Attacking Trump: Storm Troopers of the Left Successfully Suppress Free Speech by Force

American Fascists

Silencing Dissent: Fascism and Mind Rot

It is uncharacteristic of conservatives to be this blunt. But the time has come.

Twentieth Century Identity and Class War

It's ironic; those who bleat about not victim-shaming or denialism are also the ones who promote anti-Semitism. Some are even holocaust deniers, and these should be directed to the following:

"'Bookkeeper of Auschwitz' tells court he once spent 24 HOURS watching Jewish families separated to be either killed or used in medical experiments as he faces charges of accessory to 300,000 murders

Oskar Groening is being tried on 300,000 counts of accessory to murder

The former SS officer described how Jews were marched to gas chambers

One survivor, Eva Kor, told of her agony as her mother was ripped from her

"A former SS sergeant described how so many Jews were brought to the Auschwitz death camp at once that he was put on a 24-hour shift guarding the ramp where they disembarked from the trains.

He told in chilling detail how cattle cars full of Jews were brought to the Auschwitz death camp, the people stripped of their belongings and then most led directly into gas chambers.

Oskar Groening is being tried on 300,000 counts of accessory to murder, related to a period between May and July 1944 when around 425,000 Jews from Hungary were brought to the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex in Nazi-occupied Poland and most immediately gassed to death.

During that period, so many trains were arriving that often two would have to wait with closed doors as the first was 'processed,' Groening testified at the Lueneburg state court."

Class and identity war is not new; it has been done to death. It is marked by one salient feature: they are better than you and I are.

Michelle Malkin: Nail Meet Head

According to Michelle:

GLAAD has worked tirelessly to marginalize and suppress the free speech of Christian leaders, Christian businesses and conservative talk-radio hosts dating back to their infamous Dr. Laura boycott 13 years ago. The group’s mission is not about equality or defending against “defamation.” It’s about silencing critics, making open debate radioactive, demonizing people of faith and making even the slightest perceived slight a hate crime.

Last year, GLAAD speech-squelchers issued a blacklist of 34 Christian commentators they wanted networks to ban from their air for “extreme” views (read: opposing gay marriage). Earlier this year, GLAAD attacked the National Geographic Channel for partnering with the traditional values-promoting Boy Scouts on a reality TV program. GLAAD is free to start its own Gay Scouts, but instead chose to harangue NatGeo for refusing to run a “disclaimer” at the beginning of each show condemning the Boy Scouts’ leadership policies.

It’s not enough to live and let live. You must repent and genuflect before the self-serving gods of selective progressivism. That’s why GLAAD forgave Hollywood director Brett Ratner for using the word “fag.” He was allowed back into the protected Hollywood club after submitting to GLAAD reeducation camp and appearing in GLAAD public service announcements. Bill Clinton, who authored both the Defense of Marriage Act and the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policies so reviled by the homosexual lobby, ended up receiving a GLAAD “Advocate for Change” award earlier this year — for changing his mind when politically expedient.

For the civility police, the operational motto is always: “Do as we say, not as we do, in the name of social justice. Amen.”

In the 1960s, radical philosopher Herbert Marcuse popularized the “repressive tolerance” theory of modern progressives. “Liberating tolerance would mean intolerance against movements from the right and toleration of movements from the left,” Marcuse pontificated. “Certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed.”

The tolerance mob’s insatiable quest for power and control has led to such unhinged witch-hunting that many of its own erstwhile allies are balking. Novelist Bret Easton Ellis called GLAAD the “gatekeepers of politically correct gayness.” He was attacked as a “self-loathing gay man,” but unlike A&E, he didn’t give in. “An organization holding an awards ceremony that they think represents all gays and also feels they can choose which gays can and cannot be a member of the party is, on the face of it, ridiculous.”

The liberal The Atlantic magazine recounted how GLAAD invited Fox News anchors Kimberly Guilfoyle and Jamie Colby to a New York event and then issued a press release condemning them and their employer after the network failed to cough up big donations for gala tables. Wrote the Atlantic’s James Kirchick: “Aside from raising money to perpetuate its own existence and throwing swanky parties (the event feting Bill Clinton was one of three different media-award ceremonies, with others in New York and San Francisco), GLAAD has no purpose. That is, unless one views it not as a gay-rights organization but rather a partisan liberal one.”

Nail, meet head. GLAAD’s counterculture warriors know full well: It’s a small leap from forcing Phil Robertson, the Boy Scouts and Rush Limbaugh out of the public square to forcing wedding photographers and cake bakers to serve gay customers against their will and mandating that Catholic medical providers and Hobby Lobby violate their religious conscience and cover abortion pills in order to stay in business.

These GLAAD tidings have everything to do with repression and nothing to do with rights.

De-Normalization By Leftist Thuggery

The origin of normalization of any and all sexual activity was with the Kinsey report, which conceptually normalized sexual behaviors by claiming that they exist along a spectrum of "normal behaviors". The concept of culturally normalizing homosexuality was publicized in the book, "After The Ball", by Kirk and Madsen. Using Alinsky style techniques, homosexuals would ultimately place themselves into the position of being, rather than a disorder, a normal sexual and social state of human existence. Further, they are Victims. In other words, they would force society to normalize homosexuality.

This requires the de-normalization of all criticism of homosexuality, of course; there is to be no tolerance of dissent. Dissent is Oppression of the perpetual Victims. And that means the demonization of critics in the pursuit of destroying them as a message to other, lurking, critics. Criticism is to be jackbooted into non-existence.

The homosexual jackbooting was especially visible during the Prop 8 debacle in California, where actual violence and threats of ever more violence against dissenters resulted from a democratic vote in which the homosexuals did not get the normalization which they demanded. It was demonstrated again during the vandalism of Chik Fil A and the shooting at FRC.

So now they have have been normalized, and it is literally hazardous to express a dissenting opinion. It is no accident that thought crime laws started up as repression tactics for the normalization of homosexuality and the denormalization of dissent.

When thought crimes are normalized as acceptable tactics, then the totalitarians have also normalized jackbooting. It is now the common homosexual reaction to dissent.

Helen Thomas: Promoter of Palestinian Hegemony Over Jews and Israel

I have been challenged to support my characterization of Helen Thomas as fascist. I will do that.

Helen Thomas was the first woman to do many things in journalism. She achieved acclaim merely due to that, but mostly due to her longevity as a White House correspondent. She did perform, apparently, as journalists are supposed to, by asking some hard questions now and again.

She has been given two types of legacy: one by the Left, and one by the Jews she despised.

She probably deserves both.

My take is that she had a strong emotional affiliation with the Palestinians which was somehow associated with her (admitted) Syrian/Lebanese heritage. Her placement in the White House and her long and close association with people in world-wide power gave her an extraordinary opportunity to foist her opinions on governmental policy – an abuse of journalism.

In order to understand Thomas and my personal characterization of her attitude, the history of the Palestine / Israeli region must be understood, especially the dominance of the Palestinians by fascist attitudes which they did not have prior to WWII, at least not in the degree to which they were introduced during that period.

Al Husseini, the Uncle of Yasser Arafat, and the Founder of the Muslim Brotherhood:

It is necessary to understand the history of the Palestinians and their relationship to the fascism of Europe. The Palestinians have a fascist history going back to WWII, when Arafat’s uncle, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husseini, became an affiliate of Hitler. He was influential in the war with the Muslim Nazis, forming the Muslim Hanzar (Hanchar) Division of the SS in Bosnia.

On 1 March 1944, while speaking on Radio Berlin, al-Husseini said:

'Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.'
(Note 1)

He retained his influence in the Arab world after the war, being instrumental in the formation of the Arab League. He travelled throughout the Middle East, spreading fascism and antisemitism.

Al Huseini’s nephew, Yasser Arafat – full name: Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini - founded the PLO and FATAH and Black September.

Although they enjoy separate land and self—government, the Palestinians have refused to be granted sovereign statehood several times, because those international promises did not include all of what is now Israel and especially 100% of old Jerusalem in the proposed lands and hands of Palestinians.

The Palestinians remain fascist genocidal anti-Semite terrorists. It should be noted that all nationalities coexist peacefully within Israel’s borders, including Arabs. This is not the case in Palestine. Part of the Palestinian Hamas Charter contains this Qu’ran Hadith:

“Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).”

This is directly preceded in the document by a declaration of association with the Muslim Brotherhood:

”The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.”

There is to be no peace with the Jews. Even the concept of “hudna” as a ceasefire is a ploy of Muslim warfare, because it actually refers to a restocking and rearming period.

CAIR in the USA is a part of the Muslim Brotherhood, and is defined as terrorist by FBI Director Robert Mueller, although the Obama administration does not.

”FBI Chief: Muslim Brotherhood Supports Terrorism
IPT News
February 10, 2011

Elements of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group whose ideology has inspired terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, are in the United States and have supported terrorism here and overseas, FBI Director Robert Mueller told a House committee Thursday.

Mueller joined seven other Obama administration intelligence and law enforcement officials at a hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. They spoke of the Brotherhood's U.S. ties as word spread in Egypt that President Hosni Mubarak was prepared to resign. Mubarak has repeatedly said his administration, in place since 1981, is the one thing keeping an Islamic state led by the Brotherhood from taking over Egypt.

While Mueller, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and other witnesses spelled out a variety of threats, they and some committee members highlighted the Brotherhood's ties in the United States. It was a significant departure from earlier hearings, which focused on groups more directly involved with terrorism.

"I'm concerned that the Muslim Brotherhood is using peaceful protests in Egypt for a power grab, and our government doesn't seem to grasp their threat," Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., told the committee and the witnesses. "The Muslim Brotherhood isn't a danger because they are terrorists, but because they push an extremist ideology that causes others to commit acts of terrorism."

Clapper agreed that "there are entities associated with the Muslim Brotherhood here in the United States." Mueller told Myrick that he would provide the committee with greater detail on the Brotherhood's activities in closed session.

However, Clapper also characterized the Brotherhood in Egypt as a mostly secular umbrella organization. "The term 'Muslim Brotherhood'...is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam," Clapper said in response to a question from Myrick. "They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera.....In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally."

Clapper's "secular" reference is odd, given the Brotherhood's motto is "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

In a statement issued after the hearing, Myrick expressed astonishment at Clapper's assessment. ""Either the Administration doesn't know who the Muslim Brotherhood is, which shows incompetence," she said, "or they are apologizing for them, which is inappropriate for those in charge of protecting the American people. Let's be clear – the Muslim Brotherhood is NOT secular."

Mueller and Myrick are right; Clapper is dead wrong, and history was quick to distinguish that fact.

The Palestine-originated Muslim Brotherhood, along with Bin Laden, is instrumental in radicalizing Chechnya, which produced the terrorists who slaughtered some 300 children at Beslan, ( note 2) and produced the Boston Marathon Bombers.

The full details of the radical fascism endemic to Palestinian leadership and the organizations spawned there are readily accessible for further study for those who wish to go deeper. (Note 3) Read also how it was that the Palestinian regions were created, and why.

Back to Helen Thomas: She has been a full-throated supporter of the continual Palestinian aggression against Israel, characterizing the Palestinians as victims and Jews as oppressors. For that reason, and the history of Palestinian fascism given above, I associate her with fascist anti-Semitism.


NOTES:

Note 1: From several sources via Wikipedia, including: Sachar, Howard Morley (1961). Aliyah: The People of Israel. World Publishing Company.

Note 2: John Giduck; “Terror at Beslan”; 2005, Archangel Group.

Note 3: Gaubatz and Sperry; "Muslim Mafia"; 2009, Midpoint Trade Books.

Kamal Saleem (psuedonym);"Blood of the Lambs"; 2009, Howard Books.

Glazer; "United In Hate -The Left's Romance With Tyranny and Terror"; WND Books.

Tolerant AtheoLeftists Hate Rants Captured By Twitchy

Chik fil A had a banner day yesterday, as customers stood in lines for hours during Chik fil A Appreciation Day. Chik fil A has a different opinion than the AtheoLeft, and that is driving the AtheoLeft to distraction, charging Chik fil A with general EEEvilness due to being out of the AtheoLeftist fold and control. Chik fil A's crime? Supporting the core male-female parent family. That support offends the sensibilities of the AtheoLeft and homosexuals who obviously do NOT support such a hideous concept, and deem it unconsionable and IMMORAL (regardless of their general lack of moral absolutes). The following is a video which surely will enrage AtheoLeftists (note to them - get your doctor's permission before viewing this video):



AtheoLeftists took to Twitter yesterday with their wishes for death and suffering for the EEEvil nonconformists who are not part of their own opinionated group. Some of these were accumulated on Twitchy for your perusal.

Also in the news is the intent to pursue the government interventionists who threatened Chik fil A and then recanted under pressure. They were likened to a mugger who gives back your wallet and watch when a bystander pulls a gun on him: the crime is not obliterated by backpedalling when you discover that you are caught out in the open. This part is great:

"Moreno categorically denied violating state law and accused the GOP of “political grandstanding.

The alderman also rescinded the threat he made last week to keep Chick-fil-A out of his ward."

Political Grandstanding. That's rich! It's as if there is no self-awareness for these folks.

Addendum: The Cluck Heard 'Round the World!

Not Black Enough: Kenneth Gladney's Race is Revoked.

Remember Kenneth Gladney? He was the black man who was selling American flags at a Tea Party rally, who was beaten to the ground by white SEIU thugs. Now the NAACP explains why they didn't and don't care:

Gladney is not black enough. He is an Uncle Tom.

This has nothing to do with skin color or genetic inheritance. "Not black enough" and "Uncle Tom" mean that Gladney did the unpardonable, for which his race has been rescinded: he is no longer black. What Gladney actually did was to leave the "Democrat plantation" as one commenter put it. He left the brotherhood of perpetual victims and sops for government treasure, therefore he is no longer a brother.

To display independence of action and thought is unpardonable and therefore indefensible, especially if it threatens the cash flow into the culture. What the NAACP is defending is the right of Leftists of any color to beat senseless anyone who rises out of the Culture of Victimhood. The fact that the assailant has not been prosecuted, and the fact that there are rallies in the defense of the assailant, speaks volumes about the culture of the Left in the USA today.

These are Obama's people: SEIU thugs. They responded to his charge to "hit back twice as hard". He made no statements chastising his own people, as he did criticising the police who legitimately challenged a bellicose black professor. Obama's silence here is a racial, Victimhood statement in itself. He is quick to endorse activism, and slow-to-never condemns violence against his opposition. In fact, as in the infamous Black Panther case, the racism and endorsement of violence is overt.

Once again I recommend the book, "The Big Black Lie: How I Learned the Truth About the Democrat Party", by Kevin Jackson. Jackson is another ex-black who rejected the internal culture of victimhood (and racial hatred) in black society.

Normally blacks are accorded automatic certification of the moral certitude of their opinions due to the inherited pain of, well, being black. So when a black's opinion doesn't fit the Victimhood narrative, then that person is not black enough to be black. The Left revokes his race.

Rationality is not part of the narrative; preservation of the co-dependent benefactor-victim relationship is the narrative. And it is all on other people's money of course.

Anti-Semitism and the Left

Anti-Semitism is coming more and more to the fore in Leftist activism, having been increasingly enabled by Obama’s own coldness to Israel and pusillanimous approaches to a violent Gaza and a nuclear Iran, while bowing to every Muslim potentate that he sees. The Left has a designated week called “Israeli Apartheid Week”, to punish Israel for a crime it does not commit: Apartheid. Israel is home to Arabs as well as Jews.

It is the Iranian-supported Muslim Palestinians, of course, who will not tolerate non-Muslims, who have vowed to eradicate Israel and all Jews, who use Hudna to restock their rocket and arms supplies, not to establish any sort of peaceful coexistence. Have they shown any indication of being a peaceable neighbor, one with which any sane non-Muslim nation would want to have open borders?

Every non-Muslim nation with a sizable Muslim sub-population can now attest to the quality of freedom in dealing with this demographic. Islam, per the Qur’an, is not tolerant…. period. This places them in the position of being able to corrupt the laws of tolerance, and to abuse their critics and expand their power, as is the focus of Canadian tribunals. If that fails, riots erupt, as Europe can attest.

Why is the Left so enamored of such behavior? As Goldberg, Sowell and many others have shown, the Left is the repository of modern fascism. And the religious form of fascism is Islam, a fact noted even by Leftist Atheist Onfrey. The Palestians have undeniable historic ties to Hitler and National Socialist fascism.

As direct and undeniable as these links to fascism seem to be, the Left brazenly charges Israel with the very crimes it wants to commit:

”As Jonathan Tobin points out, the official goal of the Middle East "peace process" is a "two-state solution", in one of which Muslims live alongside Jews and have voting rights and representation in the legislature, while in the other there are no Jews at all and, as in "moderate" Jordan, to sell your house to a Jew is a crime punishable by death. There goes the neighborhood, right? When the western campus left holds its annual "Israeli Apartheid Week", presumably it's in philosophical support of the notion that you don't need to run an "apartheid" system if you just get rid of everyone who's not like you.

If Muslims are so revolted by Jews that they cannot tolerate any living among them, well, they're free to believe what they want. What is less understandable is the present position of the United States government. The President and his Secretary of State have made it very clear that they regard a few dozen housing units in Jerusalem as a far greater threat to Middle East peace than the Iranian nuclear program. Why is it in the interest of the United States to validate, enthusiastically, the most explicit and crudest bigotry of the Palestinian "cause"?”

It is not the in the interest of the United States of course, it is in the interest of the Leftist socialist manipulators working feverishly to demolish Western institutions that promote bottom-up control of government. Israel qualifies for demolition. Along with all Western democracies, also under attack.
The Left will come to regret its intransigence (Dawkins already is on that path it appears). The reason is that the socialist Left will be surprised that it is not in charge after the dust of the demolition of Western culture clears. Ayatollahs will be. And a Leftist socialista is just another infidel.

Alinsky-Cloward-Piven-Obama: Finally it has a Name

I admit to not being familiar with Cloward-Piven until recently. These contemporaries of Saul Alinsky were socialist activists with a plan. The actual objectives of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, as it is now called, were not as wide sweeping as the nation’s Leftist political strategists of today are enjoying. But the strategy has worked and it is still viable for the bigger picture under Obama. Cloward-Piven wanted a single objective: a guaranteed universal living wage. This would end poverty, and the morality of that end justified any means to get it.

In order to get such a thing, they proposed to overload the welfare system with double the number of poor people demanding their entitlement “rights”. This would overload the system, eventually crashing it. The result would bring the poverty stricken minorities together in angry, chaotic strikes at the remaining bureaucracies. The Leftist journalism outlets would generate sympathy for the poor, both in the general populace and in the government. In the chaos of the crisis caused by the deliberate system crash, politicians would suddenly see that a guaranteed universal living wage was the only solution.

The Cloward-Piven "manifesto" is reprinted at discoverthenetworks.com:

”A series of welfare drives in large cities would, we believe, impel action on a new federal program to distribute income, eliminating the present public welfare system and alleviating the abject poverty which it perpetrates. Widespread campaigns to register the eligible poor for welfare aid, and to help existing recipients obtain their full benefits, would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments. These disruptions would generate severe political strains, and deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be con-strained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas. By the internal disruption of local bureaucratic practices, by the furor over public welfare poverty, and by the collapse of current financing arrangements, powerful forces can be generated for major economic reforms at the national level.”


The ultimate aim of this strategy is a new program for direct income distribution. What reason is there to expect that the federal government will enact such legislation in response to a crisis in the welfare system?

We ordinarily think of major legislation as taking form only through established electoral processes We tend to overlook the force of crisis in precipitating legislative reform, partly because we lack a theoretical framework by which to understand the impact of major disruptions.

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention. Public trouble is a political liability, it calls for action by political leaders to stabilize the situation. Because crisis usually creates or exposes conflict, it threatens to produce cleavages in a political consensus which politicians will ordinarily act to avert."

How could they have anticipated their good fortune to have an Alinsky organizer elected president – by huge minority support – as well as a Democratic congress so controlled that even filibuster was ruled out, at least for Obama’s first year. Plus the existing crisis of collapsing financing and economic systems brought on by purposeful “American Dream” legislation which seemed to be actually designed to create collapse, what more could a crisis strategist want?

With every federal move destined to exacerbate the crisis, and grabbing more means through health care “reform” to create a new crisis, Alinsky-Cloward-Pimm-Obama (ACPO) seemed destined for success.

When viewed in light of this type of strategy, a great preponderance of Democratic moves make sense. And even if the great collapse doesn’t come immediately, the momentum toward the wall has been increased considerably.

The ultimate failure of the entire nation now seems to be within the grasp of the ACPO's. Merely by drunkenly spending the nation into a completely unrecompensible debt, the nation's systems of all types will be stressed to the failing point.





According to an analysis at discoverthenetworks.com,

"Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). His tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in Cloward and Piven's article. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States -- often violently -- bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law "entitled" them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation.

Regarding Wiley's tactics, The New York Times commented on September 27, 1970, "There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients, school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests - and, on occasion, rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-out phones."These methods proved effective. "The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley's wildest dreams," writes Sol Stern in the City Journal. "From 1965 to 1974, the number of households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city's private economy."As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness."

Within the ACPO strategy, even such things as the constant decline in public education, the erosion of national sovereignty, the ignoring of constitutional limits, the pursuit of victimology as policy, as well as purposeful fiscal irresponsibility all come into focus. The Consequentialist Left is in their heyday; perhaps they have squandered it in Massachussetts, perhaps not. They are on the move in a big way.

Liberal Fascism

One of the most common epithets used on differing worldviews over the past several decades is the term "fascist". This along with comparisons to Hitler and the National Socialists by many, including occasionally by me in comparing the statist moves by the current Left and the moves made by the original NAZIs. The problem with this is that the understanding of the underlying meaning behind fascism varies considerably between individuals, thus muddying the issue and leaving the comparison/epithet without the proper weight.

The same goes for the term "liberal" which no longer has the same meaning as it did during the golden years of the Enlightenment. Originally a term of liberation from the powers that be, it is now a call for statism and expansion of governmental control over the lives of its citizens.

Jonah Goldberg has written a deeply researched book, "Liberal Fascism", which explores the realities of fascism as it currently expresses itself in the American Left. Contrary to stereotype, fascism is not a conservative or Libertarian value. It is a value for the statists.

While I have read the book, I will read it again along with a group over at Libertarian Vox Day's website, who will be reading it and discussing it on-line. This will take place over several weeks, and I think will be quite interesting.

Join in if you're interested in the history and application of fascism in the world today.

History: Created or Discovered?

When it comes to history there is a modern tendency to create it rather than research it. This despite the huge resource that is the internet, which can lead to primary sources previously available only to researchers travelling to the source or to those wealthy enough to afford a huge library. Yet the tendency to make history out the way you prefer it to have been is a rising characteristic that fits right into a valueless, truthless, relativistic mindset, a rising trend in our world. But if one wants to actually have the facts before making a personal decision, the hard, annoying work of finding them rather than creating them is required.

One of the best posts I have read in some time is now up over at Vox Day's blog. Day responds to a critic who claims the Pope was complicit with NAZIs, an onerous charge, one worth looking into - and Day responds. Because I strongly recommend that it be read over there, I won't repeat it here.

The tendency to rationalize a false history is a big step into irrationality. If one believes one's own fables, what then? It was, in fact, fables and rationalizations that drove the engines of the great 20th century tyrannical mass murderers. Living inside fables is living in a fantasy world. It need not happen, and those of us who are fact-based must guard against the influence of those who are not.

Another issue, one that the Atheist community also takes seriously, is their assertion that the eugenics program of the NAZIs did not come from any association with the science of evolution. This is necessary for the Atheist community to continue their pretense of having a superior morality, one driven by evolution (another fact-free assertion).

If history is created by rationalization, it is just another fiction. In order to come to grips with actual facts, one must do the hard work of finding them, questioning them, and accepting those that are incorrigibly valid. But this is a pursuit of truth regardless of what the truth might be; it is diametrically opposed to creating a fiction to fit one's agenda.

The question of the link between Darwinism - Evolution by Natural Selection - and the totalitarian regimes of the NAZIs as well as those of the Soviets is documented for those who wish to know the facts. There are three books that I can recommend that are scholarly works by historians, which are fully annotated and documented, and address this very issue.

First is "Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution", by Himmelfarb.

Next is "The Origins of NAZI Genocide", by Friedlander.

And, "From Darwin to Hitler", by Weikart.

There are other books on the subject that I do not have and have not read.

These three books refer to multitudes of documents that one could check if one felt the need.

The fiction of Darwinian egalitarianism is easily broken. Natural selection of the fittest is a direct assertion of inequalities, inherited both individually and as a group. The already endemic racism of the 1800's was bolstered by the science that supported it: Darwinian evolution. Eugenics was a child science of Darwinian evolution; it explored ways to make the race better at first, then it moved into ways to prevent the inferior races from expanding too rapidly, and then it explored how to eliminate them. The natural inequality of men was considered fact. Because there was no longer any set of values (God was Dead), evolving a better race became the only virtue; not pursuing it, the only vice.

For the documentation supporting this, read the books, and go to the sources. But don't make up fantasy histories - it is not good for your mental health.

War on the Internet, Part 2

Rep. Linda Sanchez has floated the following bill, H.R.1966, under the aegis of cyberbullying. It matters not that cyberbullying is rarely, if ever, an interstate commerce issue, the feds have taken it on as a specific hate crime. And not just a crime that adults practice on children. Anyone and everyone is covered.

Here is the full text of the provision paragraph:

SEC. 3. CYBERBULLYING.

(a) In General- Chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 881. Cyberbullying

`(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

`(b) As used in this section--

`(1) the term `communication' means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and

`(2) the term `electronic means' means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`881. Cyberbullying.'.

[emphasis added].

It will be presumed that the internet is "interstate commerce" from the git-go, and therefore that any email or blog will be subject to this new hate crime law. Even Leftist bloggers see the danger in this.

It will also be presumed that testimony from the "victim" is sufficient proof of "emotional distress".

This is a blatant misuse of the powers of Congress toward the elimination of unwanted speech from unwanted quarters. It is clear that much internet speech would cause the thin-skinned Obama considerable "emotional distress". The good news is that the punishment is only two years in prison plus bankruptcy for each offense.

It is a direct violation of the First Amendment. But that will not in any way influence the statists to reject this bill. Because it will be touted as "for the children", the statists will rally behind this. I expect its quick passage and implementation.

Regulated into Anarchy

In the first article, Peter Hitchens at the Mail demonstrates how regulation in the name of politically correct victimhood results in anarchy. It works like this: In the UK it has become de rigeur to consider criminals as not responsible for their actions - they are victims of their upbringing, of society, of discrimination, of whatever. So, being victims, they are not responsible for the crimes they commit against regular citizens.

In fact, regular citizens who defend themselves against these criminals are seen as actually victimizing the criminals even further, which results in punishment of the non-criminal for the crime of self-defense. Since regular citizens know that the criminals will get no punishment, they endeavor to punish the perpetrators themselves. The punishment gets more violent as the liberal government and its police force attack - not the perps - but the property owners.

As a result, UK property owners are now much more likely to perform a "summary execution" in the knowledge that it is the only justice available.

The second article, by blogger John Hopkins, expresses the need for conservatives to play the same dirty, below the belt games that the Left plays. For example the MSM jihad against Sarah Palin's family could have been called racism (husband Trig, and the children are of a minority). And Leftist commentators should have their family history, tax history, sex lives etc all outed for public examination. The full rule book of Saul Alinski would be applied to the Left, just as the Left applies it to the Right.

The intent of the Alinski approach is to gain power through EVERY avenue available, no matter how unfair. Distortions are sustained through the MSM; Speakers are throttled by shout-downs; the masses are indoctrinated by full control of the conversation using techniques of bullying and fear of financially damaging lawsuits.

Using these techniques requires funding and support; the Left has the ACLU and Soros. The Right, not so much.

Further, the use of these techniques means the abandonment of the ethic of fairness. In fact it means the abandonment of all Judeo-Christian values, and this is the real reason that the Right - so far - has not lapsed into full anarchy and toe to toe war.

But as the first article shows, there are conditions of abandonment and despair that do create the conditions in normal humans that make the inconceivable conceivable, and even actionable. The results are not civil, because they are caused by non-civil conditions. But they obviously can and do happen. It amounts to war, and because the only ethic is to win, it would be obscenely vicious. Statists are nothing if (a) not determined, and (b) enabled by a fully relativist ethic.

Final comment: When a raging bull charges out of the pen and down the road toward town, there is only one rational solution; guess what it is.

The War Against the Internet

The U.S. House of Representatives has just passed the Hate Crimes Bill, making certain (presumed) thoughts at certain times illegal and punishable by extra severity. This passage occurred only days after the bill was released from committee. Obviously regulating thought is not a problem for this Democratic Congress.

So it should have no problem in voting to regulate the internet. According to Senator Jay Rockefeller, the internet is the number one hazard to America's security. He opines,

"It really almost makes you ask the question would it have been better if we had never invented the internet".

Spreading fear of a "cyber-Katrina" (a term invented by Sen. Olympia Snowe), the Left is pushing for federal control of the internet through Rockefeller's "Cybersecurity Act of 2009", (Senate Bills 773 and 778) which gives the feds the ability to, among other things, shut the internet down. Unwarranted hysteria is always useful in creating more government control (think Anthropogenic Global Warming).

Buried within the 51 page "working document" are some interesting issues. First is the designated power to designate and control private software configuration. Then there is the creation and control of a national software protocol. Glaringly, the following is designated: develop the technology to

"determine origin of a message transmitted over the internet".

And then this:

Sec. 18 (2): "may declare a cybersecurity emergency and
order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic
to and from any compromised Federal government
or United States critical infrastructure information
system or network".

Moreover, the bill is designed to accredit and accommodate non-profit operators (think Acorn or its minions).

Obama has charged in to battle against the internet from a different flank. His nominee for "regulatory czar" to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, advocates a "fairness doctrine" for the internet. According to Brad o'Leary and WND, Sunstein believes the internet is anti-democratic:

"Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.

"A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government," he wrote. "Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name."

Sunstein does favor internet filters for certain email, including language containing certain emotional aspects including anger. Such email would be rejected with theoretical override capabilities.

According to The American Conservative Union, Sunstein is also a radical animal rights activist, believing in strict gun control, making hunting illegal, giving animals the right to bring lawsuits via a human representative, and extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, research and agriculture.

This is not too radical for Obama who already has two avowed communists on his payroll.

Think that this won't lead to complete filters on the internet? Consider that Australia has done just that, following in the footsteps of the Peoples Republic of Red China. The internet is indeed a threat; it threatens those who fear the harsh light of truth. Those are the ones who wish to throttle the communications paths. The first thing that all revolutionaries do is to seize state control of all avenues of communication. The MSM is already seized; talk radio and the internet are next.

Van Jones: Obama Communist Du Jour

Obama's newest communist advisor is Van Jones. Jones' career as a radical communist activist is not a secret; in fact it is outlined in this article by Aaron Klein.

"Speaking to the East Bay Express, Jones said he first became radicalized in the wake of the 1992 Rodney King riots, during which time he was arrested.

"I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist.

"I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary," he said"

Jones uses environmental issues as a lever for what he calls "eco-equity", a term for class equality. He came to environmentalism via a failed communist organization he started, called STORM.

Klein:

"Jones was a founder and leader of the communist revolutionary organization Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM. That organization had its roots in a grouping of black people organizing to protest the first Gulf War. STORM was formally founded in 1994, becoming one of the most influential and active radical groups in the San Francisco Bay area.

STORM worked with known communist leaders. It led the charge in black protests against various issues, including a local attempt to pass Proposition 21, a ballot initiative that sought to increase the penalties for violent crimes and require more juvenile offenders to be tried as adults.

The leftist blog Machete 48 identifies STORM's influences as "third-worldist Marxism (and an often vulgar Maoism)."

The Left is always available for a Potemkin Village tour.

The Congressional Black Caucus took a guided tour of Cuba, hosted by the Castro bros. The CBC members are highly impressed with Castro, no praise too lavish or gushy or ignorant. For some reason they don't report on the political prisoners, religious prisoners - surely the Castros showed them the prisons and graveyards, don't you think?

The Left falls for this stuff every time.

Fast Tracking the One

Obama really let North Korea have it today for launching their rocket by stamping his feet and turning blue. He fumed impotently, but he did release one tidbit:

"All nations must come together to build a stronger global regime."

Uh Huh.

And from the Wall Street Journal, Stuart Varney reports that when TARP money is returned by banks, the repayment is rejected by the Government:

"If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now."

And this from Bloomberg.com:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said he’s prepared to oust the senior management and boards of directors at banks that require “exceptional” assistance from the U.S. government.

They do report to Geithner, of course.

As if the Fairness Doctrine weren't onerous enough, Obamacrats move to control the internet:

"A pair of bills introduced in the U.S. Senate would grant the White House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared "cyber emergency."

Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., are both part of what's being called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack.

A working draft of the legislation obtained by an Internet privacy group also spells out plans to grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation's infrastructure "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."

And finally, a Stanford Prof, Michael J. Boskin, is warning that

"Americans soon will discover a $163,000-per-family tax "bomb" inside President Obama's budget plans, which have pushed U.S. deficits toward "banana republic levels."

This process took Hitler years to accomplish; he was a wimp. The difference is that Hitler cared about Germany. Obama cares about diminishing America's power and influence so that he can control the global regime from outside the U.S. Constitution and American traditional values. Instituting positive rights and economic ruin is just the start.

Leonhardt of the NYT: Deception In the Service of Leftness.

Over at the New York Times, David Leonhardt has favorably compared the economic policy of the National Socialists in Germany during the 1930’s to the Obamacrats policy of economic stimulus. According to Leonhardt,

“More than any other country, Germany — Nazi Germany — then set out on a serious stimulus program. The government built up the military, expanded the autobahn, put up stadiums for the 1936 Berlin Olympics and built monuments to the Nazi Party across Munich and Berlin.”

“The economic benefits of this vast works program never flowed to most workers, because fascism doesn’t look kindly on collective bargaining. But Germany did escape the Great Depression faster than other countries. Corporate profits boomed, and unemployment sank (and not because of slave labor, which didn’t become widespread until later).”

What Leonhardt asks is,

“Does stimulus work? Fortunately, this is one economic question that’s been answered pretty clearly in the last century.”

His immediate answer:

“Yes, stimulus works. “

Which leads one to wonder, what exactly did happen in the German economy? I went to William L. Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” in search of an answer. His writing was specific.

The economy of the Third Reich did in fact boom. Unemployment dropped 6 fold, from six million to less than 1 million. National production rose 102% from 1932 to 1937. National income was doubled. Says Shirer,

“To an observer, Germany in the mid-Thirties seemed like one vast beehive. The wheels of industry were humming and everyone was as busy as a bee.”

But the reality was the policy of Dr. Schaat’s Wehrwirtschaft, or war economy. In secret, the entire country was placed on wartime economic status, and produced armaments in secret until forcible conscription was ordered by Hitler. An amount of 12 billion Marks was printed as internal scrip being used to finance the military, but maintain opacity to the outside world as to the source and destination of the "currency". These "Mefo" bills were explained to Hitler by Count Schwerin von Krosigk who

"remarked that they were merely a way of printing money".

Says Shirer,

“He [Schaat] also pointed out with glee [to Hitler] that the funds confiscated from the enemies of the state (mostly Jews) and others taken from the blocked foreign accounts had helped pay for Hitler’s guns. “Thus”, he cracked, “our armaments are partially financed with the credits of our political enemies”.

Again,

“All of Schaat’s admitted wizardry in finance was put to work to pay forgetting the Third Reich ready for war. Printing banknotes was merely one of his devices. He manipulated the currency with such legerdemain that at one time it was estimated by foreign economists to have 237 different values. He negotiated amazingly profitable (for Germany) barter deals with dozens of countries and to the astonishment of orthodox economists successfully demonstrated that the more you owed a country the more business you did with it. His creation of credit in a country that had little liquid capital and almost no financial reserves was the work of genius or –as some said – a master manipulator.”

“In short, the German economy was mobilized for war, and businessmen, though their profits soared, became mere cogs in a war machine…”

Every economic plank that Hitler promised was abandoned; all industries were told what to build, what price to charge and what wage to pay. Small business was punished out of business, and the megabusinesses who obeyed profited, dealing much of their profits back to the party in “never ending special contributions”.

Ultimately the huge industries were provided slaves as laborers who were worked to death. Profits held up.

Source: Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Shirer; p 258 –262.

This is the truth about the Hitler economic program; There is nothing about the NAZI economic program to recommend it to anyone other than a totalitarian. Leonhardt’s writing is deceptive, revealing either outright lying by omission or abysmal ignorance. Ignorance can be repaired; chronic lying is more difficult to deal with. Either way the NYT is right on path with its usual fare.

Mussolinobama?

Mussolini was famous for "making the trains run on time". Obama will be famous for owning the world banking system and the auto industry (he already fired the CEO of GM). Fascists tend to ride in on white horses during national emergencies, and to go out on a tidal wave of destruction (usually bloody).

Now the Left in Congress wants to control every item of food that Americans eat. This is the white horse response of the Left in Congress to the peanut butter "crisis". Full documentation on every step in the production, delivery and sale of each and every food item will be required under a new house bill. Plus fines of $1 million plus $100K for each breech of the new regulation.

This legislation will effectively put most American beef and vegetable growers out of business, except for the huge conglomerates. Most American beef, for example, is grown by numerous small producers with herds of 30 mama cows or less. Most of these producers run on poverty-thin profit levels. Not only can such farmers not afford the huge fines if something goes wrong, they cannot afford liability insurance to cover such huge amounts. They will have to close down.

So the result will be a few remaining huge corporations, tied in tightly with the Federal government and doing what the Federal government tells them to do. How Mussolini-ish.

Controlling the banks, the major industries, and the food supply... change we can believe in.