A Glimpse Into The Anatomy Of The Left

"The Course of Empire Destruction" by Thomas Cole  1836 (choice of painting inspired by the talented Kim Priestap)

 

My friend Joe Katzman over @ Winds of Change took issue with this comment:

"Pretty soon Haditha-deniers [...] will be the new Holocaust-deniers from Stormfront..."

He is right to tell us, that this "one-sentence comment [...] provides a revealing window into the Left's mentality, its real feelings about the military, and its notions of both justice and citizenship."

Later in the comment section, Joe highlights an important point: "I also wrote [...] for those who viscerally feel that something is with [the commenter's] approach, but find it helpful to have the underlying problem picked apart." Despite all the bile and hysteria spewed from the roof tops, we must not allow the constant barrage of similar rhetoric to desensitize us; we must not leave such gross mischaracterization remain unanswered and never just shrug it off as juvenile hyperbole.

And given the quote with its loaded connotations, it was necessary to 'pick it apart'. Even though that is often the most arduous process, it is also the most revealing, and Joe did extremely well in dissecting it.

Following last weekend's Kos induced rabble-rousing in Las Vegas, Joe's post and subsequent comment section highlighted yet another phenomenon. The Left knows how to dish out but can't ever take it. As Ann Coulter pointed out in her latest book, the form of attack favored of late, is to bring an array of victims out on display "to give their political points credence" and further their cause.

And the root cause for such ironically domineering attitude, as it has been shown time and time again in the Left's campaigning style and content, is that the vast majority of its base is driven in their personal lives by destructive emotions such as envy, resentment, bitterness and most of all, pure and gut-wrenching hatred which, like any pressure cooker under too much heat, needs to release its steam through the emergency valve.

But, just as with steam, a retort in kind is never part of the equation. After all, the underlying perception is a righteous condemnation of the outside world; for it has caused the misery, it is to blame for all hardship and wrongs brought upon the individual. How dare the collective 'they' then have the audacity to add insult to injury.

The Right is not free of such unfortunate supporters, but the overwhelming majority are people who are driven by an urge to achieve, to improve, to advance, to build; not to tear down, to destroy and to systematically debase the key ingredient of success: excellence.

The liberal media simply continues to spin it's own web of deceit in full support.

Comments

[Ghost Dansing]

Good...I'm going on to the next post. :)

You could just email me your URL for your political philosophy...I missed it the first time. :)

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

T.S. Eliot (1925)

[Kenny Pierce]

Ghost,

Already gave you the link in re my political philosophy, and won't repeat myself here.

[sigh] And since you didn't listen the first time I don't know why I should think you will listen the second time, but: there is nothing intrinsically illogical about an appeal to authority (the way there is about the fallacy of hypostasization or an undistributed middle term), but it's not terribly reliable and you have to be good at choosing your authorities. Most people are not good at choosing their authorities. How quickly can you, Ghost, name the basic categories of tests that you would need to apply to an authority before your appeal to that authority would be valid (in the sense of being an appeal that somebody with an IQ above room temperature would actually gamble anything important on)? How good are you at avoiding the very common error of confusion of categories, in which you appeal to a person who is an acknowledged expert in one field but without realizing it appeal to his authority in the wrong field?

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the desire to get war under control and limit its collateral damage, but it's not enough to choose good ends -- one must also choose good and wise means. The international lawyers, generally speaking, have not, as you can see from their crowning creation: the debacle that is the United Nations.

Finally, logic itself is amoral, but useful thought and discussion even of moral topics is either logical or else a fertile playground for fools and liars. The fallacy of hypostasization does not suddenly become rational and valid reasoning just because you are using it to rationalize your opinions of morality and politics rather than your opinions of economics.

[Ghost Dansing]

You could have used a few "short hand" references in your remarks. What exactly is your "political philosophy"? Sounds like some kind of convoluted, hyper-intellectualized libertarian thing.

Did you know that logic is inherently amoral? On the other hand, I don't see what is illogical about appealing for opinion to one who is informed...seems logical to me, and a rather good practice.

You simply reject a natural tendency of human nature...to socially organize on an ever expanding scale...that constantly competes with another natural tendency of human nature...to identify with subgroups of individuals...ironically "individuals" who are "like me" in some way. It is not very logical...except it may be bio-logical, or socio-logical...psycho-logical...anthropo-logical; a self-organizing, identifiable phenom emerging within the subtratum of human existence...ever expanding attempts at governance contraposed to the every present drive to "be me".

War is a horrendous thing, and human beings (at least some human beings) wanted to control...to delimit...to make war a little less like a spontaneaously combusting wildfire ripping through humanity until it burns itself out. What is so wrong with that...what is amoral? Imperfect...yes...always imperfect this human-being.

[Kenny Pierce]

Ghost,

Your depiction of the genesis of post-WWII international law is I think reasonably accurate -- and illustrates my basic points.

You describe international law as "intended to cast each government as a citizen of a larger, collaborative structure (some take offense at the notion of a world government), and intended to shield the weak from the strong...with Nazi invasionism as the modern example to be prevented." I think that's pretty accurate, and that is no compliment to international law.

In the first place, however much you may despise the rules of logic as "argument for argument's sake," they remain valid, and legal constructs erected on a foundation that fundamentally violates the laws of logic carry within them the seeds of their own destruction. There could hardly be a better example of the fallacy of hypostasization than to construct your entire legal system on the idea of the hypostasized state as citizen; and this piece of logical incoherence leads directly to one of the principle moral failures of international law, which is its emphasis on the priority of the right of "sovereignty." Furthermore, you are absolutely right that the international lawmaking in the WWII aftermath was performed by people who -- thanks to their own traumatic experience -- saw nation-state aggression as the worst of all evils and intended to spare the Europeans from it. But people who have just been through a traumatic experience always overreact to that experience; there are things worse than war. Besides, the great threat of our time is ideologically-driven terror rather than traditional open nation-state warfare; so in admitting that international law's fundamental assumptions are obsolete you weaken even further any persuasive power your appeal to international law might ever have had.

As for persuasion vs. force, I have written rather extensively about precisely that distinction here, though what you call "persuasion" I call "cooperation." In fact I consider a full appreciation of that distinction to be a sine qua non for rational thought about government and politics, and it is the cornerstone of my own political philosophy. In the context of our present discussion, though, it is important only to note that to say that international law is about persuasion rather than force, is to say that international law is actually in the category of moral law rather than the law of government. And I think that's consistent with the rhetorical purposes to which international law is used by those who appeal to it: they do not mean to threaten the United States with prosecution, but to condemn the United States as evil.

But if I merely want to know what is good and what is evil, I can think of very few sources indeed whose authority I would less respect than international law -- which, as I have already said, I find deeply morally flawed. Certainly I wouldn't think of the international law community as representing "expert opinion from persons who, by position or life experience, would be able to provide an answer from a legitimate perspective" -- because I think fundamental logical and moral flaws at the core of post-WWII international law render it precisely an illegitimate perspective.

Which goes back to what I pointed out about the weakness of the appeal to authority: if the person you're trying to convince has reason to believe that your authority actually has his head up his butt, then so much for any persuasive value in your argument.

(Oh, and by the way, most forms of "rhetorical shorthand" -- including, for example, the fallacy of hypostasization -- are primarily used to hide logical flaws that would become instantly apparent if the person making use of the rhetorical trick were to make each of his steps explicit rather than hiding them implicitly under his "shorthand." To make sure that you know the guidelines that determine when a particular figure of rhetoric is being abused is not "argument for argument's sake" -- it is a necessary step in practicing even a minimal level of intellectual responsibility. Rhetorical shortcuts are occasionally used as a responsible way to save time, but they are FAR more often used by the indolent who don't want to put in the effort to think rigorously, or by the dishonest who hope a gullible audience won't put in the effort to see through the bullshit.)

[Ghost Dansing]

"If you adopt the traditional answers from the Declaration of Independence and the philosophical underpinnings thereof (Locke, etc.), government is the result of a social contract in which the weak bond together to halt the depredations of the strong, forming a social compact in which citizens yield to the government most of their own right to fight back violently against their exploiters, in exchange for the government’s promise to protect them. Any government that cannot, or even worse will not, perform this basic function of protection, loses the right to demand obedience: the people obey so that they may be protected, and the state which does not protect, cannot command. Furthermore, the American heritage is to consider basic human rights as part of the moral law founded by God (“...endowed by their creator...”), and the government is held answerable to the people to make sure that it neither inflicts nor commands injustice.

Therefore international law, if it is to command allegiance from Americans, has a high standard to meet."

International Law, as it applies to legal warfare, as I mentioned, was crafted by the victors of WW II...The United States being the formost among them...The concept is Democratic and Liberal...intended to cast each government as a citizen of a larger, collaborative structure (some take offense at the notion of a world government), and intended to shield the weak from the strong...with Nazi invasionism as the modern example to be prevented. Also, in the case of the UN, the structure is designed to provide global governance mainly by an aspect of the persuasion-enforcement continuum that you (Pierce) did not emphasize: Persuasion versus Force. Most societal laws are implemented more by persuasion that certain behaviors are for the common good, as opposed to fear of enforcement...laws that keep garbage from piling up on the street and people from defecating on public sidewalks...typically enforcement is required mainly for drunks or those unfortunate enough to be homeless...even the latter manage to find a public facility in most cases. At any rate, on the macro-scale of global law...the matrice of agreements between States, the parallel would be global environmental regulations...which we can see suffer from lack of enforcement mainly because all States have not been persuaded that it is indeed, in some cases anyway, in their best interest to generally comply.

But I drifted off...the laws of legal warfare would have the UN as a cop...the only teeth the UN has comes from its members with teeth...United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China, etc...

On the Iraq issue, we have a condition where one or two of the UN cops had a burning desire to go rogue...rather than say their is no international law in this regard because it is unenforcable, it is better to ask the classic question, who polices the police?

"My own opinion is that existing international law fails in pretty much every way possible, and that to conform to international law is often unnecessary and not infrequently downright immoral."

All systems of law (and you know which type I'm talking about; from the realm of Public Policy and Law) contain within them potential aspects which assault basic understandings of good-and-evil, i.e. morality. The United State continued to practice slavery for some time, claiming it was Constitutional. To say that conforming to international law is "not infrequently downright immoral" I think is a stretch...most frequently compliance or non-participation is impractical for some reason, or at odds with profit-orientations, but to say the conformity is "not infrequently downright immoral" is a little hyperbole.

For media...I'll get you a link to the Geneva Convention as an example of international law...there are others which regulate international commerce and other things on a daily basis.

And that appealing to higher authority thing...what a lot of argumentative nonsense for arguments sake...it is simply a rhetorical technique that describes a position in short-hand, based on the expert opinion from one who, by position or life experience, would be able to provide an answer from a legitimate perspective.

This Republican administration, for example, frequently ejects true experts (economic, scientific...etc.) from its midst, because it answers all mail ideologically...from the referential framework of partisan political philosophy and vote-getting tradecraft.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

More to the point, I suppose, Kenny:

If International Laws mean anything, then who passes them, and why can't I vote them out of office, or have a say in changing them?

[Darrell]

You mean dirty, stinking, Leftist professor Francis Boyle? The moonbat behind-- "Destroying World Order" ? " The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence" ? The Draft Impeachment Resolution Against George W. Bush" ? "Palestine Should Sue Israel For Genocide" ? And hundreds MORE!That Francis Boyle? I see, trotting out the 'impartial' experts with no axe to grind! Ghost. You are PATHETIC! Why don't you start "thinking it, not posting it?" We'll get the message, I 'promise!"

[Kenny Pierce]

Ghost,

On international law: this issue is much more complex than your presentation.

A very quick survey of the issues (not the answers, just the questions):

There are five basic concepts for which English uses the word law.

a. The "laws" of nature, i.e., observed regularity in physical phenomena.

b. Praxeological and psychological laws, i.e., generally true statements about how people choose to behave, as distinguished from how they ought to behave. The "law" of supply and demand is a praxeological law.

c. The laws of logic, i.e., of rational human thought and of responsible use of human language ("responsible" in the sense of "clear and consistent").

d. Moral laws, i.e., statements that purport to define good and evil.

e. Government laws, imposed upon those who disagree with them by force.

Now, there's an obvious problem with the fifth, which is, where do the imposers get the right to beat up / imprison / kill the imposees? Furthermore, do you have to obey government laws that ignore and try to defy the realities of the first three types of law (say, a law that tries to make it illegal to be subject to gravity -- or, far more realistically, one of the many attempts by lawmakers throughout history to repeal the law of supply and demand, or the common problem in which laws that are simultaneously in force, contradict each other)? Furthermore, what defines legitimate government, and to what extent can government defy the moral law, and to what extent are citizens obligated to obey immoral laws, and to what extent are citizens allowed to obey laws that command them to behave immorally, and to what extent is the government obligated to attempt to encode and postively to enforce moral laws?

If you adopt the traditional answers from the Declaration of Independence and the philosophical underpinnings thereof (Locke, etc.), government is the result of a social contract in which the weak bond together to halt the depredations of the strong, forming a social compact in which citizens yield to the government most of their own right to fight back violently against their exploiters, in exchange for the government’s promise to protect them. Any government that cannot, or even worse will not, perform this basic function of protection, loses the right to demand obedience: the people obey so that they may be protected, and the state which does not protect, cannot command. Furthermore, the American heritage is to consider basic human rights as part of the moral law founded by God (“...endowed by their creator...”), and the government is held answerable to the people to make sure that it neither inflicts nor commands injustice.

Therefore international law, if it is to command allegiance from Americans, has a high standard to meet. My own opinion is that existing international law fails in pretty much every way possible, and that to conform to international law is often unnecessary and not infrequently downright immoral.

But as I say, this takes us into the realm of answers, where the main point of this comment is intended to be the raising of questions.

[Kenny Pierce]

Antimedia, Ghost:

If you guys like each other a little more this could be an extremely interesting and potentially fruitful conversation.

Antimedia, strictly speaking the appeal to authority is not per se fallacious. It is, however, even when valid, the weakest of all valid arguments, and the most vulnerable to failure through false premise. That is because the argument's fundamental premise ("my authority is trustworthy") is a premise the truth of which can be known with certainty only by somebody who is even more of an expert than is the authority to whom the appeal is made -- but such a person would not need to appeal to authority because he would be able to provide the evidential arguments on which his own analysis was based.

Therefore the appeal to authority is always a confession of one's own ignorance and inadequacy in the field under discussion, and is generally not terribly reliable. But it's not strictly speaking fallacious -- which is a good thing, because 99% of the decisions we make in our lives reduce, at bottom, to something we chose based on whom we believed. The appeal to authority is the weakest of all arguments; but paradoxically practically all the choices of our lives are ultimately decisions of which authorities we are going to trust.

[antimedia]

Ghost, just because you say that something exists does not make it true. Please point to the international laws. Provide a link or cite to their location. Provide the section numbers and the various codes.

The rest of your gobbeldegook is so filled with lies (for example, Bush never used the word "imminent", the Democrats claim he did) that it's not even worth addressing.

Unless you can point us to the location of these supposed international laws, you're just blowing smoke, which is pretty normal for you.

One question, though. What does "technically" illegal mean? Something is either in violation of a law or it's not. There is no such thing as "technically" illegal.

[Ghost Dansing]

Typical Republican rebuttal to charges of illegality..."No it's not!" Or the more elaborate logic..."We don't do illegal things, therefore if we did it it must not be illegal"...And even better..."There IS no law!"...And better yet..."The Law is what we say it is!"

Nuremburg was the first implementation of international law my friend. There is international law...to the victor do go the spoils, and the victors of WWII wrote international law governing the legal declaration and conduct of war.

Indeed, Iraq was in violation of post Gulf War (UN sanctioned) cease fire arrangements and that should have been the basis of any military intervention.

Instead, since the U.S. could not get the buy-in of the UN (or even our NATO allies), Dubya made the novel argument for preemptive war on the basis of iminent threat of attack from WMD. The argument itself is "out of the box", and has dire implications for universal implementation (that means we really don't want everybody doing that). Also, everybody knew there was no imminent threat to the U.S. or its allies. (Tenet said that the CIA never indicated there was an iminent threat and Pillar said that the U.S. actually ignored the bulk of intelligence that recommended against invasion).

It was technically illegal on the basis of international law, my friend, and will be cited as such historically...unless the "rest of the world" sees the light and redefines the legal conduct of war in terms of Dubya's "preemptive" construct, and gives him a retroactive pardon.

Having said that, I won't even go into this Republican adminstration's problems with interpreting Geneva Convention and all that precipitated.

[antimedia]

Ghost further pontificates

Technically Iraq was illegal...didn't meet the conditions of International Law, pretty much written by the United States and its Western allies after WW II, to be legal.

In his legal advice to British Prime Minister Tony Blair on the legality of the Iraq war, Attorney General Lord Goldsmith describes regime change in Iraq as a disproportionate response to Saddam Hussein's alleged failure to disarm, illegal in the eyes of international law. Goldsmith stresses that in terms of legality, "regime change cannot be the objective of military action."

Of course, I can see your experts and raise you two, but what would be the point? Arguments from Authority are fallacious logic.

Iraq was in violation of the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease fire. That alone made the "invasion" of Iraq legal.

Furthermore, there is not such thing as "international law". It's a figment of the left's imagination. Unless you can point us to where it's written down and who enforces it. There are many, many international agreements, but there is no "international law".

Unless, of course, you think to the victor do not go the spoils.

[gringoman]

Ghost Dancing,

You seem to be proposing the point that some of the "Left" and the "Right" hardly know what they themselves are, let alone what the other is. You may have a point, and I wonder whether you made it inadvertently. Here's an extract of your Comment.....

++++++++This post simply reinforces to me that the author and commentor haven't a clue about what the "left" is, or the "right" for that matter...they are arguing some long ago argument between fascists and communists or something.

Fascism (in Italian, fascismo), capitalized, was the authoritarian political movement that ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. Similar political movements, including Nazism, spread across Europe between World War I and World War II. Fascism is a radical authoritarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, totalitarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism+++++++

Ghost Dancing, I find a curious reluctance here to give socialism its due. If you don't mind, I'd like to clarify what I see as the problem. That way, hopefully, we can establish whether the ignorance is yours or mine.

In your painting of the "authoritarian movements" you rightly refer to obvious elements like "militarism," "extreme nationalism," "corporatism" etc. Yet, for some reason that escapes me, you neglect to mention 'socialism.' Did I miss anything? Was this deliberate? Was it just a lapse. common to many of us over 35?

It seems you must know that Benito Mussolini himself was a socialist, in fact a fervent socialist like his blacksmith father, and even an "anti-patriot" and idolizer of Karl Marx before he gave it a new twist, got as nationalistic as any Russian, and called it 'fascism.' (unlike Josip Stalin who eschewed that label and preferred the Left's 'socialist' or 'communist.') And surely you know that this energetic Latin socialist was an inspiration to none other than Adolf Hitler. And you could not help but know the very word 'Nazi' stands for 'National Socialist' in German. Therefore, if you don't mind, I'd like to put the following questions.

1. Do you believe that socialism can only be Left and not Right? If so, why?

1A. You believe the Nazis were telling the truth with words like 'fatherland' and 'race' and 'military' but you believe they were lying with 'socialism'?

2. Do you believe that 'Communism' was 'socialist' while Nazism was not 'socialist'? Or do you take the standard view of garret theorists who tell us that neither the Soviet Union nor Nazi Germany---even though both called themselves 'socialists'--- were not in fact 'true socialists,' (whatever that means?)

3. In other words, are you denouncing the two mighty exemplars of socialism as being really 'fascists,' and that when you refer to the 'Left' what you mean is the true, the good and the beautiful socialism?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Coming. "Zarqawi." On gringoVision.

[Ghost Dansing]

I think you're exaggerating. Plus, nobody actually "controls" the Democratic Party...it barely qualifies as an identifiable organization. Rather than "leftests", sometimes I think they are more like anarchists...can't quite figure their take on illegal immigration...they're in alignment with Dubya on that.

Every Democratic politician is very much an "individual". I don't really think they know what "being on message" means.

Technically Iraq was illegal...didn't meet the conditions of International Law, pretty much written by the United States and its Western allies after WW II, to be legal.

In his legal advice to British Prime Minister Tony Blair on the legality of the Iraq war, Attorney General Lord Goldsmith describes regime change in Iraq as a disproportionate response to Saddam Hussein's alleged failure to disarm, illegal in the eyes of international law. Goldsmith stresses that in terms of legality, "regime change cannot be the objective of military action."

University of Illinois Law Professor Francis Boyle's analyzed the legal aspects of the US occupation of Iraq: On several counts, he concludes, the war is illegal. In addition to violating the customary international laws of war, as set forth by the 1907 Hague Convention, the Nuremburg Charter, and the Geneva Conventions, the Bush administration has also repeatedly violated the US Army Field Manual in its conduct of the Iraq war.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst, former Deputy Legal Advisor to the UK Foreign Office, resigned in March 2003 over the Iraq War. In her resignation letter, which the BBC website published in March 2005, she calls the joint US-UK invasion “unlawful” and “a crime of aggression” because the Security Council did not issue a resolution authorizing the use of force.

By that's just legal stuff...Republicans aren't really big on legal stuff.

And John Murtha? Dubya should be more like John.

[Kenny Pierce]

Jim, that second point had to do with the fact that in the case of classified information, there is a clear and definite need for the executive branch to be able to classify militarily sensitive information -- that is, your assertion (without so far as I can see any possible way for you to put that assertion on a factual basis) is that the President is abusing a lawful and good function of government.

Now, what is the clear and definite need for the media to emphasize the negative (to put it as charitably as possible) in the war, or for the academic Left to establish its hegemony by means of bureaucratic warfare rather than by honest and open debate? What is the clear and definite need for leftist students to throw pies at Ann Coulter instead of firing back at her with her own weapons of ridicule and (if they really must insist on sinking to her level) viciously cutting verbal mean-spiritedness?

[Kenny Pierce]

[laughing at myself]

"This raises two questions..."

"a. ..."

But where is b? Hm, I seem to have forgotten what the other question was.

I would say that senility begins at forty, except for two things.

a. I won't be forty until November.

[antimedia]

The ever-present and never lucid Ghost responds

And on the American political scene, there is only one political party that is currently in the hands of extreme ideologues...and that would be the Republican Party.

How does one respond to such idiocy?

• George Soros - who thinks that Campaign Finance Reform is not a violation of the First Amendment while he personally spends $200 million to defeat a political opponent
• Michael Moore - who thinks that murdering savages are "Minutemen"
• Jimmy Carter - who thinks that killing Zarqawi was a war crime
• Dick Durbin - who thinks that US troops are "Nazi storm troopers" or "Pol Pot's minions"
• Cynthia McKinney - who doesn't think, just speaks
• Howard Dean - who thinks we never should have invaded Afghanistan
• Dennis Kucinich - who thinks like Howard Dean
• Michael Berg - who thinks we should have rehabilitated Zarqawi by "forcing him to care for wounded children"
• Kos - what the hell - take your pick
• John Murtha - who thinks that US troops are guilty of war crimes and can never be proven innocent
• Cindy Sheehan - who thinks that Bush killed her son, who re-enlisted and volunteered for dangerous duty
• Sandy Berger - who thinks that stealing national secrets is a minor misunderstanding
• I could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on

And I've only named political figures or people who sat in places of honor at the Convention last time. The list of Hollywood "extreme ideologues" is much, much longer. And then there's Jane Fonda, and Tom Hayden and, oh, Jane Fonda's ex-husband (what's his name? - Oh, yeah, Ted Turner), and Noam Chomsky and Juan Cole and Babs Streisand and oh, Lord, this is exhausting.

None of these people deal in reality. Their world is constructed out of whole cloth, formed to fit their preconceived idea of "how things out to be"™, and yet you see them as rational.

Which tells us all we need to know about you.

[Ghost Dansing]

This post simply reinforces to me that the author and commentor haven't a clue about what the "left" is, or the "right" for that matter...they are arguing some long ago argument between fascists and communists or something.

Fascism (in Italian, fascismo), capitalized, was the authoritarian political movement that ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. Similar political movements, including Nazism, spread across Europe between World War I and World War II. Fascism is a radical authoritarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, totalitarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.

Although the broadest definitions of fascism may include every authoritarian state that has ever existed, most theorists see important distinctions to be made. Fascism in Italy arose in the 1920s as a mixture of syndicalist notions with an anti-materialist theory of the state; the latter had already been linked to an extreme nationalism. Fascism in many ways seems to have been clearly developed as a reaction against Communism and Marxism, both in a philosophic and political sense, although it opposed democratic capitalist economics along with socialism, Marxism, and liberal democracy.

You can almost hear the extremists haranguing each other from the "left" and the "right"...

Fascism and Communism were political systems that rose to prominence after World War I. Historians of the period between World War I and World War II such as E.H. Carr and Eric Hobsbawm point out that liberalism was under serious stress in this period and seemed to be a doomed philosophy.

Throughout Europe, numerous aristocrats, conservative intellectuals, capitalists and industrialists lent their support to fascist movements in their countries that emulated Italian Fascism. In Germany, numerous right-wing nationalist groups arose, particularly out of the post-war Freikorps, which were used to crush both the Spartacist uprising and the Munich Soviet.

With the worldwide Great Depression of the 1930s, it seemed that liberalism and the liberal form of capitalism were doomed, and Communist and fascist movements swelled. These movements were bitterly opposed to each other and fought frequently, the most notable example of this conflict being the Spanish Civil War. This war became a proxy war between the fascist countries and their international supporters — who backed Francisco Franco — and the worldwide Communist movement allied uneasily with anarchists and Trotskyists — who backed the Popular Front — and were aided chiefly by the Soviet Union.

Long ago...maybe not so far away. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the United States is in far more danger of succumbing to neofascist ideologies than it is in danger of "leftist" thought processes.

And on the American political scene, there is only one political party that is currently in the hands of extreme ideologues...and that would be the Republican Party.

Interesingly, I also saw a lot of a neofascist philosophical substratum in the remarks...reminiscent of our old friend Ayn Rand, who responded to totalitarianism, with her own version of the obermensch.

In the 1950s Rand's Objectivist philosophy was especially popular among college students, who were attracted by her instructions to heed one's self-interest, and to maximize the superman potential without social conscience.

WE THE LIVING reflected Rand's deep antipathy of communist ideology. The story follows the struggle of a young Russian girl, Kira Argounova, who wants to live her own life in a society where "man must live for the state."

Really just a continuation of the extreme Fascist-Communist argument.

[RunningRoach]

Jim,
I’m really not picking on you, just your apparent naiveté.

You commented; "By the way, reality's not entirely a matter of perception, as a drunk driver finds out when the bridge abuttment he's about to meet up with is not exactly where he thought it was."

You're quite right that when driving drunk one's perception can be quite distorted. The problem becomes one of substance. A bridge abbuttment is real and massive. But bullshit of the spoken kind has no substance..not even a wisp of an odor, but I do know when I run into it as well.

And, yes I know where my bridge abbutment is as I drive, think and speak quite soberly.

Sobriety is not only limited to not using drink or drugs, but has a lot to do with maturity, experience and wisdom. I wonder when your comments will take on this level of sobriety.

JCC

[Kenny Pierce]

Jim,

You'll note that Joe goes straight to the precise deficiency I pointed out and...well, declines to be persuaded.

Not to say I told you so or anything... [grinning]

I hope you're not feeling too outnumbered, by the way. I realize that thoughtful responses take time and trouble to compose; and Joe has the honors here on this topic. So if you want to focus on answering him, I won't be offended by your ignoring me; nor will I conclude that a failure to respond to me means you couldn't answer effectively if you chose.

[Kenny Pierce]

Jim,

As a matter of curiosity, because different people mean different things by the catchphrase "checks and balances":

1. Which Constitutional checks and balances do you believe have been overthrown by the present administration?

2. Would you consider that Roe v. Wade is evidence of insufficient checks and balances on the judiciary (apart from the question of what you think the law ought to be)?

3. Are you disturbed by the existence of massive federal regulatory agencies that write regulations, enforce regulations, and hand down decisions on whether regulations have been violated, or does this appear to you to be consistent with the founders' emphasis on division of the legislative, executive and judicial functions of government and the concomitant checks and balances on those three carefully distinct branches?

4. Does the use of the Commerce Clause to rationalize pretty much any law Congress wants to pass disturb you as a violation of the Founders' attempt to balance the powers of national and local government?

I'm not setting you up to get slammed, just trying to understand what you mean by "checks and balances," this being one of those phrases like "fairness" that seems to mean just about whatever the person talking wants it to mean.

[Michael van der Galien]

Jim, come up with an idea first; then we'll see whether you have a good or bad idea. First things first.

I'm disgusted with Democrats, by the way.

I am not suprised, since the only thing you seem to be able to do is to criticize and criticize. Thanks for making my case for me.

[Joe Katzman]

Thanbks for the props, alexandra. and as always, the art is wonderful.

Jim Culleny is correct to note the deflection of inconvenient arguments is a political universal. In fact, spend much time in a corporate setting (or worse, a public or charity sector setting) and you may conclude that it's a human organizational universal.

Having said that, my argument was specific in a way that his response was not. My discussion was focused very precisely on presumption of innocence as a defense enjoyed by one's fellow citizens, and my examples were in that vein. His was not, which conveniently lets him elide the fact that behaviour in this specific area is in fact asymetric by political affiliation.

With respect to citizens who are held as enemy combatants, Taliban John plea-bargained with cooperation and Padilla has been the subject of court rulings that affirmed past case law re: treatment of such citizens. There is nothing out of the ordinary in any of this, though I would personally have preferred seeing Taliban John tried for treason and shot as he deserved to be. Cullen's objection is contentless, but this can hardly be a surprise.

The rest is just standard political boilerplate and conspiracy theories, without a logical argument behind it except hatred of the other.

I am whollyu unsurprised, of course, that Jim does not touch on the critical issues at the center of my article: citizenship sand obligations around accusations of criminal conduct, our duties to one another and to those who risk their lives in our name, or the Haditha case. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he is uninterested in these things, insofar as they do not further his personal jihad.

[Kenny Pierce]

Jim,

Without having a lot of time here, I'd suggest you try again for a better counterexample than "the President and his administration" on the presumption of innocence thing. For two reasons.

1. The President and his administration are not a very broad slice of the Right. The media and academia plus Pelosi, Murth et alia are not broad slices of the Left, but they are a much bigger sample than are the President and his administration. The use of speech codes and discrimination against conservative students and violence against conservative speakers such as Coulter (who, I might add, is frequently guilty of quite detestable excesses in speech) is very widespread indeed in academia, and the media's interest in any story -- however dubiously sourced -- that could make American soldiers look bad, and their accompanying distaste for stories demonstrating progress and military professionalism in Iraq, are both too obvious for comment. If you want to argue for the "universality" of such behavior, then you need counterexamples that at least show that the behavior is as widespread on the Right as it is on the Left. By your apparent standard, I could just as easily have said a few years ago that the Left, "in the person of the president," shamelessly exploits the gender imbalance of power for personal sexual gratification. If your point is that a particular type of behavior is so widespread as to be worthy of the adjective "universal," then you need to point to an example of behavior on the part of a somewhat wider circle.

I'm not saying that your point is necessarily invalid, only that your example is unpersuasive.

2. Unless you are very unreasonable indeed, you will not deny that in a war against terrorism the intelligence war becomes paramount and that intelligence advantages do not survive publication. Therefore there is a genuine national interest in the classification of material. This raises a couple of questions.

a. Since you are not privy to the contents of the material to which you refer, you don't actually know to what extent the material in question genuinely represents evidence of "executive malfeasance" -- which means you are not, in fact, in any position whatsoever to pass judgment on the motivations of the executive in classifying that material. (Interestingly, you appear to recognize that you don't know the true nature of the material by noting, responsibly, that it is "potential" evidence -- but it doesn't seem to occur to you that this means that the President's behavior in classifying this material is at best potential evidence that suppression of inconvenient discussion is widespread on the right.) Naturally it is easy for somebody who is already convinced that this President is a criminal and a liar, to assume the worst of the President; but if you intend to be persuasive then you will need to address those who are willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt.

So Katzman gives examples that are both unquestionably valid examples and are also widespread, and you respond that the Right's no better -- by giving an example that applies to only a very small group of people, and that for all we know may not even be an example of the behavior under discussion at all.

I would advise you to give it another shot. Your point may well be worth making; but on your first try you didn't make your point well.

[Jim Culleny]

Dear anti,

If you'd asked that same question to a Japanese American during the 2nd world war, you'd have gotten a different answer than if you'd asked a white American. That I personally have not felt the pinch doesn't mean pinching is not occuring, nor does it mean I won't eventually feel it if the trend continues.

By many accounts the trend is ominous. It's in the wind.

Jim

PS to Michael,
You beg a philosophical question: is a very bad idea better than no idea?

I'm disgusted with Democrats, by the way.

[antimedia]

Jim, you are nothing if not "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". You spout many high-sounding words and themes, but you make no logical arguments whatsoever. Just because you assume that some condition exists, does not mean that it actually exists. I'm not even certain I know what you're alluding to, since you couch it in such vague and ominous sounding language.

Let me try to make it plain for you. This present government is no more a threat to your liberties than any previous government has been. In fact, it is much less so. FDR imprisoned thousands of Japanese during WWII, yet somehow the nation survived. Bush has imprisoned perhaps two or three American citizens, all for obvious crimes against the state. Yet you feel threatened.

Tell me Jim. Which of your liberties have you lost since Bush took office? Please be specific.

[Michael van der Galien]

Alexandra:

I think you're dead on. One of the main problems the Left has, whether it is in Europe or in the US, is that it is only capable of criticizing. It is not able to come up with sound plans. They can only attack those who try to solve problems. They notice problems, but don't do anything about it.

Why do you think the Democratic Party is always referred to as the party without ideas?

Jim; tone it down.

[Jim Culleny]

Dear anti-media,

Please refer to my reply to JCC, especially the part about drunk drivers and bridge abuttments.

People have been flocking here because of the essential thing the present government is in the process of trying to dismantle. Free and open discourse, and freedom from government's historical prying inclinations. When that's gone, those flocks will have flown.

Supporting the present leadership is a fool's errand. We learned from the Godfather that a fish rots from the head down, but what the screen-writer didn't tell us is that it'll rot from the tail end too.

Please read about the birth of the nation. We were led then by a bunch of cynics who could see the present situation coming on us like a tsunami, they trusted no man in power to be fair with it, therefore: checks and balances.

I'm sure you're not some naif who ignores the handwriting on the wall, are you?

Jim

[antimedia]

Jim Culleny writes

The right, in the persons of the president and his administration, are experts in doing exactly what Katzman blames the left for: deflecting inconvenient discussions (the increasing use of “national security” to keep potential evidence of executive malfeasance under wraps), and discarding presumption of innocence, i.e. the attempts to refuse trials and legal representation of American citizen combatants.

Of course there is no evidence of executive malfeasance to keep under wraps except for that which the left has created out of thin air, but no matter, your point still stands, correct?

"Discarding the presumption of innocence"? Katzman covers this in his discussion. The left wants to accord the same rights to our enemies that is presently enjoyed only by citizens. (And a citizen who takes up arms against his own country is most decidedly an enemy and has forfeited his rights of citizenship, as the Supreme Court has correctly ruled, repeatedly.) This, of course, is an effort to destroy the state and create a one-world government, for if all "citizens of the world" enjoy the same rights, then what does the state even exist for?

There is a reason people still flock to America from all over the world, Jim. It's to enjoy the very rights you so blithely give away for a bowl of soup and for which many have paid most dearly with their blood and treasure. But those rights are not yours to give away. They are ours collectively, and we the people will decide whether or not we should cheapen them by granting them to anyone, regardless of their stance toward us.

If recent elections are any indication, your view is most decidedly in the minority.

Nothing will destroy your rights more quickly than to grant them to your enemies. That the left salivates for, yeah pants breathlessly, for this very outcome is a slap in the face of every American who has ever given life and limb for freedom.

[Jim Culleny]

No, no nap, JCC; and not pulling legs.

But I must say, you appear to be spectacularly hypnotized --unless you're operating tongue-in-cheek yourself.

The qualities Alexandra attributes to the left are the very ones that have been cultivated on the right these five years; destructive, being top dog. I'd say there's some over-the-top projection going on here.

By the way, reality's not entirely a matter of perception, as a drunk driver finds out when the bridge abuttment he's about to meet up with is not exactly where he thought it was.

Are you sure you know where your bridge abuttment is?

Regards,
Jim

[RunningRoach]

Alexandra,

Jim Culleny opines: “Political arguments get curiouser and curiouser depending upon who’s bending reality.”; and “To refute Alexandra's intentionally ignorant hyperbole (is she a Coulter clone?) I have simply to turn to the personal lives of those I know on the left which are exemplary. I'm referring to people who are not domineering, envious, resentful, bitter, or hateful, who who live fulfilling, constructive, and creative lives in every arena from carpenters to doctors --but who are disgusted with the political blitzkrieg of deceit which is now the dominion of the right.”

I wonder if this commenter has taken a short nap (Five years or so worth.) is out to lunch, or is just pulling our collective legs? I would not even attempt to turn this argument upside down on him as reality is mostly one’s perception, no matter how distorted it may be.

Aside from characterizing your post as ”intentionally ignorant hyperbole”, the only singularly argumentative word in his short diatribe is the last one. I would spell it L-E-F-T.

Regards, JCC

[Jim Culleny]

Political arguments get curiouser and curiouser depending upon who’s bending reality. In the Joe Katzman piece cited he says,

“The Left gets this wrong two ways. One, by abolishing it (presumption of innocence) for their fellow citizens whenever convenient - one sees that readily in the kangaroo quasi-courts and star chamber proceedings that prevail in universities and other realms in which the Left achieves dominance. The second mistake is the Left's frequent attempts to deflect all discussion of inconvenient civilian criminal cases by arguing that until someone is convicted, one should not discuss the case.”

Katzman says this as if the left is uniquely guilty of such behavior. This is merely a political argument which is an intellectual dud because it conveniently ignores the universality of such actions across the political spectrum. The right, in the persons of the president and his administration, are experts in doing exactly what Katzman blames the left for: deflecting inconvenient discussions (the increasing use of “national security” to keep potential evidence of executive malfeasance under wraps), and discarding presumption of innocence, i.e. the attempts to refuse trials and legal representation of American citizen combatants.

Then Alexandra herself goes on to blather about, "...the root cause for such ironically domineering attitude, as it has been shown time and time again in the Left's campaigning style (my interjection re campaigning style: John McCain, victim in South Carolina)and content, is that the vast majority of its base is driven in their personal lives by destructive emotions such as envy, resentment, bitterness and most of all, pure and gut-wrenching hatred which, like any pressure cooker under too much heat, needs to release its steam through the emergency valve."

To refute Alexandra's intentionally ignorant hyperbole (is she a Coulter clone?) I have simply to turn to the personal lives of those I know on the left which are exemplary. I'm referring to people who are not domineering, envious, resentful, bitter, or hateful, who who live fulfilling, constructive, and creative lives in every arena from carpenters to doctors --but who are disgusted with the political blitzkrieg of deceit which is now the dominion of the right. Ironically these qualities do spill from Alexandra's keyboard though.

As for causing misery in the outside world, misery is as much (or more) a result of rightist social and militarist policy as it is to leftist "wrongs brought upon the individual." Alexandra's argument is just rediculous; the right is not innocent of the misery of individuals --though Alexandra throws a bone when she admits the right is not free of such supporters (of misery).

But she falls right back into absurdity like a whale breeching, when she suggests that somehow the right is (in the majority) populated by urgers to improve and not tear down. At this moment rightists are tearing down the great ideal we call American.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

I think this post is onto something. It is becoming clearer to me why the deranged and puerile left makes common cause with the Global Jihad. There is much of the above-mentioned "angst" for want of a better word, among many of the world's young Muslim males. Hatred of one's limitations, combined with a doctrine promising success to all given an even chance, leads inevitably to conspiracy theories when the promised successes do not materialise. The Jihad and the International Left are in complete agreement on this point, even if they worship different "mechanisms".

The left's affinity for violence inflicted on "white people" (ie self-confessed Judaeo-Christian heterosexuals) or dissenters in "non-white" lands, coupled with the Jihad's mysterious promise of being able to jump the queue, forms an attractive bond for the leftoids and jihadis.

But ultimately the greatest crime against humanity is to shatter a leftoid's illusions. Or worse still, dismiss them out of hand, for there have never been two more vain and self-absorbed groups on this planet, than the International Left, and the radical Muslim males.