The Hour of Vance

[RickLewis]

All right, I've warned you all and will start banning people who can't play nice.

Wizard, you have not the remotest idea of the actual meanings of some of your favourite terms such as "Marxism" or "Far Left". I have the impression that you have led a very sheltered life. The best thing would be to go away and travel a bit, and read a lot, and then come back and post. Try to meet more people offline and engage them in open-minded discussions. Test their views and argue against them in spirit of goodwill without trying to stick labels on them at all.

And yes, I am similarly against people calling Trump a Nazi - that really is lazy - though you have already accepted that Flash is not among them.

I do think it is legitimate, though, to point out instances where Trump's anti-democratic behaviour is in specific ways reminiscent of the tactics of the Nazis when they first rose to power, eg sending violent militia into opposition strongholds as an act of intimidation, or using the state legal apparatus to beat media networks into suppressing critical coverage, or gerrymandering instead of campaigning. I'm sure there are plenty of points to be made on BOTH sides of issues like that, but exploring the comparisons (and differences) with the 1930s is at least legitimate and constructive, I think, without anyone calling anyone an actual Nazi.

[Immanuel Can]

And yes, I am similarly against people calling Trump a Nazi - that really is lazy ...

I share your antipathy to the mudslinging, the ad hominem attacks, and other forms of obscurantism that has been common here. It's bad enough that it's ridiculous and puerile, as well as very, very boring...but the worst of it is that it stultifies any discussion. The minute that person X disagrees with person Y, person Y starts hurling the mud, and the discussion is totally derailed into brainless name-calling. If anything can reduce this trend, I'm in favour. It wastes far too much time and wrecks discussion.

Yet there is also a sinister undertone to some of it, particularly to the epithet "Nazi." Today, it's being raised not because there's some danger of der Fuhrer rising from his crispy, toasty tomb and retaking the world, but because it's the substitute word for "evil" and implies "undeserving of even being admitted to the public forum." In other words, those who are using it are being censors...something der Fuhrer would no doubt have found very winsome indeed.

There's a particular reason, too, that the Left is more fond of that slander than any alternative, such as "too conservative," or "right wing," or "libertarian," or whatever. And that is because it positions the debate as a conflict between two Left-wing ideologies...so whichever wins, the Left-winger still get what they want...big government, only one party, Socialist economics, thought-control, the right to pillage private property, authoritarianism, and so on. It doesn't much matter whether it's the Nazis or the Communist Reds...they're essentially the same thing, and their apparent "war" is actually nothing but a family squabble. Whether it's the National Socialists or the International Socialists, we still end up with Socialism. And we've totally missed the point that neither was the only -- or anything close to the best -- of the available choices for a political system.

It reminds me of an old thing that the soda companies produced back in the mid 1970s. It was framed as "the Pepsi Challenge." Remember it? Maybe it never made it to the UK, but it was big on the other side of the pond. Anyway, the scam went like this: the Pepsi company set up a series of blind taste tests in which one cup was filled with Pepsi and the other with Coke. Then they filmed people choosing the Pepsi, and then banged away on the message that most people, if given the chance, would end up choosing the Pepsi.

For a while, the marketing ploy was quite successful. It raised Pepsi sales somewhat, and even stimulated Coke into inventing a marketing disaster called "New Coke," which mimicked the sweeter taste of Pepsi.

But here's the one things the Pepsi Challenge hid from consumers: that nobody needs to be drinking ANY caramel-flavoured sugar beverage. Its unhealthy, whichever one chooses, and there are much better things to be drinking. Yet by distracting consumers, and getting them to allign as "I'm a Coke," or "I'm a Pepsi," they made people think the most important kind of decision had been settled, whereas in point of fact, they were increasing public dependence on and unawareness of sugar beverages. It didn't much matter whether you were on Coke's side or Pepsi's: you were still going to be paying too much for a lousy product that made you fat and sick. But nothing in the Pepsi Challenge raised any of the really important issues or offered an alternative.

Here's the fiendishly clever part of all that: by repositioning the debate to a war over only two options that were essentially the same, they increased the loyalty of people to their relative brands, while simultaneously distracting consumers from any thought about the actual value of the product they were pushing on the public. It was brilliant and wicked at the same time.

Now, Socialists are up to the same game. As you probably know already, The Fascist Manifesto of Mussolini came directly from the Communist Manifesto, often word-for-word. And no wonder: Mussolini had been a member of the Italian Communist Party before he became Il Duce. His program may have been more nationalistic than that of the Communists, but the key thing they disagreed on was not the need for things like a totalitarian government, control of industry, the subordination or theft of private property, and the need to militarize their creed and acquire territory, and a utopian dream of a monolythic, universal political future. Both sides agreed on all of that. They only fought over who would get to control the final product.

No wonder, then, that even Stalin started out with a happy little pact with Hitler, as you will recall. They were both Socialists, totalitarians, megalomaniacs and war-mongers with aggressive territorial ambitions, obviously. Dividing up the world would give wins to them both, at least at first. Their eventual rupture,as you probably also know, was not going to be over political ideology, but on who would control territory they both wanted, and who would master the post-war world order. But the family resemblance between the Stalins, the Maos, the Hitlers, the Mussolinis, the Castros, the Kim Jongs, and such of the world is natural. They're all the same thing...Coke and Pepsi. There really isn't a choice being offered, and far too many of us are distracted by the superficial conflict between them, not realizing that they are doing essentially the same thing to us, either way.

So I think we have to reject the present tendence to throw about the "Nazi" label for a second reason. Not only because it's anachronistic and silly, but also because it obscures the real choice people have today: whether to opt for some Socialist-utopian political scheme, or to choose a different option altogether such as parliamentary democracy, republican representational democracy, classical liberalism, or something else...something new, maybe. And I think whenever the "Nazi" epithet rears its ugly head, we can be pretty much guaranteed that the speaker is not interested in the issues anymore, but rather either on cheap and unwarranted insults, or on the Coke-Pepsi obscurantist technique. Neither is particularly helpful to dialogue, obviously.

Yes, the resorting to the "Nazi" epithet is intellectually "lazy" as you say. But I think it may well be a good deal worse than just that, and a lot more destructive to careful thought than many may imagine. At least on the part of some or Leftism's more-aware advocates, it's an attempt to reposition the whole argument in a Coke-Pepsi way and to subvert public awareness of key issues.

[phyllo]

Next up, IC tells us how the extreme Right slanders the Left.

[Walker]

Reference Godwin’s Law.

Invoking Hitler is a purposeful tactic with the known, intended effect of distraction.

[accelafine]

Reference Godwin’s Law.

Invoking Hitler is a purposeful tactic with the known, intended effect of distraction.

Right. Because it's a 'law' Sometimes it's perfectly appropriate to mention Hitler and the Nazis. Nazism is looked upon as the most evil ideology in known history, not least of all because it occurred post-enlightenment and very recently from a historical perspective, and in a country that was considered very civilised and liberal for the time. People will naturally use it as a measuring stick.

[Walker]

Reference Godwin’s Law.

Invoking Hitler is a purposeful tactic with the known, intended effect of distraction.

Right. Because it's a 'law' Sometimes it's perfectly appropriate to mention Hitler and the Nazis. Nazism is looked upon as the most evil ideology in known history, not least of all because it occurred post-enlightenment and very recently from a historical perspective, and in a country that was considered very civilised and liberal for the time. People will naturally use it as a measuring stick.

The Law does mention the appropriate use of Hitler Reference that you clarify.

The inappropriate use is about slinging mud, which is deliberate and purposeful.

For example, TDS is about slinging mud and believing in slung mud, although afflicted folks do seek ... The Ostensibles, so as not to appear completely unhinged.

[Wizard22]

Wizard, you have not the remotest idea of the actual meanings of some of your favourite terms such as "Marxism" or "Far Left". I have the impression that you have led a very sheltered life. The best thing would be to go away and travel a bit, and read a lot, and then come back and post. Try to meet more people offline and engage them in open-minded discussions. Test their views and argue against them in spirit of goodwill without trying to stick labels on them at all.

On the contrary, I've grown up around the farthest Leftist peoples of the United States and probably the world. I've visited every major city on the West Coast, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle. I know them all intimately, and how they've changed (severely declined) from their golden years in the 80s and 90s. Marxism, in this context, refers to the 60s and 70s Leftist Counter-Culture Hippy Movements, and of the Civil Rights Era. Today all of these have eroded and condemned the more general 'WASP' pre-dominant culture of America and formerly the British Empire. White males are now demonized, to the point where Nationalist movements are cropping up in England.

You're presuming that I don't know what's going on, when actually, I'm essentially in the center of it...

And yes, I am similarly against people calling Trump a Nazi - that really is lazy - though you have already accepted that Flash is not among them.

I do think it is legitimate, though, to point out instances where Trump's anti-democratic behaviour is in specific ways reminiscent of the tactics of the Nazis when they first rose to power, eg sending violent militia into opposition strongholds as an act of intimidation, or using the state legal apparatus to beat media networks into suppressing critical coverage, or gerrymandering instead of campaigning. I'm sure there are plenty of points to be made on BOTH sides of issues like that, but exploring the comparisons (and differences) with the 1930s is at least legitimate and constructive, I think, without anyone calling anyone an actual Nazi.

President Trump is and was a political Outsider, with no actual 'Fascist' convictions. This was recently proved by his inability to actually mass-deport illegal immigrants from the United States. The recent Leftist deaths of Alexander Pretti and Renee Good demonstrated that American Leftists are ready to fight and die for their beliefs, for their mass-immigration and imported Servant Caste. Democrats, like in the Antebellum South, are willing to go to war to keep their Servants (previously their Slaves).

American Leftists are driven by a need to create a new Class and Caste system, with themselves on the top, their third-world immigrants below them, and their political adversaries (American Republicans, Conservatives, Rightwingers) at the lowest-rung.

Many speculate and predict a coming Civil War, although when it transpires is unclear. Much depends on America's waning military power and ability to project power around the world. This current war against Iran, on behalf of Israel, is proving the limits of our Geopolitical reach. In short, USA has not adapted to Asiatic drone warfare. We are extremely behind and not catching up anytime soon.

[RickLewis]

On the contrary, I've grown up around the farthest Leftist peoples of the United States and probably the world. I've visited every major city on the West Coast, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle. I know them all intimately, and how they've changed (severely declined) from their golden years in the 80s and 90s. Marxism, in this context, refers to the 60s and 70s Leftist Counter-Culture Hippy Movements, and of the Civil Rights Era.

Thanks for the clarification. The 1970s hippy movement had very little to do with Marxism (though Marxism itself is a very broad description - for example Slavoj Zizek still calls himself a Marxist and Erich Honecker was certainly a Marxist yet it is hard to imagine two people on the planet more different in their views!)The Civil Rights movement had, I think, nothing to do with Marxism as Marx was not mainly focused on the United States and its racial divide, nor was he particularly concerned with the civil rights of the individual. He was more of a class warfare kind of a guy. He wrote interesting things about economics and history. Before you say anything, no I am not in any sense a Marxist - very much the opposite. But that doesn't mean he's not worth reading. Look him up.

I notice that all of the cities you mentioned are in the United States. Have you travelled internationally at all?

You're presuming that I don't know what's going on, when actually, I'm essentially in the center of it...

We are ALL "in the centre of it", all the time, always. We are each at the centre of our own universe of experiences, which is not quite the same as that of anybody else. But if we want to understand a bit better the bigger universe beyond ourselves of which we are part, then we need to move around a bit, look at things from different angles, talk to people and try to understand their very varied perspectives. If in your mind you are continually dividing the human race into two teams (us and THEM) and spending your time hurling insults and hate at THEM, then you are only fooling yourself and wasting the intelligence you've been given.

Still, that's just my perspective and really I don't know any more about you or your experiences than you know about me or mine.

President Trump is and was a political Outsider, with no actual 'Fascist' convictions.

I do agree with that. I think that Trump has few actual convictions at all, apart from a sincere and consistent dedication to the advancement of the interests of Donald Trump. He's not a convinced fascist or a convinced Republican and he's also not a convinced supporter of democracy. If the institutions of American democracy get in the way of increasing his power and wealth, then too bad for the institutions.

The recent Leftist deaths of Alexander Pretti and Renee Good demonstrated that American Leftists are ready to fight and die for their beliefs, for their mass-immigration and imported Servant Caste. Democrats, like in the Antebellum South, are willing to go to war to keep their Servants (previously their Slaves).

I think they weren't "Leftist deaths". They were just deaths, tragic for their families and scandalous because of the circumstances. They weren't fighting - they were just your fellow citizens protesting, as was their right. I don't think they were murdered, either, because I don't think there was any premeditation involved and it was to nobody's benefit that they be killed. They died because poorly-trained militia members reacted with anger or panic in situations of pressure.

This current war against Iran, on behalf of Israel, is proving the limits of our Geopolitical reach. In short, USA has not adapted to Asiatic drone warfare. We are extremely behind and not catching up anytime soon.

It is proving all sorts of things. The most concerning is not about the shortcomings of US military power, which is still immense, but that Trump is incredibly impulsive and has terrible judgment.

OK, I'll shut up now. It's kind of bad moderating the forum and also contributing to it at the same time. Doesn't work well.

[Impenitent]

President Trump is and was a political Outsider, with no actual 'Fascist' convictions.

I do agree with that. I think that Trump has few actual convictions at all, apart from a sincere and consistent dedication to the advancement of the interests of Donald Trump. He's not a convinced fascist or a convinced Republican and he's also not a convinced supporter of democracy. If the institutions of American democracy get in the way of increasing his power and wealth, then too bad for the institutions.

actually, Trump has switched party affiliation many times...

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/don ... /wj85mj5yq

and if you think about it, why would a private businessman want to give up private control of business to some nameless bureaucrat? there is simply no profit in it...

-Imp

[Wizard22]

I'll respond to one last point about Marxism and American Leftism then...

Marxism is about a world revolution of the Proletariat (Worker, Low, Poor, Oppressed, Minority) class. Marxism infiltrated the United States after World War II, among American Communists and Leftists, who began a subversion and demoralization campaign. I regularly link Yuri Bezmenov's video since it holds true to this day, an essential viewing for absolutely everybody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yErKTVdETpw

There were a few, very minor, positive results of Marxism in America: worker's rights, abolishment of child labor, worker's compensations for injury, worker unions, women's rights, civil rights, and the whole slew of Western Liberal values. These were established in the West's schools, colleges, and universities. This was the basis for America's Anti-War campaign against Vietnam. It was underneath the 'Hippy' Movement, which ended after they migrated and resettled the West Coast.

Why are they tied into Marxism? Because Marxism seeks to overthrow the 'Bourgeois' and Royalist (Rightwing) factions of Western Civilization. In today's Liberal-Left, "Critical Theory" language, these are the Western Oppressors, primarily referring to Western WASPs... White Anglo Saxon Protestant males. White men = bad. Heterosexuality = bad. Traditional families = bad. Colored women = good. LGBTQ+ = good. Neo-liberal Hypergamy = good.

Western values have been successfully subverted and demoralized. The Cultural Marxists won. They did not overtake the American Economy per se--but they didn't need to in the end. All they really needed was, control of the Education systems. Which they fought for, won, and now American Leftism is the result.


Their political violence is building toward a tumultuous and chaotic decade to come.


Accusing me of ignorance with regard to Marxism won't work. I've lived it. I've been surrounded by Marxists my entire life. My Philosophy is very much a Counter-Revolution, against them, the disease, rot, and death they will bring to Western Civilization will be catastrophic. I am very much a Warning, to anybody who can listen and hopes to preserve any semblance of a traditional value.

[RickLewis]

Your take on Marxism, and how everyone American you disagree with is actually a Far Left Marxist, reminds me a little of a famous quotation from "Through The Looking Glass", by the logician Lewis Carroll:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12608- ... -in-rather

[FlashDangerpants]

The correct historical figure to compare Trump to at present is not really Hitler. It's King Cnut (not a typo), who ruled an empire surrounding the North Sea including much of Scandinavia and Britain.

Legend has it that King Cnut's many sycophantic advisers would lavish endless praise on him, even going so far as to call him the commander of the tides, such was his rule over the sea.

In this, the 11th century viking ruler had much in common with Trump, who now routinely stages events where his army of arse-licking toads perform their rituals of cringeworthy worship.

The difference between them though is that Cnut was legendary for being wise enough to realise this was bullshit, and that he couldn't tell the sea what to do. So he stood by the water's edge and commanded the tide to go out, but it ignored him and he got his toes wet.

Trump apparently believes it all, and demands further helpings of debasing arsewash from his pathetic cronies, who all compete to win his favour with gold encrusted but meaningless prizes such as the America First award, the “Champion of Beautiful, Clean Coal”, and of course, the coveted "Fifa Peace Prize".

Cnut was short of advisers who were willing to tell him the truth about his limited powers, so he forced them to become honest. Trump has surrounded himself with advisers who will only tell him he is the very best ever in all categories, but he forces them to compete to tell him more of what he wants to hear. That's why he thinks he can just assassinate foreign leaders to win wars.

[Immanuel Can]

Reference Godwin’s Law.

Invoking Hitler is a purposeful tactic with the known, intended effect of distraction.

That's a rather simple way to put it. But I suggest it's far more insidious and strategic than that.

What such are aiming at is a ruse called the false dichotomy...in this case, the perception that one is either Leftist or Nazi. There are no other possibilities offered, in their proposed opposition. One is not to be permitted to think beyond the possibility that SOME kind of Socialism is the only choice...a constant back-and-forth between two options, neither of which allows things like freedom, personal human rights, freedom from collectivist control, property ownership, innovation, free speech, entrepreneurial opportunity, meritocratic advancement, diversity of opinion or belief, access to information, freedom from government interference, and so on.

So it stops mattering which you choose, really. With either one, you end up under Socialist tyranny, deprived of your possessions and rights, bludgeoned into an absurd utopian political project, subdued to the control of an elite that rules in the name of others. The Socialists win either way, unless you reject the false dichotomy entirely, and bring into the conversation such contrary things as classical liberalism, equality of opportunity, meritocracy, independent thought, a free press, individual rights, and so on.

So the minute somebody invokes the Leftist-Nazi dichotomy, what you need to do is point out the fakery immediately, and immediately reject the falsehood of it. Just know, at that very minute, you're dealing with a dishonest propagandist, and respond accordingly. The accusation of "Nazi" is nothing but a cheap tactic, a ruse to give Socialists a win through the back door when they can't win through the front. It needs to be greeted with the scorn and rejection it deserves.

Just don't bother to defend or to play their game with them, because they've rigged it. Dismiss them immediately as unserious and mendacious.

[MikeNovack]

I'll respond to one last point about Marxism and American Leftism then...

Marxism is about a world revolution of the Proletariat (Worker, Low, Poor, Oppressed, Minority) class. Marxism infiltrated the United States after World War II, among American Communists and Leftists, who began a subversion and demoralization campaign. I regularly link Yuri Bezmenov's video since it holds true to this day, an essential viewing for absolutely everybody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yErKTVdETpw

There were a few, very minor, positive results of Marxism in America: worker's rights, abolishment of child labor, worker's compensations for injury, worker unions, women's rights, civil rights, and the whole slew of Western Liberal values. These were established in the West's schools, colleges, and universities. This was the basis for Ame
.........
Accusing me of ignorance with regard to Marxism won't work.

Sorry Wizard, if I do not attribute nonsense like that to ignorance I have to think willful disruption.

Do you really know nothing about the history of "leftism" in America?
Do you think the struggle for women's rights, child labor laws, the right to form unions, etc. is post WWII? REALLY?

How about I give you some names and events to look up. You do THAT T << and then you come back to defend "post WWII"

The Abraham Lincoln Brigade (shortly before)
The "wobblies" IWW
Emma Gldman
Eugene V Debbs
The Haymarket Riot
The Lawrence Strike
The Homestead Strike
The Battle of Blair Mountain
The 19th Amendment (that's the END f the fight for women's vote)

[Immanuel Can]

I'll respond to one last point about Marxism and American Leftism then...

Marxism is about a world revolution of the Proletariat (Worker, Low, Poor, Oppressed, Minority) class. Marxism infiltrated the United States after World War II, among American Communists and Leftists, who began a subversion and demoralization campaign. I regularly link Yuri Bezmenov's video since it holds true to this day, an essential viewing for absolutely everybody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yErKTVdETpw

There were a few, very minor, positive results of Marxism in America: worker's rights, abolishment of child labor, worker's compensations for injury, worker unions, women's rights, civil rights, and the whole slew of Western Liberal values. These were established in the West's schools, colleges, and universities. This was the basis for Ame
.........
Accusing me of ignorance with regard to Marxism won't work.

Sorry Wizard, if I do not attribute nonsense like that to ignorance I have to think willful disruption.

Do you really know nothing about the history of "leftism" in America?
Do you think the struggle for women's rights, child labor laws, the right to form unions, etc. is post WWII? REALLY?

How about I give you some names and events to look up. You do THAT T << and then you come back to defend "post WWII"

The Abraham Lincoln Brigade (shortly before)
The "wobblies" IWW
Emma Gldman
Eugene V Debbs
The Haymarket Riot
The Lawrence Strike
The Homestead Strike
The Battle of Blair Mountain
The 19th Amendment (that's the END f the fight for women's vote)

If I were cynical, Wizard, I would say that he's aiming to play you. Good thing I'm not cynical about Mike's intentions.

But if I were, I'd maybe say that he wants you to call all the groups that ever got anything good done in the name of Socialism "Socialist," and at the same time, never to call any of the regimes who actually implemented Socialism with such horrendous consequences "Socialist." Only in this way can all virtues be attributed to Socialism, and never any vices.

This is why he wants you to argue about cases, not the definition. He's afraid to define "Socialism," because he knows that will either a) result in a definition so absurd that it will be detected immediately as inadequate, or b) will have to include all the Socialist regimes that killed 120 million people in the last century. Either way, his definition isn't going to win any believers.

So he's going to try to argue cases. And his cases will be selected carefully Any union, or welfare program, or uprising, or movement that achieved even marginally good results or did anything admirable, he's going to include. He'll talk about American aspiring-Socialisms, but not about the Russian or Chinese ones. He'll talk about Debs, or Bernstein, or Irons. But not Stalin. Not Mao, Not Pol Pot. Not the Kim Jongs. Not Mugabe, or Maduro, or Castro...or any of the Socialist regimes, with their 100% rate of disastrous failure. He won't even discuss what Marx said Socialism was or would do. He'll put in every case where some form of soft and partial "Socialism" made an inroad, but did not become the controlling system of the country...and then want you to believe that if Socialism did gain total control YOUR country and its whole economy, it would be good...and that you haven't Socialism a fair chance.

In other words, he'll argue from all the Socialist failures, when the movement was small and did not end up disrupting and controlling the "Capitalist" system, that giving your country over to Socialism, and letting the Socialist ideologues run their whole program, would be good. But if you ask him to define what he understands by Socialism, before you accept any of his proposed cases, he won't do it. He can't. He's afraid to. The problems would become too obvious...and I'm pretty sure he's painfully aware of that fact, too.

Therefore, don't take his claims that you don't understand Socialism very seriously; they're strategic, not real. He's trying to get you to discuss his specially-selected cases, rather than the profound problems with Socialist regimes and Socialist dogma. But he can't risk defining the term himself.