Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
To no one's surprise, the terminally ridiculous right wing sockpuppet Chuck Norris, who is far too stupid to have thoughts of his own so he just repeats whatever the right wing says, has endorsed a whole slate of conservative candidates -- including at least one who openly advocates the death penalty for gays and lesbians. In his latest column, he writes:
That is why I am backing other conservative candidates like Bob Vander Plaats for governor of Iowa, John Kasich for governor of Ohio and Judge Roy Moore for governor of Alabama.Often overlooked, however, is the critical nature and necessity of electing regional and state justices, like the seat in Alabama once occupied by my friend, Roy Moore. Undoubtedly, readers remember him as the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama who was ousted for refusing to remove a copy of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama State Court House. Roy's résumé reads like a "Who's Who?" of American life and justice: from private practice to district attorney, then circuit judge and chief justice.
More than just an amazing legal mind, he is first a true patriot and passionate family man. Raised in the house of a traditional homemaker and World War II veteran, Roy was the oldest of five children. He served in the Army during the Vietnam era and left an admired captain. Moore's passionate and rugged Americanism could be seen from the battlefield to arenas of kickboxing and ranching back home. Roy Moore's awesome autobiographical manifesto "So Help Me God!" is a must read for any patriot.
Forget his autobiography. You will find out all you need to know about Roy Moore by reading a decision he wrote in February, 2002 in a custody case called Ex Parte H.H.. In this case, the Alabama Supreme Court overturned a custody ruling involving a lesbian parent on technical grounds, but that was not enough for Moore. He filed his own concurring opinion that was little more than a vicious anti-gay screed in which he declared that the government should imprison gays and lesbians and even put them to death, quoting the Bible as his justification for it.
Think I'm kidding? I'm not. In his concurrence, Moore repeatedly cites the Bible as his justification and then declares:
The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle (homosexuality), to not encourage a criminal lifestyle.
Moore is a fascist and a theocrat.
Politics
Comments
I note that Judge Roy More cited 1 Timothy 1-8 as justification for not allowing the lesbian mother to have custody of the child. 1 Timothy only concerns male homosexuals so that even biblically, the judge was wrong. :)
Posted by: Ted | February 2, 2010 9:55 AM
Poor Chuck. He really should stop waiting and get some sleep before he starts goose-stepping in his cowboy boots and jammies.
And his description of Moore? Isn't dwelling on the masculinity of other men a sign of latent homosexuality?
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | February 2, 2010 9:58 AM
And it's possible that he'll be the next governor of Alabama.
Which will be interesting. An already broke state spending the next few years fighting a constant barrage of lawsuits will make the next state think twice about electing a known theocrat.
Posted by: JThompson | February 2, 2010 10:12 AM
An already broke state spending the next few years fighting a constant barrage of lawsuits will make the next state think twice about electing a known theocrat.
Yeah. Sure. Either that or they'll blame the people trying to stop the Real True Christians from engaging in their god-given mission. Or they won't notice the correlation.
I'd put good money on option C and decent money on option B...
Posted by: Geds | February 2, 2010 10:15 AM
@Reverend Rodney, You may want to see this, http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm
Also does anyone know of a list of closed minded Hollywood celebrity fools? I'd like to know who they are so that I can avoid watching their movies and TV programs.
Posted by: gski | February 2, 2010 10:22 AM
Joe Arpaio has already cost Maricopa County more than $50 million and is well along towards more than doubling that (no matter what, since he's now after the county government itself!) His popularity has never been higher, and it looks like the only way to get a real lawman as Sheriff will be to elect him governor.
Alabama? Hell, the entertainment value alone would be cheap at the price. Never mind mainlining on vicarious religious self-righteousness.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | February 2, 2010 10:25 AM
I am glad Bruce kicked his ass.
Posted by: Bob | February 2, 2010 10:39 AM
AMERICA NEEDS MORE GREAT AMERICANS LIKE CHUCK NORRIS, BOB VANDER PLAATS, JOHN KASICH AND ROY MOORE AS WE ENTER THESE LAST DAYS!!!!!!!
Posted by: AMERICAPHILE MINISTRIES | February 2, 2010 11:36 AM
The shame of it is, the wrong spokesperson for martial arts died too young.
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 2, 2010 11:36 AM
You really ought to add italics to your all caps all bold post, with just the two bits of crazy, you really don't convey the maximum level of stupid you're shooting for. You only appear to be a moron, rather than a world class moron.
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 2, 2010 11:45 AM
Moore has zero chance to win. His lazy ass could not even be bothered to attend a gubernatorial forum in Huntsville last night. All the other candidates made it.
If anyone thinks Roy Moore has a shot at the Alabama governor's mansion, please bet against me. I will take those bets. Moore ran in 2006 too, and got only around 25% of the vote against Bob Riley in the primary. Thanks to the Tea Partiers, he will get a few more votes this time around, but certainly not enough to win. Still, it is deeply embarassing for my home state this is happening in the first place.
Posted by: Daniel Kolle | February 2, 2010 11:50 AM
DOGMEAT, WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA AND FREEDOM?!?!?
Posted by: AMERICAPHILE MINISTRIES | February 2, 2010 11:52 AM
C'mon, that's, at best, a D+ poe. You can do better than that, roll out some crazy.
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 2, 2010 11:53 AM
AMERICAPHILE,
I am a seasoned veteran of the Troll Wars. You need to try harder. Still, I have to give you credit. Trollin' ain't easy, baby.
Posted by: Daniel Kolle | February 2, 2010 11:56 AM
What, we need "heroes" like Chuck Norris to show up just as we're entering our last days and America is doomed? How much does a "hero" get paid to show up after it's too late to do anything?
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 2, 2010 12:06 PM
#5 gski
Thanks for the link!
Seems like AMERICAPHILE MINISTRIES has a few issues, too.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | February 2, 2010 12:13 PM
"AMERICA NEEDS MORE GREAT AMERICANS LIKE CHUCK NORRIS, BOB VANDER PLAATS, JOHN KASICH AND ROY MOORE AS WE ENTER THESE LAST DAYS!!!!!!!"
Posted by: AMERICAPHILE MINISTRIES | February 2, 2010 11:36 AM
Now, now, AMERICAPHILE, if you really believed in your bible and it's end of days nonsense you'd be happy to see Yahweh's plan reach fruition.
Why do yo hate your god & his plans?
Posted by: Rob Jase | February 2, 2010 1:43 PM
AMERICAPHILE MINISTRIES; As Poetic as they wanna be!
Posted by: trog69 | February 2, 2010 1:59 PM
Chuck Norris isn't the first actor who should stick to movies.
Posted by: Bill Poser | February 2, 2010 2:48 PM
As if his acting wasn't a detriment to society in the first place...
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 2, 2010 4:29 PM
It's painfully obvious that Chuck Norris is living in far right fantasyland. . . .
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | February 2, 2010 4:34 PM
#14 - Time for a classic song.
You see me now, a veteran
Of a thousand Troll wars
I've been living on the edge so long
Where the winds of limbo roar
And I'm young enough to look at
And far too old to see
All the scars are on the inside
I'm not sure that there's anything left of me
- Hat tip to BOC
Posted by: Sean O'Doherty | February 2, 2010 4:42 PM
For loons like Chuck "The Crap" Norris, "patriot" means "religious crusader" and they use that meaning as if it were a good thing.
Posted by: MadScientist | February 2, 2010 4:54 PM
@gski: I wouldn't mind such a list myself. The jew hater Mel Gibson is on my list of "celebrities whose movies I'll never watch".
Posted by: MadScientist | February 2, 2010 5:02 PM
Inside Chuck Norris's head, there is no brain, only another fist.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | February 2, 2010 5:26 PM
Roy Moore is indeed a fascist and a theocrat, an adamantly unrepentant one. I'd agree with Daniel Kolle above that he won't win, but the very fact that he speaks in a voice that is heard by many exemplifies the cult's power of mass delusion. Can some other state please entice him away from this one? We have enough trouble. Chuck likes him so much I'm sure he'd give the pissant a room.
Posted by: momkat | February 2, 2010 6:15 PM
Ever notice how most of the people who insist upon referring to themselves as "patriots" are complete douchebags?
Posted by: peter | February 2, 2010 8:29 PM
Because God can't win without idiots fighting His battles for him, right?
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | February 2, 2010 9:10 PM
Chuck Norris can act?
Posted by: Shay | February 2, 2010 9:13 PM
The most pathetic part of all this? That, without that damned internet sarcasm meme, nobody would care about Norris at all.
Posted by: Darth Conans | February 2, 2010 9:57 PM
Posted by: MPW | February 2, 2010 10:05 PM
"Moore has zero chance to win."
How do you know this?
Posted by: daniel rotter | February 3, 2010 1:02 AM
Chuck, don't you have some bunko fitness products to be peddling rather then embarrassing yourself?
...I leave the TV on sometimes. It's okay to let infomercials run on the TV...
Also: When did "Patriot" change meanings to "Christofascist moron"
Posted by: Rutee | February 3, 2010 8:56 AM
After my son and I watched "Second Hand Lion" a few years ago, he asked me who the two men were. "Robert Duvall and Michael Caine", I responded. He asked "Are they great actors?" he asked. I replied "Robert Duvall is, Michael Caine's isn't. He's just been in a lot of movies." Same for Chuck Norris.
Posted by: dean | February 3, 2010 9:20 AM
Actors who are right wing bat shit crazy......
Jon Voight( but you should already know that)
Kirk Cameron (but you definitely know that)
Steve Baldwin Born again whack a loon
Val Kilmer Saw him reading bible scriptures on tv at 4 in the morning
Cliff from Cheers ( bet ya didnt know that one)
all I got right now
Posted by: Mr.Mom | February 3, 2010 4:02 PM
"Moore is a fascist and a theocrat."
You could do better. Fascist has become so vague that it means just about anything you wish it to mean.
Economically, recent bank and automobile takeovers by the government smack of fascism.
Fiscal commitment to deficits is another fascist indicator.
Fascists are known for racism. They do things like take sides politically based on whether the Cambridge cop was white or black.
Fascists and Communists attempt to subvert labor unions to their purposes. Not that I am pointing a finger at the SEIU support of any particular presidential candidate in 2008, or provisions in the GM and Chrysler settlements that put UAW contracts above legal debt obligations.
Fascists really like heavy taxation. Hmmm. Where have we heard that before?
Government control of every capitalistic aspect of society is a key feature of fascism: banking, insurance, manufacturing, and now healthcare.
Fascism is just a more subtle form of socialism.
Fascism is also a disdain for equality of all kinds.
Score one for the author of this article who doesn't understand fascism.
Posted by: Charlie Tall | February 3, 2010 8:18 PM
I dunno, Dean, I really liked him in "Zulu."
Posted by: Shay | February 3, 2010 9:49 PM
# 36:
What a fucking retarded screed. You lack any knowledge of fascism or socialism to make such a stupid remark as that fascism is a subtle form of socialism.
Here is the definition of socialism, what it is: Socialism advocates public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.
And here is the definition of fascism: Fascism is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system.
These two concepts are so divergent, they're barely on the same planet of ideas.
That's why your remark is that of a fucking moron.
Posted by: Aquaria | February 3, 2010 10:47 PM
"Fascists are known for racism. They do things like take sides politically biased on whether the Cambridge cop was white or black."
So Obama believing that a cop who HAPPENS to be white acted stupidly when the latter acted stupidly by arresting Gates=Obama hates white people? I, as a Caucasian then, must be a self-hating white guy since I also believe that the cop acted stupidly in arresting Gates (rolls eyes).
"Where have we heard that before?"
Uh, so you're expressing CONTEMPT for the view that "fascists really like heavy taxation" (the sentence that immediately precedes the one I just quoted)? Odd, given the larger context of your post, but whatever.
"Government control of every capitalistic aspect of society is a key feature of fascism: banking, insurance, manufacturing, and now healthcare."
The four things you mentioned don't cover "every capitalistic aspect of society."
"Fascism is also a disdain for equality of all kinds."
"Equality" isn't always a good thing (I could elaborate on this, but I don't see why I should have to, since "Charlie Tall" didn't elaborate on all the kinds of anti-equality views that supposedly characterizes fascism), so Tall has hit False Premise #2.
Posted by: daniel rotter | February 3, 2010 11:03 PM
Charlie Tall "Fascists really like heavy taxation. Hmmm. Where have we heard that before?"
Was it in the same national dialogue where the Right accused the Left of "tax & spend", while themselves "borrowing & spending" like drunken sailors with no rational plan whatsoever on how to pay it back?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 4, 2010 1:37 AM
Posted by: kai | February 4, 2010 7:25 AM
You mean there are people out there who actually bought the "fascism is left-wing" crap being spewed by Goldberg and Beck? Why are conservatives so gullible?
Posted by: Taz | February 4, 2010 8:02 AM
#38 - aquaria. I know that whenever a correspondent resorts to profanity and name-calling, I've won the argument. Whenever someone engages in an ad hominem attack, they are admitting in advance that their argument is weak. In this case, your argument is based on ignorance.
Here's a little fascist history for you: Joe Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, was an expert at ad hominem attacks. His vocabulary of insults and disgusting language was impressive. So does that make you a fascist, little aquaria?
In contrast to your ad hoc efforts, after years of studying political systems, I learned that there is no single definition of fascism. Indeed, there are wildly divergent definitions for just about every political system. In many (most?) cases, it depends on which side of the argument you favor as to which definition you prefer.
Your definition of socialism isn't a definition; it's a statement of action. Your definition of fascism is one of many, maybe two dozen, maybe more. In the interests of honesty, you should state some of those definitions that agree with my position. But I don't expect you will.
Significantly, your definition of fascism does not include Ed's complaint about Judge Moore, so you've just done a lot to disprove him. I wasn't trying to do that, only point out that "fascist" was a poor description of Moore.
Aquaria, little girl, go back to your books, and try to clean up your language. It is appalling.
#39 - Daniel Rotter, if you make judgements based on race, you are a racist. It is not necessary to hate, only to make a judgement based on race. So when you wrote "Obama hates white people?" and "I...must be a self-hating white guy," you were employing an invalid and illogical debate technique (exaggeration) that, curiously, President Obama also uses quite often.
You were not making a valid point.
Recall Jesse Jackson's famous remark about two men following him on the street: he admitted feeling relieved and safer because they were white.
That was racism.
After jumping to a totally wrong conclusion in the Gates/Crowley incident, the president warned the country against making a hasty judgement in the Ft. Hood/Hasan killings. Both of these events indicate racism on the part of the president.
Daniel, you wrote, "The four things you mentioned don't cover 'every capitalistic aspect of society.'" I agree, they are only a few of the things the present administration has seized or tried to seize in its first year.
Stay tuned for additional developments.
Daniel, you wrote, "'Equality' isn't always a good thing..." That was not your most intelligent remark. I was agreeing with Ed's position in re Judge Moore. Intolerance of homosexuals was the only fascist characteristic highlighted by Ed in his original article.
You earn a big "Duh!" for dropping the ball on that one, Daniel.
#40 - Modusoperandi, may I call you MO? You wrote, "Was it in the same national dialogue where the Right accused the Left of "tax & spend", while themselves "borrowing & spending" like drunken sailors with no rational plan whatsoever on how to pay it back?"
Answer: yes.
Right, left, middle, capitalist, progressive, libertarian, liberal, conservative, fascist, communist, socialist, Republican, Democrat, TEA Party, Bull Moose, asw - the label is irrelevant; it is the actions that speak loudest.
MO, I have no mercy or patience for any political ideology that fails. I would love to find one that automaticlly works in every situation, but there is none.
Your reply was the most intelligent and insightful of the bunch. Thanks.
Posted by: Charlie Tall | February 4, 2010 9:12 AM
Charlie Tall "After jumping to a totally wrong conclusion in the Gates/Crowley incident..."
Um, my memory isn't what it once was, but didn't the president basically say that the cop was stupid for arresting Gates?
Yes, Gates was kind of being an asshole. The thing is, it's not illegal to be an asshole in your own house (which is why the cop had to sucker him in to leaving his house, as public assholery can be illegal).
"...the president warned the country against making a hasty judgement in the Ft. Hood/Hasan killings."
And not jumping to a hasty conclusion is a bad thing, how? Remember Oklahoma City, and the hasty conclusion that turned out to be more Midwest than Mid-East?
"MO, I have no mercy or patience for any political ideology that fails. I would love to find one that automaticlly works in every situation, but there is none."
I'm starting the "reality-based governance party". I figure it'll last about an hour before it's corrupted by fantasy.
"Your reply was the most intelligent and insightful of the bunch. Thanks."
You can butter me up all you want, but you're still not getting a bite of my sandwich.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 4, 2010 10:21 AM
Argumentum ad Hitler:
"So does that make you a fascist, little aquaria?" CHECK!
Argumentum ad I'm-a-pompous-misogynistic-asshatius:
"Aquaria, little girl, go back
to your books, and try to clean up your language. It is appalling." CHECK!
Argumentum ad I-want-to-sound-like-a-fascist-Believe-Obey-Fightus:
"MO, I have no mercy or patience for any political ideology that fails. I would love to find one that automaticlly works in every situation, but there is none." CHECK!
Posted by: Coryat | February 4, 2010 12:14 PM
Wow! Two replies! One good, the other ludicrous.
#44 - MO. Obama made his judgement before all the facts were available to him. He retracted it once he learned the details.
In re: Hasan. Hasty judgement is not the question. Racially-based judgement is. In both cases, Obama made judgements based on race (and religion?), and that is racism.
Corrupted by fantasy? How about discredited by reality?
What kind of sandwich?
#45 - Coryat. First, review the context and sequence of the discussion.
aquaria: "What a fucking retarded screed...your remark is that of a fucking moron."
Charlie: "...Goebbels...vocabulary of insults and disgusting language was impressive. So does that make you a fascist, little aquaria?"
Coryat, do I have to explain that to you?
aquaria: "What a fucking retarded screed...your remark is that of a fucking moron."
Charlie: "Aquaria, little girl, go back to your books, and try to clean up your language. It is appalling."
Coryat, there is neither excuse nor defense for profanity in a situation such as this. Individuals that write in the manner aquaria did do not deserve to be treated seriously. Neither do those who would defend such behavior.
Charlie: "MO, I have no mercy or patience for any political ideology that fails. I would love to find one that automaticlly works in every situation, but there is none."
Coryat, if you can dispute my assertion, do so. Otherwise, thank you for nothing.
One other thing: don't think you or anyone else can attack me and then demand that I not defend myself. While I will try to avoid a fight, and will not use insults or or profanity, I will fight back, particularly against unprovoked attacks such as aquaria initiated.
Now do what you should have done in the first place, and call out aquaria for her rudeness.
Posted by: Charlie Tall | February 4, 2010 12:55 PM
Jumping Jesus in a blender; the man's writing is worse than his "acting."
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | February 4, 2010 5:56 PM
Charlie,
I tried to treat your tripe with levity befitting its silliness. After all, 'little girl, go back to your books' is at best a ferocious duck in the bestiary of abuse. Still, since you will insist on a plodding deconstruction...
You've asked me to review the context. After studious work and hours of heartfelt introspection, I feel I can finally judge the situation fairly; you're a fucking nut.
You came onto this thread with a wild, mindless screed about Obama, comparing his recent economic tinkering with the corporate economy of fully-fledged fascism. You then stated, "Fascism is just a more subtle form of socialism." in a rarely seen display of concise and powerful ignorance. The very stupidity of that haiku like statement is profound. So that is the context: you appeared, said something stupid without evidence and got called on it. I'm not an interent white knight, but your subsequent defensive bluster was really quite funny.
As for a more solid engagement with your argument - such as it was - I've sort of already done that bit. I quoted:
'Argumentum ad I-want-to-sound-like-a-fascist-Believe-Obey-Fightus:
"MO, I have no mercy or patience for any political ideology that fails. I would love to find one that automaticlly works in every situation, but there is none." CHECK!'
I was implying there that in your exasperation with democracy you're moving dangerously close to Fascist positions which exulte a strong leader who will get things done, and remove the cumbersome burden of democratic process. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise, but such a system that you seem to pine for is illusory. As Churchill said 'Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.'
So no, I won't do what I "should have done in the first place, and call out aquaria for her rudeness.", I will rather call you out for your weak history, woolly political philosophy and frankly tepid abuse.
Posted by: Coryat | February 5, 2010 5:22 AM
#48 - Coryat. You have a very high opinion of yourself. It is misplaced.
What is an "interent...knight"?
You wrote, "I was implying there that in your exasperation with democracy..."
Stupid assumption. I was not referring to capitalistic democracy, which I believe works pretty well, but to fascism, communism, and socialism, which do not work.
You misunderstood. You assumed. You should have asked. You're a fool.
You disputed my assertion that fascism is a more subtle form of socialism, but you did not question it. You assumed that you knew all there was to know, and that therefore my statement was wrong.
Another stupid assumption. You neither know nor understand. You should have asked. You're a fool.
What I particularly like about your reply is that while you attacked everything I wrote, you gave only one rebuttal, that about Churchill and democracy, and that was based on an erroneous assumption.
You are very good at stupid assumptions.
Coryat, you would better off if you stuck to debating people that agreed with your foolishness. I intend to classify my attempt to reason with you in the "teaching-a-pig-to-sing" category.
By the way, your language is appalling, too.
Posted by: Charlie Tall | February 6, 2010 2:37 PM
Coryat,
In an effort to relieve your suffering, I found this article by googling "fascism subtle socialism"
http://coastalpost.com/95/10/15.htm
Get you head out of your ass and go read it. You will learn something.
And it saves me trying to teach a pig to sing.
Posted by: Charlie Tall | February 6, 2010 2:43 PM
"By the way, your language is appalling,too."
"Get your head out of your ass..."
Ah, juxtapositions of contradictory sentences written by the same person (and, in this case, written within just six minutes of each other!)...good times.
Posted by: daniel rotter | February 6, 2010 11:42 PM
Charlie Tall and Dumb,
I'll give you "What is an "interent...knight"? I tried to write internet white Knight, someone who turns up to defend women on the internet in a patronising manner - I meant to indicate that I was no such person, but unfortunately I created a portmanteau of 'itinerant' and 'internet', which I saw afterwords but I liked the wordplay. Ah well, to more pressing matters.
N.B Before I begin I have to say your fluency with the term 'fool' is refreshing. It's a mite repetitive, but it does have a certain je ne sais quoi.
I really do fail to see how I have misunderstood you. You said, and I quote from the book of dumb,
"Right, left, middle, capitalist, progressive, libertarian, liberal, conservative, fascist, communist, socialist, Republican, Democrat, TEA Party, Bull Moose, asw - the label is irrelevant; it is the actions that speak loudest."
You have just declared the irrelevancy of political description, proclaiming that actions 'speak loudest'. This is frighteningly (well, it would be if you weren't some shuffling mouth-breather) close to a fascist position, which I have already described to you: a willingness to subvert the democratic process with an appeal to direct action. This is certainly a facet of fascism; it could be argued that it is common to socialism in post-war Eastern Europe, but in places such as the then Czechoslovakia the Socialists formed electoral coalitions before abolishing the voting process when they had achieved power. So, a common contempt for democracy but different means. Since you declare:
"MO, I have no mercy or patience for any political ideology that fails. I would love to find one that automaticlly works in every situation, but there is none."
Premise: you reject all poltical ideologies that fail
Premise: You want a successful political ideology to follow
Premise: No such thing exists
Conclusion: ?
I can only assume that since you later said "I was not referring to capitalistic democracy, which I believe works pretty well, but to fascism, communism, and socialism, which do not work." you either have weird private definitions of 'all political ideologies', or more likely there's just a gaping lacuna in your thinking.
Now, to that scholarly tome 'The Coastal Post'. The piece begins on a wrong, albeit sane note. Your article mentions how both communism and fascism seek to restrain the economy. Ok, but what of the differences? As a partly romantic hearkening back to pre-capitalist days, the Fascists wanted a coroporate economy geared towards a powerful state. The Communists sought (and this is to grossly flatten out Menshivik-Bolshevik differences etc) control of the economy for the furtherment of the proletariat. So they both had a hostility to individualsim and unrestrained capitalism, yes. but then,the UK regulates its markets; does this mean that if fascism is subtle socialism then capitalist England is also socialist? Although it's moving beyond the remit of your article, I might also suggest that Fascism and socialism shared a different conceptualisation of the unfolding of history (i.e. the romanticism of a Heidegger vs dialectical materialism), different social policy based upon different notions of in-groups and out-groups e.g Volkish prejudice vs anti-Kulakism. I might further note that since debates about socialism and fascism and their definitions still rage in academia, your ham-fisted attempt at closure is a little presumptious.
Indeed, the general rigorous academic tone is displayed in statements such as
"It is based on one key understanding: socialism is actually the invention of the designers of monopolistic capitalism."
What could this ever mean? That venture capitalists went back in time and planted Engel Marx and William Morris? That Gates planted Robert Owen? If it is the far more facile remark that capitalism gave birth to socialism due to the prevailing capitalist conditions, well big whoop. That's obvious.
I suspect that my first reading was correct: there arises this glorious turd of prose:
"And now we get to the "C" word: conspiracy. It is my belief that corporate monopolists like John D. Rockefeller, Henry Morgan, the Du Ponts, the Vanderbilts and other infamous "robber barons" here and in Europe (where it all began with the Rothchilds and English royalty) actually created and maintained communism in the Soviet Union."
This doesn't need addressing. The sheer voluminous stupidity of a conspiracy theory which helped generate a world war, backed allegedly by a shadowy cabal of bankers is, frankly, insane.
Ok, I'm done. As the cosmic donkey of time plods lazily towards the apple of the future, I bid you adieu.
Posted by: Coryat | February 7, 2010 11:00 AM
Being the internet super-genius that I am, I am back online and I have found some of your comments Charlie from other forums. You *are* the Charlie who made the following, played-so-straight-it-must-be-a-poe (?) comment on Greg Laden's blog:
"Teabaggers is slang for a form of homosexual perversion.
The correct term is Tea Party or Tea Partiers.
While a case can be made that all homosexuality is a form of perversion, there is no evidence that any of the Tea Pary demonstrators were perverts."
If so, my hat goes off to you. You truly are a polymath of stupidity; no aspect of intellectual life is beyond the grasp of your clumsy, sausage like fingers.
Posted by: Coryat | February 7, 2010 11:31 AM
Coryat,
You are truly a writer of great ability. It's too bad you concentrate your efforts on fluffery.
Why do you waste my time with all the nonsense and grand words? Do you think that impresses me? French? Japanese poems? It is show-off.
Isn't "gaping lacuna" redundant?
I wrote that fascism was a subtle form of socialism. You obviously misunderstood, and after reading the article that explained that simple concept, you nit-picked the article to pieces, but you ignored the essential point.
Do you still not understand? Fascism and socialism lead to the same end; fascism just gives the impression of leaving control in the hands of the owners.
You wrote, "the UK regulates its markets; does this mean that if fascism is subtle socialism then capitalist England is also socialist?"
Yes. The UK is fascist, socialist, and capitalist, all at once, all together in the same country, government, and economy.
Do you think that the UK is capitalist? Do you believe that the USSR was socialist? Is the US capitalist? Do you think Nazi Germany was fascist?
Yes, to all, but I'll bet you could find an easy dozen exceptions to the assertion that the UK is capitalistic if you tried. The USSR had so many unsocialist and uncommunist characteristics, that books have been written about them. The US currently displays many attributes of each of those systems. The Nazis broke all the rules from time to time.
By the way, don't let the outward trappings of Naziism confuse you. Hitler's approach was one of many. The Indiana Jones film that supplied most of your concepts of fascism is still fiction, as was most of the NSDAP philosophy. It's just that all those flags and spotlights are so damned fascinating and attractive!
That is reality. When you attempt to fix on a single categorization, you automatically fail, as you have done above.
Nazi Germany was NOT purely fascist. Neither was Mussolini's Italy or Franco's Spain.
You wrote, "The Communists sought...control of the economy for the furtherment of the proletariat." That is the theoretical, the ideal definition of Communist goals, but it is not what they actually stove to achieve.
Reality is that the Communists sought and maintained control of all aspects of Soviet life to extend and perpetuate the dominance of the party and a small oligarchy of senior party members. The Communists and Communism cared not one bit what happened to the proletariat, the workers, the laborers.
You wrote, "So they both had a hostility to individualsim [sic] and unrestrained capitalism, yes." That is quite an understatement. The Communists were hostile to everything but themselves, and that exception only when it suited them to cooperate.
Okay, we've gone a long way around to get to a few simple ideas. First, none of the existing political or economic systems are pure; they are all amalgams of one another. Second, none of them work in the long run except for capitalism, which has never existed in the pure state, but which does okay in its less-adulterated forms. Third, it is the combination of politics and economics that sabotages all of these systems.
Politics implies government. Government means force, coercion. I do not believe that democracy includes coercion, at least, not much of it. Socialism, fascism, communism, etc all imply government involvement, which means coercion, lots of it.
Is there a way of separating them - politics and economics? I think that if there is, or if such a method could be devised, it would be the United States with a prohibition against government meddling in the economy.
Frankly, the mechanics of such an arrangement escape me.
Your discussion of the "meaning" of my statements about the various forms of government/economics confuses several subjects. Try taking them one at a time, and don't make the mistake of thinking that they are mutually dependent. Think outside the box.
About the term teabagging. I admit not knowing what the slang meant until I read an explanation in the ultra-liberal Huffington Post. After a search of other sources, I determined that it was mainly a homosexual thing. Indeed, the only picture I saw was of two men. You might think differently. You might even enjoy the practice. I do not.
Polymath? Thank you. I like that. Stupidity? No, but it is typical of you. You can't hear the music, so of course you think the dancers are stupid.
"...clumsy, sausage like fingers"? No, actually I have strong hands and normal fingers. I am an excellent shot with all firearms, skilled with machine tools and handtools, and I scratch-build wooden model ships as a hobby. Hardy what you would call clumsy.
"Intellectual life"? Do you really see yourself as an intellectual? Now that is amusing. Intellectual implies thinking, and it is obvious that you think no further than what you are told to think.
Posted by: Charlie Tall | February 8, 2010 12:10 PM
oh God my head.
"Do you still not understand? Fascism and socialism lead to the same end; fascism just gives the impression of leaving control in the hands of the owners."
But they demonstrably do not lead to the same end. I have explained to you, in the smallest words possible the vast differences between the two positions. My point was, since they have different philosophies, dogmas, icons, policies, in-groups and out-groups jargon, saying that they are 'the same' because they both regulate an economy is absurd. Apart from anything, it is grossly reductive to say that even socialism is a monolthic system. The differences between Titoism and Stalinism in terms of fiscal policy and democratic centralism for example are vast, and that's just in post war eastern europe. So for you to try to ram fascism and socialism together like two stubborn oreos is a little nuts.
"By the way, don't let the outward trappings of Naziism confuse you. Hitler's approach was one of many."
Agreed. I don't remember saying that Hitler's was the only fascism, but you are quite right.
"Yes. The UK is fascist, socialist, and capitalist, all at once, all together in the same country, government, and economy."
BEEP! Wrong answer! It is ludicrous to compare the UK to a fascist state; we lack a corporatist economic policy, a volk or labour camps. we DO have Labour in power who are nominally socialist, but hey.
"Okay, we've gone a long way around to get to a few simple ideas. First, none of the existing political or economic systems are pure; they are all amalgams of one another. Second, none of them work in the long run except for capitalism, which has never existed in the pure state, but which does okay in its less-adulterated forms. Third, it is the combination of politics and economics that sabotages all of these systems"
Oh I see how it goes. Special pleading, you disappoint me. Like any old school Marxist, you're claiming that the failures of your preferred system (in your case, capitalism) are due to it never existing in a pure form.
"Reality is that the Communists sought and maintained control of all aspects of Soviet life to extend and perpetuate the dominance of the party and a small oligarchy of senior party members. The Communists and Communism cared not one bit what happened to the proletariat, the workers, the laborers."
Try telling that to good communists like Havel and Dubček.
"Is there a way of separating them - politics and economics? I think that if there is, or if such a method could be devised, it would be the United States with a prohibition against government meddling in the economy.
Frankly, the mechanics of such an arrangement escape me."
Of course it escapes you because your thinking is incoherent. Your method to seperate economy and government is -wait for it- a prohibition. Who's going to create and enforce that numb-nuts? The wicked gub'ment?
"About the term teabagging. I admit not knowing what the slang meant until I read an explanation in the ultra-liberal Huffington Post. After a search of other sources, I determined that it was mainly a homosexual thing. Indeed, the only picture I saw was of two men. You might think differently. You might even enjoy the practice. I do not."
It's funny how bigots always think others think like them. You may find gay sexual practices as distasteful and as something to try to put on someone else. I do not. I have to admit I chuckled though that it came right after 'Think outside the box.' I'm not sure if the joke works with American English.
This has been a largely fragmentary reply since you didn't really engage with my critique of your loony source. it goes without saying that you didn't address any of the many differences I identified between socialism and fascism such as neo-romanticism contra dialectical materialism. You have failed to defend your wing-nut article that you linked to which says that there was an internation banker's conspiracy (which to my mind sounds like the horrible old 'the joos run wall street and they started communism!' bullshit)
"No, actually I have strong hands and normal fingers. I am an excellent shot with all firearms, skilled with machine tools and handtools, and I scratch-build wooden model ships as a hobby."
You missed out the bit where you had to drive down the freeway at 90 miles an hour before benching 800 pounds.
Posted by: Coryat | February 9, 2010 5:41 AM
Coryat, There is a maxim common in America: "He could not see the forest for the trees."
I believe this applies to you. You cannot see the "big picture" because of your preoccupation with the details. You are so busy noting the defects on the frame that you overlook the fact that the painting is by Homer. (True story).
You agreed with my statement, "By the way, don't let the outward trappings of Naziism confuse you. Hitler's approach was one of many."
Then you wrote, "It is ludicrous to compare the UK to a fascist state; we lack a corporatist economic policy, a volk or labour camps."
Argue over the details, why don't you?
Your rebuttal was overly concerned with a single example of fascism: Germany, and the details thereof.
In my lifetime, Britain has nationalized many industries: shipbuilding, coal mining, iron and steel, and railroads. However, unlike the socialist approach to nationalization, Britain left the original management in place. The government did not direct the operations of the nationalized industries, but it did direct the overall, the strategic direction these industries were to take. That was very similar to the approach taken by Nazi Germany.
Most of these industries were eventually denationalized or privatized.
If you take a look at the way the German economy changed from 1933 until the end of the war, you will see a similar process. Very little change occured at first, but as the war progressed and began to turn against Germany, first Todt and then Speer increased government direction of industries until they were working hand-in-glove with one another.
Do I need to summarize, to point out the similarities, or can you do that little thing for yourself?
You wrote, "...you didn't address any of the many differences I identified between socialism and fascism such as neo-romanticism contra dialectical materialism." See again "forest-and-trees."
I did engage your critique of my article. I stated clearly that "You obviously misunderstood, and after reading the article that explained that simple concept, you nit-picked the article to pieces, but you ignored the essential point."
Once again, I offered that article solely as clarification of my "subtle socialism" assertion. I have no interest in defending another thing from that article. You have obviously missed the point on that matter.
Poor coryat. Can you not understand that if I quote one sentence from Thomas Paine it does not imply that I agree with all of his philosophies. Now see if you can figure out why I selected Paine.
Recall my distinction between government and economics.
One of you best inanities was, "Of course it escapes you because your thinking is incoherent. Your method to seperate [sic] economy and government is -wait for it- a prohibition. Who's going to create and enforce that numb-nuts? The wicked gub'ment?"
To answer your profoundly ignorant (and provincial) question, I was assuming the same authority that created the government will eventually regain control of it: the people of the United States of America.
You made reference to a bigot. One definition of bigot is, "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own."
Fits you quite well, doesn't it?
You wrote, "You missed out the bit where you had to drive down the freeway at 90 miles an hour before benching 800 pounds." Actually, I did fail to mention my one-owner, 1997 Honda CBR1100XX which is in immaculate condition, as is my 2002 Triumph TT600, either of which are more than capable of 90 mph on the freeway or the racetrack. However, I prefer Road Atlanta or Barber to public highways: no soccer moms using cellular telephones at the wheels of their 5,000-pound SUVs; no diesel spills; no spoiled children driving daddy's pick-up truck.
I am surprised you are so ignorant of common sense things.
Now let's discuss capitalism. You seem to dislike capitalism. There are many differences between capitalism and the other systems of economics. However, there is one that stands out above all others. Can you tell me what that is?
Actually, as I think about it, there are two, but either one will win you a gold star.
Don't worry about quoting Marx, Nietzsche, or Smith. See if you can come up with an answer all by yourself. Oh, and if you can, tell us why.
Posted by: Charlie Tall | February 9, 2010 11:33 AM
Lol, by 'us' you do mean your globular self yes?
I actually did part of your job to help you: I agreed that labour were nominally socialist. You quip:
"In my lifetime, Britain has nationalized many industries: shipbuilding, coal mining, iron and steel, and railroads. However, unlike the socialist approach to nationalization, Britain left the original management in place."
So... England was like socialism, except that it wasn't. Cool.
"One of you best inanities was, "Of course it escapes you because your thinking is incoherent. Your method to seperate [sic] economy and government is -wait for it- a prohibition. Who's going to create and enforce that numb-nuts? The wicked gub'ment?"
To answer your profoundly ignorant (and provincial) question, I was assuming the same authority that created the government will eventually regain control of it: the people of the United States of America."
Oh I see. I'm provinical, yet you believe that the 'people' will eventually regain control and enact prohibitions. as I see it, in your fantasy land, America will abe ruled by a disorderly mob, or *gasp!* said mob will organise itself, proportion work to members, elect people who are suitable for certain tasks... oh wait.
If you could suggest how a crazy article saying that bankers organised both Marxism and fascism to fulfill the conditions of Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis proves fascism is subtle socialism; well. That would be interesting. Of course you can't, so it's a moot point, but hey, a man can dream. You then said:
"Now let's discuss capitalism. You seem to dislike capitalism. There are many differences between capitalism and the other systems of economics. However, there is one that stands out above all others. Can you tell me what that is?
Actually, as I think about it, there are two, but either one will win you a gold star."
After earlier saying:
"First, none of the existing political or economic systems are pure; they are all amalgams of one another. Second, none of them work in the long run except for capitalism, which has never existed in the pure state, but which does okay in its less-adulterated forms. Third, it is the combination of politics and economics that sabotages all of these systems."
If even you can't keep up with the voices running around in your head, how can I expect to win this gold star you got from school? Nevertheless:
I submit that there are 2 or 3 things you might say are different about capitalism than socialism or fascism. I would say that since politics and economics are inextricably linked then maybe popper had a point about the open society: capitalism fosters (or at least allows) an open civil society, whereas the authoritarianism of the other 2 systems thwarts it. I would say that; obviously you wouldn't, because you find dressing yourself too challenging. So I imagine that you will probably say something about rugged individualism and the damned gub'ment. Do I win your gold star?
Posted by: Coryat | February 10, 2010 8:23 AM
coryat,
Yes, you do win the gold star for "...capitalism fosters (or at least allows) an open civil society, whereas the authoritarianism of the other 2 systems thwarts it.
I would have stated it somewhat differently: capitalism functions without coercion.
Please note that I referred to "the existing systems," not the ideal systems. Thus, there is no contradiction, no multiplicity of voices, as you put it. So try hard to keep the two concepts separate: ideal system and actual system.
"Third, it is the combination of politics and economics that sabotages all of these systems."
I thought that was an easy one, but it seems to have escaped you. Think now. The others require the cooperation of government (or its equivalent) to function - "authoritarianism."
Capitalism can function without government.
So capitalism is an economic system while the others are politico-economic systems.
Ideally, in a capitalist economy, the government's only function is to ensure that everyone enjoys a level playing field, i.e., equal opportunity to succeed, and that is stretching it a bit.
Enter politics.
That's where the problems arise. It does not require a genius to see that government is much about force, laws, coercion, and thus it is possible, through politics, to influence the government to use that force to the advantage of one person or group over others - and thereby "tilt" the playing field.
Capitalism, by its nature, resists govenment influence. (Do I need to explain this to you?) The other systems embrace it. Thus, while governmental influence can be (is) a factor in all of these systems. It's just easier to get away with (and abuse) in socialist systems.
"So... England was like socialism, except that it wasn't. Cool."
Yes, Britain left the original management in place, exactly like the Nazis did in Germany. Britain had nationalization of industry - a socialist concept - combined with a prominient feature of fascism - nominal control by the "owners."
Thus Britain did indeed combine capitalism, socialism, and fascism simultaneously.
"If you could suggest how a crazy article saying that bankers organised both Marxism and fascism to fulfill the conditions of Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis proves fascism is subtle socialism..."
Coryat, if I point to the Bible to explain say charity, that does not imply that I am endorsing its explanation of creation verbatim. I made it crystal clear from the beginning that I was referring to that article solely for its explanation of "subtle socialism."
Here's another reference: "Fascism is a system in which the government leaves nominal ownership of the means of production in the hands of private individuals but exercises control by means of regulatory legislation and reaps most of the profit by means of heavy taxation. In effect, fascism is simply a more subtle form of government ownership than is socialism." Tannehill, Morris and Linda. The Market for Liberty. Wiki.
Not the exact same words, but I imagine you will eventually grasp the idea. And the citation does not imply that I am a Libertarian or that I endorse all libertarian philosophies.
Posted by: Charlie Tall | February 10, 2010 12:40 PM
"Please note that I referred to "the existing systems," not the ideal systems. Thus, there is no contradiction, no multiplicity of voices, as you put it. So try hard to keep the two concepts separate: ideal system and actual system."
Ok, but I have already pointed out to you, when you say that 'true' capitalism has never existed, your using the no-true Scotsman fallacy. Think about it: if you told me socialism was a bankrupt ideology and pointed to Mao and Stalin, and I just airly said 'well, it's never existed in an ideal form'then i imagine you would call me on it.
Now, I can see this one spiralling out of control, but what do you mean
"Capitalism can function without government.
So capitalism is an economic system while the others are politico-economic systems."
When has it ever functioned without a government? (N.B anachronistic references to Iceland pre-modern capitalism is not allowed!)
"Capitalism, by its nature, resists govenment influence. (Do I need to explain this to you?) The other systems embrace it. Thus, while governmental influence can be (is) a factor in all of these systems. It's just easier to get away with (and abuse) in socialist systems."
yes, you really do need to explain this. Life isn't one huge Ayn Rand novel. In the real world, corporations and capitalist business are more than happy to accept government subsidies and grants. To give just one very trite example: would Lockheed-Martin really resist the government? And what is capitalism's nature? Is it Keynesian or does it follow the thinking of Friedman? I imagine you'll say Friedman, becuase it's 'purer'. But that's begging the question: WHY is it purer or more 'real'?
"Coryat, if I point to the Bible to explain say charity, that does not imply that I am endorsing its explanation of creation verbatim. I made it crystal clear from the beginning that I was referring to that article solely for its explanation of "subtle socialism."
Ok, I accept I have banged on this nail a bit, but if I quoted The Protocols of The Elders of Zion with the reasoning that I just wanted to point out how to write a dialogue, it would be weird. I appreciate that you found the time to find a second source though.
Posted by: Coryat | February 11, 2010 5:56 AM
Coryat, You are correct when you state that none of the systems have been employed in their "pure" form.
Harken back to my remark in an earlier post about separating government from business. This could be accomplished with capitalism, but not with socialism. Capitalism could function without government; socialism requires government to function.
Actually, Lockheed and other government contractors spend much of their time resisting government. If they didn't, they would accomplish nothing. The F-22 is flying today in spite of government, not because of it.
If you referred to the Protocols in reference to their view on the uses of propaganda, I would not object other than to point out that they are a hoax.
Posted by: Charlie Tall | February 15, 2010 8:08 AM