Free Speech

"I See Fascist People. They Don't Even Know They're Fascist."

|

Nice line (whoever you might think the "fascists" might be), adapted by commenter Krayt. I'm no great fan of the generic use of "fascist," but I have to acknowledge a fine creation when I see it.

NEXT: "Where Are We—in Moscow in 1953 ...?"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fascist = Commie. That can be measured by the fraction of the GDP under government control. The government does not have to own the deed to a property to control it. Regulation is more sophisticated. By that measure, the US is 90% Commie. Government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the lawyer profession, no matter the elected figurehead. They make 99% of policy.

  2. The irony is that actual historical fascists have a much closer common origin with leftists. Throughout their history actual fascists (and nazis) continued to share as much if not more in common philosophically with the far left than the far right. Yet now the word ‘fascist’ is a term casually thrown around by the truckload for anyone deemed ‘far right’ by the same communists who complain incessantly about the overuse of the word ‘communist’.

    1. And anyone to the right of Senator Schumer is a nazi or fascist, while real live Marxists flood universities and create BLM to burn down cities.

      1. Not only are the Marxists in academia a real problem, but they are the real fascists because fascism more an intolerance of dissent than any specific political perspective.

        The fascist can not tolerate anyone saying (or thinking) anything different from the prescribed orthodoxy — regardless of whatever the orthodoxy actually is.

        Lots of people miss this point….

    2. Well of course fascists are just another collectivistic ideology, isn’t the their symbol a bundle of reeds to symbolize how much stronger they are tightly bound together than individually. That’s not the sort of thing that appeals to the classic right wing rugged individualist.

      1. isn’t the their symbol a bundle of reeds

        Yeah, the fasces. But that is part of the imagery of the USA, whose slogan “E Pluribus Unum” can be interpreted as a call to collectivism, if one likes to spin.

        1. Like the Swastika, the fascists appropriated this symbol, too. The difference is that they didn’t lean into it enough to make it totally toxic, so it remained a part of traditional government iconography.

          1. This reminds me of how the modern right loves to appropriate language and redefine it packed with toxicity and negativity and woo-woo danger – safe spaces, trigger warnings, SJWs, woke, CRT, etc, all culture-warred into insults, only worthy of mockery, but also vaguely and amorphously threatening.

            1. Sometimes, you gotta fight fire with fire. And the modern left has perfected the art of redefining words and concepts. But, go ahead and complain about how bad the modern right is for adopting tried and true tactics.

              1. ‘You made me do it.’ Oof.

            2. safe spaces, trigger warnings, SJWs, woke, CRT, etc, all culture-warred into insults

              There was no redefinition of those terms. They still have the meaning that the left assigned to them. The only difference is that they view those things as virtuous positives, whereas the center and right do not.

              1. Their original meanings were either harmless, gently mocking, or straightforward. The right turned them into some sort of monstrous assault on western civilisation.

                1. Critical theory is a monstrous assault on Western civilization!

                  1. It is dangerous and must be suppressed, so.

                2. Their original meanings were either harmless, gently mocking, or straightforward. The right turned them into some sort of monstrous assault on western civilisation.

                  No, the right retained those original meanings and then simply pointed out the stupidity of those meanings (hence the mocking). Your desperate attempt to cover for the obvious idiocy of those concept by pretending that they were actually something other than what they were (and still are) understood and intended to be is pathetic.

                  1. You asserted their stupidity, in a way that avoided engaging with their original meanings, not the same thing at all.

                3. This, like each of your comments here is merely your opinion, not supported by facts.

                  1. That’s just, like, your fact-free opinion, man.

    3. The right passes more laws to restrict the activities of civilians by far

      1. You bet. Can’t move a inch without tripping over rightwing regulations that affect me on a daily basis such as straw bans, soda bans, bag bans, regulations affecting small business…oh wait.

        1. A douchebag Republican near me introduced a law on bicycle regulations for children, with tickets issued to their parents.

          Another R introduced a law limiting the funds I could spend without requiring reports to the government.

          Bad laws come from both sides.

          1. You can rattle off examples from both sides but the Left is king of onerous regulations on individuals and proudly stands by this fact. You’ll have a much easier time finding a prog who will proudly admit that they want government intervention for x purpose. You can’t deny this.

            1. I remember when the left was all about defending laws criminalizing consenting adults for putting certain body parties in certain orifices in the privacy of their own home.

              1. I remember when the left was making laws requiring invasive medical procedures to prevent the exercise of individual bodily autonomy.

                1. Left: Brings up baby killing everytime someone accuses them of loving overregulation.

                  1. I didn’t mention the Iraq War in that comment?

              2. *body parts.

                1. “body parties” sounded a lot more fun

                  1. And that’s what Republicans thought should be banned.

                    1. I’d prefer to ban you

                      … but I am not a fascist and hence can’t support that…

                    2. Ban me for what?

                    3. Talking law. Disgusting habit.

              3. Prior to 1962, sodomy was illegal in all 50 states. And given the distribution of state governments by party, yeah, some of those laws were passed by and vigorously defended by folks on the left.

                Whether you’re old enough to remember that? I won’t presume to guess. But if you think you’re being sarcastic, you’re wrong.

                1. No. But I am old enough to remember 2003, who the Justices in Lawrence were, the partisan lean of the states that still had them on the books
                  and who the republicans were that insist that Lawrence was wrong to this day.

                  Have we all forgot that Rick Santorum was a powerful force in Republican politics? Or who Ken Cuccinneli is?

                  1. May I suggest that you (a) look into what a so-called “Boston Marriage” was, and then (b) why they ended about a century ago?

                    Social norms are a sine curve, and while they may be gay friendly now, they also were 120 years ago, and that, too, passed…

                    A point I try to make to my gay friends as they advocate the elimination of due process protections that may come back to bite them in the future….

          2. Which is why liberatarians condemn big government republicans as well as nanny state democrats.

            There is a lot of support on both the left and right for things like anti-porn legislation, rigid zoning, eminent domain, etc. And if Republicans are more anti-drug Democrats are more anti-tobacco.

            That’s why liberatarians have their own party.

            1. “Often libertarians” have their own party, too. It’s a small party. Not much fun . . . grim, even. It is a blog.

      2. All those right-wingers, clinging bitterly to their emergency powers and mask mandates and all.

    4. This is just ridiculously historically incorrect. Read any book on Nazism or the Holocaust by a reputable historian (not Dinesh D’Souza a real one who speaks German like Saul Friedlander, Yehuda Bauer, or Chris Browning) and zero of them will describe Nazism as a left wing phenomenon.

      1. I didn’t say ‘nazism is a left wing phenomenon’ I said it has incorrectly been pigeonholed as ‘far right’ when it had just as much if not more in common with the far left historically. Which is absolutely true, the ‘socialism’ in national socialism isn’t just there by accident. Nazism and fascism are basically ‘third way’ splinter factions of socialist movements combining largely leftwing economics with mixed social policies. Of course a lot of the academic establishment, being leftwing sympathizers themselves have gone through a great deal of effort to hide this fact and classify it as ‘rightwing’ when you only need a few brain cells/aka not be a prog, to realize that true rightwingers at this point in time would be parading before a king.

        1. The monarchists and conservatives put Hitler into power. All the traditionalists were hoping to co-opt his movement. The left opposed him and the sort of left leaning figures were purged from the party once they gained power All the aligned states were explicitly right wing. Unless you want to give me an explanation of how the Ustaše or Tiso’s Slovakia or Vichy France with their extreme traditions Catholicism were somehow left-wing.

          Look historians of this era know more than you, okay? It’s okay to admit that. You don’t know more about Nazism than Friedlander or Bauer (who aren’t what I’d call left wing anyway) because you didn’t study it like they did.

          1. Yes the conservatives cooperated with the fascists/nazis when convenient. So did the Marxists/socialists. You know theres this little thing called the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. But somehow the latter is conveniently forgotten everytime ‘historians’ want to link Nazis and fascism specifically with the rightwing. I like how you moved the goalposts specifically from fascism and nazism in general to hitler’s specific situation even though that still doesn’t help you.

            Speaking of reading up the historians take a look at this video which basically destroys all your arguments from the economic perspective. It has plenty of formal academic citations from formal academics since you want to dismiss anything out of hand with out it.

            https://youtu.be/eCkyWBPaTC8

            1. “I like how you moved the goalposts specifically from fascism and nazism in general to hitler’s specific situation even though that still doesn’t help you.“

              It does because I pointed out every other state signed with him was right wing. You didn’t refute that nor could you.

              I’ll check out the video later. I am not optimistic because anyone who insists they destroy people are usually dumb bad faith Ben Shapiro types.

            2. You know theres this little thing called the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. But somehow the latter is conveniently forgotten everytime ‘historians’ want to link Nazis and fascism specifically with the rightwing

              And we allied with Stalin. This means FDR is a Bolshevik.

              This is nonsense.

              1. Also, they promptly broke it and ravaged the Soviet countryside.

                1. Not that promptly – Stalin gave Hitler a free hand for nearly two years, while he conquered Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Yugoslavia and Greece; and engaged in a protracted air and sea war with Britain. And in the case of Poland it was not so much of a free hand as a helping hand. And continued to ship Germany all sorts of useful war supplies, such as tungsten.

                  In the meantime, as agreed, Stalin had a go at Finland (not very successfully), Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Bessarabia. And the eastern bit of Poland.

                  it was a mutually convenient deal.

                  1. No argument there, but that’s not the argument being offered. The pact was hardly 2 birds of a feather.

                    1. No argument there, but that’s not the argument being offered.

                      LOL! Like that’s ever stopped you.

                    2. I believe the Nazi-Soviet Pact was offered as a rebuttal to the notion that you have to be ideologically aligned to co-operate. Seems to be quite a good rebuttal.

                    3. You know there’s this little thing called the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. But somehow the latter is conveniently forgotten every time ‘historians’ want to link Nazis and fascism specifically with the rightwing.

                      This goes farther than that, though. It argues that the pact is some sort of counterexample to Nazis being linked to fascism.

                    4. You’ve taken two opposite positions replying to the same thread. First you attacked the position that allied nations are necessarily ideologically allied. Now you’re attacking the position that allied nations aren’t necessarily ideologically allied. Can you make up your mind lol?

                    5. Amos : ..conveniently forgotten every time ‘historians’ want to link Nazis and fascism specifically with the rightwing.

                      Sarcastro : This goes farther than that, though. It argues that the pact is some sort of counterexample to Nazis being linked to fascism.

                      No. The link complained of was between {Nazis and fascism} and {the right wing}. I don’t believe anyone has too much trouble with the link between Nazis and fascism.

                      Clearly the Nazis did have links with “the right wing.” The question was – were those links in the nature of true love, or were they in the nature of an accommodation perceived to be useful ?

                      As LTG mentions, in some states allied or aligned with Nazi Germany, there was a strong religious element, which is usually more aligned with the right than the left, not least because the left has, since the French Revolution, had strongly anti-religious elements. But the Nazis were not religious – they were very much in the perfectibility of man camp with the Bolsheviks.

                      The Nazis did not love much traditional right wing stuff. They were contemptuous of religion, they were anti-monarchist, they tolerated and used big business while disdaining capitalism, they were egalitarian (within the Master Race) – they did not love the aristocracy, they were strongly nationalist for a nation that had existed for less than a century, they were forever banging on about the New Germany, and their political base was not the rich, nor the educated nor the nobility nor the higher bourgeoisie. It was a mixture of poujadist and working class.

                      That doesn’t make them left wing, but it suggests that their use of the traditional German right was tactical not romantic.

                    6. And they banned homeschooling.

                    7. I think you’re right that I took Amos’ comment wrong.

                      But your argument that Nazis are not traditionally from the right doesn’t hold water – nationalist, authoritarian, big military. I mean, just look at which party the dumbass neo-Nazis gravitate to (and to which the dumbass Communists gravitate to)

              2. You either didn’t read the above posts or your disingenuously trying to confuse the thread. I’m not the one insisting that you are ideologically the same if you’re allied, LTG and the ‘historians’ that try to link nazism to the right are. I’m debunking the notion.

              3. It’s hard to see much of a difference between how the Soviets and the Nazi’s treated Poland in 1939.

                We allied with the Soviets because they killed Nazis just like Finland ‘allied’ with Germany because they killed Russians.

                War can make strange bedfellows.

                But one thing about the Nazi’s and the Soviets was very consistent everywhere they went they either absorbed the territory into their own such as Poland, Austria, Czechia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, or they set up puppet governments to do their bidding without demur such as Norway, Vichy France, Greece, Slovakia, etc, during the war and Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, etc. after the war.

                1. That’s a really tellingly narrow test you’ve chosen.

                  Imperialism is definitely not something unique to the right.

                  1. You were advertising “nationalist, authoritarian, big military” as fascist hallmarks. But just as “imperialism” is not unique to the right, neither are “authoritarian” and “big military.” As for “nationlism”, I grant that the Soviet Union was “internationalist” in ideology. But pretty quickly it became intensely nationalist in practice, with internationalism simply being cover for imperialism.

                    Subsequent Commie regimes – eg China, North Vietnam, North Korea have not lacked for nationalism either.

                    Nationalism, authoritarianism and big military were also features of Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, and it would be odd to describe late 18th century France as “right wing.”

                    Indeed you can see echoes of the French Revolution in both Bolshevik and Nazi regimes. They’re all anti-tradition and pro-“modernity.” They are all State trumps Individual, and anti-religious – while being nationalist, authoritarian and big military. They have far more in common with each other, than with any kind of democratic state.

            3. A pact of such outragreous cynicism by ideological opposites that it prompted one of the most famous – and best – of political cartoons
              https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/320xn/p01gwbxj.jpg

        2. I notice that the wieird blank field of invisiblity surrounding what the far right actually is is doing a lot of the work in making fascism have more in common with the left.

          1. Since the “leftists are fascists” critique necessarily centers on the economic policies of various regimes, which obviously aren’t fully capitalist, it’ll be interesting how the American right continues its attempts to label leftists fascists as they themselves sour on the market (woke corporations, break up big tech, nationalist inspired trade protectionism, etc.)

            1. ‘Leftsts are fascists’ critiques rely almost entirely on features that are genericlly authoritarian and a ridiculously narrow modern and US-centric idea of what the right is and has been. That this sort of cynical principle-free pragmatism is extremely redolent of 1930s fascism is not lost on anyone.

      2. “This is just ridiculously historically incorrect. Read any book on Nazism or the Holocaust by a reputable historian (not Dinesh D’Souza a real one who speaks German like Saul Friedlander, Yehuda Bauer, or Chris Browning) and zero of them will describe Nazism as a left wing phenomenon.”

        I think just the opposite of what you say is true. First, I think D’Souza does an excellent job of deconstructing the false narrative of the progressives that Naziism is a right wing phenomenon. And as you say, read any reputable source – reputable being the key qualifier – meaning, not someone trying to spin this, but who’s telling the historical truth. Go to original sources. Read Mein Kampf, read the Nazi party’s own statement of their platform. Then read William Shirer’s brilliant work, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Yes, Shirer spoke German, and was there! He wisely left before things heated up too much.

        Insofar as one concedes a definition of “left” that includes socialism, collectivism, communism, subordination of the individual to the collective, and so on, then Nazism and Fascism are certainly leftist movements. Recall Fascism was invented by Mussolini as an enhancement to communism.

        1. Dinesh D’Souza is a political hack and propogandist. He has been exposed for major errors by many historians who actually study the things he talks about for a living. For example his hilarious bad “Klanbake” fail.

          As for Shirer, this is somewhat okay, but most historians today think there are better sources. Saul Friedlander was there too. Yehuda Bauer left early to fight with the Zionists in Israel.

          “Recall Fascism was invented by Mussolini as an enhancement to communism.”

          WTF told you this.

          1. There are old (pre-Photoshop) pictures and movies of the 1924 convention and the Klan parading around.

            Not to mention their earlier marches on DC — chilling videos because while there are a lot of vacant lots where we know buildings now are, the streets are vaguely familiar.

            And these aren’t faked — the KlanBake was real….

            1. Um yeah it was.

              https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/03/15/how-social-media-spread-a-historical-lie/

              These historians have links to the primary sources in the article if you are skeptical. Which you are because you prefer to live in a fantasy world.

          2. Well FDR certainly approved of Mussolini, he wrote:
            “I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by his evidenced honest purpose of restoring Italy and seeking to prevent general European trouble.”

            In another letter a few weeks later, the President wrote: “I don’t mind telling you in confidence that I am keeping in fairly close touch with the admirable Italian gentleman.”

            1. Diplomacy, in my America??

              Dude went to war against the guy, maybe your quote wasn’t really determinative of FDR’s thinking.

        2. It’s not ‘the narrative of pogressives,’ it’s just the truth. What’s happening now is that the modern right has reduced itself to the narrowest sliver of ideology, a sort of squidged-up cross-section of paranoid reactionary nationalism, which can barely be articulated, but which requires a level of fanatical purity that rejects every other degree of conservative tradition and right-wing politics. No more for thee the claims of ‘family values’ or ‘strong on law and order.’ Nonetheless, selling off public goods to private enterprises is sure to feature quite strongly, though that’s less ideological and more straighforward corruption. On the other hand, right wing support for over-budgeted heavily militrarised unaccountable police forces and a new drive to reject legitimate electoral victories by the Democrats and to undermine voting rights to preven such victories, definitely deserves and -ism, and calling it fascism is just inaccurate, but the roots are there.

          1. That’s just ridiculous, and typical – to characterize those you don’t agree with politically as unprincipled cretins – too bad you just can’t use the more convenient shorthand, “jew!” You are making my point. You are a prog, and you employ the tactics of the Nazi, fascist. Talk about projection!

            1. The tactics of Nazis? Don’t remember remilitarising the Ruhr and invading France and selling off public institutions to private corporations. Speaking of the persecution of the Jews – and other vulnerable minorities scapegoated by nationalistic right-wingers – by a powerful unaccountable shadowy quasi-military police force rife with corruption, how about aboloshing ICE? Oh, sorry, I called the modern right unprincipled – my God what a real Nazi I am.

            2. Not sure what is most amazing about this comment – that characterising people you don’t agree with as ‘unprincipled’ is a Nazi fascist tactic, or that ‘Jew’ is shorthand for ‘unprincipled cretin?’

          2. On the other hand, right wing support for over-budgeted heavily militrarised unaccountable police forces

            The vast majority of those ” over-budgeted heavily militrarised ” got that way with 5 decades by the domination of Democrat Party control.
            new drive to reject legitimate electoral victories by the Democrats and to undermine voting rights to preven such victories,
            Local and state elected officials examining their own election procedures is nothing the but sound governance. And you are going to have to identify even a single item that undermines voting rights(without claiming minorities lack the mental power to meet proscribed integrity measures).

            1. Local and state elected officials examining their own election procedures is nothing the but sound governance.

              You don’t really believe that; you’re not so dense.
              Why are these states targeting Sunday hours, each and everyone? And why Texas now allows their legislature to reject a slate of electors for any reason whatever?

              Lotsa sound governance and good faith there.

            2. Cool. So you’ll support defunding and demilitarising them?

              ‘Local and state elected officials examining their own election procedures is nothing the but sound governance.’

              Ousting a prominent Republican because she said Biden had won suggests they have nothing to do with sound governance and everything to do with feeding a Big Lie and normalising challenging all election results that favour Democrats..

              ‘proscribed integrity measures’

              You mean unnecessary obstacles to voting that target minorities and Democratic areas.

      3. I hate to admit it, but LawTalkingGuy is right.

        Never forget that NaZi stood for “National Socialism” — which is the term that Americans used for them at the time — see the West VA v. Barnette flag salute case and SCOTUS uses that very term in referring to the WW-II foe of the then ongoing war.

      4. Both communism and nazism believe in the primacy of the state over individual rights and ruthlessly suppress dissent. They also insist that the means of production and natural resources be totally at the disposal of the state whether nominally left in private ownership or not.

    5. Ironically this is, obviously, wrong. As for the heedless throwing terms at people without regard to their meaning HAHAHAHAHAHA ooooh mercy.

      1. I know. I keep saying that it doesn’t matter what color you are, all races are equal, etc. and the kids keep telling me that’s racist.

        1. You keep adding, and that’s why I get to say the N-word.

  3. “Fascist” was never a particularly clear term even in the 1920s to 1940s, a bit like “socialist” now.

    “Socialism” now contains so many wildly different animals that it’s more of an emotion-stirrer than a political philosophy. Back in the 1920s though, it was much clearer. Socialism clearly meant government control of the means of production, distribution and exchange – the arguments were about the means and speed of implementation. Bad publicity has considerably enlarged the tent.

    But “fascism” never had any kind of canonical belief set. Or policy set. Or anything set.

    In terms of domestic policy, after it had suppressed the leftists in the Civil War, Franco’s Spain was probably closer to de Valera’s Ireland than it was to Nazi Germany. And Nazi Germany was not much like Horthy’s Hungary aside from the absence of elections, the dislike of Bolshevism and the antipathy to the Jews (and even then the Hungarian antipathy to the Jews was more “freelance” than Horthy’s own policy.)

    Pre- Nazi “Austrofascism” was nothing like post Anchuss Austria.

    Portugal, though effectively a dictatorship, had hardly in common with any of the other so-called fascist states.

    If the “fascist” states of the 1930s had anything in common – it was

    nationalism (sometimes passive sometimes active)
    a lack of enthusiasm for Bolshevism
    an idea that the nation should “pull together” not squabble

    But you could add the US, Britain and France to the countries signing on to those three. (And Ireland, for that matter, in spades.)

    Of course “fascist” countries did not have proper elections, in deference to the “pulling together” idea. But they were hardly alone in believing that “pulling together” works best if you do not bother with elections.

    1. Accurate with regard to lack of explicit fascist ideology held in common. Otherwise, not so much.

      1. Socialism is awfully hard to pin down. Just ask the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or all the netizens who insist that public schools and roads are socialism.

        1. or all the netizens who insist that public schools and roads are socialism.
          You are confusing socialism with federalism.
          The federal govt only has to power to build and maintain “post roads”. Eisenhower built the Interstates for National Defense.
          The Constitution is silent on education, Thus a power reserved for the people, or States

          1. or all the netizens who insist that public schools and roads are socialism.
            You are confusing socialism with federalism.

            There is nothing in his statement indicating that he is confusing those two (or anything else, for that matter). He’s making a statement about what some people claim about some public works and socialism, not making any claims about the two himself.

            1. No. The Federal govt is spending money on education. That would be socialism. Because the Federal govt does not have that constitutional power? Education is the express power of states or the people of the states.

              1. Ignorant, bigoted, anti-social misfits are among my favorite culture war casualties.

                Any more legal insights for us, clinger?

    2. Which reminds me. Since we’ve had a D Day anniversary just recently, I happened to be skimming through an article on Juan Pujol Garcia, aks “Garbo”, who was a key element in the D Day deception operations.

      He had taken against the communists in the Spanish Civil War – family business confiscated, relatives arrested and charged with being counter-revolutionaries, experience of how rule-by-committee worked on the poultry farm he was working on etc.

      He escaped from the Republican army and defected to the Nationalist Army. But then, when he had made a remark favorable to the monarchy, his Nationalist colonel had struck him and imprisoned him. That kinda turned him off the Nationalists, so he reverted to being the soggy mild conservative middle of the roader he had always been, only now imbued with a sense of mission – to help his fellow soggy mild conservative middle of the roaders, which in WW2 turned out to be the British.

      So WW2’s most successful Allied double agent joined the fight aginst Nazi Germany because he was hit by a Nationalist officer for …..expressing support for the Spanish monarchy !

      If you have the modern leftist notion of “fascist” as a catch all term for right-wingery of any kind (or the 1930s Comintern meaning of “anyone opposed to the Party”) the picture of a Spanish “fascist” officer smacking Pujol across the face for supporting the monarchy (making Pujol a “fascist” too) is going to be a pretty hard chew.

      1. Hard to chew because so big a mouthful. Antony Beevor’s history of the Spanish Civil War offers readers a helpful guide to competing factions on both sides. There are so many it is staggering that anything happened at all.

      2. “when he had made a remark favorable to the monarchy, his Nationalist colonel had struck him and imprisoned him”

        Traditional monarchists and Carlists were a large bloc of the Nationalists, the fascist Phalangists a small one. Franco himself was a monarchist.

        I say this story was unlikely. Possibly the colonel was a Phalangist but the army as a whole was monarchist so there would have been significant push back.

    3. Horthy’s Hungary aside from the absence of elections, the dislike of Bolshevism and the antipathy to the Jews (and even then the Hungarian antipathy to the Jews was more “freelance” than Horthy’s own policy.)

      Well, there were elections in the Hungarian Kingdom (which hadn’t a king, only Horthy as a Regent). Sure they were cooked (in the country there weren’t secret ballots IIRC & only a relatively small part of the population had the franchise), but the Parliament was elected. (Of course there were cooked elections in the Third Reich, too).

      OTOH Hungary passed a numerus clausus law back in 1920 which limited the number of professionals by creed to their representation in the population. Although the law was neutral on its face, it was an anti-semitic law as it almost exclusively limited the number of Hungarian Jews who could become lawyers, medical doctors & the like. & then in the late Thirties they passed so-called Jew Laws which were openly discriminative. & then in 1944 Horthy allowed Adolf Eichmann to organise the deportation of Hungarian Jews from the country to Auschwitz were most of them were promptly murdered (there’s some controversy regarding if Horthy knew the true destination of the deportees, but still: the Hungarian government failed to defend its citizens who had full civil rights — were emancipated — since the 1860s).

      It is a bit telling that Horthy’s autobiography was titled “Ein Leben für Ungarn” — “A Life for Hungary” written in German.

      1. OTOH Hungary passed a numerus clausus law back in 1920 which limited the number of professionals by creed to their representation in the population.

        If your opinion is that this sort of racial proportion thing is not so good, for heaven’s sake don’t show up in the 2020s 🙂

      2. It is a bit telling that Horthy’s autobiography was titled “Ein Leben für Ungarn” — “A Life for Hungary” written in German.

        I think it tells that not many people outside Hungary read Hungarian, and the prospects of getting published in Communist Hungary were rather modest.

        1. Yeah, but he could have wrote it in Hungarian & ‘translated’ it to German. Besides a Hungarian language book can be published outside of Hungary (& a few of them were published in Hungarian by the Hungarian diaspora).

      3. “1944 Horthy allowed Adolf Eichmann to organise the deportation of Hungarian Jews”

        Not a completely accurate statement.

        Horthy’s Jewish record was mixed, there was significant discrimination, some killings and some deportations before 1944. The bulk of the deportations to the camps however did not start in earnest until summer 1944 when the Germans fully occupied the country. After that, Horthy’s opinions didn’t matter.

        1. After that, Horthy’s opinions didn’t matter.

          Yet he managed to put a stop to the deportations before the Jewish population of Budapest was taken. IIRC he was threatened by the Western Allies with a war criminal trial if he didn’t put a stop to the deportations; he did so & he wasn’t extradited back to Hungary after the war (while Döme Sztójay, who was the Prime Minister between 22 March 1944 & 29 August 1944 was extradited, convicted & executed by a firing squad [as he was a professional soldier]).

  4. Taking the premise of the altered quote from the movie, Krayt’s use of it is tone deaf. In the movie, the kid’s remark is accurate, objective, and a giant clue for viewers about what is really going on—which viewers typically don’t appreciate until the end, when they get to kick themselves for missing it. It’s brilliant.

    Krayt, the folks you criticize hope you don’t have to kick yourself for your own cluelessness about the significance of the people around you seeing fascists. If you apply your own analogy, those they see actually are fascists. But you and they actually won’t know they are fascists until the end.

    So yeah, great creation, but maybe great the opposite of the way EV sees it.

    1. Do you know who else had a practice of protracted torture to find out exactly how long a person or paraphrasing could survive before dying from it?

    2. Fair point about the meaning of the quote, unless Krayt was using it ironically, not in a tone deaf way. The kid really WAS seeing dead people who didn’t know they were dead. Brilliant movie, I should watch it again.

      I think we can safely say that the left aren’t seeing fascists all over the place who just don’t know they’re fascists: This country would look rather different if there were a right-wing force remotely similar in scale and violence to the Antifa. (The Proud Boys don’t have the scale.)

      1. Isn’t the point that calling the other side the Real Fascists is silly? And then there you go.

        And your proof is that Antifa is big and the Proud Boys aren’t. Your sources for this appear to be your own feelings.

        1. I think the point is that the left calling the other side fascists while going around behaving like fascists is silly.

          “And your proof is that Antifa is big and the Proud Boys aren’t.”

          My proof is that I actually follow the news, and you apparently don’t, or just ignore everything in it that demonstrates something you don’t want to admit.

          Riots last year, remember?

          1. It’s gonna be tough on you of you ever find out about the vicious street-fighting that went on all over Europe between fascists and anti-fascists, and nobody turned to the anti-fascists and whine that they’re the real fascists because that would just be stupid.

          2. I thought the riots were all BLM.

            Your convenient and unsupported narratives seem to have collided.

            1. I thought the riots were all BLM.

              Where did you hear that from? The voices in your head?

              Your convenient and unsupported narratives seem to have collided.

              The only collision here is between your own pathological dishonesty and the truth.

          3. One thing for sure is that we don’t have Proud Boys Burning, Looting and Murdering.

            Proud Boys also are not a racially based organization like BLM. They are a male organization.

            So they aren’t violent like BLM and they are not racist like BLM. So they are not like BLM at all.

        2. Both “scale and violence”. Do you deny that Antifa is responsible for much more violence and destruction than the Proud Boys?

          Supposedly serious reporters have recently claimed that the D-Day invasion forces were essentially Antifa. That seems to put them well over the top in terms of numbers. You should stop attributing claims to other peoples’ feelings and start reading the news.

          1. I have no idea if Antifa is responsible for much more violence and destruction than the Proud Boys, and I think neither Brett nor you do either.

            ‘I follow the news, and you don’t’ is evidence of something about Brett, but not much about Antifa.

            And some cute tweet is not really proof of anything either, as I’m pretty sure you know.

            Or do you think I think Antifa is cool and our current politics is basically like WW-2, and I’m the allies? Because I’m nowhere near that partisan.

          2. He denies reality. He’s hopeless. the BLM/ANTIFA mostly peaceful year of love that still continues is the most expensive insurance event in history. It was more damaging than anything before.

            It also has cost 30-40 lives. It’s ridiculous to mention PB in teh same sentence as BLM/ANTIFA

        3. It is silly, but if you go read my original post in the thread he links to, it’s my only one there, you’ll see I mean the brownshirt-like behaviors, the enforced orthodoxy, the virtue signalling, the little positive strokes peoples’ brains give them as they turn in their neighbors.

          That’s the behavior that maps disturbingly to bad stuff from human history.

          I don’t care what words you use. Much of this thread is arguing right vs. left wing origins and definitions. I’m worried about the walks like a duck and quacks like a duck aspect.

    3. OK, now that I’ve seen Krayt’s remark in context, it does make sense in exactly the movie sense, and you’re the clueless one.

      1. you’re the clueless one

        There should be a button for automatically generating this as the default response to any comment by Lathrop.

  5. I mean this is pretty accurate. A lot of people have belief sets that are uniquely susceptible to fascist politics but don’t realize it.

    1. For instance all the people who have convinced themselves that fascism is a left wing phenomenon are going to be taken in by a demagogic leader who emotes about the decline of the nation and promises a return to some heroic past.

      1. Yeah, the busting into restaurants and demanding that patrons make peculiar hand salutes or be subject to violence is pretty revealing. Oh, wait…

        1. Right on cue is Exhibit A: Brett Bellmore.

          Brett (who decries left wing violence while proudly admitting he thinks he should be able to murder people in defense of property), is a good example of a guy who will insist he isn’t fascist while ultimately supporting a fascist leader or joining a fascist movement.

          1. So, you’re saying Trump is a fascist leader, and MAGA is a fascist movement, no?

            Please substantiate that. I don’t see it.

            1. Personally, I got the whiff of fascism from the way he campaigned on banning an entire religion from the US. However, what was emblematic of Trumpism as a modern strain was the Wall, which started out as a metaphor in a speech, but which he and his supporters literalised. Very Triumph Of The Will, the same way he still thinks he won the election and is going to be reinstated.

              1. That’s hardly substantiation. “The whiff.” Sure.

                Supporters were with him on a majority-muslim country ban not because of religion but because of terrorism.

                The wall was never a metaphor, it was always literal.

                Trump thinking he’s going to be reinstated is a false narrative from the left.

                1. Terrorism was the pretext. The ban was to be absolute, or so ran the promise.

                  Everything real starts out as a metaphor. Some are just more obviously unwieldy and stupid metaphors being made real than others.

                  No, it’s a false narrative from Trump.

              2. Odd that you’ve written ‘ heedless throwing terms at people without regard to their meaning’ as you’re propping up a former Potus as your bogeyman.Specifically you insist that the border wall was somehow like Leni Riefenstahl’s film, perpetuate the lies about a ‘Muslim ban,’ and Trump thinking he will be reinstated. All of these are ridiculous opinions that play well to an unreasoning in-group that functions best with bias, not facts. The ‘whiff of fascism’ statement is another tool of the same in-group, a baseless assertion and smear. This is, of course the coin of the realm, and the realm itself for your in-group, who live in a world of opinions and assertions based on opinions, not of facts. Trump may not have been a great Potus, but you disliking him does not make him a racist, a fascist, or his policies anti-Muslim.

                1. They’re not opinions, they happened. Okay, invoking Triumph Of The Will was a flourish, but you’re exhibiting the same behaviour – trying to change history through sheer force of will. Why are you rewriting history? Why are you rewriting the present? Maybe a more apropos film would be Gaslight.

            2. Jason Stanley’s How Fascism Works is a good place to start. But fascist leaders tend to talk about national decline (and when I say “nation” I mean a people not necessarily a nation-state) tell them they have a heroic (and completely mythical) past that they can return to. This past they are supposed to be returning to contains extremely traditional notions of sex and masculinity and rejects the supposed degeneracy of the cities with their elites and academics in favor of some mythic rural value system. It also praises political violence as not just a necessary step but a positive good when directed at disfavored groups. (Trump notably praised a sitting Republican governor for committing an assault on a journalist and has praised police violence on a number of occasions when the victims are disfavored groups.)

              1. No thanks. Stanley is rabidly anti-Trump, labels fascism as “ultra-right nationalism,” and deals in leftist fantasies: “So we have large political protest against racial violence and injustice, and then we have demagogues using that to spread conspiracy theories about riots and corruption and lawlessness spreading from the cities.” He’s saying the riots in the cities where BLM and Antifa operated are a conspiracy theory. He is not rooted in reality.

                1. ‘He’s saying the riots in the cities where BLM and Antifa operated are a conspiracy theory.’

                  When you lie about what someone is saying, do you normally put the thing they actually said in the same sentence so everyone can see?

                  1. I’m not lying about anything! I quoted him exactly. When he says “So we have large political protest against racial violence and injustice, and then we have demagogues using that to spread conspiracy theories about riots and corruption and lawlessness spreading from the cities,” I interpret that to mean that ‘demagogues’ refers to Trump and his cohort, and Stanley saying that their pointing out the riots and corruption and lawlessness spreading from the cities amount to Trump, et.al., dealing in conspiracy theory and not reality. In this, Stanley is clearly wrong.

                    1. But they weren’t ‘spreading from the cities.’ There were riots, they occurred in cities. Trump went absolutely bannanas trying to blame it all on antifa and there were conspiracy theories all over the place.

                2. Has it ever occurred to you that people are anti-Trump precisely because he seems to traffic in every trope of fascist movements throughout history?

                  1. That’s kinda syllogistic, isn’t it? I mean, he may espouse many things that fascists have, like nationalist themes, securing of borders, and so on, but he doesn’t espouse, and never implemented, any of the core tenets of fascism. Remember, Mussolini was a socialist before he formed the fascist party (and coined the term), bolting nationalism to the side of a socialist-rooted regime.

                  2. Has it occurred to you that people believe that Trump ‘traffics in every trope of fascist movement throughout history’ because they are biased, not because he is any more fascistic than any other Potus? In-group biases can certainly cause a sort of pareidolia.

                  3. “Traffic in trope”? LOL

                    OK give me some trope and don’t bother reposting the hoaxes, e.g. Charlottesville.

          2. “while proudly admitting he thinks he should be able to murder people in defense of property”

            No, I think I should be able to kill people in defense of other people’s property rights. Murder is definitionally wrongful killing, and I’m not in favor of killing people wrongfully.

            1. Murder is a purposeful killing without justification or excuse. Society has decided it is not justified or excused to kill people in defense of stuff. You saying it’s okay if you do doesn’t make it any less morally wrong. Indeed many murderers think their actions are morally justified despite society saying they are wrong.

              You are not morally justified. And you know it too. You’re just vice signaling how okay you are with killing and how little you value human life.

              I mean we can do a test case if you want. I will come to your house and start digging up the area on the property boundary. You shoot me point blank and claim defense of property. What do you think the charges will be? How do you think society would view such a man? The answer as you know is they’d view you as a murderer. Deal with it.

              1. Society has decided it is not justified or excused to kill people in defense of stuff.

                That’s news to me…

                1. I mean that is reflected in most criminal codes and tort law. Deadly force is only appropriate in response to force a person reasonably believes will result in death or serious bodily injury to themselves or a third person. If you shoot a pickpocket who is running away from you in the back, you will be charged with murder and will not have an affirmative of defense of “he took my wallet.”

                  1. You’re all over the place with this. There’s a big difference between using deadly force to stop a robbery where even a modest amount of force, or a threat is involved, and using deadly force to stop a fleeing robber. It’s not binary, not one size fits all, in deadly force law. Even the time of day matters in some places. Where the stuff is, and where the victim is, matters a lot, too.

                    “In about half the states you can use deadly force against robbery, which generally includes any theft from the person that uses modest force or a threat: “Even a purse snatching can constitute a robbery if the victim simply resists the effort to wrest the purse away.” Some robbery of course does also create a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, but in these states such a fear is not required.”

                    1. “It’s not binary, not one size fits all.”

                      Brett thinks it is. Look at his posts about the subject in Eugene’s earlier post. That’s what I’m calling him out on: his complete and utter immorality where property always is more valuable than life if he deems it so.

              2. I thought the whole Castle Doctrine was about being able to defend your property with deadly force.

                1. No. It’s you don’t have a duty to retreat when inside your home. You still can’t take pot shots at people crossing your yard on bikes for instance. Nor could you shoot your kid’s friends if they’re trying swipe to a bottle of liquor from your cabinet.

                  1. More reductio ad absurdum. This, from New York State jury instructions: JUSTIFICATION: USE OF DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE TO PREVENT BURGLARY PENAL LAW 35.20(3):
                    “Under our law, a person in possession or control of [or licensed or privileged to be in] a dwelling [or an occupied building], who reasonably believes that another individual is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling [or occupied building], may use deadly physical force upon that individual when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary….

                    A person commits BURGLARY when that person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling [or occupied building] with the intent to commit a crime therein.”

              3. First, you are wrong, assuming we are using the same definition of “society;” I choose to use the laws on the books, and how the courts have responded as this gauge.

                Prof. Volokh blogged about this just one year ago:
                Are People Allowed to Use Deadly Force to Defend Property?

                It turns out, in many cases, yes, people may use deadly force to protect property.

                In your ridiculous example of digging a hole in my yard, if I went out and first used non-deadly force to try to stop you, and you responded in a way that I feared put me at tisk of severe injury or death, I could then respond with deadly force.

                “In basically all states, you can use nondeadly force to defend your property—and if the thief or vandal responds by threatening you with death or great bodily harm, you can then protect yourself with deadly force. So in practice, you can use deadly force to protect property after all, if you’re willing to use nondeadly force first and expose yourself to increased risk.”

                (Truth is, I would probably just tell you to stop, and if you didn’t I’d ask my wife to call 911, and then I’d put the garden hose on you.)

                In summary, you are wrong, once again. Deal with it.

                1. Don’t call me wrong when I agree with you. It makes you look silly. In the post you linked with the weird exception of Texas, you cannot use deadly force in defense of property. If I respond to your non-deadly force with deadly force then you can obviously use deadly force. But at that point I you are not defending your property you are defending yourself from death or serious bodily injury. (Or third persons depending on the circumsantces)

                  “In your ridiculous example of digging a hole in my yard, if I went out and first used non-deadly force to try to stop you, and you responded in a way that I feared put me at tisk [sic] of severe injury or death, I could then respond with deadly force.”

                  Again, in your example the scenario has changed from protecting your property to protecting yourself.

                  Brett’s belief is he can use deadly force as an initial matter in defense of property. He does not believe there needs to be any risk to himself whatsoever.

                  1. No, you’re wrong. You didn’t read Eugene’s entire post. See what I posted above from NY Stat jury instructions.

                    1. I’m disagreeing with you, LawTalking Guy. You said “Society has decided it is not justified or excused to kill people in defense of stuff. ” That statement is demonstrably mistaken.

                    2. You gave me two states. Eugene literally said in bold as a general matter you cannot use deadly force in defense of property. He then gave some counter examples, some of which are intertwined with defense of self anyway.

                      I assure you society will look very poorly on you if you shoot someone for tagging your driveway with spray paint.

                  2. From Eugene’s blog post:

                    “And in some states, it is categorically permissible to use deadly force against burglary—often defined as entering a building illegally with the intent to commit a crime (including theft) there—or against arson, even when you have no reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to yourself. “

                    1. Do you know what the word “some” means? Also Brett has a CATEGORICAL RULE that he can kill in defense of property. No limitations whatsoever like your NY jury instructions.

  6. Well, since the modern definition of “fascist” is “a bad person doing a bad thing that I don’t like”, then I guess, at one point or another, everyone’s a fascist.

    1. Kinda sucks to lose a historical term to political branding, but that’s clearly where we are. I’ll have to use authoritarian and/or nationalist from here on out.

      Though this is arguably a long time coming. Isn’t it a cliche for Boomers to have called their parents fascists?

      1. It used to be specific political hyperbole for government infringing on individual rights, for instance calling Mayor Giuliani a fascist for cracking down on public funds for art he found offensive, or whatever. So I suppose it makes as much sense to call governments fascist for mask mandates, or whatever else commenters here decide to whine about. It’s all just unhelpful hyperbole.

  7. I took it to mean that Progressives consider people who do, say, or believe any one thing the Progressives don’t agree with is a Fascist, and that they don’t even realize that not agreeing with Progressives 100% makes them one.

    1. From the comments here, it seems the concept is a lot more generalizable than something just progressives do.

      1. Notably, progressives don’t go around loudly insisting that the Republicans are the real communists*

        *they will point out and laugh at all the times the dumbest right-wing online culture warriors accidentally advocate public ownership of companies that are too woke.

        1. That’s because progressives have no interest in complimenting Republicans, and would view that as a compliment.

          1. Hahaha how many hours did it take you to come up with that quip? Was it in between your murder fantasies about defending your mailbox?

            1. Under two seconds, and the mailbox isn’t inside my house, so, no.

        2. Progressives instead insist that Republicans are the real socialists for wanting publicly funded schools, military ad police.

  8. Remembering the heady days when the right demanded and received large-scale military ground invasions of foreign countries to heal a grievous and humiliating wound on the national psyche and anyone on the left who opposed was a traitor, when the right demanded absolute belief in the fake intelligence and propaganda used to justify those invasions, and when the right were openly and cheerfully pro-torture and the left were not, when the right shovelled pallets full of money into the arms private corporations with government connections, when the right celebrated the pulling down of a statue to mark the defeat of their enemy, who was not responsible in any way for said national wound, but yeah, no idea why people might have the impression the US right gives off a bit of a classical fascist vibe.

  9. This one accomplished the author’s goal.

    Clingers properly lathered.

    If this is how conservatives propose to devote their time and energy while the liberal-libertarian mainstream continues to shape our national progress against right-wing preferences . . . carry on!

  10. I see people who describe themselves as anti-fascist. They don’t even know they’re fascist.

    Fairly clear who is most likely to favor forcible oppression of opposing viewpoints these days.

  11. Which party engages in wholesale, ubiquitous indoctrination of youth?

    Which party threatens and ruins peoples’ lives over what they say, what they think, and failing to toe the party line?

    Which party controls and/or is supported by the press and entertainment industry and social media?

    Which party’s core philosophy requires the populace to be forced to participate in order for it to work?

    Which party wants to disarm the populace?

    Which party overtly treats people differently based on their race?

    1. There’s so much ridiculous here, but I want to focus on the first point. Republican politicians are literally saying out load we need patriotic history education, and are trying to implement that in schools! Not accurate history. Or even a history where you “teach the controversy” but some kind of “patriotic” history where people won’t feel bad about our history but proud instead. They put together the complete joke known as the 1776 Report which was twenty error ridden pages they claimed was a definitive chronicle of American history.

      And what is this in response to? Some black authors (accurately) saying slavery and its legacy was actually really big deal in American history and had a lot of negative affects. That’s what they’re freaking out about. That’s where all this sudden interest in an obscure academic approach called Critical Race Theory comes from. That’s why they suddenly have all these bills about this. They’re freaking out over the possibility that some teacher somewhere might slip this country has some very dark things in its past that has modern implications. And they want to make sure education is “patriotic” instead.

      Take Texas’s 1836 Project.

      https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/HB02497I.pdf#navpanes=0

      It’s supposed to make students proud to be a Texan. They even define patriotic education and how it’s about values Texans should be proud of.

      So is that really going to focus on how slavery was one of the main reasons for Anglo immigration to Texas? Or a major factor in why it split from Mexico?

      Is a discussion of Texas principles that the State is supposedly growing closer to going go include how the maintenance and expansion was enshrined in its constitution from the very beginning, including with a provision that you couldn’t even free your own slaves without Congressional consent? Or about how within 16 years of becoming a US State they left the union with one of the most racially explicit declarations of causes in the confederacy?

      Talk about indoctrination.

      1. Dope. Nothing to say about critical race theory? Which is actually being implemented. Republican initiatives are a matter of defense against this.

        You really are delusional.

        1. I notice you couldn’t actually refute any of my historical points and pivot to CRT. Probably because instead of being delusional, you know I’m right; Republican measures are simply a whitewashing of uncomfortable truths, none of which have anything to do with CRT.

          1. I didn’t pivot, crt is in place and being fed to students now; nothing you cited is actually in place.

        2. You need to be defended against an educational curriculum?

          1. Children have to be defended against a curriculum of indoctrination involving critical theory, crt, and a host of other wacky philosophies not grounded in reality, and counter to the values of their families, and the overall good of society. Like the 1619 project, or crt teaching white children that they are inherently bad because of the color of their skin.

            1. Which is not what CRT teaches. Otherwise I’m not sure what values you’re trying to protect. Where was this zeal to defend children when people were pushing Intelligent Design on schools?

              1. CRT teaches that white people are inherently privileged, while Black and other people of color are inherently oppressed and victimized; that achieving racial justice and equality between racial groups requires discriminating against people based on their whiteness; and that the United States was founded on racism.

                1. No, that’s not what it teaches, that’s just your insecurities about the realities of US history speaking.

                  1. That’s exactly what it teaches. Deny all you want, you will be seen by those here as a prog/dem hack.

                  2. Let me take another tack: why don’t you tell me what CRT teaches? Try 100 words or less.

      2. What’s ridiculous? What’s not true?

        ( I should have numbered these.)

        1. this has been going on for over 50 years. regardless of Republican and conservative efforts to counter it, prog/democratic indoctrination is in place;
        2. cancel culture – prog/dem feature;
        3. this should be obvious;
        4. socialism;
        5. obvious;
        6. just one example: Biden’s covid aid to black-only farmers.

        1. Look. I’m done. You’re just a partisan hack who isn’t very educated okay? It was fun today. But you have zero interest in learning actual history and you reflexively pretend that everything uncomfortable about history is somehow indoctrination or a “prog” plot instead of the result of historical consensus. There’s no point in engaging with someone who thinks this. Good luck with your continued ignorance.

          1. Because you are at a loss to refute these assertions, that’s why. And you find it necessary, therefore, to insult me. You deal in fallacy and deflection.

            1. You deal in fallacy and deflection.

              He sure does. So do leftists generally. (If they engage at all. Oftentimes, they just scream “Racist!” or “Homophobe!” and call it a day.) Kinda tells you how weak their position is…

        2. 1. Nonsense. I get you guys hate education, but please.
          2. Fancy name for social shaming, something that’s been around as long as there’s been humans, and only variably effective.
          3. What party has gone out of its way to whine endlessly about entertainment, news and social media, endlessly, 24 hours a day? You just don’t like art, entertainment, journalism or people being able to talk back at you online.
          4. What does this even mean? What are you, a hermit?
          5. What party things regular school massacres are a small price to pay for gun industry profits?
          6. All of US history has treated people differently because of their race, you think the effects of that will go away if you close your eyes and wish hard enough?

          1. “1. Nonsense. I get you guys hate education, but please.”
            Oh, man you got me there. Brilliant argument, I don’t know how I can possibly counter that. Yea, I guess we just hate education.

            2. you’re not aware of the recent cancel movement? Perhaps you have your fingers in your ears, your eyes closed, and your yelling “Nah, nah, nah, nah.”

            3. Yea, I guess we just don’t like art, entertainment, journalism.

            4. It refers to socialism, as opposed to “leave me alone, and keep your hands off my stuff.”

            5. That’s right, snowflake. Likewise, don’t take away my right to speech because someone yells “fire” in a crowded theater, or my freedom of religion because some muslim beheads his daughter in an honor killing, or my freedom from search and seizure because I should have nothing to fear if I’m innocent, etc., etc.

            6. Farm aid to black farmers. This year. Excluding whites from employment and advancement opportunities. Segregated dorms and social venues at colleges. And so on.

            1. 1. Yes. Yes I did.
              2. It’s not a movement.
              3. No, no you don’t.
              4. This still makes absolutely no sense.
              5. I’m a snowflake for not liking school massacres?
              6. Black farmers shouldn’t get aid? Whites aren;t being employed or advanced? You can’t get into dorms and social venues at colleges? Man, in the annals of racist discrimination these things surely tower.

    2. We can go back and forth but the culmination of indoctrination is that we have folks who somehow think that “Tranny Storytelling Hour” is a good thing and should be part of our kids school day.

      That is pure insanity but yet folks argue for it and cheer it on. Tranny story telling is free speech but in a sane world it would be relegated to some loon ranting on the street corner.

      1. Getting mad cos people dress up in costumes to read to kids. Indoctrination? That’s the Pledge Of Allegiance.

        1. I’m not mad that they dress up and say whatever. Just has no place in the schools.

          1. Dressing up and stroytime has no place in schools? What are you a Dickensian schoolmaster?

            1. Nope I just don’t feel the need to have psychopath storytelling as part of the curriculum.

              If you pretend to be the opposite sex you are a psychopath. Same as people who dress up as animals and pretend they are the animals, i.e. furries,

              We don’t Need a Furry Storytelling hour either,

              1. Oh, Psychopath Story Time, i thought you said Tranny Story Time. No, I wouldn’t let Trump near school kids either, with you there.

Please to post comments