Christian militia lulz!

[sabotabby]

nihilistic_kid posted a picture. Compare these portraits to English portraits of drunkards in the Edwardian era. Also, their website must be seen to be believed. If I didn't think I'd get in trouble for it, I'd totally show it to my students when I try (in vain, I might add) to teach them why you shouldn't tile a background image and then put red type over it.

It's amusing to poke fun of them, but expect to see more of this sort of thing. American political culture has been steeping in a higher-than-usual amount of crazy for some time now, and it's just beginning to come to a head.

Comments

[db-en.livejournal.com]

Animal activist do get violent for real, I can provide links. As for property damage not being violence, are you serious? Burning down a synagogue is not listed as violence in your book? How about if you financially support someone who is engaged in violence? It may not be violence in itself, but surely the act encourages it. I therefore do not see your first point.

I suppose that those who conflate nazism and socialist allude to the totalitarian nature of both regimes. In that they were alike. On questions of economy, Stalin stood to the left of Hitler, as we understand the notions of "left" and "right" today.

So you consider the IRS guy a libertarian. First of all, libertarianity by itself does not determine a person's position on the left-right continuum. Could you refer me to a more specific libertarian ideology (say, from the list on wikipedia's article on libertarianism) so that I can check that guy's last words with that particular ideology?

It is disingenius to claim anything without having reasonable proof. Some media outlets are slanted to the left, some aren't. Why is it relevant who is heading the FCC? Media is "free" in the United States, the FCC, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't dictate opinions.

Finally, bans don't surprise me at all. Private journals are for the most part personal venting spaces. It is fully understandable that telling people who take their political stance seriously that their political opinions suck is not going to be welcome. If someone came to my journal and started routinely telling me something that would get under my skin, I'd ban him too. This doesn't necessarily mean, however, that he would have been wrong and I would have been right. My courses are getting under my skin, for instance, and I just have to shut up and do the work, because my profs are smart and I am not. But it's completely understandable that most people don't feel like making LJ time into thinking time. And I am by no means an exception.

[sabotabby]

It is disingenius to claim anything without having reasonable proof. Some media outlets are slanted to the left, some aren't. Why is it relevant who is heading the FCC? Media is "free" in the United States, the FCC, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't dictate opinions.

Are you serious?

No wait, I take that back. I'm not going to even engage you on this, or any of your other points. It's not worth it. My time is limited and valuable.

In case you're wondering, no, you're not under my skin. And you're not making me or anyone else think. You are trying to tempt me into spending time responding to deeply misinformed and undereducated inanities rather than doing something either productive, or fun, or both. Given your slide into right-wing talking points as of late, I might as well be arguing with the semi-literate boors on conservatism (well, except they banned me for insulting someone's dick size), given that at least they are on occasion entertaining.

Don't flatter yourself. You would be better served staying out of politics entirely and concentrating on your studies.

[db-en.livejournal.com]

I would most definitely be better served by staying out of politics!

I find it uncanny, however, that you are able to sell yourself a version of reality in which the reason you choose not to engage with the arguments and questions I bring is due to either me or the ideas I bring up being objectively stupid, misinformed and inane. You keep alluding to my ignorance while missing one opportunity after another to alleviate it in any way. Now you appear to have convinced yourself that I have come to hold right-wing positions, and that any discussion with me is therefore pointless. Yet I have not come to hold right-wing positions (you may wish to view my latest journal entry). If you did not wish to engage with me on the subject, why did you reply to my original comment at all?

In short, from my corner it appears that you, and some others, choose not to engage with me not so much because I am misinformed, stupid or inane (all of which I undoubtedly and self-admittedly am), but rather because I can, and sometimes do, dig up relevant inconvenient information, because I know a thing or two about the utter indeterminancy in which the social and economic sciences find themselves these days, and often allude to them, and because I am overall not as easy to argue with as a truly inane and stupid conservative in whatever LJ community you may frequent.

You don't wanna talk to me? Don't, who's forcing you. But if you claim that you choose not to do so due to me constituting a laughable opponent whose arguments deserve no attention, then, as far as most reasonable people are concerned, the joke is on you.

As a farewell gift, I would appreciate it if you did take the trouble of linking me to some material which explains why and how the FCC controls the opinions expressed by MSM, either as a whole or in specific cases. I do not observe "mind control" among the missions or strategies of the FCC.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, and good night.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

You keep alluding to my ignorance while missing one opportunity after another to alleviate it in any way.

sabotabby isn't actually obligated to educate you. Just, y'know, FYI.

In short, from my corner it appears that you, and some others, choose not to engage with me not so much because I am misinformed, stupid or inane (all of which I undoubtedly and self-admittedly am), but rather because I can, and sometimes do, dig up relevant inconvenient information, because I know a thing or two about the utter indeterminancy in which the social and economic sciences find themselves these days...

Good for you. You figured it all out. Now you can go away feeling all smug.

[db-en.livejournal.com]

You au contraire don't get to feel smug at all after your comment.

[terry-terrible.livejournal.com]

I suppose that those who conflate nazism and socialist allude to the totalitarian nature of both regimes. In that they were alike. On questions of economy, Stalin stood to the left of Hitler, as we understand the notions of "left" and "right" today.

Actually there are alot of people running around parroting the "nazi's were really socialist as communists" thesis that Jonah Goldberg pushed in Liberal Fascism. Though the thoery is hardly coherent it's main point seems to be that both regimes were totalirtarian but their totalitarian nature arouse out of their "socialist" nature.

But this critique tends to be very out of touch with modern scholarship on Fascism (or Soviet communism) and draws upon and understanding of Nazism that for all intense purposes has been gleaned not from original source material but Hogan's Heros.

The toltalitarism model of the understanding of the authoritarian regimes was real popular in the '50s and 60's but has fallen out of favor with recognition that totalitarian regimes act to a great degree in reaction to pragmatic realities and not ideology, that there historically never been a monolithic Fascist model that all totalitarians can by judged by, to a great extent they were molded by the countries they came to be in. Furthermore that Nazism was a movement supported mainly by rightist, on an ideological level it wasn't quite right or left, it was a real mish-mash of modernism mixed with traditional 19th century national that transcended what we think of the left to right spectrum that was very specific to the crisis in modernity and rejection of 19th century liberalism and marxism that occurred in many post WWI countries.

[db-en.livejournal.com]

The toltalitarism model of the understanding of the authoritarian regimes was real popular in the '50s and 60's but has fallen out of favor with recognition that totalitarian regimes act to a great degree in reaction to pragmatic realities and not ideology

Could you please point me to some reading on the issue?

Calling people nazis or fascists is generally a misleading propagandist move, I am not contending this point. But I don't understand sabotabby's claim that people who say that the man who flew his airplane into the IRS building was a marxist-sympathizer are in fact conflating nazism and socialism. I failed to see the link so apparent to mlle sabo, yet she did not care to elaborate.

[terry-terrible.livejournal.com]

The The Anatomy of Fascism is a good starting point for European fascism in general, Richard J. Evan's three volume series about the development of the Nazi state is a good too, but a big read to swallow, Hitler's Empire is good read on the helter-skelter nature of the Nazi's management of the territory they aquired in world war two.

But you're missing the point of the critique that sabo provided, people who are linking that IRS attack guy to Marxism are taking a bunch of incoherent and scattered ideas and putting them together without context to paint Stack as a Marxist or whatever else they need for political purposes, just like the people (often the same ones doing this with Stack) are taking selective fragments of fact without context to create a portrait that Nazis and Communists were both birds of a feather to achieve a political narrative that fits their world view.

I wouldn't say that Stack was a strictly tea-partier either, he could've have been described as "tea-partyish" maybe. If you read his stupid manifesto and look at his biography, it seems that he was general anti-authoritarian populist who failed many times to build a business and achieve the recgonition he thought he deserved. I think finally he probably decided that he could best serve both his grudge against the government and his desire for recognition through his little suicide mission. It's pretty much no more than that.

but anyway, arguing left wing inspired violence vs. right wing inspired violence is neither here or there in my opinion not because using violence as means for a political end in and of itself is not immoral (though 99.9% it is immoral, that all i'm going to say about my private views on it on the internet) because it really says nothing about the legitimacy of the ideas or morals being discussed. It's just a smear of "your guys are more extreme than ours" that has been given a huge amount wieght in mainstream American political discourse.

All that says is that a small fragment of people are willing to take violent action to propragate an idea or moral authority that they believe in, which applies to every kind of idea from animal rights, to monarchism, to jihadism, to white supremacy.

[db-en.livejournal.com]

First of all, thank you for your thoughtful response.

You have inspired me to read Stack's last letter, and I would indeed agree that he and communism are very distant cousins. I now disagree with those who argue that he was a "marxist-sympathizer". And, yes, his is a personal story that does not have too much to do with an ideology of abolishing taxation either.

What seems to have happened in the last week or so was a surge in media accusations against threats of right-wing violence; accusations which, as far as I was so far able to judge, were unsubstantiated. Since the story of the Hutaree militia fits in nicely with this narrative of impending violence from the right, I commented to the effect that this narrative was misguided and unfounded. The article about Stack being not a Tea Party but a communist sympathizer was one of many brought by those who wish to undermine the idea that right-wingers are potential terrorists. I admit now that it has no much meat.

Yes, accusations of being stupid and dangerous are made by both sides, and are in both cases usually unhelpful. Sabotabby is rather keen on accusing people on the right of being stupid and dangerous or insinuating that they are. In fact, I sometimes doubt she believes that any conservative can be smart or peace-loving or that a progressive person may not be. A large part of the leftie blogosphere is the same way. I fully agree with you that it is unhelpful. It is precisely this that annoys me. We are in essence arguing on the same side.

[erikthedane.livejournal.com]

"Calling people nazis or fascists is generally a misleading propagandist move, I am not contending this point."

Dern skippy! That's why I just refer to people as "Fuckers".
No need to sling names that don't fit or miss the mark politically. "Fuckers" is all-encompassing.

:D

[db-en.livejournal.com]

You have a bright future in progressive rhetoric.