Can’t Both Sides Lose?

Henry Kissinger is rumored to have said, in regards to the Iran-Iraq war, “It’s a pity both sides can’t lose.” That pretty much sums up how I feel about what happened in Charlottesville. For those of you who are wise enough to avoid social media, it has been non stop “fascism and nazism descending on America because a few hundred idiots got together and Charlottesville and did what idiots tend to do.

I’m told variously I have to speak out. No I don’t. I down own kooks. I don’t own those people any more than people who voted for Bernie own that dude who shot Steve Scalise, or people who voted for Hillary who own this guy. Let’s establish that we all think murdering people is wrong, that violence is bad, socialist authoritarianism, whether national or international flavor is bad, fascism is bad. I’ve always been more of a pragmatist than a hard ideologue, so I’m OK condemning a whole host of isms.

So no, I definitely don’t own a few hundred loser white supremacists or antifa protesters who decided to get out of mom’s basement for a day and beat each other up over a statue.

I’ll leave you all with Ace of Spades:

But as John Sexton points out, you can’t expect a culture to praise all sorts of Identity Politics — flat-out racist groups and gender supremacists — but say that one group doesn’t get to play by the same rules.

Either it’s all poisonous garbage, or it’s all got something of merit to it.

I believe the former. But the media — and the establishment right political class — cannot continue with this incoherent claim that Identity Politics are permissible for e everyone except The One Group Which is Truly Odious and Cursed by God.

People will not accept that. No one will accept his subordination without a fight of some kind.

I agree. It’s all poisonous garbage, and if we don’t abandon it for the good of the country, it’s only going to get worse.

95 thoughts on “Can’t Both Sides Lose?”

  1. It will get worse. The identity politics was done by Democrats and many are tired of being the punching bag There were many warnings about pushing whites into tribalism It is a bad idea when we group think But if attack that is what will happen. They have been attacked.

    Yet I heard McCuliff state the is no place in America for the these neo nazi and others. So what to they plan? . Executions? These are Americans, like it or not. We have to live with them. It is not going to be surrender. We have to accommodate and try to persuade young males that going ISIS is not a good idea.

  2. You may not own the kooks, but the kooks are well on their way to owning you, in the sense that they are redefining the issue and the politics you have dedicated so much of your life to.

    You don’t have to speak out, but no one is going to remember what you didn’t say. More likely, a time will come when someone will define for you, what you meant by your silence. And if you deny that meaning, you will be attempting to prove a negative.

    Alignments I took pride in 20 – 30 years ago now embarrass me — not for what we stood for at the time, but because our descriptor has since become co-opted and redefined to mean something else. There is at least an even chance that right now that is happening to the gun rights movement, and pleading “I can’t be blamed!” is not going to do a thing to change that.

    1. Oh, I’m remembering all kinds of things. Like the silence of the Media about aggressive Left wing rioters.

      Like how the Mayors of Berkeley and Charlottesville, and the Governor of Virginia like to hold back the police so the masked commie thugs of Antifa can run amok and do the Democrats dirty work.

      Even the ACLU is wise to the scheme.

      1. “Like how the Mayors of Berkeley and Charlottesville, and the Governor of Virginia like to hold back the police…”

        What was the motive for holding them back on Friday night, while the Nazis were holding their torch-light rally and attacking a prayer meeting? To let clergymen run amok?

        Why didn’t they hold back the cop who stopped field medics from administering CPR to Heather Heyer?

        That the cops were “held back” is arguable. That they “held back”, there is no argument.

      2. BTW, is there parallel verification of that report that the police were ordered “held back?” It appears that it originated with a Fox News reporter, and was then echoed in outlets like The Daily Caller, InfoWars, and similar outlets who echoed each other, but can you point me to a parallel, verified report by other outlets? It would seem that would be hot news right now, given that different outlets could imbue it with different motives.

        1. False. It originated with the ACLU of Virginia whose representative was talking to local police at the time.

          1. Thanks. I had just found that too, and had gotten the impression that’s where the Fox reporter got his impressions.

            But, what the ACLU tweet says is “Clash between protesters and counter protesters. Police says ‘We’ll not intervene until given command to do so.’ ”

            That certainly does not say that the police had prior orders from the mayor, to hold back. It just says they were holding back, and would until someone realized they needed to be told to do their jobs.

            Was there a later report clarifying that?

            So far in our contemporary scenarios, it is possible to get the impression that our police have been like the London Metropolitan Police, who supported and fought alongside Sir Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists, in “The Battle of Cable Street” in London’s East End in October 1936.

            I of course hope I am wrong about that.

    2. Whetherman, do you own the guy who tried to assassinate the Republican congressmen? Stop damning conservatives for the actions of freaking nazis unless you are willing to blame your self for all the left-wing violence also!

      1. “Whetherman, do you own the guy who tried to assassinate the Republican congressmen?”

        Why would I own him? Are you implying that because I don’t like Nazis, I must not like Republicans?

        1. Didn’t like it when that ‘broad brush’ just got mopped right back in your face, did you?

          Dish it out but can’t take it, eh?

          Well these ANTIFACommies are well on the way to owning YOU.

          1. I just find it interesting what people like bor and you will extrapolate from someone expressing a distaste for Nazis and fascists.

            Which of course exposes YOUR sympathies for fascists; anyone who criticizes fascism must also hate the other factions you like, in your mind. You should be careful about what you give away, that way.

            1. No, I extrapolate nothing.
              I’m interacting with you for comedic relief.

              I’ve read your continuing smarmy, condescending, supercilious screeds around here and know your kind all too well.
              You are an exemplar that posts to indulge the idea that yours is the superior intellect and that everyone else is simply too dull and cloddish to recognize your exalted status.

              Either delusional, or suffering from terminal ennui and simply trolling I don’t know or care as you’re of no more influence, or consequence than the methane you fart into the cushions of your sofa.

              I already acknowledge this about my online commentary. You simply haven’t realized it about yourself.

              Oh, and be careful when playing with matches. Not just from the methane but also from playing from ANTIFAGOONS playbook.

              1. “I’m interacting with you for comedic relief.”

                That disappoints me. I always hope that when I am factually wrong about something, someone will correct me in an intelligent way; i.e., not just expressing their opinion that I am wrong.

                Unlike you, I take the evolution of non-thinking opinions within a subculture as a serious business. Within the subculture called “the gun rights movement” I am currently a dissident about the conventional wisdom, but unlike most I think it is better to say so. In my long history, the only things I regret are the times when I held dissident opinions and failed to say so, instead thinking there was virtue in being a “team player.”

                If stating dissident opinions, and thereby setting the little majority-birdies chirping, is the definition of a “troll,” then I guess I am one. I like to think the kid in the fable who said “the emperor has no clothes” was that kind of troll.

                1. I’m a dissident as well. I dissent from the dominant view on the Right that we should be good little fat balding accountants when the Left uses violence against us, and then gloats about it.

                  I served in the Marine Corps, and taking shit is not what I do.

                  We don’t just need to use violence in self-defense. We need to go into the houses of swine like Ladd Everitt or that pussy boy from Raw Story who lied that veterans support gun control, and harm them.

                  1. “I’m a dissident as well.”

                    And welcome to state your opinion!


      Content warning? WTF?

      see how You Tube has put restrictions on viewing the content? And for no justifiable reason either. You Tube requiring you to sign in with a Google account to bypass their viewing restriction.

      I have never seen You Tube try that before with Sargon. But as we should all be aware, many big media corporations are desperate to shut down alternative political voices for both economic and cultural reasons. Their war on speech is accelerating.

  3. “fascism and nazism descending on America because a few hundred idiots got together. . . protesters who decided to get out of mom’s basement for a day”

    Purely for historical perspective, how many idiots were there when Adolf Hitler (sorry, Mr. Godwin) attempted his Beer Hall Putsch, and were the Sturmabteilung living in their muttis’ basements when they held their torchlight rally?

    (If I find a 1930s Nazi Tiki-torch, is it a valuable collectible?) ;-)

    1. That’s a fair question, but at the same time, how many of those idiots in Charlottesville were trying to take over the government?

      One of the lessons that Hitler took from his Beer Hall Putsch was that it was easier to take power legitimately than it was through force. Apparently the event also gave Hitler a chance to publicize his views to the German people. How many Americans are sympathetic with the crowds in Charlottesville?

      1. “How many Americans are sympathetic with the crowds in Charlottesville?”

        A better question is, how many Americans are willing to look away, or deny those people could be a threat, because of some perceived self-interest in doing so? Because, that’s all it takes.

        Obviously the neo-fascists have some sort of strategy in mind, and more obviously, they have been successful beyond belief so far. Their man is in the White House, and apparently he sees a “moral equivalency” between them and those of us offended by them. And there is a huge percentage “on the right” who apparently share that view, or who are too ball-less to sacrifice their social standing in their little jungle pond to say they don’t.

        Because, again, that’s all it takes.

        1. The exact same thing can be said of the Antifa, though, even though their chosen candidate didn’t make it into the White House.

          And far more people are turning a blind eye away from Antifa for self-interest purposes than are people turning a blind eye away from KKK and Neo-Nazi types.

          1. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what happens when the Nazis’ and white supremacists’ chosen candidate leaves the White House.

            You know what I’ve been saying about babies getting thrown out with the bathwater.

            1. “Their chosen candidate”.

              That’s right – President Trump is basically Hitler, and the Choice Of White Supremacists, because.

              Because …

              Well, uh … because he didn’t disclaim them in the right way immediately?

              (I agree it was not a politic statement, in the context of the car attack!)

              Because that’s the only evidence I’ve seen that he’s in any way on “their side”.

              I mean, I think the man is a trainwreck, but I haven’t seen him do or say anything that reeks of Fascism.

              That they “like him” and think they can “Make America Great Again” with Naziism is not his fault or really his problem.

              That’s no logic at all, and I won’t accept it from anyone at any side.

              1. “I haven’t seen him do or say anything that reeks of Fascism.”

                I spent a lot of years not hearing things because, I can now see with 20/20 hindsight, it appeared to be in my self-interest not to hear them.

                I’ll apologize in advance because I know I’ve posted it before, but my current favorite George Orwell quote is,

                “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” — George Orwell, 1945

                You can of course substitute almost anything for “nationalist,” even if that is currently topical.

              2. “I haven’t seen him do or say anything that reeks of Fascism.”

                Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

                Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

                1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism (check)

                2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights (check)

                3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause (check)

                4. Supremacy of the Military (check)

                5. Rampant Sexism (check)

                6. Controlled Mass Media (check — hates that he can’t)

                7. Obsession with National Security (check)

                8. Religion and Government are Intertwined (check – evangelicals love him)

                9. Corporate Power is Protected (check)

                10. Labor Power is Suppressed (check – wants to)

                11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts (check)

                13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption (double check)

                14. Fraudulent Elections (check – accuses election results of being fraudulent, even when he’s elected.)

                1. I find it interesting that Dr. Lawrence Britt hasn’t included the Soviet Union and China in his examinations, because they *also* go straight down the list as “checked” — at least, if you include “wants to”.

                  I am also amused by your observation that Evangelicals love Trump, because as a general rule, it’s my understanding that the more religious an Evangelical is, the less likely he is going to support Trump.

                  And it should raise a GREAT BIG RED FLAG that you could just as easily go down the list with Hillary, and check off every single item as well: because with this last election, no matter what, Fascism was going to win.

                  (Incidentally, some of those items are also subjective — for example, “disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts” generally only applies to *their* Intellectuals and *their* Arts, but not *ours*, for the correct values of “theirs” and “ours”.)

                  1. it’s my understanding that the more religious an Evangelical is, the less likely he is going to support Trump.

                    You realize of course that you are treading on the ground of, defining who is a “real” Christian, or in this case “evangelical,” don’t you? What makes a non-Trumpnik evangelical “more religious,” given that both have gone to the trouble of defining themselves as evangelicals? Regardless, there is a very large faction of self-described evangelicals who love Trumpakov all to pieces.

                    But in more practical terms, Trumpakov has gone out of his way to pander to that faction of evangelicals, including his appointments of people like Betsy DeVos.

                    China and the Soviet Union were of course fascist in almost every way (except for their state ownership of property and the means of production, and their regard for religion) but if you are going to enter into a “define fascism” study, you would first have to convince everyone to accept their equivalency (when both the communists and the fascists are adamant about their differences) before you could proceed; and “conservatives” in particular are so dependent on their communists-as-boogeymen memes they would never accept it. So I’m pretty sure Britt just took the easier path of using fascists that almost everyone acknowledged were fascists, and/or called themselves fascists. Implying Britt was somehow covering for commies or displaying a preference for them would be a bit of a stretch.

                    I certainly will never defend Hillary, but you might have trouble convincing people that her status as a “globalist” was in fact the same thing as Trump’s “America First!” nationalism. I’ll stop there so as not to give the impression of defending her.

                    1. *Statistically*, the more an Evangelical attends church, the *less likely* that person is going to support Trump. It’s going to be easy to find examples either way that are exceptions to that rule — after all, statistics are merely the averaging of everyone.

                      Having said that, while Evangelicals like Trump, that doesn’t automatically mean that religion is being intermingled with government, at least, not much more than is typical for American politics.

                      Contrast this to Germany: if you didn’t support the State’s neo-pagan semi-Christian Aryan religion, you could easily end up in a concentration camp. Or Soviet Russia: if you did not support the State’s official atheism, you could easily end up in the gulags. This is what intermingling religion with government looks like.

                      As for Hillary’s “globalist” tendencies? Russia and China have “globalist” tendencies, too. International Communism, with Russia or China leading the way, of course. And Adolf Hitler’s “Nationalism” had a funny tendency to try to spread to the entire world. To what degree was Hillary’s globalism merely her desire to be the Empress of the World, with the United States at the forefront?

                      I think what bothers me about your insistence that Trump is a fascist is (1) perhaps he is, but the things you attribute solely to Trump is applicable to the Presidency in general, and that goes back *decades*.

                      You are too eager to stretch to make sure Trump satisfies every arbitrary element of fascism, yet are also eager to minimize Hillary’s fascist desires.

                      And while you try to claim that conservatives would be unwilling to see equivalency between fascists and communists, you don’t give them enough credit. I could think of several conservatives — Bill Whittle, Dinesh D’Sousa, Jonah Goldberg — off the top of my head, who have already made the case.

                  2. This from “Christianity Today”:

                    Trump’s evangelical supporters flock to his side: A ‘bold truthful statement about Charlottesville’

                    Donald Trump’s evangelical supporters have largely been conspicuous by their absence in the aftermath of the Charlottesville tragedy, where white supremacists and neo-Nazis marched through the town and one counter-protester died.

                    The President’s response was to blame ‘many sides’ for the violence, a claim he reiterated at a controversial press conference on Tuesday.

                    None of those who served on Trump’s evangelical advisory council during his election campaign have publicly distanced themselves from him.

                    Now Jerry Falwell Jnr, president of Liberty University and one of Trump’s earliest and most fervent supporters, has come out in praise of how the President handled the situation.

                    Can’t get much more evangelical than Jerry Falwell, can you?

                  3. All the President’s Preachers

                    What about the people who actually are supposed to provide moral guidance — the president’s 25-member Evangelical Executive Advisory Board?

                    The board, which Mr. Trump created in 2016 while he was running for president, is likewise a largely ceremonial body, though also one designed to give cover to the famously irreligious candidate and allow him an entree to millions of evangelical voters. In exchange, the board members got unprecedented access to the White House; one activist later said the president had them on “speed dial.”

                    Sorry if I’m looking fanatical on this, but I always prefer to know what I’m talking about, so when I find something, I pass it along.

                    But while I’m at it: Why does Trump have a 25-preacher evangelical advisory board? Are non-evangelical Christians, or Jews, chopped liver? Have they nothing biblical to say to a president?

                2. There you go again. Presenting another leftist as an authoritative source. Let’ check the list against the hypothetical Clinton regime. I get checks on 1,2,3,4 (as long as the generals are their’s)5 (see Clinton, Bill), 6, 7 (as long as they can define it), 8, (Gaia),9, 13 (quadruple check), and 14 (for real, not made up BS by the WAPO). There seems to be no #12 on your list so I can’t comment.

                  1. ” Presenting another leftist. . .”

                    And there you go again, bitching without correcting. Tell us what was said that was wrong, and why it was wrong.

                    Maybe your “they’re leftist because they don’t agree with me” works in your kindergarten, but it stopped working with grownups, years ago, Dick.

                    1. Dude, I google your sources. You should try it sometimes. Rather than defending Trump, I choose to point out that the points were applicable to others (specifically Hillary). Therefore, they have little ability to discriminate. And what did happen to #12?

                    2. “Google your sources.”

                      I’d prefer Googling whether what they report is true or not.

                      “You should try it sometime.”

                      For example, when a video contains exactly and at length exactly what someone said and how they said it, I think that source deserves to be thanked for it. Only those who would prefer their he-roes’ true character be concealed, from everyone but their base, should be upset.

                      And, they usually are.

                    3. “And what did happen to #12?”

                      That’s a stranger question coming for a Google advocate like yourself, but I thank you for calling my attention to my oversight, because it’s one that deserves a double-check!

                      12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment. (check-check!)

                      Trumpakov is so obsessed with “what part of illegal can’t you understand?” that he just pardoned an outlaw Sherf who was locking up U.S. citizens and holding them in prison until they could prove they were U.S. citizens. (As we all know, Hispanics can never be real Americans, right? First thing you know they’ll want to own guns!).

                      I’ve just reminded myself; that would be kind of like locking up gun owners until they could prove they weren’t prohibited from owning guns.

                      But we can never be too careful, so it’s better to punish based on the suspicion there is a crime, right?

                    4. Do you seriously not know that technology exists to manipulate or fabricate video or are you just hoping the rest of us do not. Source credibility is huge.

                    5. “Do you seriously not know that technology exists to manipulate or fabricate video. . .”

                      And do you seriously not know what medications are effective for your paranoid schizophrenia?

                      I’ve heard those dingbats complain about their own televised footage being re-broadcast, and they all stopped short of claiming it was doctored. If they won’t claim that themselves, it’s because it can readily be verified that they did and said exactly what’s recorded on film. They want to own it, but only with their chosen base.

                      You’re really reaching now, Dick.

                    6. As Joe Huffman might say, “We have reasoned arguments, they have dick jokes.”

                      And as for video manipulation, two words-Katie Couric.

                    7. ““We have reasoned arguments, they have dick jokes.”

                      “Anything I wish people weren’t seeing, has to have been manipulated” is a reasoned argument?

                      We’re learning right here that some dicks are their own joke.

        2. It has occurred to me that you are looking for “kristallnachts” in the wrong places.

          Granted, it’s possible that what’s going on in Charlottesville will become a premise to take more power, but it’s not likely. It’s just as likely that what’s been going on in Berkeley and other places can do so as well. I don’t know why we have this tendency to look at protests as the most likely place for governments to take power, because historically, it’s been rather rare.

          Instead, we should be wary of things like Newtown:
          because of that event, half a dozen States have stricter gun laws. Or 9/11, where Congress almost unanimously approved of the Federal takeover of airport security. Or even events like Hurricane Katrina, where the local government took guns, and the Federal government took the opportunity to get even more powers when there’s an emergency. Or when the economy collapsed, and Bush and Obama took the opportunity to create giant bailouts and new regulations.

          Heck, even the death of a couple of dozen people from a non-chemist attempting to make a medicine, but inadvertently made a poison instead, and the death of a famous athlete who endorsed and drank radioactive water, was what gave us the oh-so-powerful FDA.

          And I could go on, to be sure. But the point is, when Rahm Emanuel said “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste” he was advocating for watching out for “kristallnacht” moments — moments of fear and susceptibility, where the Government can move in and increase their government power.

          It can even be argued, for better or for worse, that the Constitution itself is the result of a “kristallnacht” moment — Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts.

          So let’s keep an eye on the protests, but let’s not forget that protests — even protests that go wrong — are rarely how governments increase their power.

  4. “Godwin was antigun.”

    Thanks for the factoid! I had gotten the impression he might have coined his Law to be used to shout down anyone who noticed what was happening all around us. But I guess in a way, that was true! Just different issues!

    BTW, do you think gun control was a “Nazi policy,” or were they just “putting some teeth in the existing law” that had been conceived by the Wiemar Republic? I have heard neo-Nazis (or their fellow travelers) spin things, that Hitler and the Nazis were actually pro-gun, because they liberalized gun ownership for the “right kinds” of people. “Real Germans.”

    I may have mentioned that my nicest Mauser Sporter was liberated from a well-positioned German aristocrat at the end of WWII. Clearly some people still had guns.

    1. I think the answer to the question is “Yes” to all of the above. The Nazis put teeth in existing Wiemar Republic law, added a few laws of their own, and made it easier for their own people to get guns.

      I, for one, wouldn’t consider someone pro-gun if they are in favor of letting “Real Germans” have guns, and forbidding Jews from having them, any more than Jim Crow is pro-gun because they refused to enforce the laws they passed against whites, with the unspoken rule being that the laws were only for blacks.

      For religious reasons I consider LGBT to be icky — so it would be easy for me to say “this group shouldn’t have guns”. But the moment I do so, I can’t really say I’m pro-gun, because I’d be no different from all those people who say “only rich people should have guns” or “only the police or military should have guns”.

      A major purpose of protecting gun rights is to protect the right for unpopular minorities. Ayn Rand pointed out that the smallest minority is the individual. If you’re not for the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, you can’t really say that you’re pro-gun.

      1. Agreed! Thank you for the great research both of you (Alpheus and Whetherman).

        I just heard an interview with a Venezuelan that President Marudo (spelling?) is attempting to disarm the populace and then distribute those arms amongst the citizens who support his regime. I’m not sure if he is communist or national socialist, but she described him as a “stupid dictator.” That action does seem to run in every autocrat’s plplaybook.

        Further gun laws are the “canary in the coal mine” I think.


    2. IIRC the actual proper Godwin’s Law is that the probability of a reference/comparison to Hitler approaches one as an argument goes on.

      The idea that “you lose for bringing up Hitler” is a later corollary, and obviously only applies when you’re not talking about actual Nazis; irrelevance to the topic is implicit.

      (It’s not a bad rule of thumb, since if we’re not talking about authoritarian, totalitarian government or racial purity movements, comparisons to Hitler are almost always ad hominem.)

      1. “if we’re not talking about authoritarian, totalitarian government or racial purity movements, comparisons to Hitler are almost always ad hominem.”

        I know you said “almost,” but suppose you are making comparisons that demonstrate the similarities between a Stalin and a Hitler?

        Of course when you and doing that, you are comparing men with established records, but if you are comparing a Stalin or a Hitler to someone who seems to have their potential, is it necessarily ad hominem?

        To go further, Hitler utilized Leninist tactics in his rise to power; was it ad hominem at the time for someone to point that out? Is it today, when you identify tactics for what they are?

        (Not to beat this topic to death, but even Lenin did not invent most Leninist tactics; most had already been developed by the Czar’s Secret Police. And Karl Marx once explained that he, Marx, “was not a Marxist” (!)

  5. I’ve noticed that one of the side effects of the demands for President Trump to denounce the violence in Charlottesville, is that others are pointing out that President Obama didn’t denounce the BLM police assassinations, and Hillary didn’t denounce the violence that her side erupted in at Trump rallies or the violence that broke out at Berkeley.

    I, for one, don’t need leaders telling me that any of these violent acts are bad. I think a lot of people agree, and they are tired of the blatant hypocrisy, and the transparently partisan attempts to tie these organizations to President Trump by insisting that he just has to denounce this, because they are his people.

    The thing that has driven me nuts most about the Trump Administration has nothing to do with President Trump, and everything to do with the media. The media has been so desperate to harm Trump that they’ve taken every hint of incompetence, and even made up a few for good measure, to try to paint Trump as the Most Ineffective President Eva!!!!!111!11!!!!!1! and it’s been very tiring. All this effort has done is to produce an incredible anger against the media that I would never have imagined possible, let alone likely.

    (And this, despite being someone who doesn’t really like Trump, either as a person or as a President, but recognizes that he’s done some good, even if I don’t like some of the stuff he’s done.)

  6. “but recognizes that he’s done some good…

    Once again with apologies to Mr. Godwin, Adolf Hitler pulled Germany out of the Great Depression. Was it worth it?

    Every racist, white supremacist, and neo-fascist heard what Trump was saying, loud and clear, and flocked to him the day he started his campaign. I don’t believe that no one else heard what he was saying. Most of us also heard total incompetence in his blather. I don’t believe most of his supporters didn’t hear that, but instead were willing to put the nation at risk because of some perceived self-interest; “He’ll appoint SCOTUS Justices that will support our issue.” Great, as long as he doesn’t torpedo the frigging country before he has a chance to.

    1. Yup…. He absolutely relies on that .003% of the population to do anything.

      1. “Yup…. He absolutely relies on that .003% of the population to do anything.”

        Appealing to that “0.003%” got him elected by, what was it it, 46 – 48 percent of the population? Clearly almost the majority of the American population heard it, liked it, and the electoral college did the rest.

        What has people upset now is, they have to pretend they didn’t know what was going on, all along. Meanwhile, Their Man promised they’d get a chance to beat somebody up, and he’s not delivering much better than his predecessor did.

        Once again I recall, the soldier who did Occupation duty in postwar Germany, who quipped that he would have given anything to meet a Nazi, or even anyone who had ever known a Nazi.

        1. “Appealing to that “0.003%” got him elected by, what was it it, 46 – 48 percent of the population?”

          My own question bugged me, so I had to look it up.

          Trump 46.09%; Clinton 48.18%; Johnson 3.28%; Stein 1.07%; McMullen 0.54%; Castle 0.15%

          So, abandoning dog whistles, and adopting steam whistles directed at that 0.003%, was good for getting 46.09% of the vote.

          Who’da thunk? (Maybe they really are more than 0.003%?)

          “Can’t they both lose?” was a good question for the election, itself. But of course the answer was no, because we know how the American electorate thinks.

          1. I don’t know if you’re a troll or just bad at math… If every one of that .003% wasn’t on this planet, he still would have won. If every one of that .003% voted for Hillary, he still would have won.

            The end state is this: Violence begets violence. When the loser white supremacists and the loser antifa children showed up at the same place the end result was as predictable as it was pointless.

            1. The point of course is that while he appealed to what you estimate as 0.003%, it turned out 46% either liked it, or didn’t mind.

              Did Hitler become chancellor because he badmouthed and scapegoated “Untermenschen”? Probably not, but it surely didn’t hurt him, with enough of the population to put him in office. And everything he did subsequently was enabled by those people who didn’t mind, and tolerated what went on because of some perceived self-interest.

              Before too long that self-interest would become, that they didn’t want their asses kicked (or, be taken to a concentration camp) by the minority who had leveraged bigotry into political power.

              But by then it was too late.

              1. It’s not my estimate. It’s reported by Roger L Simon on PJ Media, Erin Gloria Ryan at The Daily Beast, and a study done at the University of Missouri.

                Are you seriously positing that every single person that voted for Trump either “liked (it) or didn’t mind” white supremacists?

                1. “Are you seriously positing that every single person that voted for Trump either “liked (it) or didn’t mind” white supremacists?”

                  No, I’m only saying they heard the same things that the white supremacists heard and loved, and 46 percent of voters demonstrably didn’t mind those things.

              2. “Erin Gloria Ryan at The Daily Beast”

                Thanks. I found that Daily Beast column you referenced, and Erin Gloria Ryan (or her source Roger L. Simon) don’t appear to say quite what you imply.

                For one thing, they consider only active, card-carrying KKK (and only KKK) members — and don’t include National Vanguard, Proud Boys, Identity Evropa, members of Christian Identity churches, etc., etc., etc. Or, active readers and frequent commenters on Stormfront, VDare, etc.

                Ryan makes a point based on that the KKK claimed 4 percent of the U.S. population in the 1920s, comparing it to to a claimed 0.003 percent today. But there again she ignores the diversity of fascist fellow travelers, implying that the fortunes of one organization are an adequate barometer for a whole society.

                1. Do you have any good statistics about how many people there are in such organizations, and how they are distributed?

                  It would be interesting to see if they were in States that Hillary should have won, but lost instead.

                  Surely the stereotype is wrong, but when I think “white supremacists”, I think of people living in the boondocks of States like Idaho, in States that overwhelmingly would vote Republican anyway.

                  1. “Do you have any good statistics about how many people there are in such organizations, and how they are distributed?”

                    No I don’t, but for the same reason there are no good statistics on how many people are active “antifa”. In most cases membership is by attestation — saying you are a member — and not because you filled in an application or paid dues. The one arguable exception may be the Proud Boys, who have some kind of oath and initiation hazing ritual. But I’ll bet that if anyone showed up and wanted to help them “show the flag” at a rally they wouldn’t be turned away. Didn’t that outfit Vanguard America (was it?) attempt to disavow the membership of that guy who made the auto terrorist attack in Charlottesville, even though there was at least one picture of him holding one of their shields, earlier that day?

                    I can’t remember yet all of who’s who, or their entire resumes, but as I recall Richard Spencer (the Nazi who famously got punched on camera) is from a very affluent family and is well educated; and another of the most violent characters is a Marine veteran. I think your “boondocks like Idaho” is clinging to a false stereotype. The analogy may be, that for years after the Nazi era the Germans tried to portray the early supporters of the Nazis as uneducated street thugs, but later historical research (e.g., of voting records for various precincts) showed that it had been the upper classes, the affluent end of the middle class, and the civil servants who had initially supported the Nazis — which is why no one should have been surprised at the demographics of Trump voters.

                    We’ll just have to disagree about how we should know that Trumpakov is a fascist, because I had him pegged practically the first time he opened his political mouth, and knew for certain when he embraced his birther nonsense and lied (“you wouldn’t believe what my people are finding” [in Hawaii]). He embraced a wholly racist “dog whistle,” and you weren’t required to be an Obama-lover to know it. Not only know it, but know that he was stone-stupid about how he’d handle it. (Stupid except, he knew his audience and who would be his voter base and his apologists for later things.)

                    If I hadn’t heard it then, I’d surely have heard it with his “Mexico isn’t sending us their best. . .” campaign kickoff.

                    Scapegoating. Familiar?

                    I think anyone who hasn’t heard where he has always been coming from, either chooses not to hear it, or is a conscious apologist for fascism and willing to cover for it while it takes new root. I personally have no self-interest or partisan alliance that can induce me to aid in the ascendancy of fascism.

                    1. I would admit the “boondocks of Idaho” stereotype is entirely based on my understanding of the Ruby Ridge incident. There is no statistical backing behind it at all.

                      I’m not sure if I’d consider President Trump to be a fascist, but I had him pegged as a Collectivist when he came out in support of Kelo v. City of New London, where he basically agreed that using imminent domain to obtain land for private use is good if it increases the tax base.

                      Not only that, but he’s a politician seeking power. I can’t trust him for that alone.

                      As for Hillary, I had her pegged as a Collectivist when she first tried to take over health care as First Lady.

                      Fascism (or rather Collectivizm) has, unfortunately, to some degree or another, been on the rise in America for decades. The greatest annoyance for me is that America has been blind to pretty much all of it.

                    2. “Fascism (or rather Collectivizm) has, unfortunately, to some degree or another, been on the rise in America for decades.”

                      Unbelievable. After everything that has gone before, we appear to be converging toward some common ground!

                      But just to backtrack briefly: Whatever you choose to call Trump, I could see his character the first time he opened his mouth, and every time he opened it thereafter. And I could see any number of ways he could/would become a danger to the nation. But all sorts of people (like the NRA) were telling me not to pay attention to that, and ignore the evidence of my senses, and my common sense (such as that may be) because it might serve one of my self-interests.

                      I will neither ignore the evidence of my senses, nor sacrifice the welfare of the country, for simple self-interest. In the case of gun rights, not even the self-interest, per se, but for handwaving promises to serve my interests, sometime, someday, somewhere. Just wait, just trust. Bullshit!

    2. I didn’t like President Obama, but was pleasantly surprised that he put in restrictions on asset forfeiture that Sessions is now trying to undo. However, on balance, I think he did more harm to this country than good.

      As for President Trump, it’s too soon to say. I think some of his policies are misguided, but I don’t yet think he’s as bad as Obama was, at least, not yet. Perhaps in time both will be.

      Good and bad can be found in every leader — Obama’s policies never lead to death camps, and I certainly doubt Trump’s policies will, either, although I can’t rule out the possibility that both have set (or are setting) the stage for establishing death camps in the future.

      For the record, how many Communists and Socialists flocked to the banner of Hillary Clinton, and of Obama before her? They are just as harmful as racists, white supremacists, and neo-fascists (well, to the degree that “When fascism comes to America, it will be called Antifa(scism)”, it can be argued that neo-fascists of their own have flocked to the banner of the Democrats). What all this flocking is merely reminding us is that for all the talk of liberty from both sides of the aisle, there’s a very strong streak of wishing to control the thoughts of others.

      1. “When fascism comes to America…”

        Only for historical perspective, the original 1930s quote ended “…it will come wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.”

        Not that it’s relevant, but Sinclair Lewis (author of “It Can’t Happen Here”) is usually cited as the author of that quote, but I understand there is no evidence of him ever saying exactly that; nonetheless the quote was coined and circulated in that era.

        I don’t want to get tedious in repeating it, but for present circumstances, all I can say is that the people who seek to closely emulate the original 20th century fascists (adopting/adapting their flags, fasces symbology, tactics and prejudices) saw their champion in Donald Trump; who in turn seems to be much smitten with Putin and his Russian expression of fascism.

        So, to me Trumpism looks like the more immediate threat, while 20 – 40 years ago I was chasing Democrats as the more immediate (leftist) threat — and at that time I was probably right.

        The keyword is immediacy. To me there ultimately is not the slightest difference between leftist and rightist authoritarianism, i.e., the application of the same authoritarian tactics, but to different issues.

        1. The only reason why Trump is the more immediate threat, and not Hillary, is that Trump won the last election.

          Granted, it’s a real threat, but I can’t help but wonder what the Antifa types would be doing today had Hillary won….

          1. “I can’t help but wonder what the Antifa types would be doing today had Hillary won…”

            I couldn’t say either, but they’ve been doing the same things for years or decades, depending on where you want to start counting. By another name (was it Force 43?) they evolved into the historical Irgun in Israel, and the Irgun became the IDF. The Brits screamed bloody murder that they were terrorists before they gained a recognized national status and the Brits had to stand down.

            From what I hear they usually don’t go after Trumpnik crowds, per se, but after fascist crowds (as judged by swastikas and Kekistan flags) where many of the fascists happen to be wearing MAGA hats and/or carrying pro-Trump signs.

            1. “Force 43”

              My apologies. It was the 43 Group to be followed by the 62 Group.

              The 43 Group was an English anti-fascist group set up by Jewish ex-servicemen after World War II. They did this when, upon returning to London, they encountered British fascist organisations such as Jeffrey Hamm’s British League of Ex-Servicemen and later Oswald Mosley’s new fascist party, the Union Movement. The activities of these fascist groups included antisemitic speeches in public places, and from the rank-and-file fascists, violent attacks on London Jews and Jewish property. Group members broke up far-right meetings, infiltrated fascist groups, and attacked the fascists in street fighting.

              The 62 Group was a militant broad-based coalition of anti-fascists in London. It was set up in 1962 largely in response to the resurgence of fascism in Britain at the time, and particularly the creation of Colin Jordan’s Nationalist Socialist Movement. It used violence against the remnants of Oswald Mosley’s Union Movement, the original British National Party, and the emerging National Front, as well as the NSM.

    3. What exactly did he say that only you and the Klan can hear?

      (“Some illegals from Mexico are bad people” is not gonna cut it, just as a note.)

      Every racist didn’t flock to the Trump campaign; the Black Power types sure didn’t, nor did La Raza, wot?

      I repeat, I don’t even like the man, but this is dumb and you need to do better.

      1. “Some illegals from Mexico are bad people”

        I won’t waste time copying and pasting the exact quote, since most people know it well enough, but he did not say “some are bad people.” He said “they’re bringing crime, they’re bringing drugs, they’re rapists, and some I assume are good people.”

        Quite different from the way you have rendered it, and if you remember it as you expressed it, I’d look up the exact quote if I were you, and analyze why you remembered it as you did.

  7. You don’t own the Nazis and Bernie voters don’t own the baseball shooter but the Democrat Party does own him because of his affiliation with them.

    1. “the Democrat Party does own him because of his affiliation with them”

      Suppose, God Forbid, an NRA member committed a mass shooting. Would the NRA own them?

      Speaking of geese, ganders, and sauce. . .

        1. Because, just like the Democrats, the NRA so carefully vets people before it allows them to join?

          1. NRA members are about the most law abiding people on the planet. If say, a member of the Weathermen should join and commit a false flag operation, I assume that the investigation would discover this. The media would try to suppress the finding but it would come out.

      1. See, this one I actually agree with you on.

        The NRA doesn’t own what “a member” does, if the member does something that’s against everything the NRA says and does, and “shooting a bunch of random inocent people” qualifies.

        The Democratic Party also doesn’t stand for, and is against, “shooting a bunch of Republicans for daring to be Republicans”, so they don’t own Mr. Baseball Shooter, even if he identified with them.

        Problem is that you also say that Trump’s the President Of Racists above, despite the way he hasn’t said anything Nazi-ish.

        (Jewish son in law he evidently likes just fine? Not a single accusation of racism that remotely stuck, despite a year of the press trying their best to make one work?

        The man’s got a list of problems as long as my arm, but “racist nazi klansman” just ain’t there.)

        1. “The NRA doesn’t own what ‘a member’ does…”

          I would add that I suspect that NRA members are neither more nor less “law-abiding” than whatever other demographics they happen to fall into as individuals. Of course, I can’t prove that, but it would be interesting to know.

          FWIW: When I became an NRA member more than 50 years ago, you still had to have a cop or military officer (or maybe a couple other such specified professions?) vouch for you. A cop signed my membership application.

          I seriously doubt it accomplished anything, but it was at least a gesture to, that in theory not just anyone could join.

          Those were the days when deceased Life Members were announced without fanfare in each issue of the American Rifleman. When JFK was assassinated, he was so-listed in the December 1963 or January 1964 issue, alphabetically and without fanfare.

  8. Many people voted for Trump and they are not racist They were getting tired of being shorted. They are certainly tired of the constant culture wars instigated and pursued by the left. Zi and Zir, men in womens lockers and showers. Gay marriage and people have to approved or be condemned.

    Now is hate the confederacy and eliminate any mention of them and statues. The reason for the the tolerance of the Confederacy is that they were American and it was a Civil War and we did not want to start another.

    But the left is hellbent on starting one

    1. “Now is hate the confederacy and eliminate any mention of them and statues.”

      What is a shame about that is that the racists and bigots turned those simple, historical images into totems symbolizing their perverted cause. It would be hard to say when that started, but that church-shooter AH Roof would be an example for the current phase. For example, do you think guys carrying swastika flags were really that interested in the heritage represented by Robert E. Lee?

      But inanimate things become motivators, once they become symbols or totems. A flag objectively is only a piece of cloth, but how many people have been willing to die, literally, for their flag?

      In my own case: I participated briefly on the League of the South’s (LOS) listserve, back around year 2000. I loved the historical discussions, until an actual historian friend pointed out to me how much of it was revisionist bullshit with racist themes that were subtle — at the time. I unsubscribed very soon afterward.

      Last Friday the LOS was one of the primary participants on the racists’ side in Charlottesville, standing side-by-side with guys waving swastikas and Kekistan flags.

      In my day our moms told us to be careful who we chose as allies and friends. It’s too bad that no one seems to have told that to the current generation of authentic fans of Confederate heritage. Their friendship with the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” demonstrators appears to have backfired badly, for their cause.

      Gee, I wonder if gun owners might learn something from that?

      1. The liberals have been pushing to rename roads and schools in Virginia. This has been going on for a quite a while. So the onus on statues is from the liberals and now backed up by black racist such as BLM, the fascist Antifi and The anarchist Answer.

        1. “Answer.”

          So guys waving Nazi swastikas and Kekistan flags (KEK = “Kill Every Kike”) are really motivated by Robert E. Lee?

          Why do you feel a need to make excuses for them and justify them?

          1. Corey Stewart ran for GOP governor primary Came very close to winning. That primary was done a couple of months ago One of his main causes he pursued was maintaining names and statues of the Confederacy The white racists grabbed that issue to gain attention and recruits.

            I really doubt the organizers of Unite the Right are motivated BY Lee, they just used an issued that PO a lot of people to gain publicity Guess what? It worked.

            1. “Guess what? It worked.”

              Guess what? It worked in both directions. See “Boston.” They seem to have recruited more motivated opposition than they did motivated allies.

              If I were a sincere advocate for “southern heritage” or whatever it should properly be called, I’d be first speaking out denouncing Nazis or white supremacists glomming onto the issue. Maybe they have, and I just haven’t heard it? Is there a new organization formed to counter League of the South?

              But, come to think of it, I’ve seldom seen many in the gun rights movement denounce the creeps who glom onto our issue, so I guess I shouldn’t expect any other cause to react differently.

    2. Hellbent on starting a Civil War? The Left has already started.

      All elements of power are in play, from anti-rights propaganda, to coercive use of police powers (AGs United for Clean Power), to authoritarian legislation (anti-“citizens united”), to use of illegal violence (Antifa) and political assassination. They just haven’t been very successful at it.


  9. From a gun rights perspective I am worried that this protest in Virginia may change open carry laws . Many were concerned that protests that were violent would involve gunfire since some protesters were armed. It was amazing no one was shot that day. I was watching Fox that day and they were worried that protesters were OC and how stupid that was. Fox was all about the violent white supremacy group. they did not call them white nationalists that day. The reporters that day did not blame antifa, just the white racists . From a PR standpoint of gun rights it was very bad.

    1. “It was amazing no one was shot that day.”

      I like to not think so, and for PR purposes it is probably not a good idea to say so, if you are.

      I like to think one of the characteristics of most gun owners/carriers (“law abding” or not) is, that even if I disagree with them on ideological grounds, they nonetheless take the reality that they could kill someone, very seriously. No other virtue is required, other than that.

      I’d have to work on how to phrase it but, a current PR meme should be developed around that; e.g., “both Oath Keepers on the right and Redneck Revolt on the left were present and armed, but no one fired a single round — even accidentally.”

      1. The lack of gun play certainly showed how restrained under very tiring and threatening circumstances gun owners and carriers can be.

        i just read that Mayor Signer The C-vill POS mayor has called for Special Session to allow them to ban OC or CCW at protests.

  10. Maybe try to not use the wording ‘own’ people when talking about anything related to the Civil War.

    Keep the Freudian slips sexual.

    1. The irony (if that’s the word?) is well-appreciated. ;-)

      I will consider adding the parentheses myself from now on, because they signify being exactly the opposite from those I don’t want to associate with.

      Trumpakov keeps saying “we all should come together. . .” Like, I should want to come together to sing Kumbaya with friggin’ fascists???

      I’d like to make a video with Trumpakov’s voice dubbed into the footage of Rodney King saying “can’t we all just get along?” Or, vice-versa.

      And the quick answer is, no.

Comments are closed.