Fascists and Democrats (But I Repeat Myself)

groovamos: An individual’s answer to a question is what that individual thinks? That is not a tautology? No. An individual may answer based on what the person thinks other people classify him as, or how he is listed on other documents which may reflect someone else's opinion. Zachriel

An individual's answer to a question is what that individual thinks? That is not a tautology? Now go to that page you linked - look at the following: Black or African 27.3% Hispanic or Latino 43.8% Quit playing stupid games. The Houston Press has a category for Hispanics - the ones that can't read. I have lived here for decades reading the local media celebrating the fact that whites are a minority and shrinking as a percentage. The city almost always elects Democrat mayors in a Repub state. Quit playing stupid games with the kids in school who can't read who happen to be brown/Latina as my 3rd generation girlfriend thinks of herself. groovamos

groovamos: A tautology: An individual’s response to the race question is based upon self-identifcation. It's hardly a tautology. Race can be determined by other means. The census uses self-reporting, which is the question you asked. groovamos: Now If You Would, quote the statistics on the makeup of the Houston population. The U.S. Census Bureau provides those statistics. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4835000.html Whites are 50.4% White non-Hispanic are 25.6% Instead of "our population is by far non-white majority", what you meant to say was that "Houston's white non-Hispanic population is a minority". This is a common confusion. Someone can be white Hispanic or black Hispanic or American Indian Hispanic. Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race. Zachriel

A tautology: An individual's response to the race question is based upon self-identifcation. Brilliant. If you are into tautological comedy. Now If You Would, quote the statistics on the makeup of the Houston population. A link would be helpful. groovamos

groovamos: Census data is based on self-identification…. Why don’t you quote your source? U.S. Census Bureau: "An individual’s response to the race question is based upon self-identification." https://www.census.gov/population/race/about/faq.html Zachriel

Census data is based on self-identification.... Why don't you quote your source? I'm connected with local media every day and it has been decades since the city was white majority. The leftists in the local media are very happy about it, since the idea is that white people need to be put into their place - or did you not think of that angle? More importantly I think what we have here is a commitment by Zach to a meme (not to mention an alien ideology) and that is that white people are bigots, and generally guilty as a group, thus Zach trying to peddle a false statistical argument that local statisticians don't. Zach and the media bigots probably do not know that there were several black pastors commenting negatively on the ordinance over the prior months and that our P.C. would-be gestapo mayor tried to subpoena their sermons. And hence the local black population was significantly against her. And most importantly I think we have an insight into why Zach comes to this board compulsively. (S)he knows that said alien ideology depends for its widespread acceptance on a core belief among the media/academic elite in scientific materialism/atheism. So I feel gratified that Zach is here so much, showing that the logic behind what we say here backs plenty of his/her cohorts into the corner and indicating a need to stanch the wounds. Back to the original topic: I want to link to a situation at my alma mater that has convinced me to stop my gifts, the last of which was $500 in December. The chancellor should have come out and said free speech is absolute up to the point of libel or and then stayed out of this controversy. It is all about censoring the wrong thoughts of a Christian professor: http://www.vanderbilthustler.com/news/article_a34f85e6-8a5c-11e5-81a3-6f22ccc66f13.html But the Chancellor has to give credence to correctness: http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2015/11/11/vanderbilt-chancellor-responds-call-suspend-swain/75607986/ groovamos

groovamos: I don’t know what is the deal in including the huge Hispanic population here as white. Census data is based on self-identification, with 50.5% of Houstonians identifying as white on the 2010 census, as opposed to Texas as a whole with 70.4% identifying as white. Zachriel

Zach: Houston is about 50% white. Whites tend to have much higher voting percentages, so the turnout was probably majority white. Nice try if you are going by Wikipedia except you forgot to actually quote what they say: "According to the U.S. Census 2000, the racial makeup of the city was 49.3% White (including Hispanic or Latino)" I don't know what is the deal in including the huge Hispanic population here as white. And I have a very good reason for being suspicious. My girlfriend is Latina and she considers me white and herself brown. I even have had to deal with racial animosity coming from her, not directed at yours truly per say but to call her white to her face would make her laugh. I wanted to watch "Legally Blonde" with her, and before we could get to the really hilarious performance sequences by Reese, she angrily made me turn it off; she could not stand all those white girls acting like privileged white girls. I'm sure privileged Latinas or Asians would have been OK. (there goes that theory of only whites can be racist) Our weekly tabloid, the Houston Press, liberal as it is, stated in a feature article on HISD that black and Hispanic students graduating from the system have deficient reading comprehension, whereas according to the article, whites and Asians do not. So the people compiling statistics do not include Hispanics and whites as a group. http://www.houstonpress.com/news/why-is-it-so-many-hisd-kids-cant-read-on-grade-level-and-its-more-than-you-think-6731690 Nice try, but really, not great. Like I said, Houston is BY FAR majority non-white. groovamos

I tell you one thing Zach, I wouldn't vote for either if I were you. The conservatives party and the republican party are far removed from what I consider conservatives, they sold out long ago. The establishment parties are bought and paid for by special interests anyway. If I was Voting in Britain then I wouldn't vote for any of the establishment parties, If I was Voting in America then I wouldn't vote for the establishment parties either. Jack Jones

Jack Jones: Bush was a cuckservative. You seem to have an absolutist view of the left-right continuum. There is the pure right, then everyone else is the left. Then you make generalizations about the left, which includes just about every political position except your own. Zachriel

Bush was a cuckservative. "His hubristic attempt to remake the political culture of foreign nations via military occupation was not conservative. His profligate spending habits were not conservative. His empowerment of the federal education bureaucracy at the expense of state and local control was not conservative. His approach to immigration reform -- a guest-worker program -- wasn't conservative either. Perhaps it would be easier to respect his departures from conservative orthodoxy if he'd been a good president. As it stands, he was unprincipled and a pragmatist's nightmare." I don't have time for leftists or cuckservatives who may as well be democrats. Jack Jones

Jack Jones: It’s the left that panders to Islam, Labour Councils in the uk who became aware of young british girls being sexually abused by muslim peado gangs turned a blind eye to it, The labour party panders heavily to the muslim vote. Pretty broad strokes. While some on the political left certainly have overlooked repression, many on the right have also made alliances with repression. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-tangled-web-of-us-saudi-ties/ Zachriel

"such overgeneralizations of Muslim belief is common in Islamophobes" And Implementing Muslim Jihad Doctrine is common in... Can you finish the thought, Zachy? Andrew asauber

"There are very few people on the left or the right who don’t decry violent jihadists, nor is it Islamophobic to do so." It's the left that panders to Islam, Labour Councils in the uk who became aware of young british girls being sexually abused by muslim peado gangs turned a blind eye to it. The labour party panders heavily to the muslim vote. The former leader of the labour party wanted to bring in a law against Islamaphobia which would have had been used against people who are critical of Islam and the islamifification of Britain, The current labour leader who seems very cosy with muslims. He referred to Hezbollah and hamas as friends. Jack Jones

Jack Jones: The people that are enabling the islamification of the west are the leftists, if anyone speaks out then they are labelled islamaphobic or racist by the leftists. There are very few people on the left or the right who don't decry violent jihadists, nor is it Islamophobic to do so. Jack Jones: Both the leftists and muslims believe in big government and control ... Not all leftists, nor all Muslims, believe in big government. However, such overgeneralizations of Muslim belief is common in Islamophobes. groovamos: Well guess what- our population is by far non-white majority Houston is about 50% white. Whites tend to have much higher voting percentages, so the turnout was probably majority white. Zachriel

JoeCoder: I had another thought about how to test selection in Mendel’s Accountant. Looks like an interesting and valid test. Will take a look at it later, and let you know if it changes our position. Zachriel

Barry @38 - if they were not trying to mislead, then one shouldn't try to prosecute. And WJM gave us no evidence that the MPI scientists were trying to mislead, or even what they said was wrong. Bob O'H

@Zachriel: Sorry to hijack this thread but I'm not sure how else to contact you. I had another thought about how to test selection in Mendel's Accountant. I am now even more sure that Mendel's Accountant is being too generous in regard to the strenght of selection. Please see our thread. JoeCoder

Do you think that’s the case, or are you reaching for some reason to disqualify this example of a shameful opinion being held by members of a party you’d rather not be tainted by racism? Now why would you propose that? A little reaching of your own? To be honest with you I'm sick beyond sick of this obsession with race and you seem to just keep it going. You know as well as I do what white liberals come up with in their name-calling towards black conservatives, based on their target's skin color. I've had plenty of white leftist friends and have on many occasions seen them slip up with a groan or something similar e.g. when told their grown daughters hook up with a partner of another race. Or when a nearby neighborhood becomes non-white close to their homestead. Then we have the disgusting PC rules that apply based on skin color invented by white liberals. Such as if a person has black skin, they are never guilty of racist sentiment. Here's another one I just saw liberals in the media violate in spite of themselves. I live in Houston and the national news was filled with bigoted remarks regarding our population about a referendum rejecting a city non-discrimination ordinance. Well guess what- our population is by far non-white majority, so that makes all those white commentators racist for violating their own PC rule - kinda like the one where if you criticize a non-white president, you are racist. I even saw one rabid white liberal make it worse for himself on Facebook when this was pointed out and he came back with "blacks were fooled by Republicans" on the issue, showing his unconscious opinion of them being easily fooled - quite racist would you not agree. BTW of course I totally agree that any law addressing interracial marriage would be stupid. And no Republican here so you wasted your effort. Oh - might add that yours truly has been labelled a racist for voting Repub in 2008 for the first time ever. groovamos

Bob O'H: Let me unpack it for you. Whether the science predictions turn out to be right or wrong is totally irrelevant to whether the scientific enterprise should be criminalized? Should we prosecute all those who created warming models that vastly overstated future warming and then asked us all to make policy decisions based on those models? Barry Arrington

"Of course there are. Currently, the most dangerous and extreme crop of ideologues are ultra-conservative jihadists." The people that are enabling the islamification of the west are the leftists, if anyone speaks out then they are labelled islamaphobic or racist by the leftists. Both the leftists and muslims believe in big government and control, the leftists will also be on the menu too if they do not become muslims, but they are deluded into thinking nothing will happen to them. And yes, There may be cuckservatives who have sold out or who do not want to say anything as they are scared of being demonized by the sjw's and the leftist media. Islam and Conservatism in its western form are not compatible but the enablers of islamification of the west are the left. Jack Jones

OK so does that means what you say, voters in a primary, not voters necessarily affiliated with anything, i.e. independents? There may have been non-Republicans voting in the GOP primaries. But I think that if that could explain a position taken by fifty percent of those voters, it would be reflected in the overall primary results. Do you think that's the case, or are you reaching for some reason to disqualify this example of a shameful opinion being held by members of a party you'd rather not be tainted by racism? Final thought: can the contributor find for us the results of the same polling question posed to Democrat primary voters? I could not find it. I'm in an airport lounge and not really in a position to search. The best I can give you is the poll I linked to above, in which 12% of Democrats and 23% of Republicans disapproved of interracial marriage. And no, neither poll result shows that racism is close to the heart of either party. Sometimes you have to reason with your brain rather than your party identification. Learned Hand

Err, Barry, would you are to explain your point in 24? William J Murray suggested we should " investigate and prosecute the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, which misled us all about the risks of climate change". But in the quotations he gives, they were making specific claims about the future German climate. I should acknowledge that I was wrong that the further claims went against the MPI for Meteorology's comments, which were clearly about predictions for the future: their comments are clearly in line with the predictions on the DWD's pages, and the evidence of the last couple of years seem to be in line with this (although the last couple of years is not long enough to decide if the trend will continue). Bob O'H

L. Hand: For example, in a Mississippi poll in 2011, half of the surveyed GOP primary voters said that interracial marriage should be illegal. OK so does that means what you say, voters in a primary, not voters necessarily affiliated with anything, i.e. independents? Also polling at a primary can be tainted by all kinds of shenanigans. Mississippi has open primaries: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2014/aug/20/mississippi-primaries-open-or-not/ Rasmussen: Just over one-in-four Democrats (27%), however, favor prosecuting those who don’t agree with global warming. Only 11% of Republicans and 12% of voters not affiliated with either major party agree. I assume this means what it says: a group NOT affiliated compared to two groups affiliated with major parties. Final thought: can the contributor find for us the results of the same polling question posed to Democrat primary voters? I could not find it. groovamos

Z, yes, properly, the one given by actual fascists and national socialists. As in, kindly explain to me NSDAP, National Socialist German Worker's Party. KF kairosfocus

Jack Jones: What the leftists did was take the term liberalism which in its classical sense meant limited government, freedom of the individual, free speech and they associated it with big government, political correctness, speech codes etc liberalism, A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=liberalism&submit.x=41&submit.y=18 More generally, liberalism is a balancing between liberty and equality. While liberalism is on the political left, not all on the left are liberal. Jack Jones: There is nobody more intolerant than the leftists of today Of course there are. Currently, the most dangerous and extreme crop of ideologues are ultra-conservative jihadists. Zachriel

What the leftists did was take the term liberalism which in its classical sense meant limited government, freedom of the individual, free speech and they associated it with big government, political correctness, speech codes etc There is nobody more intolerant of free speech than the leftists. Now, there is a new phenomena with the age of the internet, with the leftist social justice warriors that go after people to get them fired for not holding politically correct views, we saw that happened to Tim Hunt. These are nasty, vile and spiteful people that take pleasure in hounding people that have opposite views or say something that is not politically correct. Free speech to a leftist is that you agree with them. Jack Jones

kairosfocus: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com.....ic-threat/ The term fascism already has a political definition. Zachriel

PS: Let me clip: >>it is arguable that the typical political discourse of left vs right wings is outdated once traditional Monarchy lost the contest to classical liberal, constitutional democratic government and liberal, free-market, free enterprise economics has shown itself so superior that the largest nominally communist state in the world, China, has reverted to market economics, including even a stock exchange. Where also, the second most populous Communist — indeed Stalinist — state, North Korea is evidently now a monarchy in its third generation of de facto kings, the first as “eternal president” having been made a god. But as of recent decades past, classical liberals have been re-labelled conservative rightists, and have often found themselves deemed suspect due to perceived fascist tendencies, fascism (including the National Socialist German Workers Party . . . i.e. the Nazis — and yes, that is a big clue) being deemed a political disease of the Right. However, much of this becomes deeply questionable once we ponder not only the above definitions and compare what fascists actually did. Daniel Hannan, late of the UK Telegraph’s blogs, offers some re-balancing perspectives, and I will allow myself to clip just one of the posters decorating his blog post: nazi_arbeiter_poster_socialist The socialist face of Fascism/Nazism: “The National Socialist German worker stands against capitalism” >>Leftists become incandescent when reminded of the socialist roots of Nazism By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: February 25th, 2014 On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver “der echte Sozialismus”: real socialism. Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk. So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism: It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said. Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun,” he boasted, adding that “the whole of National Socialism” was “based on Marx”. Marx’s error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity – to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to “convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists” – by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish,” he told Wagener, “we shall be in a position to achieve.” . . . . >> Sheldon Richman in Concise Enc of Econ and Liberty adds: >>Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions. Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics. Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism. Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely. To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production . . . >> Richman also cites Mussolini and Hitler: MUSSOLINI, 1928 Autobiography: >>The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (Mussolini, Benito. My Autobiography. New York: Scribner’s, 1928., p. 280)>> HITLER, per citation: >>The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai, Avraham. Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy. Trans. Ruth Hadass-Vashitz. Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd., 1990., pp. 26–27)>> The burning Reichstag The burning Reichstag So, it is quite reasonable to argue that there is strong evidence that Fascism and National Socialism were in fact socialistic. At heart, fascism is the notion that in a day of “unprecedented” crisis that targets a large — locally dominant or pivotally influential — perceived victim group or class or religious or racial/national body, a super-man figure emerges to rescue the victims; one who is beyond ordinary human powers and limits (including those of morality and just law). A political messiah who stands as champion for the identity group to save it, defending it from the various scapegoated out-groups who are held to be to blame for the victimisation of the in-group. That super-man political messiah then seizes power and is widely recognised as a man of “destiny.” In an atmosphere of hysteria, slander and propagandistic deception that is usually multiplied by chaos and violence or at least riotous assemblies in the streets baying for blood, the power blocs, political, legal, military, corporate, religious, etc then panic and align with him, hoping to at least influence him while giving him effectively unlimited dictatorial power in the face of a crisis [nothing like a burning Reichstag to get people into a panic!] — which becomes tantamount to ownership by the state concentrated in a politically messianistic autocrat or at most a new oligarchy in alliance with older centres of power too panicked to see the implications of the secret police 4:00 am knock on the door.>> kairosfocus

How do you explain the word “socialist” in the National Socialist Party? The same way I explain the word "National," which reflected and appealed to rightist nationalistic politics. What were the actual policies that make Nazism socialist under the modern definition? Their support for capitalistic enterprise? Their support for traditional social strata? I see far more that falls on the right than the left, which of course is irrelevant to modern rightists, who are not responsible for the atrocities of other people in other times in other countries. For some political warriors, though, all that counts is "they were bad," and thus must be associated with the enemy. Learned Hand

I bet all of the Republican senators and congressmen who championed the civil rights laws in the 1960s would say “no, that’s not fair.” I bet they would say, "How would I know what Republicans will believe in 2011? I live in 1964. Why look so far in the past?" And I bet they would also be disappointed that half a century was not enough time for the party to transcend the hideous, harmful version of social conservativism that is more concerned with racial purity than personal freedom. You've conveniently identified the moment when racist Democrats chose to become Republicans instead, where Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond found a home for their push for "states' rights." Not individual rights--states' rights. Specifically, the right to discrimination. Modern Republicans are not responsible for the sins of their fathers. But neither do they inherit their fathers' triumphs. If a quarter of racists doesn't damn the GOP, why do these poll results damn the Democrats? The most traditional reason of all: we're right and they're the enemy. No further reason is needed when reason isn't the reason for the attack. Are Republicans the party of personal freedom? Ask the conservatives who were furious when they lost the power to criminalize homosexual relations. If there's a party of personal freedom, surely it's the Libertarian Party. It's even in the name. Learned Hand

Z, here: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/creationism/on-good-government-justice-origins-issues-and-the-alleged-right-wing-creationist-christo-fascist-theocratic-threat/ KF PS: When it comes to the use of equality as a slogan, I simply point out the actual history of Communism with its toll in blood and tears, and the saying about some being more equal than others. kairosfocus

Learned Hand: I would say that most people (although not most scholars) place fascism on the side of the spectrum opposite themselves. People sometimes conflate means with the ideology. Authoritarians can be found on the left and the right, but authority is just a means. Extremists believe that the goals are worth the means, whether on the left or the right. But you're right that many people just use the term as a synonym for the forces of "darkness" or more usually authoritarianism. Barry Arrington: How do you explain the word “socialist” in the National Socialist Party? @21 Zachriel

Bob O'H, Way to miss the point Bob. Barry Arrington

Zach,

Most scholars, then and now, placed fascism on the political right.

Yes, that is true, and it says more about "most scholars" than it does about fascism. How do you explain the word "socialist" in the National Socialist Party? Barry Arrington

Most scholars, then and now, placed fascism on the political right. Most people, then and now, placed fascism on the political right. Gee whiz, Mussolini placed fascism on the political right. I would say that most people (although not most scholars) place fascism on the side of the spectrum opposite themselves. Mahuna's analysis is fairly typical of the casual identity-protection most people do when asked to assess the political ideologies of people they dislike: our politics are freedom and light, their politics are slavery and darkness. Learned Hand

kairosfocus: the pivotal issue is that the very fascists understood themselves to be socialists. The political left is generally defined as advocacy of equality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics The political right is generally defined as support for traditional hierarchies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics The fascists advocated for a highly hierarchical society with an absolute dictator and nationalist exceptionalism. Even if they implemented some aspects of socialism, their aim was far from egalitarian. Zachriel

WJM @ 4 - The quotes for the MPI Institute for Meteorology are about the future, and were made in 2005 and 2009. The 2009 one in particular has to refer to 2010 at the earliest, and clearly they're looking even further into the future. So quotes from 2010 and 2007 don't really cut it. FWIW, the past couple of winters have been milder, at least in Frankfurt, with almost no snow in either winter. If this continues (and the trend is German-wide) then it would indicate warming. Winter temperatures are plotted by the DWD here, including projections into the future which suggest an upward trend. Bob O'H

Zachriel, the pivotal issue is that the very fascists understood themselves to be socialists. They were "right" of Stalin indeed but that does not say much otherwise. KF kairosfocus

Barry Arrington: it is a common error to assume that fascism is a phenomenon of the right. Most scholars, then and now, placed fascism on the political right. Most people, then and now, placed fascism on the political right. Gee whiz, Mussolini placed fascism on the political right.

Benito Mussolini: Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "right", a Fascist century.

It's only recently that some on the American right have attempted to redefine the left-right spectrum so that the left encompasses fascism. Zachriel

LH:

The question was, is it fair to say that it “seems that the [racist] impulse is never far from the center of [Republican] politics”?

I bet all of the Republican senators and congressmen who championed the civil rights laws in the 1960s would say "no, that's not fair." And I would agree with them. To be fair a majority of Democrats also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As fascism metastasizes in the American University, let us never forget that the overwhelming majority of college professors (especially in the non-hard science programs) are Democrats. Coincidence? No. One party -- and one party only -- is driving for more collectivism, more government control over our everyday lives. And it is not the Republican party. Barry Arrington

mahuna

I’m confused as to why you chose to call these Democrats “fascists”.

mahuna, it is a common error to assume that fascism is a phenomenon of the right. It is not. If it helps, the most famous fascist part of all time had the words "socialist" in its name. It is a mystery why this confusion should persist, because it is patently absurd to suggest that Hiter and Stalin were on opposite ends of a any spectrum. For further reading I suggest Goldberg's book referenced in the OP. Barry Arrington

I'm confused as to why you chose to call these Democrats "fascists". They are, and always were, Communists, and when Communists are in control, they have oppressed humanity MUCH more than their cousins who called themselves "fascist". Mao alone killed (was responsible for the deaths of) 100 million people. Remind yourself of that every day: 100. MILLION. people. Mussolini, a leading Socialist and long-time associate of Lenin, announced at the beginning of World War One that Benito and his Italian Socialists considered parochial Italian nationalism to be more important than Lenin's idea of the "international solidarity of workers", Lenin threw Benito out of the club, and Benito announced that he and his Italian communists were now to be called "Fascists". The fasces (a bundle of riot batons with or without the axe of execution) was a symbol of Ancient Roman power and authority. So "fascism" really only makes sense when applied to Italian socialists. The difference between Communism and "national socialism" (the German-created term for fascism outside Italy) is that things are actually a bit freer under national socialism because individuals are allowed to own property. In particular, large businesses have private owners who receive profits. Of course every business is required to belong to a state-run cartel that issues production plans for each business. As the song says, "Step outa line, the man come, and take you a-way". Also note that ALL Socialists are Left Wing. The Right Wing is composed of Libertarians and real Anarchists (no government at all, but you OWN all your stuff and don't mess with other people's stuff). The basic distinction is a sliding scale going from COMPLETE government control of everything (despotism/Communism) through levels of mixed government and private control to COMPLETE private control of property. The original Leftists were backers of the kings of France (Monarchists are LEFTISTS) who were seizing control of land and destroying traditional rights. They were opposed by the nobles (who had traditionally owned most of the land) and the emerging businessmen who owned money. When the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis) rose to power in the 1930s, they were anti-Communist because the German Communists were run by Moscow (as were all other Communists). Stalin desired a way to denounce the German Socialists to the public in Western Europe and the US, and so Moscow invented the myth that the Nazis were "right wing" who opposed the virtuous Left Wing. The idea caught on big time with FDR's left-leaning government, and the Press adopted it whole-hog as the reason America needed to destroy the horrible Right Wing dictatorships while allying with all of the good, well-intentioned Leftists around the world. So, if you mean "government or party-controlled restriction of individual rights and property" ALWAYS say "Socialist". Even Hitler and the boys were Socialists. mahuna

Learned Hand:

I think people answer survey questions (whether over the phone or in writing) quickly, sloppily, and by interpreting the wording according to their own notions.

Sort of like how you respond to Barry's posts. Mung

Do you think that people listen carefully to survey questions, interpret them perfectly accurately, and answer accordingly? I don't; I think people answer survey questions (whether over the phone or in writing) quickly, sloppily, and by interpreting the wording according to their own notions. For example, 26% of Americans answered a survey by saying that the sun goes around the earth. Are one in four Americans that uneducated? I doubt it; I think it's more likely that they answered randomly, or picked the most amusing answer, or misunderstood the question, or otherwise gave an answer that doesn't accurately reflect their beliefs for some unknown reason. We can't know for sure how those people interpreted the question, only how they answered it. We can try to think carefully about those answers--but that requires thinking charitably about people you loathe, rather than spitting on them and calling them names. That might be too much to ask of you. Given the choice between thinking and calling names, I think you prefer to insult people. Not just because you evidently enjoy it, but also as a way to avoid having to think awkward thoughts or reconsider your stated positions. For example, you're so eager to call me names that you've ignored the question again: Is it fair to say that it “seems that the [racist] impulse is never far from the center of [Republican] politics”? Or is the standard only applicable to the other party? It's not an important question. But it demonstrates how one-sided your standards are. This implies that your comments are the result of a bias; I do not think you are willing or able to consider that. I think you'll fall back on more insults rather than take that possibility seriously. Learned Hand

Learned Hand, you are lying again. The survey question:

Should the government investigate and prosecute scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming?

LH's fake interpretation:

I suspect that a significant chunk of them understood the question to refer to people who knowingly lied about global warming.

I really don't think you are stupid enough to believe that the word "question" means "knowingly lied about." If I did, I would let you off with, "LH is really stupid." Nope. You are not that stupid. You are a liar. Barry Arrington

there is a oppressive censorious element more so in the identities that make up the democratic party. thats why they seek court control on important matters like abortion, gay etc etc etc. Yet its a minority I think or rather the majority who vote dem are just regular people. There is a bad fanatic elements that more are in the dem party. In fact always it was the party of ethnics (including southerners) trying to interfere with Yankees values and wealth. The dEm party, I say, has always been illegal since the cibil war. its been composed of those breaking contract for thier citizenship in the nation in the first place. anyways. Possibly some of them meant to investigate illegal denial of evodence to make the case of global warming by man. Finally human nature and beings easily seek control of speech/beliefs in opposition to important beliefs and desires they seek. Let the dem folk deny they believe in state control of truth!! A good election point in the future. Robert Byers

If 23% of nationwide Republicans held those views in 2011, that would be a very bad thing. If? Do you think they were lying? Or do you think survey results might not be a sufficiently nuanced representation of the respondents' views? I happen to agree--but let's apply that to all people, not just those who share your party affiliation. The question wasn't, "Would it be bad if people had super-racist opinions?" I already know your answer to that question. The question was, is it fair to say that it “seems that the [racist] impulse is never far from the center of [Republican] politics”? Or is the standard only applicable to the other party? Do you agree that it is a bad thing that today — not in 2011 — 27% of Democrats are fascists? I hope for your clients' sake that your rhetoric in court is less clumsy and silly. These respondents are not "fascists," except if we use the trendy definition of "fascist": "someone who disagrees with my politics." I do disagree that "scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming" should be prosecuted for questioning global warming. I find the idea that people should be prosecuted just for questioning global warming reprehensible. And I doubt that many of those 27% actually believe that. I suspect that a significant chunk of them understood the question to refer to people who knowingly lied about global warming, analogous to how tobacco companies lied about the health dangers of cigarettes (both directly and by attempting to influence the academic debate). I can't prove it, of course. But then, I'm not driven to assume that the people who disagree with me are "fascists." Learned Hand

"Speaking of book burnings, after 2.5 years I am still waiting for an answer to the question I posed here: Nick Matzke — Book Burner?" He is probably a leftist Atheist, He seems to be linked with political activism against the alternative view of ID, with his involvement with the fringe Darwinism advocacy organization the ncse. Leftism is like a bad disease, it has ruined academia with the political correctness. Free speech to a leftist is that you agree with them. Jack Jones

Yes LH. If 23% of nationwide Republicans held those views in 2011, that would be a very bad thing. Hopefully, the views of that 23% have moderated since then. Do you agree that it is a bad thing that today -- not in 2011 -- 27% of Democrats are fascists? Barry Arrington

And here's a national poll showing that as of 2011, 23% of Republicans disapproved of interracial marriage. Would you say that it "seems that the [racist] impulse is never far from the center of [Republican] politics"? Or is the standard only applicable to the hateful idiot liars who do not share your beliefs? Learned Hand

Yes, if we limit the lessons we learn from it to the same region in which the poll was taken. Is it fair to say that extreme opposition to interracial marriage is a core value of the Mississippi GOP? Learned Hand

LH: Comparing a poll in Mississippi to a nationwide poll to gauge the attitudes of a party generally. Do you think that is fair? Barry Arrington

Seversky, By your reasoning, shouldn't we now investigate and prosecute the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, which misled us all about the risks of climate change?

“Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C.” Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.” Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.

Should we investigate and prosecute:

Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.” Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

“We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.” Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010

“Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.” Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007

“Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter.” Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007

More here. William J Murray

"determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change" Seversky, I think before we proceed, we should determine what climate change is. Care to explain what it is, since apparently you know? Andrew asauber

An attitude that’s shared by 27% of the party is “never far from the center of Democratic politics”? I predict that your standards for determining the core values of a party are highly situational, and used to demean the party you loathe without applying to your own politics. For example, in a Mississippi poll in 2011, half of the surveyed GOP primary voters said that interracial marriage should be illegal. Is this position—one that was of course a dearly-held position of social conservatives for a long time—“never far from the center of [Republican] politics” in the South? Or does such polling lose its significance when it no longer supports angry contempt of those with whom you disagree? Learned Hand

Do 27% of Democrats support public book burnings if the books being burned dispute climate alarmism?

The purpose of the investigation is “to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business.” In other words it’s a bit like investigating whether tobacco companies lied about the risks of smoking. Was that fascism? Or is it your view that giant corporations and industries should be immune from any form of public regulation and accountability? Seversky