Trolls Trolls Trolls  

Thursday, December 29, 2005

YAAAYYYY ... We have us a new troll!!

"JS" recently posted some SERIOUS bullshit in the comment section from my last post, and BOY is this going to be fun! I barely finished editing before this came up:

Wow, way to a) completely misrepresent liberalism, and b) completely miss Mussolini's point. (You did similar things with Hitler, and continually conflate rhetoric with intention).
Ok, dude. Let's see how you figure I did that ...
Fascism is the totalitarian outcome of extreme patriotism, and you're too wrapped up in your dogma to see how it applies to you. (And that's leaving aside your hatchet-job on the already abbreviated Fascist Manifesto. The real one runs about 30 pages, and was written in Mussolini's name, not by Mussolini.)
First of all, JS, I'm hardly "wrapped up" in ANY "dogma". Fascism is what it is, and its main points are summed up in my previous post.

There is nothing "extreme" about patriotism. Quite the contrary, pride in a nation and what it stands for is not only healthy, but honorable. If you are so wrapped up in your hatred for President Bush and/or anyone supporting the geniuses who founded this great nation, that's not MY problem. If you wish to dishonor the memories of the 3,000-plus of YOUR countrymen killed by REAL Fascists four years ago, that is YOUR problem, NOT mine.
For example, your first "match" for liberals is based on some "usurping" of the Constitution by the "liberals," which while it is a delightfully simplistic talking point, simply does not represent any objective reality.
You have come to the wrong place to call the usurpation of the Constitution a "simplistic talking point". I have written post after post on the subject, from my humble beginnings back in February. I challenge you to demonstrate, for example, the constitutionality of the following laws/policies/court decisions:

1. Roe v. Wade

2. The Brady Bill/Assault Weapons Ban/Pick any other gun law you want

3. Kelo v. New London

4. McCain-Feingold

5. Court decisions banning public displays of the Nativity


7. Welfare

8. Socialist Security

9. Mediscare

These are just a few of the many usurpations of the Constitution committed by liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans, most in the last half-century. Demonstrate the constitutionality if you disagree, but be prepared to defend your position with the actual words of the Constitution, as I am challenging the very government (including the courts) that created these things, with this position.
Further, you can trace the anti-democratic notions Mussolini espouses (which have little to do with the Constitution, itself a primarily anti-democratic -- and thereby liberal-- document) through people who are classically considered "conservative" (such as Burke, or more recently Strauss) more easily than you can through "progressives." (You also don't seem to know the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive", but they are different).
Trace it any way you like, idiot. You just called the Constitution anti-democratic. Maybe you can enlighten me as to the difference between "liberals" and "progressives", but I gather it will most likely be a matter of nuance, as is the difference between "socialists" and "communists".
Your further matches, to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, are specious at best, and Mussolini's point is a continuation of his post-democratic conception of the State.
Let me re-quote: ...the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility... Sharpton and Jackson, in their zeal to make themselves and members of their "group" seem victims, make statements to this effect all the time. They are, of course, full of shit. The point you make about Mussolini's point is exactly the point I was making. And yes, I do mean liberals envision getting to the point of "post-democracy" as quickly as possible. Thank God it's not going to happen.
The conception of the State as an absolute, allowing only the freedoms that it deigns, is currently a conservative argument.
Is that so? Check my list above. What conservatives brought us those things?
Note that the Patriot Act removes freedoms, note that the conservatives are the ones who would restrict the ability of gays to marry, note the "free speech zones," note the NSA surveilance. Those are all conservative projects.
The Patriot Act is not something that has been wholeheartedly supported on this blog. Its purpose has been primarily to give the government a way to root out internal terrorism without addressing more pressing issues such as securing our borders. Gays have the same restrictions on marriage as all other Americans. Marriage is, by definition, one man and one woman (the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law). Heterosexuals cannot marry members of the same sex, either. The fact that you brought this up is further evidence that you have not read a damn thing that I have posted over the last ten months. As to NSA surveillance, it is perfectly legitimate the way it is being used in that the only people being watched are those with known terrorist ties and those comminucating with those same people. This surveillance dates back to the CARTER Administration (so it's not a "conservative project"), and was used by the CLINTON Administration, under the codename "Echelon", to spy on American civilians when we were not in an acknowledged state of war.
Even more, Fascism is (as you should have gleaned) is an anti-modernist project. That dovetails with the rise of the religious right, who seek to restrict personal freedoms due to an anti-modernist social view. That has direct echoes in fascism.
It also has direct echoes to the positions held by the Founding Fathers. Your so-called "modernist" positions often include many of the above-listed constitutional usurpations that all have hurt the nation as a whole. The Founders built the Constitution on the concept of individualism and self-government, things that are also at odds with the "modernist" point of view. There are no personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution that are in any way at odds with the religious right. I challenge you to find one.
You even miss the point on the expansion of empire. Right now, America is involved in expanding the colonial empire, despite your protestations of "exporting freedom."
"Expanding the colonial empire" is a talking point that has been beaten to death by the Left ever since we decided to finally take a stand against the terrorists. Expanding an empire would include forcing people to live under our Constitution. We have instead encouraged those we have freed to come up with systems that THEY deem appropriate for THEMSELVES. No one has to "protest" about exporting freedom. It is one of the most honorable things we can do. Just ask the Iraqis and the Afghans. Contrary to the work of reporters who like to parade forth anyone with an axe to grind, these people are largely grateful for what we have done.
From the Structural Adjustment Plans of the IMF to the manipulations of the World Bank in currency markets, the goal of "free market" reforms is to rig the game to our benefit. I'm not saying that this is wrong, simply that it is the structural intention of our policy (you want free trade? Give up agricultural subsidies here in America).
I do not support the IMF, the World Bank, or agricultural subsidies at all. They are all contrary to the concept of freedom in that they work towards the idea of universalizing everything and offering a very liberal "one size fits all" concept in their respective areas. The structural intention of a true free market is to equlalize and maximize opportunity in the market rather than try to equalize the outcome (which has been proven impossible time and again).
As with your attempted Fisking of the Nazi manifesto, you come across as a naive and misguided freshman lost in the sea of political philosophies that you can't even conceptualize. Reading On Liberty by JS Mill might be a good start for you. Fascism certainly isn't.

js | Homepage | 12.29.05 - 12:48 pm | #
Actually, I did an incredible job of Fisking the Nazis. It was linked throughout the blogosphere, and encouraged for bookmarks. As far as your "sea of political philosophies", each and every one of those philosophies can be objectively analyzed and placed on a scale of degree. For example, the Republican Party tends to be to my left, while the Constitution and Libertarian Parties tend to be more to my right.

I further do not pretend that President Bush is a conservative. He has done many things, such as expanding socialist programs, further injecting the federal government into affairs constitutionally reserved to the states and people, and submitting budgets with out-of-control unconstitutional spending, that are typical of liberals. Don't forget the budget debate of 1995, when House Conservatives forced President Clinton to accept their plan to balance the budget in seven years. I found it quite amusing, myself, to watch him go from twelve - to ten - to eight - to finally agreeing to seven.

The one good thing President Bush has done, though in one case he was forced, has been to appoint judges to the Supreme Court that have a history of using the Constitution itself for their guidance. This is defintiely something that we conservatives will continue to advocate and appreciate.

I have studied liberals and their antics for far too long to sit back and take it up the ass when one of them decides he's coming around here and defending those who wrongly characterize those who think and believe the way I do as "Nazis", "Fascists", "racists", etc. Just look at how (predictably) crazy you got when I forced you to look in the mirror. You have done an awesome job of showing just how far removed from reality you really are. I will not make a judgement today as to whether it's naivete or ignorance. My readers are all wise enough to figure that out for themselves.