?

To understand that, you need to go back to the beginning and how each theory sold itself.

You see: Marx thought he was creating a theory of scientific governance. The fact he couldn’t understand science if it bit him in the fleshy part of the butt is beside the point. THAT’s what he thought he was doing.

His system has all sorts of just-so stories — a friend told me Victorians liked making up these stories about everything, which is correct, but Marx still takes the cake — which sound logical and all encompassing… if you don’t pay attention to the fact that they don’t touch reality, ignore human behavior, and kick history around like an empty can.

But he thought he had science, and that scientifically we would end up in an earthly paradise brought about by the withering of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

And that’s how it was sold. It’s early adherents and the “culture” of the belief was that they were all scientific and full of reason; that communism was the outgrowth of the enlightenment.  I believe this is part of the reason, still, that leftists consider themselves “smart” and that they say things like “We believe in science” (while in point of fact treating scientific hypothesis or theories as revealed religion, but never mind.)

It’s because their system was supposed to take them to “reason.”

This is also part of the motive for a system that can’t survive without continuous war, both to subdue internal issues and to pillage and rob what they can’t produce thinks of itself as “peaceful” and as having war forced on them by those dastardly capitalists.

It’s certainly why our left feels a continuous need to denigrate the military and claim that war is “right wing.” (I honestly don’t think that our left knows the reason for this. They’re just acting on passed-down culture and indulging their parrot instincts. And the idea they should attribute everything good to their side and everything bad to the right.)

The fascists and Nazis, on the other hand, sold themselves not as scientific, but as a rebellion against all that.  Not as the heirs of the enlightenment but the heirs of the romantic movement. They were going back to das Volk and the Volk traditions. Their very unreason made them pure. They would each become the noble savage, and live according to the dictates of that noble savage, each man in nature.

So, you see, the left thinks that this means the fascists are right wing. They’re not scientific and they don’t use reason.  So they can’t be on the left which is all about reason.

Except of course, the left isn’t all about reason. There’s nothing sane or scientific about the hells communism creates on the Earth.  It’s just as animalistic and base as fascism. It relies on malice and hatred and will to power just as much. It’s just that the communist sanctifies envy, and the fascist sanctifies pride.

They’re still both totalitarian and they are still both horrors. A hammer and sickle should be no more acceptable than a swastika.

And that’s without considering the evolution of the communists (We’d consider the evolution of the fascists, but thank heavens, as a system they died seventy plus years ago.) since the fascists stopped being a competing system.  Since then the left has brought in:

Ethnic pride.

A belief that culture is innate.

An encouragement to give in to your feelings over your thoughts.

Ridiculous, touchy-feely stuff like veganism and other fads that fly in the face of scientific fact.

In other words, since fascists vanished, the left has slowly converged with them in theory as well as in practice.  I mean, if you think the crony capitalism of China isn’t, in everything but name, the most successful fascist regime on Earth (And it’s not that successful. As Dave Freer told me more than a decade ago, it’s a beautiful lacquered vase. The lacquer hides the cracks.)

Why would this happen?

Well, because the campaign used to sell each regime was never the truth.  The truth is that they’re both reactions of shocked cultures to the dual stress of a generational war and rapid change in means of production/ways of life.

They’re the result of the hysterical reaction of normal people to look for the man on the white horse, and of the powerful or power hungry to gather more power.

There is no functional difference between them. Neither was ever “Scientific”.  They are and always were screams of panic of entire cultures, and lashing out of those who felt helpless in the maw of history.

As such they each aggregate the various appendages of unreason, including bits of folk religion, which is why a vegan who uses crystals to decide the color of socks to wear is likely to think him or herself “communist.”

Heinlein called them “Red or black fascism.”  You can also call them “Red or black totalitarianism.”

I’m not that enamored of color.  And the red turns black as the blood dries.

If we must use “left and right” and we’re stuck with it, since the left is so gosh darn proud of calling itself left, which it equates to everything good, let’s use it in the American sense.  Left is collectivist. Right is individualist.

In which case, the fascists are, logically, all theirs (and they’re welcome to their kissing cousins. Maybe they’ll both lose.) while you and me and ours have a future to build.

Let’s leave behind the blood soaked insanity of the 20th century.  It has filled enough graves.

Make the 21st the century of liberty. May it become our ruling principle.

Because it is the only antidote to totalitarianism. And it works.

312 thoughts on “And the Reason IS!

  1. If the only difference between your speech and a Hitler speech is the group you are targeting, there are issues with your beliefs. The want to be dictators need to be able to show enemies they can unite Their followers with. It is comforting to hear that it is someone else’s fault that your life is not perfect.

    1. The only difference between my post and a Hitler speech, dear idiot, is that I’m targeting a BELIEF that has killed millions of people throughout the twentieth century. Two beliefs, but very similar.
      NOT PEOPLE. You are not your beliefs, you’re an individual who can think and change your mind, if you only try.
      Would my life be perfect without that belief? Don’t know but a lot more people would be around.
      Now, other than a major brain dysfunction, what is your issue that you think everyone is Hitler?
      Did I step on your Marxism?
      Well, considering it put more than 100 million people in their grave, I’m not sorry. Take off the red colored glasses, and smell the carrion.

        1. Add me to the list. After I read Sarah’s response (Wow), I reread the first comment and thought “uh, oops, I think someone is paraphrasing Sarah’s blog, not criticizing.”

          Been guilty of being misunderstood myself. What I thought was an encouraging “yes, understand”, post, followed by criticism by someone I don’t really know, had to respond with … “To be clear. Agreeing with you. Sorry misstated somehow.” … But hadn’t misstated, just taken as an attack, not paraphrasing agreement (if any of this makes any sense).

          Has anyone else seen where people start arguing what sounds like diverging views … then you realize they are arguing the exact same point?

          1. “We’re in violent agreement” is how I was taught to describe that.

            Words. They get in the way. They’re one of the worst ways to communicate…other than the rest….

            1. That happens a lot… (I was lucky; I saved this post until fully caffeinated. OTOH, today we have thunder, so I have an upset border collie trying to find a safe space. It won’t happen, but she won’t stop until we’re all exhausted.)

          2. Part of this is how many drive byes we get telling me “You’re just like Hitler.” on posts like this. You don’t see those, as they mostly end up in Spam or Trash, being from previous offenders, but…

            1. Yes. You, Sarah, did apologize. I was agreeing with you, Ox, and Herbn (after but still counts). AND I didn’t have the excuse of being under influence of lack of sleep or under caffeinated (well maybe a little tiny bit). Because you did add a second post admitting you might have read it wrong, I’m willing to give the post in question the benefit. But otherwise probably would have responded with “I’m confused. Are you agreeing or arguing with Sarah. Because if you are arguing with her, boy did we read different blogs.” Kind of like when journalists summarize certain speeches “Did you watch what I did? I don’t think so.”

            2. I fully understand the lack of coffee, tea or other caffeinated beverage. I could have phrased it better. I was typing before heading to work and pre caffeinated beverages
              I see too many people whose reason for avowed opposition to the Right is not supported by their actions. They will advocate the tactics of intimidation and mob violence. They want to believe they are moral and justified in forcing everyone to agree with their ideology of the moment. Evil done in the name of good is still evil.
              Tyrants and would be tyrants need to have some enemy to blame for the world not being perfect. Most of the very dysfunctional countries create a majority of their issues by the actions of the people living in those countries. It is more appealing to blame the US, Russia, Martians or some other group than it is for people of those countries to admit they are to blame for the issues in their country.
              The poverty, corruption and violence all create the conditions in the second and third world nations. European colonialism has had an impact but most of the colonies became independent over 50 years ago.

              1. It is more appealing to blame the US, Russia, Martians or some other group than it is for people of those countries to admit they are to blame for the issues in their country.

                *dry* I’ve been called un-nationalistic for saying that the Philippines needs to learn how to solve it’s own problems and stop blaming the US and simultaneously wanting that the US fix things. Most of the resistance right now to the current president is his insistence that Filipinos need to learn more self-discipline.

                1. “stop blaming the US and simultaneously wanting that the US fix things”

                  Agree. As an American fully tired of being the clean up person. Hand up after natural disasters, fine. But OTOH no one (outside) comes to help US communities when disaster strikes.

                  Also think that countries should pay US to have bases there VS US pay the county. Sorry. Don’t want to pay? Don’t want US forces there. Fine. US should pack up ALL the toys and go home, and demolish the rest (not quite burned earth policy). I take it as interesting that Germany has said “Uh, wait a minute.” When Poland offered land for bases and money for US to relocate bases in Germany to Poland and US said “Sounds interesting tell us more …”

                  Other than part of the recruiting tools is “Join and see the world …” Defense can be ran out of US territories.

        2. Me too…I had to read the first part twice.

          I wonder why it is so easy to skip the “if” which is the crucial part.

      1. Poor use of pronouns commonly induces confusion. It is prudent to be sure you’ve clearly flagged the nouns being referred to, and one can never presume the audience can see who you meant.

        1. Provided proper pharmaceuticals, pronoun problems perish.

          Almost sufficient caffeination on top of insufficient sleep probably produces problematic phrases.

          Coffee over here… STAT!

          1. We’ve been watching the George Burns & Gracie Allen Show (thank-you, Antenna-TV) and have noted the way Gracie uses insufficiently identified pronouns to sow confusion. Sixty years old and still hilarious — I rather doubt the same will be said of many contemporaneous sit-coms..

            1. Yeah the bits and pieces of Burns and Allen I’ve seen are absolutely hilarious. Gracie was an absolute genius as a straight man, She never seems to lose it, if someone breaks up its George not Gracie. Little modern stuff comes even close. Somehow that kind of convoluted wry humor was really popular then. Talks to an audience with a more sophisticated taste in wordplay.

    2. The want to be dictators

      That is another crucial part the fascists, at least, seem to be more honest about by a tiny silver. Hitler and Mussolini made no bones about the desire to rule over others. They promises a piece of the rule to their followers, Germany taking her rightful place as masters of Europe and Italy as a reborn Rome respectively.

      I think that is a by-product of the honesty about people existing as groups with in group loyalty. If you advocate for your group to rule over other groups it is easier to be honest about wanting to be the King/Emperor to the supporters who get to be Dukes, Counts, Barons, and Knights along the way.

      When you are claiming to present all the workers it’s hard to admit openly you plan to make them peasants.

      1. Fascists do not promise a Utopian end state, in which the State will wither away.

        Of course, Communists have never yet kept that promise.

    3. *grin* You noticed the whole “switch out the words and wow, they’re the same” thing too, eh?

      A long time blog-friend did something similar:
      If we divide mankind into three categories–founders of culture, bearers of culture, and destroyers of culture–the African alone can be considered as representing the first category. It was he who laid the groundwork and erected the walls of every great structure in human culture. Only the shape and color of such structures are to be attributed to the individual characteristics of the various nations. It is the African who has furnished the great building-stones and plans for the edifices of all human progress; only the way in which these plans have been executed is to be attributed to the qualities of each individual race.

      Within a few decades, the whole of the European colonies in North and South America, for instance, appropriated a culture and called such a culture its own, whereas the basis of that culture was the African mind and skill as we know it. Only the external form–at least to a certain degree–shows the traits of European inspiration. It is not true, as some believe, that America adds African technique to a European culture. The truth rather is that African science and techniques are just decked out with the peculiar characteristics of European civilization.

      1. “It is the African who has furnished the great building-stones and plans for the edifices of all human progress, only the way in which these plans have been executed is to be attributed to the qualities of each individual race. ”
        All cultures are AFRICAN????
        I am sorry but that is some crazy BS. Egypt had a part but Egypt isn’t what people think about if you say AFRICAN. And even if that is allowed, Egypt only had a small part that affected Greece then to Rome and back again.

        If you remember what was he talking about?

        “The truth rather is that African science and techniques are just decked out with the peculiar characteristics of European civilization. ”
        No, not even close. The Scientific Method was much later and NOT from Africa or Egypt.

        1. It is the African who has furnished the great building-stones and plans for the edifices of all human progress,

          I suspect the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans might dispute that.

        2. There exists a fun book, titled NOT OUT OF AFRICA that eviscerates Afrocentric History as being based traceably on pre-rosetta stone Rosicrucian fantasies about the Egyptian culture. I am not qualified to judge it’s arguments save on an aesthetic basis, but they sound good.

    4. It is comforting to hear that it is someone else’s fault that your life is not perfect.

      Really? That is what you “heard”?

      I suspect reading comprehension is not one of your strongest suits.

  2. I just finished rereading Fritz Leiber’s novel The Big Time, for the first time this century. It really struck me that of his two factions, the Spiders and the Snakes, the Spiders were supporting Nazism, to the point where they had backed a Nazi conquest of the United States, and the Snakes were supporting communism—and those were the only options. Neither of them, for example, were supporters of constitutional government in any form. And the two factions were, fairly clearly, mirror images of each other, which I have to grant is a touch of honesty on Leiber’s part. It all made me think of Ayn Rand’s line in The Fountainhead: “Give poison for food and poison for antidote.”

    1. The two factions essentially constitute an argument over who is to ride and who to be ridden. They share a conviction that riding is necessary.

  3. Exactly. This is what I’ve said for years, that the European and American definitions of “left” and “right” are along different, likely orthogonal axes. By our definitions, all of European politics, with very few exceptions, are “left.” And our “right” is nigh inconceivable to them, as it just doesn’t fit their system of measurement at all.

    1. I’ve mentioned before about reading biographies of Soviet defectors who eventually returned to the USSR, mostly to never be heard from again.

      In America they had a house, a car, a stipend from the CIA or State Department, and they could walk out their own front door (that they *owned*, something not even possible where they came from) and do… anything. Go anywhere, apply for any job, travel to any place, without notifying or getting permission from anyone.

      And it ate their souls.

      “Back home I was someone. In America, I’m nobody.”

      Which segues into another point I’ve made repeatedly: a lot of *Americans* don’t want what you call “freedom”, either. They’ve been told where to be, what to do, what to think, all their lives, and they like it that way. The kind of freedom most people here talk about, they vehemently *don’t* want.

      They can’t see what makes you tick, why you do such strange things, why you talk crazy. You don’t fit in their world. They look at you and they see rabid dogs, unpredictable and dangerous. So just like a troop of monkeys, they close ranks and try to force you away or attack, because you’re just *wrong*, like a pod person.

      1. I don’t think that is it. Russia was a religious society, where you had a lot of intersection between church and family, and your workplace often included religious stuff. Communism in Russia did a lot of the same things.

        So if people moved to the US, and did not have their friends and family or their “anti-church,” they felt lost. If people moved to the US and got a lot of welcome and company from the neighbors, and had work, they did better.

        1. This sounds more right.

          Add in that there’s been active stripping away of the support structures, from Churches to volunteer groups, and that ‘fits’ what TRX is describing.

          Folks aren’t afraid of freedom, they’re afraid of being alone.

            1. After bouncing around the country, I’ve gotten to see a lot of communities forming…or failing to.

              And the Left is really good about making it so people feel like they belong, no?

                1. They’re *normalized* that.

                  Consider how many “authorities” have said in public, that all children belong to the State… half a century ago they would have been fired. Now people don’t even blink at the idea.

          1. Folks aren’t afraid of freedom, they’re afraid of being alone.

            You might want to check out some of the write-ups on Mary Eberstadt’s new book.

            Identity Politics Runs Much Deeper than Politics
            ‘Conservatives and other nonprogressives have missed something major about identity politics: its authenticity. But the liberal-progressive side has missed something bigger. Identity politics is not so much politics as a primal scream. It’s the result of the Great Scattering—our species’ unprecedented collective retreat from our very selves.”

            Mary Eberstadt writes this in her new book, Primal Screams: How the Sexual Revolution Created Identity Politics. The book includes responses by Rod Dreher, Mark Lilla, and Peter Thiel. She talks about Primal Screams in this interview.

            Kathryn Jean Lopez: At one point in the book, you write: “The crisis over identity is part and parcel of a larger unraveling. . . . Foreboding saturates the politics and societies of the West today. . . . It is not impossible to hear in today’s secular jeremiads a displaced panic for a pandemic no one saw coming: the diminution of the human story itself.” How is that not overly dramatic, and if it’s not overly dramatic, well, shouldn’t we panic?

            Mary Eberstadt: Sometimes the truth is dramatic. Ours is one of those times.

            As chapter two of Primal Screams spells out, we’re now surrounded by evidence that something about the way we live has run amok. Psychiatric problems are rising, life expectancy is falling, and many people in public life are at each other’s throats. So-called “loneliness studies” have become a fixture of sociology not only in the United States, but across all of the materially advanced nations. There’s also new evidence that loneliness has exploded at the other end of time’s telescope — among the young. And of course there is multiplying confusion of all sorts related to gender identity, ethnic identity, and much more.

            In other words, we live in a time when a great many people are struggling to answer the most basic human question, “Who am I?” How did it ever come to pass that so many of us don’t even know who we are? It’s hard to think of a more dramatic turn of events than that existential erasure. I wanted to address that confusion, to see what’s really driving it.

            Lopez: What does the sexual revolution have to do with identity politics?

            [END EXCERPT]

          2. Add in that there’s been active stripping away of the support structures, from Churches to volunteer groups, and that ‘fits’ what TRX is describing.

            A frequent question I get is ‘don’t you have family and friends you can ask for help from?’ and get a bewildered look when I say ‘no.’ I didn’t immigrate taking all my clan with me, and I’m very unlikely to go ask other people when I know they have very busy lives of their own. I often wonder where these supposed social workers see very idle people, who are able to take care of other people’s children for days on end, then find myself rather cranky at the possible answers.

            1. My “favorite” is “just talk to your daycare and see if they’ll watch them a bit longer.”

              Uh….our only daycare is when my mom comes to visit for a few days when each baby is born.

              1. Yeah. Imagine the heads asploding if they knew I used to regularly babysit my younger siblings before I was even 10 years old so my Mom could nip over to the grocery. (omg, having us stay in our rooms to play with our toys was SOOOO RISKY!!1)

                Then these same ‘bright sparks’ whine that children these days don’t know how to be mature or handle responsibility.

                1. I was never as independent as some of the people here, but — there was a whole flipping popular book series about a bunch of twelve-year-olds taking up babysitting. I’m guessing that wouldn’t fly these days either.

                  ….Hrm, I seem to have a different icon bug all of a sudden.

                  1. Someone donated their entire collection to the local library.

                    It’s an entire row of books.

                    ….my eldest is going utterly nuts on that series, and is in love.

      2. “Back home I was someone. In America, I’m nobody.”

        This, along with some other points made, have me looking for an old essay on the web about why there was no fantasy in the SCA like elves. I think it was by David Freidman (yes, that David Freidman, he is a founding member of the Midrealm). I wanted to link it.

        What jumped out from this comment was an example that has from comments on this post, really crystalized as my understanding of the everyday leftist. I’ll try and recreate it.

        You are someone with an elf persona. All you want to do is express your elfness and what better place than a medievalist event. You come out in your electric blue cloak over your silver lame (elven chain) tunic with pointed ears. You stand among the mere humans and experience the glory of being an elven lord.

        What could be better.

        Meanwhile, you have destroyed, by intruding modernism upon those working hard to recreate a medieval environment. In order to achieve your grand dream you have not only disrupted their dream, but stolen to provide the backdrop for your glory.

        I think if you look at the leftists from Bernie Sanders failing to tip after being rude the staff going on to demonstrate his love of the worker to the college student carefully spray painting the swastika on their car window, making sure not to damage the paint job so they have to take it into a body shop, to proclaim their fear of local Nazis, you see our theoretical elf lord.

        To achieve their dream of being someone they happily, and without even thinking about it, turn others into props without regard for their humanity.

        Elves historically are cold, arrogant, and inhuman. And now they are pushed by our culture as heroes.

        Why does that seem familiar.

        1. “…turn others into props without regard for their humanity.”

          Exactly right. There are no other humans to them. We are the inferior species.

        2. Some think the same motivation is what pushes transgenderists (as well as gays and lesbians before that.) The idea is to be a part of an elite, enlightened faction.

          1. There is some of that in the gay community. You could see it in things like opposition to gay marriage as a a way to “domesticate” gay people. Based on my experience, however, that is a very minority view. I suspect it is more common among people who go to small liberal arts colleges like Oberlin to avoid the commonness of going to University of $FOO or $FOO State.

            Transgenderists, that’s gotten a lot of power grab people. Although it is heresy, I think the largest group in that category (born out in a way by Harry Benjamin’s classification system) are, for lack of a better term, thrill seekers. They aren’t libertines, but something similar to adrenaline junkies, but less adrenaline and more experimentation (maybe certain drugs are a closer analogy?).
            With the increasing acceptance of gay people some saw an opening for increasing acceptance of experimentation in gender expression (using gender here to differentiate social roles from physical acts). As I’ve said more than once, I think a smarter choice would to work on making sissy a valid gender expression parallel to tomboy among children and making both viable adult roles.

            Some lesbians worry transgenderism is making normally adjusted tomboys who would grow into lesbians into transmen. I’m not sure they’d like my solution better, as I suspect as least some butch women would be more male directed if tomboy was more valid as an adult expression.

            1. Some homosexuals are undoubtedly experiencing same sex attraction, some (historically) were undoubtedly rebelling against social norms. The degree of overlap is likely impossible to measure, especially as Society has advanced the avant-garde beyond the boundaries of sanity.

              1. Yeah. I think what happens is the degree to which tomboy behavior (and sissy for that matter) impacts the ability to attract the opposite sex in the relevant years the more likely someone is to experiment. I think that might be why more active homosexuality seems to come with an end to more traditional marriage channels. As chaperoned courting is replaced by independent dating there is both less pressure to conform before being out (by parents et al), more ability to reject from surface reasons (she like using power tools or he has a twice a day skin routine), and the ability to experiment out of “normal” channels.

                Knowing what I probably don’t about tween romantic expectations in Japan gives me an indication for the opening. My misunderstanding of something probably more complex is tweens are expected to have some degree of same sex romance as “practice” and adult homosexuality is a sign of immaturity. If that experimentation is a normal part of the ape frame then it is the opening in the gender role issues.

                1. If you’re just looking for someone to fiddle your bits, those with first-hand (apologies) knowledge of how to fiddle those bits are probably preferable. Thus divorcing sexual activity from family formation likely promotes “alternative lifestyles” and emphasis on pleasure as end in itself rather than as constructive to emotional connection.

                2. Some time ago, I observed a young man who acted stereotypically (over-the-top at times) gay when around girls, and more hetero when around guys. He later married a woman and… worked as a jeweler. Turns out he was being “harmless” as he talked to the girls about what they liked in clothes, jewelry, and other things. Smart guy, and yes, his business did pretty well once he got established.

                  1. *Snickers* The day before my husband proposed to me, his mom tried to warn me that he was either a player or gay; his sister only didn’t because he’d asked her for help to find a good jeweler before popping the question.

                    He is STILL the totally-not-a-sister foster sister for all the foundlings his sister dragged home. (Short version? One of the few intact families in his high school. They shared. My kids are not clear on why the ‘cousins’ on that side have different names.)

            2. There are a certain amount of people who identify as LGBTQ solely because they get off on the transgressive nature of it all. The problem with today’s world, for them, is not that it is not accepting enough, it is that they can’t get their rocks off being transgressive when society just nods, and accepts them for what they are.

              Thus, the essential madness we see before us; they have to keep pushing the boundaries, and they’re not going to stop until they’ve finally reached the point where it’s “This far; no further…”, and what’s going to come after that will probably make the Victorians look overly-tolerant.

              This is why I think we’ve never really had a society that’s been accepting of all this kind of thing–The nutter component of the LGBTQ segment of the community is almost congenitally driven to excess, because they’re really not gay or lesbian (or, whatever else there is…), they’re “transgressives”. By their nature, they can’t fit in, and if you try to accommodate them, they’re just going to act even crazier, because that’s what it mostly is–An act. They want to outrage you, to horrify mommy and daddy, and when they can’t get that simply by “being gay”, well… Here comes the excess. Look around you; it’s everywhere. Most of the “activist” community are not at all interested in just living lives of quietly being accepted and tolerated, they want more… They want the outrage; they’re addicted to pissing off mommy and daddy for whatever reason, and they can’t get the endorphin high they seek from doing that just by living normal lives. Their headspace and timing is off, and will never, ever be right. I think many of them have some form of mental illness; they’ve managed to rewire their endorphin reward mechanisms such that they cannot possibly tolerate anything other than living in a state of outrage. The madness completes them; take it away, and they’re nothing. They can’t just be men who love other men, they have to be GAY!!!!! In your face!!! GAY!!!–And, if they can’t outrage you and create that nice warm feeling of sanctimonious superiority at your outrage at them and their conduct, well… They’ll just have to keep escalating until they do manage to get that reaction from the staid “normies” they so loathe.

              The run-of-the-mill sort of gay and lesbian person who is simply attracted to the same sex is not at all like the “transgressives”, in any way, shape, or form–But, they’re going to pay the price, right along with them. Which is sad, messed-up, and entirely avoidable, but that’s where I see the “transgressive for the sake of transgression” community taking us all. They’re going to keep escalating, like a drug addict whose body has become habituated to its drug, and when they reach the point where the rest of us won’t put up with the BS, there’s going to be an awful lot of collateral damage as the wrecking-ball of our social pendulum swings back.

              I feel sorry for those who just want to live their lives quietly and unconventionally; I fear that the inevitable backswing is going to take out the spaces where they can do that.

              1. While those people exist and are usually the loudest, I was thinking of a separate group. They are also transgressive, but for more internal reasons than external ones: ie, they want to try something new instead of shock someone. I think of it as the difference between Marilyn Manson and Robert Smith.

                That leads to a key difference in terms of respecting social norms. Generally the latter group are fine with respecting social norms in the broader world. Their interest is in creating an environment where they can do their transgressing without looking over their shoulder.

                Note, the offend mommy and daddy types love looking over their shoulder.

                A great, if lower key example of this, was about 15 years ago among the Boston netgoths. On our mailing list there was a lot of discussion about slutty Halloween costumes and “no, lingerie plus a hat or animal ears is not a costume.” If I had to sum up the majority feeling it was along the lines of, “Yes, I go to a club where a fishnet shirt, four pieces of electrical tape, a vinyl skirt, fishnets, and Doc Martins is acceptable attire. But I know people not at the club don’t want to see that so I wear a jacket from my parked car to the club door and check it. Dress appropriately.”

                The real problem is when the offend group convinces the let us have a space group they are allies. It always ends badly for the let us have space group.

                Finally, have you read “Defining Deviancy Down”. It describes this phenomena and its opposite, which you see among the leftists where minor transgressions become major ones as purity goes up (you also see it in monasteries). It had a major effect on my thinking. Specifically the need for society to adopt a wide DMZ attitude of “everything outside our borders is bad behavior we will not normalize, but this strip between us and the really bad will be tolerated as long as it says there” to form both a buffer.

                People who might be interested in experiment, but without strong needs would cross the relatively safe DMZ maybe once or twice and not risk getting close to the really dangerous before settling down to a normal life. Those who really need to be outside would have a relatively safe zone to be outsiders, but without the temptation to ally with the dangerous for protection (or at least, much less temptation).

                1. minor transgressions become major ones as purity goes up

                  In every human subculture there is a constant ongoing dominance competition in which individuals ask one another to “Hold my beer” before pushing the boundary a little bit harder than the next guy. This can be manifested in purity fights or in edginess races — seeing who can creep just a little bit further out on the limb of tolerance.

                  It is an Asymptote Race, bound to end badly.

        3. Be fair; almost without exception the Elves being pushed by the culture as heroes are Tolkien Elves, a widely different species from the Elves of folklore.

          Hell, one of the basic ‘gotcha’s of fantasy role playing in the ‘80’s was to base your Elves on the haughty folklore Elves and watch your players blunder into deep kimchi.

            1. Tolkien’s influence was not always good. The humans with pointy ears that afflict so much of fantasy fiction are continuing a trend.

          1. Which meant you had never actually read Tolkien, since his elves (especially outside the Hobbit) were as haughty and disdainful of men as anything out of folklore. Elrond and his whole “Men are weak” speech in Fellowship captures it perfectly.

            1. Eh, a lot of the folks who try to pull off “haughty folklore elves” end up a heck of a lot closer to the Joker with a few acting lessons. Orcs, basically.

              In fairness, that does fit some of the folklore elves.

    2. American Socialists benefit from this confusion, therefore the Media will persist in promulgating it. In the same way, they benefit from the myth that the Democrat Party represents the default “moderate” position.

  4. A hammer and sickle should be no more acceptable than a swastika.

    I think we have at least one topologist amongst us. Are swastikas and hammer-and-sickle symbols topologically the same thing?

    1. When seeing the phrase that swastika and hammer-and-sickle symbols are the same thing. I envisioned a 3-d image of the two imposed on one another. A clear coin where both images are visible, but one is on one side but the other is on the other. Indicating the concept of “one is the same.” Or even an image where it is obvious they are both there, but are merged.

      (Although I can imagine it. I couldn’t render it.)

        1. Swastika was the shadow– I know I saw it, too, I can SEE it in my mind, but I can’t find the dang thing

          Did run into this while searching, though:

      1. Two options for this.

        1. Remember those “3-D” image things that were common Cracker Jack prizes? A flat plastic laminated picture, appearing to consist of ridges constituting lenses, so that as you flexed or tilted it the image seemed to change.

        I am sure there is a technical name for those, but have no idea what it might be.

        2. Solid plastic cubes, like dice, containing overlapped holographic images of swastika and Hammer & sickle.

    2. I saw the symbol of the “Climate Emergency” clowns, and my thought was: “rearrange the lines all you want, it’s still a swastika”.

      1. ….holy crow.

        I thought you were being dramatically excessive, but… yeah, it does echo the other two, somehow, doesn’t it?

        1. Why the astonishment? In the first place; a Progressive is a Socialist is a Communist is a Fascist is a Nazi. Oh superficial details – the branding and packaging – may change, but the core ingredients are the same. In the second place, the Western Intellectual Left has never been very good at self-examination, so little slips like that tend to sail through.

          1. I’ve used the same phraseology, except for stating that the differences are trivial theological debating points.

          2. What? You mean Uncle Joe LIED when he said that everyone who disagreed with him was right-wing?

            1. I believe that is a deliberate misquote by Western Communist fans. The original quote has him saying that everyone who disagreed with him was DEAD.

      2. For those wondering, it is the logo of the Extinction Rebellion group, the two triangles inside a circle, black on white.

        1. And I saw it as an hourglass thingy, at least at first, but.. we all know I ain’t exactly normal – except sometimes in the geometric sense.

          1. That was my first impression as well. Though I’m not exactly normal either (hey, I hang out HERE, don’t I? :P).

            1. Its a hour glass and incidentally exactly the same (color aside) as the badge of the US 7th Infantry Division.

      3. Are you talking about the one which looks like an hour glass in a circle? If not could you post a link or at least a URL to a page with the symbol to which you are referring?

    1. The principles read like a Bernie platform. That’s not the point.
      If you read their poems and literature (I did at one point, mostly because my brother told me they were vile and should not be read) the ethos was “The noble beast.”

      1. When running against the hilldebeast, Bernie said he is not an international socialist. He described himself as a national socialist.
        Of course that got completely ignored.

        1. Except by those of us who stared, jaw agape, then did a double face-paw and hid under the bed to plan how to vote for “none of the above.”

          1. Wouldn’t that require Bernie to believe in G-d and ask forgiveness? Bernie ain’t that kind of Jew, on either count. Bernie will be busy criticizing G-d and His Plan even as Bernie descends into the nether realm (where Bernie is likely to be celebrated as a marvelous advocate … and consigned to eternal flame*.)

            *N.B.: no assertions about the actual torments of the damned are hereby specified nor implied. For all I know the torments may consist of endless looping of In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida or the Greatest Hits of Tommy James and the Shondells.

            1. I suspect, based on the last few years, that Hell for people like Bernie and Granny Maojackets von Pantsuit will be endless political campaigns that somehow end losing to Donald Trump.

            2. I suspect that the “actual torments of the damned” depend on the individual.

              IE The “torment” of one person would be different from the “torment” of another person.

              Also, while generally I thinking imagining the torments of a specific person isn’t “the right thing to do”, I can’t help but think that Bernie’s torment would be “becoming a tax payer working for eternity to pay for all the goodies that he promised”. 😈

            3. Envisions a disco cover of In-a-Gadda-da-Vida.
              Or a 5 hour loop of country-hip-hop. Ewwwh!

              1. You are an evil, evil creature. I think discofied Iron Butterfly treads on being blasphemy.

                1. I try. 🙂

                  OTOH, the other side of the album doesn’t need disco to be painful. A medley of “Flowers and Beads” with “Are you Happy?” would do the trick. Those were awful enough that they never got airplay. (And yes, there was a Top 40 cut of IAGDV. )

              2. No rap version of In-a-Gadda-Da-Vida performed by William Shatner. How’s that for hellish?

                1. I confess to searching for Bluegrass and A Capella covers of the song last night. I know they are out there but suspect all are glad I was unsuccessful.

                  Give up your gladness, I have switched songs for demonstration purposes. Back when Borders lingered there was a whole section of their CD bin dedicated to Bluegrass performances of rock songs.

                  1. Lots of acapella covers, too …

                    Won’t you sleep better tonight, knowing this vast void in your musical appreciation is fulfilled?

                  2. I don’t know if it ever got released from lawsuit hell, but Little Roger and the Goosebump’s “Stairway to Gilligan’s Island” should be a classic.

                    (For those unaware, it had the lyrics of Gilligan’s to the music of Stairway. They managed to make it a good fit, but Led Zeppelin’s lawsuit knocked off the air. I gather that Weird Al Yankovic has some really good lawyers on retainer.)

                    1. It seems likely that Plant & Page don’t even hold the original copyright, given when the song was first published. Likely they are enjoying seeing record label lawyers eat that particular dog’s breakfast.

                      The ones with the genuine basis for complaint are Sherwood Schwartz and George Wyle, the guys who wrote The Ballad of Gilligan’s Isle.

                      Fun fact: they wrote the ballad to replace “to replace the show’s original calypso theme song created by film composer John Williams” (yes, that John Williams!) “Williams was also credited as the composer of the incidental music for the show from 1964 to 1965.”

                    2. Weird Al Yankovic has managed to make it so that anyone complaining about his parodies is a PR loser. Between tolerance of the jester, fair-use parody laws and the damage due a party-pooper he gets away with a lot.

                      Any speculation as to whether his parodies boost sales of the original is entirely out of line.

        2. No, they just understood he was saying real National Socialism had yet to be tried.

          This time they’ll have the right people.

        3. That odd humming sound people report coming from the St. Mary’s Parish Cemetery in Appleton, Wisconsin is “Tailgunner Joe” McCarthy both spinning in and laughing from his grave. Damned if the asshole wasn’t right all along!

          1. I’ve said it here before. People forget Joe’s biggest crime was being an insufferable asshole . . it was Not being wrong about what he was famously an asshole about.

      2. “If you read their poems and literature (I did at one point, mostly because my brother told me they were vile and should not be read) the ethos was “The noble beast.””

        Fascism is counter-Enlightenment, whereas Marxism, with its imaginary logic and science, is a bastard child of the Enlightenment.

        Today’s “progressivism” has aspects of both Marxism and Fascism, but…with the superstitious mysticism of many of its followers (magical crystals, a conscious Gaia, etc) and its obsessive focus on race/ethnicity, I think it is overall closer to Fascism.

        1. Yes. Today’s progressivism has converged. One way they converged which I forgot to mention was the invention of a “pagan” religion to belong to. Which a large part of the left has done, now.

            1. “the features of a Christian heresy”

              Claire Berlinski, in her 2006 book about Europe, makes this point about the French anti-globalization leader Jose Bove, whose philosophy Berlinski summarizes as “crop worship”….”European men and women still confront the same existential questions, the same suffering as everyone who has ever been born. They are suspicious now of the Church and of grand political ideologies, but they nonetheless yearn for the transcendent. And so they worship other things–crops, for example, which certain Europeans, like certain tribal animists, have come to regard with superstitious awe.”

              The title of this chapter is “Black-Market Religion: The Nine Lives of Jose Bove,” and Berlinski sees the current Jose Bove as merely one in a long line of historical figures who hawked similar ideologies. They range from a man of unknown name born in Bourges circa AD 560, to Talchem of Antwerp in 1112, through Hans the Piper of Niklashausen in the late 1400s, and on to the “dreamy, gentle, and lunatic Cathars” of Languedoc and finally to Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Berlinski sees all these people as being basically Christian heretics, with multiple factors in common. They tend appeal to those whose status or economic position is threatened, and to link the economic anxieties of their followers with spiritual ones. Quite a few of them have been hermits at some stage in their lives. Most of them have been strongly anti-Semitic. And many of the “Boves” have been concerned deeply with purity…Bove coined the neologism malbouffe, which according to Google Translate means “junk food,” but Berlinski says that translation “does not capture the full horror of bad bouffe, with its intimation of contamination, pollution, poison.” She observes that “the passionate terror of malbouffe–well founded or not–is also no accident; it recalls the fanatic religious and ritualistic search for purity of the Middle Ages, ethnic purity included. The fear of poisoning was widespread among the millenarians…”

              She identifies Bove’s cult as a “neoteric Christian heresy” and says “It is no accident that he was born in Cathar country.”


          1. As I watch, with interest, some channels devoted to reviving Indo-European Paganism I can see the openings into the same trap Nazi’s Aryan connections fell.

            It reminds me of the saying, “If you don’t like the Christian right, you really won’t like the post-Christian right.”

            1. Yeah. Imagine me. Now take the ‘chose at least nominal Christianity’ bit and flip it. What you have is most likely a savage. Even if a technically sophisticated one. (Not necessarily one matching any flavor of right.)

              Basically, take every argument I make about justness of the wars, even extreme wars, against the indians, the Japanese, and various other foreigners, and those apply to that me with bells on.

              Which isn’t to say I think a war of extermination against the paynim is always automatically justified or necessary or duty. Just that Christianity has been a positive influence on me, and that I am a monster.

              1. > and that I am a monster.

                Useful men usually are.

                An acquaintance of mine once penned an essay about never trusting a man who hasn’t been punched in the face.

                He was right.

                Monsters know what happens when the leash slips, and take care that it does not, until it needs to.

              2. So far, most aren’t crazy or dangerous, but I do wonder how much of that is residual Christian influence.

                My real fear is an increase in an desire for “Indo-European” cultural revival will lead to rejection of things without that heritage.

                Finally, remember, Rome and Greece are part of the IE sphere. While not what the modern West is, that isn’t the worst outcome of a post-Christian right. After all, much of the Christian West is heavily influenced by those cultures.

                1. And because of the influence, we tend to overlook the degree to which those were very much not nice places.

  5. Was thinking about the observation that prompted mention of the ‘feminists are crypto white supremacists’ model.

    Found a better model. Part one, the most extreme of feminists are women, and women are physically weaker than men.

    Remember Kirk’s comment about ‘natural’ aversions being actually caused by nurture? It strikes me that feminist women have three tools for power or influence over men. 1. Persuasion of feminist ideology 2. sexual favors 3. the self restraint that is more common in men raised by intact families. Feminist ideology and sexual favors can be neutralized by learning not to value those things, or never learning to value them. The third is more interesting.

    This leaves me a little more sympathetic to claims of systemic white supremacism in modern America. Previously, I hadn’t perceived an emotional cluster with the ability to get it done. Now I see a possibility.

  6. I think it is very simple. From the perspective of a normal political moderate, communism and fascism are both on the left. But the ‘fascists are right wing’ claim wasn’t started by moderates, it was started and promoted by communists. And to communists fascism IS a step to the right. To go from saying “the gov’t should outright own the means of production” to saying “the gov’t should just control the means of production, but allow a thin veneer of private ownership to remain” is a step to the right, although a small one. But the fact that it is a small step is part of why communists and fascists are such bitter enemies. It is heresy! A heresy close enough to possibly attract followers that might otherwise have gone to the commies! Hence the freak out and the huge, successful push to condemn the right wing (from the commie perspective) heretics of fascists.

    So when someone claims to think fascists are on the right, that tells you they think communism is in the center. Or that they are incurious and just repeat what they are told… it might be that to.

    1. The communists and the fascists are bitter rivals who would like to pretend that they are opposite poles of a spectrum. From an American conservative view, they are no more opposites than the Crips and the Bloods, or going back a few generations, the North Side Gang and the Chicago Outfit.

      1. I’ve long considered that the reason WWII was so bitterly fought was that it wasn’t so much a struggle between the forces of totalitarianism and liberty as an internecine spat to determine which brand(s) of collectivism would win out – Communism, Nazism, Fascism, New Deal-ism, Britain’s Fabian experiment, the Meiji/Showa regime, etc.. This continued post-war into the Cold War. Perhaps remnants of it can still be seen today.

        1. Right nothing is quite so nasty as an internecine religious dispute. Look at the 30 years war, the ongoing Sunni/Shiite divisions and even Islam vs the people of the book (Islam seeming to be derived from an ersatz heterodox flavor of christianity). Because that person has clearly already transgressed beyond recovery and is in the way of the Eschaton anything is justified.

            1. 30 years war – the Central European Catholic/Protestant fracas fictionalized/adapted in Flint’s 1632 series.

      2. And during the latter parts of the war, the sides did begin to reflect each other. The Nazis became more and more internationalist, while the Soviets became very much Russian nationalist.

        1. That’s because the Communists discovered that Communism doesn’t inspire loyalty. The nation does.

    2. So then the “‘fascists are right wing” claim is an illusion. It is similar to the way height appears among players for the NBA. In years past When both Tony Parker and Tim Duncan were both playing for (my home team) the San Antonio Spurs. Watching the team members working and interacting on the floor, one could get the impression that Tony Parker was of average height if not actually rather short. Working among players 6’10” and up to over 7′, Parker certainly did not look especially tall. I had an opportunity to meet Parker once and he was NOT average height much less short! I am approx. 6’4″ tall and Parker TOWERED over me. At 6’4″ I am a 1%er in height and Parker is noticeably taller than I am yet he looked short on the basketball court. How could this be? The answer is that it is a matter of RELATIVITY! Compared to most players in the NBA, Tony Parker IS, indeed “short” but compared to most American men he is really quite tall. Compared to communism, fascism may well BE “right wing”, but compared to the totality of the political spectrum, fascism is very much a product of the left.

    3. I want to make clear, from the start, that I wish to impute NO correlation beyond structural similarity. That asserted:

      Facism is to Communism
      The Orthodox Church is to the Catholic Church

      The former is constituted of national institutions headed by national leaders, loosely linked but largely independent.

      The latter subordinates all national institutions under the leadership of an elect, unifying the various nations beneath a single doctrine.

      The U.S.S.R. claimed to be the vanguard of an international communist movement and acted to unify doctrine in the various movements it subsidized. In America in the Forties and Fifties (at least) the Communist Party USA took marching orders from Moscow.

      1. I want to make clear, from the start, that I wish to impute NO correlation beyond structural similarity.


        And DANG, but that works nicely.

        1. I suspect it works because the Marxists are essentially substituting their religious dogma into existing structural patterns. It isn’t as if they are creative except in finding novel methods of looting.

          1. Right as Pascal said, “There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus”. The atheistic communists deny that that person and thing exists, but our created nature longs for that. So they fill it with worshiping something else, a leader, a State, an ideology a cause (Save the Planet!!!). Worshiping false idols never ends well, take a gander it most of the old testament history books and prophets for all the various ways it can (pardon me) go to hell in a hand-basket.

  7. I will also note that the other side uses completely different definitions of right and left wing. A left wing person will argue that “left wing” is someone who fights for equality, while “right wing” is someone who wants to preserve the existing structure of privileges and disparity. Looking the terms up in a dictionary to settle the argument with a “left winger” once resulted in finding that “left wing” was defined as socialist and “right wing” was defined as anything in opposition to the left wing. So by that definition ANY political system (including fascism) that is not socialism was considered “right wing”. You have to consider who wrote the dictionary, I suppose.

    1. Thing is, inequality, disparity and privilege are artifacts of having humans in contact. In the real world, you cannot avoid them with anything that can be called a human society. If humans are too socially dysfunctional for any sort of collaboration, you could in theory have a bunch of loners too isolated for any sort of status or hierarchy to apply. In practice, using that definition, anything other than a nihilistic plan to exterminate all humans is right wing. Ergo, Hitler was a right winger because he wasn’t as keen to kill Germans.

          1. Nah, they were true Germans. That is why he was willing to fight a scorched earth policy to the end.

            “If the war is lost, the nation will also perish. This fate is inevitable. There is no necessity to take into consideration the basis which the people will need to continue even a most primitive existence. On the contrary, it will be better to destroy these things ourselves, because this nation will have proved to be the weaker one and the future will belong solely to the stronger eastern nation. Besides, those who will remain after the battle are only the inferior ones, for the good ones have all been killed.”

        1. Don’t confuse “getting Germans killed” with “killing Germans”.

          And by Hitler’s definitions most, if not all, killed in the camps weren’t Germans.

          1. And they did go to great length to change the LAWS so what they were doing was legal under the LAW.

              1. #PaladinPeeve
                I have spent FAR too much time explaining that an unjust law is not binding to ‘lawful good’ characters.

                You can’t make the paladin a murderbot by saying ‘the law requires you to kill one virgin a week.’

                If you’re going to try to rules lawyer, LEARN THE BLEEPIN RULES!


                1. I resolve that by telling my players the prime example of an all Lawful Good Party is the crew of the Starship Enterpirse from the original series.

                  Specifically, if you look at the moral dilemmas faced in movies 2, 3, and 4 you can learn how your paladin needs to act.

                    1. Look at the stuff that St. Thomas Aquinas got up to. Totally logical, totally according to the law of nations and God, totally obedient to his superiors, and totally disruptive whenever he needed to be. The safest thing was just to get out of the way and let him do his thing, and he wasn’t even into fighting!

                      Of course, he got taken out by a tree branch when his superiors ordered him to ride a horse instead of walk, like a friar should. But until then, there wasn’t much that could stop him, or stop him from routing around.

                  1. I’m also familiar with “Lawful Awful” and “Awful Good”.

                    Then again, I’m an active campaigner for five factor alignment and even prefer three factor “pick a side or be a mercenary” to the big nine.

                    1. Up past my bedtime, but recently put together a variant nine value system which has Nixon as neutral neutral and Obama as neutral evil. Need to figure that out again. One of the OCs in my fanfic favors that system, and I may need the rest of what makes them tick to plot the thing.

        2. Yeah, but he was less keen to kill Germans than a Hitler who was the platonic ideal of murderous nihilism would have. He approximated the platonic ideal of murderous nihilism with the Gypsies and Jews, was totally fruitcake about other ethnicities but not quite as extreme, and for a relative few populations was only out of his f$%^ing mind.

            1. That is a common characteristic between Marxists, be they Stalin, Obama, or the NYT editorial board, and Fascists: the people always let them down.

      1. From what I’ve seen, there is about the same amount of equality under either Socialism or Capitalism. The difference is in how pleasant that equality is for the poor (there will always be poor, under either ideology). With Socialism, the poor have a lot more company, and usually have a pretty piss poor quality of life (especially under the strains of Socialism that have actually been tried). Under Capitalism, the poor have big screen televisions and tend to own cars.

    2. As far as fighting for equality goes… there’s a reason that it’s now shifting to “equity”. They got called on the “equality” thing too many times without an answer for how what they were doing had anything to do with equality.

    3. Except that the Nazi platform was expressly socialist, as were many of their actions.

      Also Nazis were in practice almost identical to Socialists–they both enriched the well connected at the expense of the middle and upper middle class.

  8. The enemy is always collectivism, whether it calls itself fascism or communism. They’re just heads of the same Hydra.

    1. Precisely.
      They’re also blindness inducing religion. See comment from idiot. Not short enough to be Chlamydia, but stupid enough to be.
      I don’t know what he read, but it wasn’t my post.

  9. Years back, I once asked somebody on Baen’s Bar (Politics Conference) to tell me the difference between a Fascist Totalitarian government and a Communist Totalitarian government.

    Since the person wasn’t an asshole, the answer was the Fascists ruled in the name of the State while the Communists ruled in the name of the People.

    Of course, I doubt that anybody under the governments in question would “feel” the difference between the two. 😦

      1. Agree.

        Of course, the person IIRC was basically quoting his “textbooks” which “accepted” the excuses. 😉

        Oh, years ago I heard the following which is more relevant in the “Age Of Antifa”.

        “When Fascism comes to the US, it will call itself Anti-Fascism.” 😦

            1. I don’t know Huey Long always seemed like the prototypical Kleptocrat to me. Perhaps cat blood in his ancestry somewhere? This mine and this is mine and this mine, ooooh shiny thats mine too.

          1. No, he said it would come waving an American flag. That one is Anonymous. (He gets most of the good ones.)

    1. The problem with that is that under Communism the State is The People, while under Fascism the People are The State.

      Or is it the other way around…I forget.

  10. Maybe I’m just getting into semantics, but I’d rather the right wing be for families, rather than individuals. Because it seems that’s how we’ve lost the culture war, because of individual “rights”. Currently marriage isn’t about the creation of a stable family unit, instead it’s about two (or more!) people “in love”. Children cannot expect to be raised in a home with both of their genetic parents; it’s a crap shoot for many now. And while I’m not interested in the village raising my kid, I’d at least like to know that my government isn’t persecuting folks who share my beliefs.

    1. No. Just no. I came from a nation in which the family counts above the individual. It’s the merry road to socialism.
      What we have is not individual rights but group rights and “class” rights. It’s Marxism straight up.
      What you want is the same but tribal based.
      INDIVIDUAL rights come with individual responsibilities. It is the abdicating of both that has lost the culture war.

      1. [bold] It is the abdicating of both that has lost the culture war.[/bold]


        This is why Dr. Peterson is so respected–he adds responsibility back in to the mix.

      2. No. Just no. I came from a nation in which the family counts above the individual. It’s the merry road to socialism.

        Eh, what is ‘family’?

        ‘cus I see a hell of a lot of “I am your ancestor, so I get to tell you what to do,” and not much “I made you, and damn it, that means that I have to do right by you.”

        All of the authority, none of the responsibility– which is the left all over, no?

        1. yep. It’s demanding loyalty to the tribe.
          Fox, I should explain I think I know where this came from. it’s a philosophy lately spreading in Europe that the problem is too much individualism and we need to defer to family and community.
          Hence my response.

          1. Their are duties on owes one’s family — however broadly defined — but one of those duties is NOT subordination of individual conscience, nor reflexive deference to that collective.

            Too much individualism is a problem, but then so is too little — and the destruction historically attributable to the latter far exceeds that resulting from the former.

            One need only look at WWII’s contrasting examples of the Death Camps and the Righteous Gentiles. Oskar Schindler was a traitor to his family, to his nation, and to his race .. but not to his species.

            1. *nod*

              If those things didn’t matter, then it wouldn’t be a sacrifice to admire; but they do.

              The Right Thing just mattered more.

          2. That might be– but it’s also a long-running shoe in the door for the “you will be allowed to do anything you want, as long as you want what I think you should” type Libertarians.

            Two sides of the same coin, honestly.

            And of course Europe is finally figuring it out. A mere, what, CENTURY and change after every theological philosopher worth his salt was pointing out that they were slash-and-burning all the intermediate levels of community, they’re finally figuring out hey, that was a bad idea… and Seer Fox (looking oddly like the animated Robin Hood as a gypsie) puts her hands on the crystal ball, and foresees they’ll jack this up the same way they did everything else, by trying to FORCE it rather than getting the heck out of the way as connections and communities form organically.
            All while STILL actively destroying the blinkin’ means for the connections to form.

    2. *nod*
      That’s the biology aspect I mentioned, earlier.

      That is individuals– individual HUMANS. Who are biological animals.
      When we choose to do the reproductive act, we make a new person…who also has individual rights, and we’re responsible for them.

      The left really, really likes to act like this is a horrible imposition. When it’s simply biology.

      1. I have long believed feminism is more offended by biology than by men.

        It makes me wonder if they have thought through their goddess worship fascination. Given it is biology that traps them, you’d think they’d rather a male god to blame for it.

        1. I hear a long wail of “it’s not faaaaaiiiiir,” honestly.

          First wave or so, they had a point, but modern? Yeah, it’s me getting upset because my (six foot +) husband can reach stuff better.

          1. LOL

            My work here is done.

            In a way it is. Have you noticed how much M->F is much more common than F->M. We have become one of the few (first) cultures in history where more men are demanding the social role of women than the other way around.

            1. I don’t actually have any sort of measure.

              Most of the ones that I NOTICE are m=>f, but…well, pathetic dude in a dress or dangerous dude in a dress are BOTH much more likely to get my attention than “chick in pants.”

              Example of dangerous dude in a dress?
              The simi-viral “it’s ma’am” guy who was screaming at a checkout dude last Christmas season.

              That’s a predator. He might not bite you, but that guy is a predator.

              1. The predation going the other direction doesn’t work terribly well in Transgender mode, does it?

                1. Between biology and not being the target audience, I have no idea.

                  Seriously, me in pants insisting on being called “Mr”? Mildly pathetic.

                  My husband in a dress, insisting on being called “Miss”? Rather scary. And he’s sweet.

                  (the ‘child target’ metric is a totally different trigger)

                2. *grumbles* I’m having a heck of a time identifying why the “Ma’am” guy is hitting my kill it with fire buttons.

                  I grew up with several guys who wore dresses, and/or wanted to pretend to be girls. SAd, but meh.

                  I think… I think it’s a matter of aggression.

                  Look, I have six children to whom I gave birth. Definitely a chick. But if you challenge my femininity in a way I must respond? I will pull back. It might just be so I can slap you, or gut you, but I’ll pull back.
                  The “Ma’am” guy responded like a guy. And not just Joe Average, but jock-strap proving something guy. He could be in roid rage and not be different.

                  But he wants to insist that folks act like he’s me.

                  If they want you to lie, and be stupid about it, they are probably up to no good.

                  1. If they want you to lie, and be stupid about it, they are probably up to no good.

                    It brings to mind the scenario of the Nazi officer seizing the Jewish jeweler’s goods (or British officer seizing the colonial farmer’s livestock) and handing him a voucher, smilingly telling him to present it for payment. He knows he’s lying, the victim knows he’s lying and he knows the victim knows he’s lying — but there’s nothing the victim can do but accept the insult.

                    It isn’t just that you’re being handed a [fecal] sandwich, it is that you’re required to accept that [fecal] sandwich and pretend to like it.

                  2. It’s pretty much similar with the Canadian (“Jessica” Yaniv) who was suing Brazilian wax outfits because they wouldn’t do “her” penis & scrotum. OTOH, the bastard got busted for various things, including sexual harassment of little girls,. Surprise, surprise, he was a pervert in a dress.

                    I don’t think he’s going to do well in prison.

                    1. We can only hope.

                      And holy crud stuff is upside down when I’m hoping for the FREAKING INCARSERATED BASTARDS to be more just than the Canadian justice system.

                    2. That incident is probably one of the more inexplicable things, to me. Had I been one of those women, I’d have happily done the Brazilian for him.

                      Thing is, when I was done with it? I don’t think he’d have been interested in doing it again. Ever.

                      “Oh, so sorry!! I try hard, but I am not familiar with the anatomy! So sorry!!”

                      Also, would have had him sign a release form beforehand saying that. And, then ensured “grievous error” took place. Might not have saved me from the lawsuit, but it would have been glorious to inflict a hot wax removal. I don’t think that Mr. Yaniv fully thought through what a “Brazilian” would do to the sensitive anatomy involved–And, even better if he were uncircumcised. I understand that tears to the foreskin can be quite… Painful.

                      This is what these people deserve, TBH. Ya wanna hot wax Brazilian, bud? Got one right here, for you… You’ll never forget it, either. Likely, neither will I.

                      In the service, we had a thing called a “white mutiny”, where you’d basically deal with an arsehole senior leader by working strictly to rule. No matter how excruciatingly ridiculous. Play your cards right, and you can drive even the nastiest Captain Queeg into madness, all the while smiling and remaining utterly unassailable, ‘cos you’re doing exactly as he asks… And, carrying it out to the outrageous extreme. “Yes, Sir… We’re dispatching the trucks now, but you told us to ensure that everything was done right, and that means we have to do all the maintenance checks… Yes; all of them. We should be done tomorrow morning by about oh-three-hundred… What? Well, Sir, you’d better get the Colonel to approve working after hours… Oh? He won’t like that…? Well, I can’t see much else we can do…”.

                      In that particular case, the motor pool was located almost immediately adjacent to the post commanders quarters; he had questions as to why it was we were making ungodly amounts of noise at two AM, and those questions were directed at our martinet captain. I think he lasted about three months before voluntarily resigning from command…

                      These florists and bakers? Sure; we’ll happily do you a bouquet or a cake. Just don’t expect it to work out at all the way you think it will. “Gee, I’m sorry; I thought you wanted a Leviticus-themed wedding cake. Don’t you love the demons waiting for the loving couple, and the brimstone flavor of the icing…? You did understand that we’re a Christian bakery, did you not?”

                    3. @Kirk: He was focusing on immigrant women with poor English. I suspect some of them thought of that, but then figured they’d get in even more trouble for that.

                      And given Canada, they were probably right. They would have faced assault charges.

                    4. Consider, as well, that a significant number of women working in such places are likely “present without papers” and working those jobs to pay off importation debt.

                      It seems to me I’ve seen reporting on that; it isn’t as bad as with massage parlors but it isn’t good, either.

                    5. @ Herb and RES…

                      I don’t think you know the demographic as well as you think… Some of those little “harmless” Vietnamese and Korean gals who work in those places and who have “questionable” papers are not the pushovers a lot of folks think they are.

                      I remember a guy in Tacoma, gang-banger, who thought it was great sport to rob nail salons and such-like. Got away with just walking in and demanding money… About 8 times, if I remember right. The ninth time, he ran into a nail lady who’d been in the camps in Vietnam, she said no, he threatened her, she proceeded to inflict severe and lasting damage on him with chemicals and whatever else she had to hand. The cops came, picked him up, and he went immediately to the hospital where I think they managed to save about 10% of his eyesight in one eye. She remained unapologetic in the aftermath: “He rob me! I work hard, he come and rob me? Damn right I f**k him up! He blind now? Too bad–He no should rob me, get job!”.

                      I am uncertain as to what she used, but it was pretty caustic. That guy looked like someone had thrown acid in his face at his eventual court proceedings. I saw him when I was down at the Pierce County Courthouse with one of my guys taking care of a summons he’d gotten, and it was remarkable enough that I had to ask the guy who was escorting him what the hell had happened. Sorry bastard looked about like you’d expect someone to, after a facefull of god-knows-what. May have been drain cleaner, or something. The lady he’d threatened couldn’t have been more than about four-foot-eight, or so, and maybe 90lbs? Him being taller than I am and about 230lbs did him no good whatsoever…

                      You are gonna get away with bullying those girls a certain number of times, and then you’re gonna wish to hell the idea had never occurred to you. Korean ladies like their knives, and the Vietnamese are awfully prone to grabbing whatever is to hand, and then taking after their targets like small furious whirlwinds of destruction. I would not ask them to do anything at all that they don’t want to do already. I sure as hell would not threaten or attack one in any way. Absolutely not the path of wisdom.

                      I’ve always kinda wondered if anyone tracked spousal abuse in those communities, because much like the Filipinas I know, I am pretty sure that it would not be safe to ever fall asleep in that household again, were you to be so foolish. Same with the Thai ladies–They like to cut things that offend them right the hell off.

                  3. I’m with you. I can handle Blair White but the other types are just setting off threat signals.

                    1. I’m not familiar with Blaire White, but Wendy Carlos is in that category for me. Wiki says that the success of Switched-On Bach made it financially possible for her to do the transition (done in 1972, not publicized until ’79).

                  4. But if you challenge my femininity in a way I must respond? I will pull back. It might just be so I can slap you, or gut you, but I’ll pull back.

                    Actually, you’re hitting on one of my radars, being in a community with a lot of people who mess around with gender expression/roles.

                    Yes, stereotypes are stereotypes, but if you plan on playing on the “other team” I expect and will grade on conformance to stereotypes. If all you want to do is dress in the other’s clothes, just do it but don’t expect gender role treatment without gender role behavior.

                    All those “how to pass” and “avoid this 4 mtf movement mistakes” articles and books exist for a reason. That’s because “getting made” is a huge embarrassment.

                    The “it’s Ma’am” guy is just a crazy and dangerous person trying to ride on someone else’s real efforts.

                    In the end, though, I have sympathy for a lot of people who identify with this:

                    1. Put in effort and it drops the red flags a bit. If wasn’t for the creeps it would go a very long way towards making more ‘normal’ and less worrisome. But the idea of responsibility and rights being two sides of coin is gone.

              2. If it’s the same one I saw, it would be the large, apparently unhinged person screaming aggressively in my face that would have triggered (heh) the ‘shoot it. burn it. and bury the ashes’ impulse.

                1. Good point, but I’d have that reaction to a woman doing the same thing. Physical threat is physical threat.

                  But it wouldn’t trigger the same “predator” reaction.

            2. Two or so years ago someone wondered what the fandom ratio was wrt born with danglies and without. Of course it’s significantly the former, but there was a loud hue and cry over how mtf were women, dammit. But that shut the question down.

              Sadly same would happen in science today

  11. The main argument I’ve heard as to why they’re different is that Hitler imprisoned communists and socialists. Thus, clearly they were on different teams. That’s true but in the sense that the Yankees and the Red Soxs are on different teams: they may be rivals but they’re clearly playing the same game.

    1. You just made me realize that the folks I’ve heard make that argument oddly never apply it to all the priests he had locked up; that he may have been an altar boy at some point PROVES that Nazism should be pinned on the Christians.

          1. does Orthodox have altar boys? (and isn’t Georgia primarily Orthodox Christian?)
            My cuz was one for a long time, and at his mom’s funeral he spent a lot of time apologizing for his actions as a kid/teen to all those who came and he’d not seen since his teens.
            Yeah, he was an altar boy until 18,
            also a con artist
            abusive “practical” joker (most often the victim suffered pain from his “jokes”)

            1. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

              Had a buddy who was an altarboy, but somehow managed to tune out everything Catholic, ever. His family was not like that at all. (To be fair, he was an instrumental musician who did not discover instruments until almost adulthood. That is a lot of years of tuning stuff out.)

  12. The biggest “Nazis and fascists are right-wing” came from Stalin to explain away why he entered a treaty with Hitler when both knew it was going to be war between the two of them. Germany was their “cousin in socialism” until Hitler kicked off the fighting ahead of Stalin’s preferred timeline. Then it was “They turned right-wing on us!”

  13. I think Sarah’s point is, Fascism and Socialism (soft Communism) are fundamentally the same, both are totalitarian in that someone has decided to make all your decisions for you; and the only choice you have is to comply, or die.

    What far too many Americans don’t see is that the network of federal, state, and local regulations has effectively reduced the U.S. to a fascist state. Complain all they want, the Left can not deny that Trump’s relaxation and elimination of regulations hasn’t stimulated the economy. Some of that improvement is attributable to just feelings of confidence in the government not being about to confiscate all their profits; but most of it is due to increased opportunities.

    That’s also why it’s important that you take part in your local politics. Get on those boards and take a close look at the regulations in place or being proposed. Look at who benefits from them, and who pays for them (both in taxation, and in fees or lost opportunities.) When possible, get rid of them, and document WHY they were removed so the buggers don’t re-enact them later,

  14. Considering that quite a few people seem utterly convinced that the definition of “totalitarian” is “won’t let me be the boss of you.”

  15. To understand that, you need to go back to the beginning and how each theory sold itself.

    There is also the fact the fascists, in their origin, accepted a key failure of Marxist thinking:

    Marx, the father of most (even he couldn’t manage all) bad ideas thought workers of different lands had more in common with each other than with the “capitalists” of their own land, and therefore would unite across all borders and study war no more.

    Fascism is born out of reality more than Marxism in this one fact. They looked at 1914 and what it wrought and accepted it as true. Their theories aren’t much more in touch with reality than Marxists, but on that narrow sliver, that a coherent people have more in common with each other than with those in other peoples, they are just that much closer to reality.

    Meanwhile, Marxism went wandering through Gramsci and his theory of false consciousness. In fact, we are seeing a repeat of that with their adoption of “brown people are good; white people are bad.” It means the Marxist can’t explain a Condoleezza Rice or even a Kayne West.

    So what do we hear? We hear Marxists call non-Marxist brown people “Oreo” or “inauthentic”.

    Basically, even after adopting the fascist’s shtick, race, they can’t accept the reality the fascists did, that all “X” don’t think alike, be it workers or women or people with tans.

    It is why Mussolini, for all his failing, and Hitler could meld nations into a coherent force and commit suicide in search of glory while Marxists can’t just commit the slow suicide of a morphine drip of open borders.

    It is also why it is easier to present fascists are an imminent threat, because their fuel is something real that most people experience and thus can feel the danger of it, while Marxists are easy to shrug off as loons.

    1. So what do we hear? We hear Marxists call non-Marxist brown people “Oreo” or “inauthentic”.

      Oreo, coconut, banana … odd how the people using such invective now are largely indistinguishable from those who deployed the various ethnic slurs generally represented as “the N-word.” They elect themselves entitled to define others.

        1. [Raises eyebrow]

          Oreo and coconut I can see (both light and black/brown portions), but banana and apple? How does that work?

          1. It is difficult to warp one’s head in that way.

            Banana = Oriental-American = yellow on the outside, white interior

            Apple = Amerindian-American = red on the outside, white interior (Note: discriminates against Golden Delicious and Granny Smith apples)

            1. ‘Granny’, short for Granny Smith apple – fully acculturated Martian; green on the outside, white on the inside.

          2. Banana likely means “Asia (yellow) on the outside, White on the inside”.

            Apple likely means “American Indian (red) on the outside, White on the inside”.

      1. On the subject of food analogies, I don’t recall where I read it (I think it might have been in Leonard Peikoff’s The Ominous Parallels), but during the street fighting in Weimar Germany during the 1920s, pro-Nazi thugs were said sometimes to change sides when their Communist rivals had the upper hand. These turnshirts apparently were referred to as “Beefsteaks” (Brown on the outside, Red on the inside).

        An equivalent epithet for today’s environmentalists is “Watermelons” (Green on the outside, Red on the inside).

        1. I’ve run across very generous depictions of ex-Communists in Nazi propaganda. Usually low-ranking, but the Nazis had no problem describing a fight (Communists attacking of course) and having it end with one Communist coming over to their side and being made welcome.

    2. Benito was at first a Marxist, and decided it would not work, so tried to drop that which he felt was going to fail and keep that he wanted and thought would work.

  16. And the red turns black as the blood dries.

    Excuse for a musical interlude 🙂

    This heart is black
    Like blood that has dried

      1. That’s a good one, but I’m not as keen on the lyrics. I think The Human Contradiction is the stronger album.

        And just picked up tickets to see them next month with Amorphis along with Anneke van Giersbergen.

        1. It would require very little effort to craft an argument that Fashion is an inherently Fascist business.

          One could easily base a whole field of studies on analysis of Fascist messages in Funny Face, The Devil Wears Prada and other film depictions of that industry.

          Of course, one could “base a whole field of studies” on nearly any nonsense these days.

          1. World of Warcraft had a short storyline that focused on a group that was a parody of the Nazis. They were all adherents of an ideology called…



            1. Not to mention that the leader had a pet turkey named Gobbles and threw a fit when the numbers came out wrong yelling “Nine! Nine nine nine nine nine!”

          2. Of course, one could “base a whole field of studies” on nearly any nonsense these days.

            Yes, but yours sounds like entertaining nonsense at least which allows the viewing of funny movies, attractive women (and men), and not being hectored so much.

    1. There is another. The skin heads were never a real problem and they could never be one. Why?? A John Ringo said they could not march in step.

      It is the same reason Commies have problem, they cannot march in step either. Until of course they take power, THEN all people will march in step and the military will goose step.

  17. If we must use “left and right” and we’re stuck with it, since the left is so gosh darn proud of calling itself left, which it equates to everything good, let’s use it in the American sense. Left is collectivist. Right is individualist.

    Basically, anyways.

    I’ve got a half-thought* about how the “right” is conservative, and the “left” revolutionary, wanting to change things. And in America, that’s basically individualist– basically, though. It still recognizes the biological being element of the individual, while holding us the individual as the base unit…even our revolution was not to try to CHANGE things, but to try to KEEP our rights as Englishmen.

    ….I don’t think I’m making much sense. Eh.

    *yes, that’s a straightline; but I shan’t complain to be called samwise.

    1. “To keep our Rights as Englishmen”.

      True and we had “governments” in place to take over after we “Kicked Britain Out”.

      IE We didn’t have the standard “Revolutionary” problem of creating a new government after over-throwing the old government.

      Our biggest problem was finding a way for Thirteen Independent Governments to come together as one Nation.

      1. By comparison, it was a simple matter to defeat the British and terrorize their adherents into leaving America.

      2. That is something that distorts political thinking to this day; the simple fact that the American Rebellion wasn’t a Revolution. The Colonies were not fighting against the status quo. They were fighting FOR it. They had been largely self-governing for a long time, and saw no reason not to continue to be so. Certainly not at the behest of a government that gave them no voice in their own affairs.

        True Revolutions tend to result in tyranny because they break down the structure of society, and create a vacuum into which a Napoleon or a Stalin can step.

        But by calling the American Rebellion a Revolution the unfounded expectation is raised that a Revolution along normal lines can produce a Democratic or at least Republican society.

        1. The American Revolution is closer to a colonial “war of liberation” than an actual revolution. It had more to do with removing the influence of a foreign government over changing the existing government structure.
          It’s also unique in that the general underlying ideals were more Liberal and Individualistic, instead of the Radical Egalitarian nonsense that has infested and corrupted the following revolutions since.

    2. It’s not true nowadays. The left in the US is conservative. They want to CONSERVE the Marxist status quo of a century.
      In fact, Marxism is inherently conservative, taking us back to classes and groups as the operating units and mere individuals as insignificant.
      While there’s argument on whether the American revolution was truly revolutionary in terms of war, etc. IT WAS the most revolutionary thing in the history of mankind after Judaism/Christiniaty.
      All of them put the PERSON at the center. And for humans, who are social apes and inherently TRIBAL that’s the most revolutionary thing there is.

  18. … in its final phase this devolves to suicide through open borders and a pathological hatred of your own country

    I think that is merely one weapon used against resistant societies, weaponizing their own compassion against them and destroying the national identity necessary for Democratic Republican identity. Think of it as the ebola in their weapons pack.

    In other societies they use other weapons, such as their “fat relocation procedures” (taking wealth from healthy parts of the body politic and transfers it to unhealthy regions) as used in Venezuela. Or, as in Eastern Europe, they promoted clinical depression.

    The critical component is destroying societal health, weakening resistance to their social virus — the how is merely one route to their destination.

  19. Nazis are on the Right because the Wester Left desperately NEEDED them to be on the Right. That way the Left could distance themselves from the Nazis and pretend (just as hard as they could) that they had NEVER been fans of evil like eugenics, and NEVER supported mass murder as a school of statecraft.

    Mind you, the pretense got real threadbare.

  20. The left-right designation is of little utility. A better way to look at any culture is to ask 5 questions.
    1. Who’s in charge here?
    2. To whom do I report?
    3. What are the rules of this outfit?
    4. What do I get for obeying or disobeying?
    5. What does the future hold?

    Each question can also be followed up with “Why is this so?”

    Another way to look at systems is to ask what decisions am I, as an individual, free to make without government coercion. Also, what recourse do I have if my freedom is violated. The most pertinent areas being:
    Economic decisions
    Religious decisions
    Political decisions
    Family and associational decisions

    1. 1. Who’s in charge here?
      Me, or nobody. Take your pick.
      2. To whom do I report?
      Myself, or my spouse.
      3. What are the rules of this outfit?
      Be Excellent to One Another!
      4. What do I get for obeying or disobeying?
      Left alone or we jump all over your shit.
      5. What does the future hold?
      Whatever you want to build.

    2. If the people in charge can kill you for disagreeing, it doesn’t matter if they’re Left or Right. Arguing about which they are just hides the fact that they’re horrible.

      1. As any system ossifies, the bureaucracy becomes the real authority. The bureaucracy is bound by their own rules because the rules and regulations give them concrete proof of their authority and their personal adherence to the requirements of the system. This was used in the Soviet Union by prisoners using official forms and procedures to turn the bureaucracy against itself.
        My point being that even vicious systems require a hierarchy to implement policies. Those hierarchies ultimately require the total acquiescence of citizens. If you understand the professed and real answers to those questions then you’re on your way to overcoming an evil system, repairing a broken system, improving a liveable system, or designing a new system.

        1. The two unspoken Rules that ALWAYS operate in a Bureaucracy are Parkinson’s Law and The Peter Principal. This is why Bureaucracy unchecked by any other force will always metastasize, will never catch up with its workload, and will always rot from the top down.

          1. C. Northcote Parkinson was a real person, and “Parkinson’s Law” is a real book, based more or less on his time with the British Colonial Service in Malaya.

            Think of Scott Adams crossed with Niccolo Machiavelli… if you’ve ever worked in a large organization, your neck will start to hurt as your head bobs up and down.

            1. Oh, I know Parkinson was a real person. I have read PARKINSON’S LAW, THE LAW AND THE PROFITS, INLAWS AND OUTLAWS AND PARKINSON’S THIRD LAW, and THE FUR LINED MOUSETRAP. Lawrence J. Peter was also a real person, and I have read THE PETER PRINCIPAL. My folks had odd taste in books. I grew up reading THE SPACE CHILD’S MOTHER GOOSE, MOLESWORTH’S GUIDE TO THE ATOMIC AGE, and other such curiosa.

                1. One thing I do miss about the pre-internet used book market; Bookfinder man be able to locate any book you want, but browsing the actual shelves of an actual used book store lets you stumble on books you want that you never even HEARD of.

                  Examples: THE ROADS TO SATA, and BED, BREAKFAST, AND BOTTLED WATER.

                  Or the history of automotive travel that the AAA published on their 50th anniversary.

                  Or C/O POSTMASTER

                1. I ran into it about the same time. I met it originally in Psychology Today where they had an excellent summary and a bound in game where your goal was to rise to your level of incompetence. I think 3M/Avalon Hill actually turned it into a boxed game at some point. I finally read it junior year in high school so like 15? It really does explain a lot of how corporate style hierarchies happen.

      2. “When the boot of the State is stomping you in the face, do you really care if it’s the left boot or the right boot? “

  21. … the left isn’t all about reason.

    Sure they are. If by “reason” you include phrenology, astrology, lysenkoism, anthroprogenic climate change, and a general inability to distinguish cause from effect, correlation from causation and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

  22. Sarah, I seldom comment, because, mostly, I’d just be saying, “Wow, that’s great!”
    But, “It’s just that the communist sanctifies envy, and the fascist sanctifies pride.” is great. 🙂

  23. My grok is that the “Nazis are right wing” thing goes all the way back to their early days of trying to differentiate their socialism from Stalinesque socialism. But it’s a very narrow gap (I often jape that the only difference between National Socialism and International Socialism is which way the government’s guns are initially pointed).

    Here’s a good video on National Socialist economic theory, with quotes straight from the horse’s mouth. (Be patient, he does get into it.)

  24. Off topic, does anyone know how to restore the comments on Instapundit? I got a windows update (unwanted) and the comments are empty so I cannot read them. Feel free to write to my email please.

    Enjoyed all of the comments and agreed with them. On topic, for the first time in my life I am going to live in an HOA community. Talk about controlling. Whee. (Little old lady who can no longer live away from it all on 15 acres in the country.) I can see where I may be going to be very, very quiet…thank heavens for this blog and others. One can feel awfully lonely sometimes.

    1. There are scads of stories about HOAs, some of them pretty funny. My favorite, to date, concerned a man who had been denied the right to put up a fence he needed. The nest HOA meeting, he informed them that he intended to erect a forty foot HAM radio mast, and that because of an old Federal law intended to encourage amateur radio, they could not stop him. They came to an agreement about his fence.

  25. Except of course, the left isn’t all about reason. There’s nothing sane or scientific about the hells communism creates on the Earth.

    And Karl Marx committed fraud, omitting from his Das Kapital all evidence that undermined his theory. That’s about as anti-science as you can get.

Comments are closed.