The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Glenn Reynolds: It Is a Civil Rights Felony to Conspire Against Free Speech
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Law professor Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds writes in USA Today:

Conspiring to stifle free speech is a crime: Glenn Reynolds

Glenn Harlan Reynolds

Published 6:04 a.m. ET Feb. 6, 2017

It is time for new laws that will make higher education leaders take the 1st Amendment seriously.

They told me if Donald Trump were elected, voices of dissent would be shut down by fascist mobs. And they were right!

At the University of California, Berkeley campus, for example, gay conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos had to be evacuated, and his speech cancelled, because masked rioters beat people, smashed windows, and started fires. …

That’s because there has evolved on our campuses a culture of impunity: Misbehavior on the part of lefty activists will get winked at, even as other groups (sports teams with sexist appearance rankings, say) get raked over the coals for minor misbehavior.

… First, state and local law enforcement agencies need to target violent rioters who seek to silence speakers. It is a felony under federal civil rights law to conspire to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights, among which is free speech. In addition, many states have laws (generally called Klan laws) that punish people who engage in mob violence or intimidation while masked. These should be applied as well.

Second, perhaps it’s time to have a Title IX-style law banning discrimination according to political viewpoints on campus.

Read the whole thing there.

 
Hide 148 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Geoffrey Miller has made this point too.

  2. This would be a great article if it was in either the NYT or WaPo, but that would never happen.

    • Replies: @Daniel H
    @Buffalo Joe

    >>This would be a great article if it was in either the NYT or WaPo, but that would never happen.

    You see, here is the problem. If you keep asserting this fallacy you only give it credence and make the fallacy real. The Washington Post and NY Times DON'T MATTER anymore. Bezos bought the Post and Newsweek for what? One US dollar. I'm sure that the intrinsic value of the NY Times and Time magazine is not worth that much more.

    When your company or organ has a net worth $ 1.....well, that can't even get you a coup of coffee at Starbucks.

    No matter, the leftist media oligopoly is over.

    Replies: @Clyde

    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    @Buffalo Joe

    I suspect, although I cannot confirm, that USA Today's circulation is greater than the combined circulation of the two fake news sources which you mention.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  3. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “gay conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos”

    I often hear that Milo is a ‘conservative’. And McGinnes too.

    But come on… call them libertarian or something but NOT ‘conservative’.

    THIS isn’t conservatism:

    It is ewwwwwww. Nearly as bad as the kissing in FAR FROM HEAVEN and PLANET OF THE APES. Cornelius had every right to be pissed by his lovely chimp wife Zira kissing that human brute.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Anon

    MacInnes is a nationalist. Milo is an anti-Muslim.

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Mike1
    @Anon

    Not every conservative shares your sexual hangups. Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.

    Our side needs every win it can get. We have been sitting on our butt letting the left win for decades on EVERY issue. Time to grow up.

    Replies: @Randal, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Anon, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Dr. X, @Curle, @Olorin, @Daniel Chieh, @Bill

    , @anon
    @Anon


    But come on… call them libertarian or something but NOT ‘conservative’.
     
    libertine

    something the media usually supports
    , @Barnard
    @Anon

    To the modern left, anyone who disagrees with them is a conservative. It doesn't matter what label that person uses to label himself or what would most accurately describe his views. They consider it a slur.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    , @larry lurker
    @Anon

    Context, for anyone who didn't know. This was in Orlando, days after the Pulse massacre. Even the security guy is laughing. Lighten up.

    I wouldn't go so far as to call it a powerful statement, but it sure was a nice contrast to all the lecturing about Muslims being the real victims in this tragedy.

  4. It is a felony under federal civil rights law to conspire to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights, among which is free speech.

    Because, as best I can tell, free speech is a right held only against the government (state or federal), wouldn’t the conspiracy felony only apply to instances fed/state action to suppress speech?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Opinionator

    No.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/88/case.html

    How are masked anarchists different than the Klan, except that they aim their hatred at a different race?

    Replies: @ben tillman, @Bill

    , @D. K.
    @Opinionator

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

    Replies: @ben tillman

    , @Connecticut Famer
    @Opinionator

    If an organization (such as Berzerkly) in its capacity as a public institution receives federal funding while ostensibly violating one's constitutional rights, the government can punish them by shutting down their account as it were. During the Civil Rights Era the government wielded the threat of withholding federal funding (to public institutions) like a hammer to desegregate The South. Trump has threatened to do the same thing to Cal/Bezerk.

  5. http://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/styles/cd_large/public/views-article/jeff_sessions_trump.jpg?itok=O6%E2%80%93yqDV

    Soon-to-be United States Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is on the way.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Charles Pewitt

    Just as all generals (Lt, etc) are called "general", I suggest we do the same with Sessions, or should I say General Sessions...

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Autochthon

  6. No. We don’t need new laws. All we need is the enforcement of existing laws.

    • Agree: Autochthon, Johnnygeo
  7. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    PC mentality explains a lot about the Japanese leadup to debacle in WWII.

    There were three kinds of people: the fanatical true believers, the fearful conformists, and the gamblers.

    The true believers were low in intellect and/or too constricted in emotions to think beyond the dogma and sacred narrative.

    The spineless conformists knew something wasn’t right(and the game is dangerous and built on false premises), but too afraid to stick out their necks and say what’s what. Some were cynical careerists, some were yes-men, the corporate or bureaucratic types who like to do as they’re told.

    Then, there were the gamblers who knew the odds were against them, but they just couldn’t go all the way. It was a long shot that Japan could survive the war, but they went along just the same.
    When we look at the shibboleths of PC, we know it’s a long shot built on false premises, and they will lead to a glorious future. But some are willing to gamble on it cuz they are emotionally, egotistically, and morally too invested in the game.
    It’s like a gambler who is fixed on the big prize but lost half his fortune is more likely to go on playing until he loses all than stop and walk away with the remaining half.

    PC has its true believers. These fanatics cannot think beyond the holy dogma.
    But I suspect lots of college administrators and corporate types know that PC is mostly caca, but they are colorless & gutless and dare not ruffle the feathers and prefer to keep their jobs and titles. Even if they do believe in PC, they force themselves to swallow the pill out of fear than conviction.
    And I suspect the gamblers are a combo of dogma and cynicism. They are emotionally invested in PC but too smart to really believe in all or most of it. But their game of power is invested with PC, and they wanna play it all the way. People like Hillary and Biden. No way they really believe in much of PC. Hillary knows about the ‘superpredators’. She knows globalism isn’t about equality but about the Power of the GLOB. But it’s the only game in town for her play and get hers.

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    @Anon

    Just take the money away. They'll be crying uncle inside a year.

    All of it. You take part in rioting? No welfare or grants for you, sonny/petal/shoggoth. Rioting and intimidation on campus, and you didn't instantly ring for the state stormtroopers? No fed funds, no alumnus donations etc.

  8. It is a felony under federal civil rights law to conspire to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights, among which is free speech.

    Silly lawyer. Doesn’t he know that only leftists have “civil rights?” Conservatives don’t (and calling a gay Jewish troll like Milo a “conservative” is a bit of a stretch…)

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Dr. X

    Alinsky Rule #4 is “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

    There is a 60+ year old rule book with all kinds of rules that are aimed at masked men depriving citizens of their civil rights. The law doesn't say anything about the KKK and black people. Sure, under the Obama admin. there's no way the Justice Dept. would be interested in such a case, but they may be now and if the fact pattern fits the statute then, short of jury nullification, they should get a conviction. Even the average leftist on a jury in Cal. is not in love with violent anarchists. This is once instance where a mostly black church lady jury might work well.

    Replies: @anon

  9. We should use speech to hate hypocrisy, repression, tyranny, censorship, moral supremacism, and anti-white-ism.

    Hating lies and BS is good. Long live hate speech.

  10. • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Evocatus

    He's slightly blacker looking than Rep. G.K. Butterfield.

    Replies: @Evocatus, @a Newsreader, @PiltdownMan, @Daniel H, @BB753, @Flip, @Lot

    , @Sammler
    @Evocatus

    Espaillat? Is he related to Arturo "Razor" Espaillat of the Trujillo regime?

  11. @Evocatus
    OT: The coalition of the fringes continues to fray:

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/03/latino-rep-tries-to-join-congressional-black-caucus/

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Sammler

    He’s slightly blacker looking than Rep. G.K. Butterfield.

    • Replies: @Evocatus
    @Steve Sailer

    His great grandfather was, briefly, the president of the Dominican Republic in the 19th century and was of Spanish/French ancestry.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulises_Francisco_Espaillat

    Ironically, Espaillat's predecessor in Congress, Charlie Rangel, had a Puerto Rican father, but he always disavowed this part of his ancestry in lieu of identifying exclusively with the black community of Harlem. And his predecessor, Adam Clayton Powell Jr. looked very much like a white man himself.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Clayton_Powell_Jr.

    , @a Newsreader
    @Steve Sailer

    You're slightly blacker looking than Rep. G.K. Butterfield.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @PiltdownMan
    @Steve Sailer


    He’s slightly blacker looking than Rep. G.K. Butterfield.
     
    Adriano Espaillat has the sweetest smile, but it crosses my mind that he could have played a heavy in The Sopranos.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriano_Espaillat#/media/File:Adriano_Espaillat_official_portrait.jpg

    Replies: @SteveRogers42

    , @Daniel H
    @Steve Sailer

    This move will cause a lot of unvoiced resentment among his Dominican constituents who go to great lengths in denying the obvious African heritage of most Dominicans.

    , @BB753
    @Steve Sailer

    His great-grandfather was a honky, hence the Black Caucus reservation :


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulises_Francisco_Espaillat

    , @Flip
    @Steve Sailer

    He looks plenty black to me.

    , @Lot
    @Steve Sailer

    Would be OK as a member of the CBC, Adam Clayton Powell, VIII

    http://imgur.com/a/mEo0Q

    Replies: @Lot

  12. I’m not generally in favor of adding to the list of things the government can punish people for, but if this is the price of restoring some balance to campuses, maybe it’s worth it…which kind of mirrors the way a lot of people feel about Trump in regards to policies of his they support.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Arclight

    Or we could trade it away in a grand bargain with the left: we don't use the government to prosecute private citizens who interfere with the right to free speech, and in exchange we dismantle the EEOC and all other government machinery designed to prosecute private citizens who interfere with "civil rights".

    Replies: @David Davenport

  13. Dems are real fascists!!

    When we get the “new laws” that mr instapundit thinks we need, and they are ignored just like the laws we already have that he mentioned are being ignored, what will we do then?

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @David
    @27 year old

    The Saxon will rise up. Definitely.

    , @Bill
    @27 year old

    Contribute a lot of money and time to the GOP so that "the right people" get put on the Supreme Court and in the DOJ. Amirite?

  14. @Anon
    "gay conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos"

    I often hear that Milo is a 'conservative'. And McGinnes too.

    But come on... call them libertarian or something but NOT 'conservative'.

    THIS isn't conservatism:

    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/06/ClA8HJ2VEAA8oOw.jpg

    It is ewwwwwww. Nearly as bad as the kissing in FAR FROM HEAVEN and PLANET OF THE APES. Cornelius had every right to be pissed by his lovely chimp wife Zira kissing that human brute.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Mike1, @anon, @Barnard, @larry lurker

    MacInnes is a nationalist. Milo is an anti-Muslim.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Opinionator

    Yes, McInnes is a nationalist in that he is a Zionist.

    Replies: @Opinionator

  15. First, state and local law enforcement agencies need to target violent rioters who seek to silence speakers. It is a felony under federal civil rights law to conspire to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights, among which is free speech. In addition, many states have laws (generally called Klan laws) that punish people who engage in mob violence or intimidation while masked. These should be applied as well.

    Maybe I shouldn’t tangle with the professor because I was a mediocre student at a very pedestrian law school, but this is much like the logic behind “hate law” prosecutions. Why should we focus on the conspiracy when we have in plain sight people who are “violent rioters.” If they are violent, prosecute them for the violence, not what they were thinking or their conspiracy. I’m confident the guys throwing steel barricades through store windows are, in fact, already committing felonies, if I remember my Riot Law class correctly.

    Now, if he is saying the UC Chancellor should be prosecuted, well that would be interesting and I am foursquare behind the professor.

  16. I agree with Opinionator (Post 4). This is what happens when conservatives leave their libertarian roots and the US Constitution behind. OK, Glenn’s the law professor, but it’s very clear that Amendment I stipulates that the US Federal Gov’t may not prohibit free speech and assembly (which it does all the time, anyway). It’s not about what a private party can do to another private party regarding restriction of speech, though, and “civil rights” law is inarguably a bunch of crap. Real civil rights law has been around since 1789, when the Bill of Rights was put into the US Constitution – there’s your civil rights law, pal.

    I read the USA article by Mr. Reynolds, but to me, only the withdrawal of Federal funds is the way to go – live by the Federal teet, die by the federal teet (clogging-up, I guess, in this crude, but somehow sexy, analogy). If the Feds weren’t so involved in everything and didn’t control all of the purse strings, there wouldn’t be a problem. The Berzerkely faculty/admins/students could decide who can speak there. Get the governments involved in anything, and life gets complicated fast.

    The rioting is a whole nother crime, and doesn’t have to do with any civil rights. The violence we have seen is all against the law, and always has been.

    On the lighter side,

    They told me if Donald Trump were elected, voices of dissent would be shut down by fascist mobs. And they were right!

    Professor Reynolds has been using this joke for well nigh 15 years, and it’s still funny. Heh, Indeed!

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @Achmed E Newman

    I read the USA article by Mr. Reynolds, but to me, only the withdrawal of Federal funds is the way to go – live by the Federal teet, die by the federal teet (clogging-up, I guess, in this crude, but somehow sexy, analogy).

    I agree. This is what Abe is doing in Japan. Why fight with one arm tied behind our back? Let Soros fund the leftist universities instead of buying the time of their students for a paltry $50k.

    , @Prof. Woland
    @Achmed E Newman

    The Obama Administration used never ending sanctions on Russia in response to Syria and Ukraine. They did not work but the way they were administered they won't be coming off until there is a change of Government; ours or theirs. Just tell UC that until everyone's free speech is assured, the money stops. Since they cannot control the rioters, just keep baiting them with more Milos and they will have to either shit or get off the pot.

    , @David Davenport
    @Achmed E Newman

    Professor Reynolds has been using this joke for well nigh 15 years, and it’s still funny. Heh, Indeed!

    I too have been reading Prof. Glenn Reynolds' blog for the last fifteen years.

    He's never said that he's sorry he was for invading Iraq.

    He's always deploring the Left, but never calls for a ban or time-out on immigration.

    Mostly using his surrogates on his Instapundit blog, Reynold disdained Trump during the election months.

    Prof.. Reynolds frequently editorializes that new laws need to be passed, but he himself never gets involved in any lawsuits or similar legal work.

    My conclusion: Reynolds is basically an Establishmentarian and RINO Republican -- He talks somewhat like a conservative, but he never takes any real risks or unpaid work or advocates anything really consequential, such as immigration restriction.

    Fifteen plus years of the Instapundit blog is about the same as the last fifteen years of *National Review* magazine, or of Victor David Hansom columns. Always viewing the Left with alarm, year after year after ...

  17. @Buffalo Joe
    This would be a great article if it was in either the NYT or WaPo, but that would never happen.

    Replies: @Daniel H, @Jus' Sayin'...

    >>This would be a great article if it was in either the NYT or WaPo, but that would never happen.

    You see, here is the problem. If you keep asserting this fallacy you only give it credence and make the fallacy real. The Washington Post and NY Times DON’T MATTER anymore. Bezos bought the Post and Newsweek for what? One US dollar. I’m sure that the intrinsic value of the NY Times and Time magazine is not worth that much more.

    When your company or organ has a net worth $ 1…..well, that can’t even get you a coup of coffee at Starbucks.

    No matter, the leftist media oligopoly is over.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    @Daniel H

    Bezos, whose entrepreneurship has made him one of the world’s richest men, will pay $250 million in cash for The Post and affiliated publications to The Washington Post Co., which owns the newspaper and other businesses.

    From the internet

    Replies: @Jack D

  18. @Steve Sailer
    @Evocatus

    He's slightly blacker looking than Rep. G.K. Butterfield.

    Replies: @Evocatus, @a Newsreader, @PiltdownMan, @Daniel H, @BB753, @Flip, @Lot

    His great grandfather was, briefly, the president of the Dominican Republic in the 19th century and was of Spanish/French ancestry.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulises_Francisco_Espaillat

    Ironically, Espaillat’s predecessor in Congress, Charlie Rangel, had a Puerto Rican father, but he always disavowed this part of his ancestry in lieu of identifying exclusively with the black community of Harlem. And his predecessor, Adam Clayton Powell Jr. looked very much like a white man himself.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Clayton_Powell_Jr.

  19. It’s nice that we finally have a Justice Department that doesn’t side with the “protesters.”

  20. @Opinionator
    It is a felony under federal civil rights law to conspire to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights, among which is free speech.

    Because, as best I can tell, free speech is a right held only against the government (state or federal), wouldn't the conspiracy felony only apply to instances fed/state action to suppress speech?

    Replies: @Jack D, @D. K., @Connecticut Famer

    No.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/88/case.html

    How are masked anarchists different than the Klan, except that they aim their hatred at a different race?

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Jack D

    Thanks.

    , @Bill
    @Jack D

    They are different in that "blah, blah, blah; therefore, this precedent is not controlling."

  21. @Anon
    "gay conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos"

    I often hear that Milo is a 'conservative'. And McGinnes too.

    But come on... call them libertarian or something but NOT 'conservative'.

    THIS isn't conservatism:

    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/06/ClA8HJ2VEAA8oOw.jpg

    It is ewwwwwww. Nearly as bad as the kissing in FAR FROM HEAVEN and PLANET OF THE APES. Cornelius had every right to be pissed by his lovely chimp wife Zira kissing that human brute.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Mike1, @anon, @Barnard, @larry lurker

    Not every conservative shares your sexual hangups. Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.

    Our side needs every win it can get. We have been sitting on our butt letting the left win for decades on EVERY issue. Time to grow up.

    • Agree: Frau Katze
    • Replies: @Randal
    @Mike1


    Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.
     
    So are thieves, rapists and murderers, but those aren't lifestyle choices any self-respecting conservative should be wanting promoted either. Even if their votes might be just as useful (pre-conviction).
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Mike1


    Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.
     
    I like your point about alliances. But how do pedophiles, necrophiles and goat lovers fit into the natural biological order?
    , @Anon
    @Mike1

    I know homos exist, and we should make peace with that.

    But Milo is a flamer whose lifestyle cannot in anyway be called 'conservative'.

    Also, no conservative is into CELEBRATING homosexuality like Milo wants us to.

    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    @Mike1


    "Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order."
     
    So are plague, smallpox, dengue fever, scabies, lice, schizophrenia, rape, suicide, murder, and every other affliction of mankind. Just because something is "part of the natural biological order" does not mean it is good for humanity; that it should be praised, encouraged or even defended; or even that criticisms of and attempts to eradicate it are necessarily a bad thing.

    Replies: @Hunsdon

    , @Dr. X
    @Mike1


    Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.
     
    Ummm.... my understanding of Darwin's scientific theory is that individual organisms seek to transfer half their DNA to the next generation to continue the evolution of the species.

    Can you explain to me how the exclusive preference for anal intercourse with other men comports with his theory? I anxiously await your scientific response...

    , @Curle
    @Mike1


    Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.
     
    Dr. Alice Dreger is a professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine. She has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post.[4] On December 4, 2012 Dr. Degrer reported in the The Atlantic that among Aka and Ngandu people of central Africa homosexuality was rare or nonexistent.[5]

    In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green of Harvard University published in the journal Ethnology there were societies in which homosexuality was rare or absent.[6]
    , @Olorin
    @Mike1

    Mutations are a "clear part of the natural biological order."

    One might argue that butt-pirates, goat-shtuppers, carpet munchers, and schlong-gobblers are mutations of norm-al human sexual impulses. Rather than urban/cultural/situational perversions of those impulses that arise when natural forces/limits are removed and powerful social players want to re-engineer human evolution/existing population genetics.

    But as with all mutations evolution selects against them unless they demonstrate some survival or reproductive benefit to the species.

    I'm not sure what such benefit Yiannopoulos provides with his Degeneracy Minstrel Show... unless you consider his filthy joke about "swallowing millions of potential African males."

    BTW, not every liberal shares YOUR idea that gay males are part of the natural biological order.

    Including some liberal gays I've known. There are few things sadder IME than a liberal gay/lesbian/etc. honestly wondering why they cannot find an opposite sex mate and settle down and be happy with them...and then having (((someone with a social work degree or shrink or therapist))) tell them lies about that that eventually makes them one form or another of crazy.

    For starters, forced race mixing/PC/diversitopia/multicult kept a lot of these people from ever meeting people of their own genetic stock who could attract them at the deeper level.

    Which of course is part of that Rootless Cosmopolitan/Globo population genetic strategy. Which expends so much energy removing the right of whites to freely associate with other whites in majority white nations.

    This is why colleges are particularly under attack for PC indoctrination. For at least the past century in the US and Europe colleges have been an important setting for whites of high intelligence or social standing to send their offspring to seek mating opportunities with similar others.

    It is not irrelevant here that the Book of Genesis projects "putting enmity between man and woman" onto "god." See Russell Gmirkin's Old Testament scholarship for more on that point.

    , @Daniel Chieh
    @Mike1

    I agree with the others here that the "appeal to nature" is pretty silly. But Mike's point is valid. We need every win we can get.

    Let him be our Oscar Wilde, we need to win.

    , @Bill
    @Mike1


    Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.
     
    Link needed.
  22. @Anon
    "gay conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos"

    I often hear that Milo is a 'conservative'. And McGinnes too.

    But come on... call them libertarian or something but NOT 'conservative'.

    THIS isn't conservatism:

    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/06/ClA8HJ2VEAA8oOw.jpg

    It is ewwwwwww. Nearly as bad as the kissing in FAR FROM HEAVEN and PLANET OF THE APES. Cornelius had every right to be pissed by his lovely chimp wife Zira kissing that human brute.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Mike1, @anon, @Barnard, @larry lurker

    But come on… call them libertarian or something but NOT ‘conservative’.

    libertine

    something the media usually supports

  23. @Dr. X

    It is a felony under federal civil rights law to conspire to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights, among which is free speech.
     
    Silly lawyer. Doesn't he know that only leftists have "civil rights?" Conservatives don't (and calling a gay Jewish troll like Milo a "conservative" is a bit of a stretch...)

    Replies: @Jack D

    Alinsky Rule #4 is “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

    There is a 60+ year old rule book with all kinds of rules that are aimed at masked men depriving citizens of their civil rights. The law doesn’t say anything about the KKK and black people. Sure, under the Obama admin. there’s no way the Justice Dept. would be interested in such a case, but they may be now and if the fact pattern fits the statute then, short of jury nullification, they should get a conviction. Even the average leftist on a jury in Cal. is not in love with violent anarchists. This is once instance where a mostly black church lady jury might work well.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Jack D

    Exactly.

    And the conspiracy part could easily go high up the tree because they've been careless for years knowing neither the media nor GOPe would go after them.

  24. @Opinionator
    It is a felony under federal civil rights law to conspire to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights, among which is free speech.

    Because, as best I can tell, free speech is a right held only against the government (state or federal), wouldn't the conspiracy felony only apply to instances fed/state action to suppress speech?

    Replies: @Jack D, @D. K., @Connecticut Famer

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @D. K.

    He's already familiar with the statute.

    Replies: @D. K.

  25. @Anon
    "gay conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos"

    I often hear that Milo is a 'conservative'. And McGinnes too.

    But come on... call them libertarian or something but NOT 'conservative'.

    THIS isn't conservatism:

    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/06/ClA8HJ2VEAA8oOw.jpg

    It is ewwwwwww. Nearly as bad as the kissing in FAR FROM HEAVEN and PLANET OF THE APES. Cornelius had every right to be pissed by his lovely chimp wife Zira kissing that human brute.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Mike1, @anon, @Barnard, @larry lurker

    To the modern left, anyone who disagrees with them is a conservative. It doesn’t matter what label that person uses to label himself or what would most accurately describe his views. They consider it a slur.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Barnard

    I haven't heard leftists accuse anyone of being a conservative lately. We're all "nazis" now.

  26. @Jack D
    @Dr. X

    Alinsky Rule #4 is “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

    There is a 60+ year old rule book with all kinds of rules that are aimed at masked men depriving citizens of their civil rights. The law doesn't say anything about the KKK and black people. Sure, under the Obama admin. there's no way the Justice Dept. would be interested in such a case, but they may be now and if the fact pattern fits the statute then, short of jury nullification, they should get a conviction. Even the average leftist on a jury in Cal. is not in love with violent anarchists. This is once instance where a mostly black church lady jury might work well.

    Replies: @anon

    Exactly.

    And the conspiracy part could easily go high up the tree because they’ve been careless for years knowing neither the media nor GOPe would go after them.

  27. @Steve Sailer
    @Evocatus

    He's slightly blacker looking than Rep. G.K. Butterfield.

    Replies: @Evocatus, @a Newsreader, @PiltdownMan, @Daniel H, @BB753, @Flip, @Lot

    You’re slightly blacker looking than Rep. G.K. Butterfield.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @a Newsreader

    You could show educated people a picture of Rep. G.K. Butterfield of the Congressional Black Caucus and tell them it's a rare color photo of G.K. Chesterton and they'd believe you.

    Replies: @a Newsreader, @Dan Hayes, @Langley

  28. “Second, perhaps it’s time to have a Title IX-style law banning discrimination according to political viewpoints on campus.”

    Amen. Make that in terms of faculty hiring and tenuring as well student speech, and it would mean something.

  29. @Steve Sailer
    @Evocatus

    He's slightly blacker looking than Rep. G.K. Butterfield.

    Replies: @Evocatus, @a Newsreader, @PiltdownMan, @Daniel H, @BB753, @Flip, @Lot

    He’s slightly blacker looking than Rep. G.K. Butterfield.

    Adriano Espaillat has the sweetest smile, but it crosses my mind that he could have played a heavy in The Sopranos.

    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    @PiltdownMan

    "Big Pussy" Espaillat.

  30. @Steve Sailer
    @Evocatus

    He's slightly blacker looking than Rep. G.K. Butterfield.

    Replies: @Evocatus, @a Newsreader, @PiltdownMan, @Daniel H, @BB753, @Flip, @Lot

    This move will cause a lot of unvoiced resentment among his Dominican constituents who go to great lengths in denying the obvious African heritage of most Dominicans.

  31. But there’s a “compelling government interest” to protect the nation against Nazis, right.

    Case closed. Move on and stop noticing.

  32. @Opinionator
    @Anon

    MacInnes is a nationalist. Milo is an anti-Muslim.

    Replies: @Anon

    Yes, McInnes is a nationalist in that he is a Zionist.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Anon

    I may have given him too much credit then. He's really just a nihilist isn't he.

    Replies: @Opinionator

  33. @a Newsreader
    @Steve Sailer

    You're slightly blacker looking than Rep. G.K. Butterfield.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    You could show educated people a picture of Rep. G.K. Butterfield of the Congressional Black Caucus and tell them it’s a rare color photo of G.K. Chesterton and they’d believe you.

    • LOL: Langley, slumber_j
    • Replies: @a Newsreader
    @Steve Sailer

    I wonder if that's why he goes by "G.K.". Maybe it's subliminal.

    , @Dan Hayes
    @Steve Sailer

    Steve,

    My late brother in law served as a policeman in Harlem. He told me that whenever cops pulled over Powell for traffic violations (there were many), they purposefully enjoyed internally noting that he was listed as "white" on his driver's license. Of course he never got ticketed for he was the man!

    My current New York State Driver's License does not have racial demarcation, but it surely had it some year's back.

    , @Langley
    @Steve Sailer

    Maybe a "Rare Pepe."

    https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-1fx8zNTLhJo/VuUJMIWoknI/AAAAAAAAABY/XLqNIkRfugw/w426-h511/16%2B-%2B1


    (My 11 year old daughter says memes only last a week now and I an SO old fashion)

  34. @Steve Sailer
    @a Newsreader

    You could show educated people a picture of Rep. G.K. Butterfield of the Congressional Black Caucus and tell them it's a rare color photo of G.K. Chesterton and they'd believe you.

    Replies: @a Newsreader, @Dan Hayes, @Langley

    I wonder if that’s why he goes by “G.K.”. Maybe it’s subliminal.

  35. @27 year old
    Dems are real fascists!!

    When we get the "new laws" that mr instapundit thinks we need, and they are ignored just like the laws we already have that he mentioned are being ignored, what will we do then?

    Replies: @David, @Bill

    The Saxon will rise up. Definitely.

  36. @Steve Sailer
    @Evocatus

    He's slightly blacker looking than Rep. G.K. Butterfield.

    Replies: @Evocatus, @a Newsreader, @PiltdownMan, @Daniel H, @BB753, @Flip, @Lot

    His great-grandfather was a honky, hence the Black Caucus reservation :

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulises_Francisco_Espaillat

  37. @Mike1
    @Anon

    Not every conservative shares your sexual hangups. Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.

    Our side needs every win it can get. We have been sitting on our butt letting the left win for decades on EVERY issue. Time to grow up.

    Replies: @Randal, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Anon, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Dr. X, @Curle, @Olorin, @Daniel Chieh, @Bill

    Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.

    So are thieves, rapists and murderers, but those aren’t lifestyle choices any self-respecting conservative should be wanting promoted either. Even if their votes might be just as useful (pre-conviction).

  38. @Arclight
    I'm not generally in favor of adding to the list of things the government can punish people for, but if this is the price of restoring some balance to campuses, maybe it's worth it...which kind of mirrors the way a lot of people feel about Trump in regards to policies of his they support.

    Replies: @International Jew

    Or we could trade it away in a grand bargain with the left: we don’t use the government to prosecute private citizens who interfere with the right to free speech, and in exchange we dismantle the EEOC and all other government machinery designed to prosecute private citizens who interfere with “civil rights”.

    • Replies: @David Davenport
    @International Jew

    Or we could trade it away in a grand bargain with the left: we don’t use the government to prosecute private citizens who interfere with the right to free speech, and in exchange we dismantle the EEOC and all other government machinery designed to prosecute private citizens who interfere with “civil rights”.

    The Left would never fulfill its end of the bargain.

  39. @Steve Sailer
    @a Newsreader

    You could show educated people a picture of Rep. G.K. Butterfield of the Congressional Black Caucus and tell them it's a rare color photo of G.K. Chesterton and they'd believe you.

    Replies: @a Newsreader, @Dan Hayes, @Langley

    Steve,

    My late brother in law served as a policeman in Harlem. He told me that whenever cops pulled over Powell for traffic violations (there were many), they purposefully enjoyed internally noting that he was listed as “white” on his driver’s license. Of course he never got ticketed for he was the man!

    My current New York State Driver’s License does not have racial demarcation, but it surely had it some year’s back.

  40. @Anon
    "gay conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos"

    I often hear that Milo is a 'conservative'. And McGinnes too.

    But come on... call them libertarian or something but NOT 'conservative'.

    THIS isn't conservatism:

    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/06/ClA8HJ2VEAA8oOw.jpg

    It is ewwwwwww. Nearly as bad as the kissing in FAR FROM HEAVEN and PLANET OF THE APES. Cornelius had every right to be pissed by his lovely chimp wife Zira kissing that human brute.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Mike1, @anon, @Barnard, @larry lurker

    Context, for anyone who didn’t know. This was in Orlando, days after the Pulse massacre. Even the security guy is laughing. Lighten up.

    I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a powerful statement, but it sure was a nice contrast to all the lecturing about Muslims being the real victims in this tragedy.

  41. Anonymous [AKA "Jay Abrams"] says:

    Nation’s wealthiest county votes to become sanctuary for immigrants…

    http://wbaltv.com/article/howard-county-council-to-vote-on-sanctuary-bill/8683652?src=app

    Hmmmm, polls show smart, rich white people are all massively against Trump’s insane policies.

    Yet here is Steve Sailer (obvious alias) and his swastika crew trying to speak on behalf of white people. You poors and stupids give white folks a bad name!

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    @Anonymous

    The comment so nice you posted it twice? Did you just spam it everywhere, Jay? Was that the best you could do? What, no tailoring of the comment to your intended audience? Sad!

    , @anon
    @Anonymous

    rich people in 99% white areas benefit from cheap labor and off-shoring

    , @Clyde
    @Anonymous


    Nation’s wealthiest county votes to become sanctuary for immigrants…
    http://wbaltv.com/article/howard-county-council-to-vote-on-sanctuary-bill/8683652?src=app
    Hmmmm, polls show smart, rich white people are all massively against Trump’s insane policies.
     
    How many poor illegal aliens, non-English speakers and anchor babies are in their schools? What illegals can even afford to live in this allegedly wealthiest county?

    Talk is cheap. Virtue signalling is cheaper.
    , @ben tillman
    @Anonymous


    Hmmmm, polls show smart, rich white people are all massively against Trump’s insane policies.
     
    No, they don't. There are no polls that identify "smart people".
  42. @Achmed E Newman
    I agree with Opinionator (Post 4). This is what happens when conservatives leave their libertarian roots and the US Constitution behind. OK, Glenn's the law professor, but it's very clear that Amendment I stipulates that the US Federal Gov't may not prohibit free speech and assembly (which it does all the time, anyway). It's not about what a private party can do to another private party regarding restriction of speech, though, and "civil rights" law is inarguably a bunch of crap. Real civil rights law has been around since 1789, when the Bill of Rights was put into the US Constitution - there's your civil rights law, pal.

    I read the USA article by Mr. Reynolds, but to me, only the withdrawal of Federal funds is the way to go - live by the Federal teet, die by the federal teet (clogging-up, I guess, in this crude, but somehow sexy, analogy). If the Feds weren't so involved in everything and didn't control all of the purse strings, there wouldn't be a problem. The Berzerkely faculty/admins/students could decide who can speak there. Get the governments involved in anything, and life gets complicated fast.

    The rioting is a whole nother crime, and doesn't have to do with any civil rights. The violence we have seen is all against the law, and always has been.

    On the lighter side,

    They told me if Donald Trump were elected, voices of dissent would be shut down by fascist mobs. And they were right!
     
    Professor Reynolds has been using this joke for well nigh 15 years, and it's still funny. Heh, Indeed!

    Replies: @Anonym, @Prof. Woland, @David Davenport

    I read the USA article by Mr. Reynolds, but to me, only the withdrawal of Federal funds is the way to go – live by the Federal teet, die by the federal teet (clogging-up, I guess, in this crude, but somehow sexy, analogy).

    I agree. This is what Abe is doing in Japan. Why fight with one arm tied behind our back? Let Soros fund the leftist universities instead of buying the time of their students for a paltry $50k.

  43. @D. K.
    @Opinionator

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

    Replies: @ben tillman

    He’s already familiar with the statute.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @ben tillman

    Does the federal statute that I linked to refer to state actors, Ben? Do you think that that statute applies only to state actors, Ben? Then why, Ben, do you assume that the commenter to whom I replied already knew the actual content of that federal statute (which does not refer to state actors, because it applies to anyone, not just to state actors), when the whole purpose of his comment [infra] was to ask whether such a law even could apply to private citizens who are not state actors?

    ***

    Because, as best I can tell, free speech is a right held only against the government (state or federal), wouldn’t the conspiracy felony only apply to instances fed/state action to suppress speech?

    ***

    There is a separate civil-rights statute, of much earlier vintage, which makes it illegal for state actors to deprive individuals of their civil rights "under color of law." This later statute was passed precisely to outlaw any group from doing something similar. In further response to that earlier commenter: Which Constitutional civil liberty (as opposed to statutorily granted civil rights, like access to fair housing and employment non-discrimination) is not "a right held only against the government," rather than against private individuals, as well?

    Replies: @Opinionator, @ben tillman

  44. @Jack D
    @Opinionator

    No.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/88/case.html

    How are masked anarchists different than the Klan, except that they aim their hatred at a different race?

    Replies: @ben tillman, @Bill

    Thanks.

  45. @Achmed E Newman
    I agree with Opinionator (Post 4). This is what happens when conservatives leave their libertarian roots and the US Constitution behind. OK, Glenn's the law professor, but it's very clear that Amendment I stipulates that the US Federal Gov't may not prohibit free speech and assembly (which it does all the time, anyway). It's not about what a private party can do to another private party regarding restriction of speech, though, and "civil rights" law is inarguably a bunch of crap. Real civil rights law has been around since 1789, when the Bill of Rights was put into the US Constitution - there's your civil rights law, pal.

    I read the USA article by Mr. Reynolds, but to me, only the withdrawal of Federal funds is the way to go - live by the Federal teet, die by the federal teet (clogging-up, I guess, in this crude, but somehow sexy, analogy). If the Feds weren't so involved in everything and didn't control all of the purse strings, there wouldn't be a problem. The Berzerkely faculty/admins/students could decide who can speak there. Get the governments involved in anything, and life gets complicated fast.

    The rioting is a whole nother crime, and doesn't have to do with any civil rights. The violence we have seen is all against the law, and always has been.

    On the lighter side,

    They told me if Donald Trump were elected, voices of dissent would be shut down by fascist mobs. And they were right!
     
    Professor Reynolds has been using this joke for well nigh 15 years, and it's still funny. Heh, Indeed!

    Replies: @Anonym, @Prof. Woland, @David Davenport

    The Obama Administration used never ending sanctions on Russia in response to Syria and Ukraine. They did not work but the way they were administered they won’t be coming off until there is a change of Government; ours or theirs. Just tell UC that until everyone’s free speech is assured, the money stops. Since they cannot control the rioters, just keep baiting them with more Milos and they will have to either shit or get off the pot.

  46. @Steve Sailer
    @Evocatus

    He's slightly blacker looking than Rep. G.K. Butterfield.

    Replies: @Evocatus, @a Newsreader, @PiltdownMan, @Daniel H, @BB753, @Flip, @Lot

    He looks plenty black to me.

  47. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “They told me if Donald Trump were elected, voices of dissent would be shut down by fascist mobs. And they were right!”

    Yep, again, ‘fascist’ is used as some epithet or insult.

    Why is everyone is anti-fascist? People on the left and people on the Right and people on the Top and people on the Bottom all call each other ‘fascist’.

    So, elitism is fascism, populism is fascism, liberalism is fascism, conservatism is fascism, socialism is fascism, libertarinism is fascism. Everyone accuses the other side of being ‘fascist’, and everyone denies that his side is ‘fascist’.

    In fact, I’m the only true fascist, and I think all of humanity should just call me FASCIST and be done with it.

    Anyway, why is everyone so fearful of the term ‘fascism’? I think it’s because the truth is triggering. They fear and hate fascism because no ideology came so close to addressing the core essence of power. Is fascism dangerous? Yes. It’s like fire is dangerous. Electricity is dangerous. Nuclear power is dangerous. Things of great power and truth are dangerous. So, fascism is something we need to be careful with. It’s like the ring of power in Nibelungen. It’s like Excalibur. Mismanage it and you end up with WWII.

    But just because something can be misused dangerously and disastrously doesn’t mean that its power is untrue. If anything, it means it is all too true. It’s like what Frankenstein learns of fire. It is good and bad and bad and good. But it is great power.

    [MORE]

    So, why are people so afraid of fascism? Because it gets to the CORE of what it’s all about: Power. Deep down inside, the Left must know this because it got obsessed with neo-Nietzscheanism via Foucault. It’s like APOCALYPSE NOW where Willard comes face to face with the true source of power as explained by Kurtz(though Coppola copped out and took out a lot of Kurtz’s philosophical musings about the power.)
    Especially with the fading of Marxism, the Left needed to fixate on something new and compelling. With Leftism, the theme was Justice. Violence and struggle for justice and equality. A war on power to create a world of equality.
    But eventually, the rhetoric changed to Power. Black Power, Brown Power, Gay Pride(a kind of power). EMPOWERMENT. Also, the Left came under the spell of capitalist egotism, celebrity, and megalomania. The Left came to admire Star Power, that of Elvis, Dylan, Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, the great Auteurs, and etc. It lost interest in the little guy, like in the film MARTY with Ernest Borgnine as ordinary Joe, a kind of Ralph Kramden with better temper.

    The Counterculture was odd in its contradictions. On the one hand, young people found older people bigoted and repressive. They called for equality and liberation. But Liberation also meant the exultation of Star Power, the Icon, the Rocker as god, and etc. The older generation never revered pop stars like the boomers did theirs. Sure, the older folks love Sinatra and Como, but they weren’t about to wet their pants over them. And older generations respected presidents, but it was the boomers who had the myth of Camelot. The Counterculture was enthralled, enraptured, and eye-ball-popping about their pop heroes who were worshiped like gods. Deadheads worshiped Garcia. I saw them bawling like mad when he died. “Jerrrrrrrryyyy”!!!
    Of course, this power-worship was nothing new in Leftism. The French Revolution led to the cult of Napoleon who was revered as a Promethean figure. And Marx came to be revered as modern Moses, and Lenin and Stalin became like gods to worship. And as Paul Johnson wrote in his book on 19th century, a lot of the 20th century obsessions began there. Wagner was like a god to many(though much of this wasn’t necessarily leftist.)
    Still, the intellectual discipline and dogmatic rigor of Leftism demanded that leftists be good dutiful obedient commissars. Follow the Party, obey the Moscow Line, repress one’s egotism for the Working Man. Socialist Realism. Overt personal ambition or experimentalism was condemned as adventurism and formalism.
    But the counterculture left became so into drugs, rock music, sex culture, and hedonism that it rebelled against both the Right and the Stalinist Left. And some took cues from Dylan who went electric. Images of Che and Mao were juxtaposed with those of rock stars and movie icons like Marlon Brando and James Dean. Charisma became a thing.
    BONNIE & CLYDE was romanticized as a revolutionary movie even though it was about a glamour couple who went around shooting regular folks. Nihilism seeped into Leftism… or Leftism was breaking out of its repressed shell. Just as Victorianism repressed sexuality, Leftism repressed what the fight was really about. It was about Power, not justice and abstract ideals. Nietzsche had been right.
    Of course, the post-Marxist Left continued to use the terminology of justice and equality against repression, tyranny, oppression, exploitation, privilege, and etc. But the more we look at it, it’s a naked struggle for power for power’s sake.

    And this is why people fear fascism. Fascism was to power-politics what Freudianism was to politics of psychology. Freud may have overstated the case, but he believed that powerful subconscious and biological forces were flowing underneath consciousness with its pat morals and manners. Fascism said the core element of history and society is the struggle for power. History is a story of Power.
    Marx would have admitted power is crucial to understanding history. But he thought this problem would be resolved, and utopia could finally result from dialectics of class struggle. History, according to Marx, is about the upper classes using their power to exploit the classes. This will eventually lead to capitalism that will eventually destroy itself but ONLY AFTER having created a giant industrial society full of wealth. When capitalism destroys itself, the workers shall inherit the wealth and share it equally and be happy and etc. So, in the end, Justice trumps everything in Marxist theory. In contrast, fascist theory says Power will always be the core theme of life. After all, we are organisms, and just look at nature. It is a never-ending struggle of survival and territory and advantage. It is about the use of power by various organisms to gain ground and survive. And every advantage has a disadvantage. Birds with wings can fly, but their upper limbs are useless for anything but flight. Snakes lack limbs but have poison. Since humans are organisms, they too struggle for power. This was made all the more evident by the discoveries of Darwin and Wallace.

    Fascism did with history what physics did with matter. Fascism peered into the nuclei of history and found the struggle for power. This wouldn’t have been alarming to pagans such as Greeks, Romans, and Germanic barbarians who were familiar with the way of power. But the justice-heavy themes of Christianity and Islam that came to pervade much of the world were afraid to touch upon the true nature of man.
    And the Enlightenment, though anti-religious, shared something with Christianity in its lofty view of mankind. Since mankind had brains that could reason, history could and should be about remaking society on the basis of the loftiest ‘ideals’. No wonder we still hear the elites yammer about ‘western values’. Now, there is surely a need for higher ideals, morality, reason, logic, and etc. But are they the core of life? Maybe if humans could be like the body-less spirits in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY that travel across stars with their ‘thoughts’.
    But in truth, humans are animals with bodies with all sorts of organs and material that developed before brains or along with brains. And organisms ensure survival and even supremacy by competition and game of power.
    Now, if we only act on the basis of power, we’d be like apes or wolves or lions or hyenas, and who wants that? We do want morality and even spirituality and idealism, BUT, they are mere addendum to the organism-ism that is, at its core, about the will to live, will to survive, the will to power. Some animals act in terms of solitary power. Some act socially. Humans act macro-socially, but there are limits to scale of human interaction. It’s like a wolf pack. There’s a limit to the viability to a pack size. 10 wolves in a pack can work well. But 100 wolves in a pack wouldn’t function well, and it would naturally break into separate packs. Likewise, the viable limit for macro-social-organization seems to be the Nation. Empire tries to stretch beyond that, but all empires have failed and fallen apart and broken up into nations. Also, the nation is most stable with an overwhelming majority that allows unity and trust and cooperation. Sweden worked better as all-Swedish. It is falling apart with ‘diversity’ that is turning Sweden into a mini-empire of incompatible races and cultures.

    Anyway, just as one could use Marxist theory to understand history without being a Marxist revolutionary or diehard communist, one could use Fascist theory to understand society and history without becoming a black shirt or brown shirt.
    And the dirty secret of the Left is that, in a way, they’ve been doing this without even knowing it. Their emphasis on EMPOWERMENT is sub-fascist. Sure, they try to mask their power-obsession with rhetoric about White Privilege, i.e. blacks want black power because they are oppressed by white privilege. Or Jews obsess about Jewish issues ostensibly because of ‘Nazis’ and’anti-semites’. But such rationalization is specious because, in truth, blacks want power for power’s sake, and so do Jews. Power feels good. It’s like someone wants to be rich to be rich. The likes of Soros may argue that they made a ton of money just so they could do good works, but who’s kidding whom? Soros loves money for money’s sake. And his agendas all come down to empowering globalist oligarchs like himself by breaking down national barriers that stand in the way of globalist penetration. He’s not breaking down national barriers for the good of the masses. It’s for the power of globalist oligarchic class consisting of his ilk.
    Rapper may bitch about the White Man, but their real theme is “I want the power, the ho, the dough, the bling, the ring.” And look at what the Russian communist elites did once communism fell. They tried to grab as much loot for themselves as possible. In a way, communism was less about justice than a game theory of power where politics would be shared so that no one would be the new tsar to hog it all.. but then Stalin came along and amassed all the power in the state, and then later, the insiders in the state gained most of the loot once the game theory of communism had run out of steam.

    Fascism is difficult for people to face because they don’t want to peer into their souls and see the ‘real me’. They don’t want to find the Gordon Gekko who spells it all out. Now, fascism doesn’t say power alone is enough or that life should be about nihilistic greed and self-aggrandizement. It doesn’t praise the likes of Gekko. It doesn’t say everyone should try to be like Emperor Nero.
    But then, Freud never said people should just take their clothes off, have massive orgies, and act like Lena Dunham. Rather, he was trying to come up with a healthier blueprint for a society that is founded on the truth of sexual drive as the essence of human nature.
    In a similar vein, fascism says that society must be founded and managed on the understanding that humans are organisms in a struggle for power. Fascism says that the most potent kind of power among humans is social and national and racial. Radical individualism atomizes. Universalism is too confusing, too grandiose, too impossible. Also, identity is key to national unity and stability since it clarifies who is ‘us’ and who is ‘them’. This all works best on the national level.
    Many point to Italian Fascism and National Socialism as proof of fascism’s failure, but the great paradox is that they failed by violating fascist principles. Both began to overstep national interests and went into imperialist mode, thereby raising the ire of other competing tribes.

    Fascism is a theory of how to interweave the various elements of society and humanity to arrive at maximum power and survivality for the race or species. Fascism rejects dogmatic conservatism and traditionalism that sticks only to conventions and received wisdom. After all, science taught us that new things will be discovered, and history never remains the same. Fascism rejects radical leftism that fixates on narrow definition of ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ as the end all of history when history will always be a struggle for power. Also, a fascist will say leftists are merely repressed fascists whose repressed will-to-power emerges as moral supremacism and virtue-signaling. We see that in Sweden’s conceit of itself as a ‘humanitarian superpower’.
    Why are young ones really attracted to punk music culture? Because of nice themes of justice and equality and being nice to fellow men? No, they are drawn to the display of power, rage, and machismo. Punk’s ‘garage marxism’ is useful for justifying what they REALLY want: sense of empowerment and badassness. If antifa types really care for the little people, they should be volunteering to take care of the elderly and lonely. Instead, they indulge in macho-power-thuggery and lamely try to justify their penchant for brutality by invoking ‘justice’.

    If the Age of Reason/Enlightenment was overly optimistic about the power of reason as the lofty guide to future history, the Romantic Era was overly optimistic about the power of the irrational. In some ways, Romanticism is a precursor to fascist thinking because it addressed the power of emotions and the sublime blend of animal passion and spiritual transcendence(like in the Christo-Pagan music of Wagner), but its obsession with beauty and poetics prevented it from delving into the true dark soul of the human organism. It overly idealized and aestheticized the irrational.
    Even the dark novel of FRANKENSTEIN was rather rhapsodic about this ungodly power. Fascism that emerged in the 20th century used the power of reason to delve into the power of unreason. It was a rational undertaking to understand the dynamics of the irrational soul of man; and mankind will remain mainly irrational(and the GLOB and Progs operate on this basis since they are invested in manipulating people with images and sounds than persuading them with reason and logical arguments. Why should we have ‘gay marriage’. Oh, look at those colorful ‘rainbow’ flags. Aren’t they lovely? One would have to be a ‘hateful homophobe’ to not get on the homo bandwagon and sing along to Village People”).

    Just like a Freudian begins the discussion on the basis that ‘you wanna do it’, the fascist theorist begins on the basis that “you want the power”(or wanna be associated with the power). A fascist would be like Mel Brooks in this scene except talking about power than sex:

    The ‘leftist’ GLOB and Progs are so full of shi*. According to their professed logic, they don’t want the power, or at least not an excess of it. They say everyone should have a fair portion of power and no more, and this goes for themselves too. They are into ‘equality’. Yeah, that must be why George Clooney wants more and more. Or why Bono can’t wait to get his hands on millions more. That must be why Oprah is worth billions. That must be why Hollywood is into raking in more and more. And that George Lucas the Libby Dib. He’s been telling us that he has yet to make his Personal Films because he has to make money first. But 100 million isn’t enough, 500 million isn’t enough, 2 billion isn’t enough. and 5 billion isn’t enough. I’m not saying those who want lots of money and power are ‘fascist’, but only fascist theory understands what they are really about.
    Why is it that those who yammer about ‘equality’ never want to be part of the working class? If given a chance between being a starving artist and gluttonous pig, they almost always choose the latter. And Obama is likely to cash in big just like the Clintons. I wonder how much of his wealth he will invest in the ghettos of Detroit or give to poor Africans. All their ‘progressive’ talk is just that. Talk. What they really want is power. They want it and when they get some, they want more and more, like a Wall Street tycoon with 10 billion want 20 billion and then 50 billion.

    As for the ‘leftist’ ‘losers’ who aint got much and don’t have a chance of getting any, notice they prefer to hang around rich cities and live off crumbs. If they really care about the have-nots, why not go to some depressed town and try to do good work? No, they wanna be ‘creative’ and leech off places that has the dough, status, prestige, and glamour. (Bernie-Sanderism is appealing to y0ung progs not because it offers equality but promises privilege of doing whatever and being funded by the state. Sanders’ Kids want the state to pay for their tuition even if they major in the most useless studies. It’s the privilege/power of being spoiled brats that attracts them to Sanders.) Also, it’s interesting how these ‘leftists’ have as heroes and role models the rich, the famous, the popular, the glamorous, and etc. I mean when did you ever see a ‘leftist loser’ bitch that Springsteen or Jay-Z is too rich? Which Libby-dib ever complained that Oprah is too rich? Oh, they will say, the fact that a black woman can be so rich sends a positive message, right? What? That one black woman should hog so much while so many black women got nothing? Some ‘leftism’.
    If ‘leftists’ are all about concern for the powerless and ‘little people’, why are they so obsessed with famous movie stars, rock stars, rich athletes, and celebrities? Why did all those pussy-hatters have to stand there mesmerized at madonna’s narcissistic speech? Surely anyone with sense knows madonna and ashley judd are soul-damaged morons… but wait!! They are famous people, so they must be ‘cool’, and that means they must be right and worth listening to. So much for equality and concern for ‘little people’. They’d rather listen to the egotistical vanity of rich bitches with entitlementality.

    And fascist theory also makes us understand what is really happening with progs, diversity, and all that crap. If we focus on the theme of power as essence than as theme of ‘justice’, their motivations become clearer.
    Take Asians in California. Lots of anti-Trumpers seem to be yellow on Berkeley campus. Now, these yellow progs might say Trump is ‘hitler’, milo is ‘hitler’, and etc. But what is this really about? Isn’t it about shielding yellow advantage/power from browns and blacks? After all, yellows hog much of academics in CA, and that is bound to make lots of browns and blacks pissed off. So, what is an easy way for yellows to protect their ‘yellow privilege’. By screaming KKK and NAZI!!! In other words, “we yellows are fellow victims with you blacks and browns against whitey.” This isn’t about justice. It’s about guarding yellow power. It’s about the Power. Now, it could be that yellow progs are consciously sincere in their PC dogma, but subconsciously, they seem to be operating to shield their power.

    And then take white Hispanics. Why are they so proggy? They too are trying to shield and expand their power. They feel insecure because their position in history and society is rather uneasy. Their relationship with the natives of Latin America is an uneasy one. Though everyone in Mexico and other such nations is called ‘Hispanic’, the fact is most are not. It’s like American Indians and blacks speak English, but they are not Anglo. But for some reason, everyone who speaks Spanish in Latin America is called ‘hispanic’. Since non-whites count as ‘hispanic'(which should be mean people of European Spanish heritage), white Hispanics are conflated with non-whites and pass as ‘people of color’. This is useful to white Hispanics since they fear the repressed populist rage of the native non-white masses. So, this shtick of white Hispanics posing as ‘people of color’ is to hide and keep their white privilege in Latin America. “Look, all of us are mestizo and one people against the Gringo!!” While Latin American elites may not be pure-white, they are helluva lot whiter than those on the bottom in places in Mexico.
    If white Hispanics feel fear in relation to the non-white masses in Latin America, they feel inferiority complex and resentment toward Anglo whites who did so much more in the New Land while Spanish elites built haciendas and acted like lazy & useless rich in Sam Peckinpah films, THE GODFATHER PART 2, and remake of SCARFACE. So, they pretend to be proggy & leftist and side with ‘people of color’ against gringo. But really, they are really pissed cuz they lost out in history. They are sore losers, and it’s about Power, not justice.

    Indeed, even cuck behavior is best explained in terms of fascist theory. CucKen Burns will say he makes these documentaries about Negroes out of sympathy, and I’m sure there’s some of that. But why is he so fixated on the Negroes? Isn’t it because he’s drawn to their louder voices, faster rhythms, tougher muscles, and colorfulness?
    Some want or have the Power for themselves, and others worship the Power. If whites had enslaved a bunch of Bolivian Indians and dragged them up north to work in plantations, would CucKen Burns be so into their history? NO, Negroes have raw power, and this is what excites the Cuck. It’s not about equality but about fixation on power. When a cuck white male invites a Negro to do his wife, it’s not about equality. It’s about his worship of the Negro as the afro-aryan uberhumper. When college coaches and recruiters get Negro athletes by offering them white girls who are into jungle fever, it’s all about Power, which is never equal.
    CucKen Burns feels the Power working on two levels in relation to blacks. As a lame wussy white boy, he wants to be associated with Black Prowess in jazz, sports, and sex(as Jack Johnson was major humper of white women) by making paeans to their greatness. But he also revels in his own power as a Good Whitey who uses his power of media to lend help to them poor poor helpless Negroes. He’s like a massuh who slavishly worships the slave rebel. He waxes poetic in the redemptive power(which is Power just the same) of graciously handing over white power to the Negro who is deemed more deserving.

    If progs are really into ‘justice of power’, they should show no interest in anyone who gains excess of power, fame, fortune, popularity, but the fact is they are obsessed with the best of the best: best actor, richest producer, most famous celeb, most popular singer, and etc.

    And why is there so much worship of Jews in the US? Oh, we are told it’s because poor poor Jews need sympathy cuz of Holocaust and there are all these ‘nazis’ around. (But if Jews are really fearful that Nazis are teeming all over the place, it is rather odd that they would be so arrogantly calling for the punching of ‘nazis’. It’d be like a white kid in a school full of blacks saying, “Hey, punch out some negro thugs.” If indeed Nazis are marching all around looking for people to kill, then Jews should be shhhhh and hunker down.) We know the real reason why Jews get so much attention. They got the power and they want more and more and more power. If Jews are into equality, they should demand that Jews as 2% of population should have 2% of wealth. But Jews never seem to tire of getting more and more.
    Seriously, if Jews indeed had only 2% of US wealth and had only 2% control of US media and Wall Street, would all these politicians really be lining up to praise Israel? Would there be annual AIPAC rallies that look rather like the infamous ones at Nuremberg?
    N0, the fascist explanation is the best. Jews get all that attention and ‘affection’ because they got the power.

    Also, morality is seen as a weapon against power, but it is as often an instrument for power. We saw this with the history of Christianity where an ideology for the poor was easily appropriated by the powerful to justify their power. And what happened with communism? Look at the Chinese Communist Party today. Or the elites in Cuba and North Korea. And look how many of the former commies of Poland and Russia did rather well for themselves after the fall of communism. So, what were these people really about?

    As for black bitching about justice, it’s so laughable. Blacks are just sore because, apart from sports and music, they’ve lagged behind in the power and wealth sweepstakes, falling behind homos and immigrant groups. Blacks remain loyal to the Democratic Party cuz they’ve become so heavily invested in its politics, but they are falling behind others in the party. Will Keith Ellison change that? Blacks can provide the face and symbolism, but they can’t provide the funds since other groups are so much richer.
    And notice how black person who bitches about ‘inequality’ doesn’t mind getting a shi*load for himself. Black ‘leaders’ get blacks roused up to squeeze businesses to make concessions that mainly go into their own pockets. Jesse Jackson played that game many times over. Black pride and lack of integrity prevent them from honest talk: “We want more free stuff cuz we dumbass Negroes can’t do much on ourselves except shooting one another and driving murder rates through the roof.”

    If fascism gets to the core of power and exposes the true nature of what is really driving the world, why are people so afraid of it? The question answers itself. People cannot handle the truth. They’d rather believe that their position, interest, agenda, or narrative is about some highfalutin ideal or principle. To them, fascism seems too much like the pornography of power when, in fact, it is the nature studies of power. Stripped of all delusions, we can see humans as animals in the wild. Fascism doesn’t say humans should operate on that level but must be conscious of the true foundation of human psychology and behavior before attempting to formulate a social & moral order. Morality must be based on the truth of power.

    But the West is now trembling because some of its false foundations. The West is like the Leaning Power of Pisa. More and more cables have to be used to prop it up since, left alone, it will topple and fall.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa#History_following_construction

    • Replies: @Langley
    @Anon

    "Why is everyone is anti-fascist? People on the left and people on the Right and people on the Top and people on the Bottom all call each other ‘fascist’. "

    Q: What is the greatest threat to any organism in its ecosystem?

    A: A similar organism.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4


    Q: What do Fascism and Socialism have in common?

    A: They are both totalitarian ideologies.

    https://mises.org/library/road-serfdom-0


    Q: Who taught you to be anti-fascist?

    A: Cultural Marxists fleeing German Fascists

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School


    Q: How different are Fascism and Socialism?

    A: Not much.

    Colonel Molotov "fascism, socialism - it's all just a matter of taste"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Romanian
    @Anon

    This is a very interesting post. It could have done with some tighter editing so more people would have the patience to see it through.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

  48. @Mike1
    @Anon

    Not every conservative shares your sexual hangups. Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.

    Our side needs every win it can get. We have been sitting on our butt letting the left win for decades on EVERY issue. Time to grow up.

    Replies: @Randal, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Anon, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Dr. X, @Curle, @Olorin, @Daniel Chieh, @Bill

    Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.

    I like your point about alliances. But how do pedophiles, necrophiles and goat lovers fit into the natural biological order?

  49. @Mike1
    @Anon

    Not every conservative shares your sexual hangups. Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.

    Our side needs every win it can get. We have been sitting on our butt letting the left win for decades on EVERY issue. Time to grow up.

    Replies: @Randal, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Anon, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Dr. X, @Curle, @Olorin, @Daniel Chieh, @Bill

    I know homos exist, and we should make peace with that.

    But Milo is a flamer whose lifestyle cannot in anyway be called ‘conservative’.

    Also, no conservative is into CELEBRATING homosexuality like Milo wants us to.

  50. @Buffalo Joe
    This would be a great article if it was in either the NYT or WaPo, but that would never happen.

    Replies: @Daniel H, @Jus' Sayin'...

    I suspect, although I cannot confirm, that USA Today’s circulation is greater than the combined circulation of the two fake news sources which you mention.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Jus' Sayin'...


    I suspect, although I cannot confirm, that USA Today’s circulation is greater than the combined circulation of the two fake news sources which you mention.
     
    Probably, but it's called "TV on paper" for a reason.
  51. @Mike1
    @Anon

    Not every conservative shares your sexual hangups. Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.

    Our side needs every win it can get. We have been sitting on our butt letting the left win for decades on EVERY issue. Time to grow up.

    Replies: @Randal, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Anon, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Dr. X, @Curle, @Olorin, @Daniel Chieh, @Bill

    “Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.”

    So are plague, smallpox, dengue fever, scabies, lice, schizophrenia, rape, suicide, murder, and every other affliction of mankind. Just because something is “part of the natural biological order” does not mean it is good for humanity; that it should be praised, encouraged or even defended; or even that criticisms of and attempts to eradicate it are necessarily a bad thing.

    • Agree: PV van der Byl, dfordoom
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    You don't have to like Milo, you don't have to support Milo, you don't have to praise Milo. How about you settle for not attacking Milo? He clearly drives the left bat-guano crazy. Why not let him? If it helps, you could think of him as a "useful idiot" for our team.

    Replies: @anon, @BB753, @Jus' Sayin'...

  52. Before the right wing Fascist mobs and Freikorps took control of the streets in the mid-1920s, all of Germany and Bavaria in particular was inundated on a daily basis with organized left-wing street violence that terrorized the population. In 1920, Kurt Eisner and his mob of left wing thugs came within a hair of creating a repressive Soviet dictatorship in Germany. In fact, a good argument can be made that the brown shirts were absolutely necessary to maintain order, rule of law and Weimar democracy in postwar Germany.

    Be careful what you wish for leftist establishment. The deplorables know how to organize too and are much better with weapons.

    • Replies: @Dr. X
    @Canadian Observer


    In 1920, Kurt Eisner and his mob of left wing thugs came within a hair of creating a repressive Soviet dictatorship in Germany.
     
    No, they didn't just "come within a hair" of creating a Soviet dictatorship -- they actually did establish the "Bavarian Soviet Republic" for about six months until they were shot to death by the Freikorps.

    And right next door in Hungary, (((Bela Kun))), trained in Moscow by (((Leon Trotsky))), established a Hungarian Soviet dictatorship for about a year in 1919-1920 before it was overthrown by the "fascists."

    And on top of that you had (((Rosa Luxembourg))) and her failed Spartacist coup in Berlin...

    Real history's a bitch.

    Replies: @Opinionator

  53. @Steve Sailer
    @a Newsreader

    You could show educated people a picture of Rep. G.K. Butterfield of the Congressional Black Caucus and tell them it's a rare color photo of G.K. Chesterton and they'd believe you.

    Replies: @a Newsreader, @Dan Hayes, @Langley

    Maybe a “Rare Pepe.”

    https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-1fx8zNTLhJo/VuUJMIWoknI/AAAAAAAAABY/XLqNIkRfugw/w426-h511/16%2B-%2B1

    (My 11 year old daughter says memes only last a week now and I an SO old fashion)

  54. @ben tillman
    @D. K.

    He's already familiar with the statute.

    Replies: @D. K.

    Does the federal statute that I linked to refer to state actors, Ben? Do you think that that statute applies only to state actors, Ben? Then why, Ben, do you assume that the commenter to whom I replied already knew the actual content of that federal statute (which does not refer to state actors, because it applies to anyone, not just to state actors), when the whole purpose of his comment [infra] was to ask whether such a law even could apply to private citizens who are not state actors?

    ***

    Because, as best I can tell, free speech is a right held only against the government (state or federal), wouldn’t the conspiracy felony only apply to instances fed/state action to suppress speech?

    ***

    There is a separate civil-rights statute, of much earlier vintage, which makes it illegal for state actors to deprive individuals of their civil rights “under color of law.” This later statute was passed precisely to outlaw any group from doing something similar. In further response to that earlier commenter: Which Constitutional civil liberty (as opposed to statutorily granted civil rights, like access to fair housing and employment non-discrimination) is not “a right held only against the government,” rather than against private individuals, as well?

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @D. K.

    The statute you cite does not expressly protect a right to general freedom of speech. It protects rights secured by the Constitition and federal law. Therefore, unless there is an affirmative general right to free speech in the Constitution or federal law (beyond the constitutional prohibition against governments infringing speech) it isn't obvious how the statute would give rise to a cause of action against a private party who infringes freedom of speech but is not acting in concert with a government.

    Now then, if the mayor of Berkeley sent an ambiguous tweet that was intended to give anti-free speech activists the green light to shut down Milo's speech, does that raise a 1A issue? If so, maybe the statute could apply.

    Replies: @D. K.

    , @ben tillman
    @D. K.


    Does the federal statute that I linked to refer to state actors, Ben? Do you think that that statute applies only to state actors, Ben? Then why, Ben, do you assume that the commenter to whom I replied already knew the actual content of that federal statute (which does not refer to state actors, because it applies to anyone, not just to state actors), when the whole purpose of his comment [infra] was to ask whether such a law even could apply to private citizens who are not state actors?
     
    No, that wasn't the question. The question was whether there is a civil right of "free speech" that goes beyond the prohibition that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."

    And the statute says nothing on that point.

    Replies: @D. K.

  55. @Mike1
    @Anon

    Not every conservative shares your sexual hangups. Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.

    Our side needs every win it can get. We have been sitting on our butt letting the left win for decades on EVERY issue. Time to grow up.

    Replies: @Randal, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Anon, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Dr. X, @Curle, @Olorin, @Daniel Chieh, @Bill

    Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.

    Ummm…. my understanding of Darwin’s scientific theory is that individual organisms seek to transfer half their DNA to the next generation to continue the evolution of the species.

    Can you explain to me how the exclusive preference for anal intercourse with other men comports with his theory? I anxiously await your scientific response…

  56. @Canadian Observer
    Before the right wing Fascist mobs and Freikorps took control of the streets in the mid-1920s, all of Germany and Bavaria in particular was inundated on a daily basis with organized left-wing street violence that terrorized the population. In 1920, Kurt Eisner and his mob of left wing thugs came within a hair of creating a repressive Soviet dictatorship in Germany. In fact, a good argument can be made that the brown shirts were absolutely necessary to maintain order, rule of law and Weimar democracy in postwar Germany.

    Be careful what you wish for leftist establishment. The deplorables know how to organize too and are much better with weapons.

    Replies: @Dr. X

    In 1920, Kurt Eisner and his mob of left wing thugs came within a hair of creating a repressive Soviet dictatorship in Germany.

    No, they didn’t just “come within a hair” of creating a Soviet dictatorship — they actually did establish the “Bavarian Soviet Republic” for about six months until they were shot to death by the Freikorps.

    And right next door in Hungary, (((Bela Kun))), trained in Moscow by (((Leon Trotsky))), established a Hungarian Soviet dictatorship for about a year in 1919-1920 before it was overthrown by the “fascists.”

    And on top of that you had (((Rosa Luxembourg))) and her failed Spartacist coup in Berlin…

    Real history’s a bitch.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Dr. X

    What would those regimes have done to the people if they had remained in power? Would anything like the Red Terror have come to pass? What did they do?

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'..., @fnn

  57. @Anon
    @Opinionator

    Yes, McInnes is a nationalist in that he is a Zionist.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    I may have given him too much credit then. He’s really just a nihilist isn’t he.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Opinionator

    Why is he a Zionist though? Financial and social necessity? Anti-Muslim brainwashing?

    Replies: @biz

  58. @Anon
    "They told me if Donald Trump were elected, voices of dissent would be shut down by fascist mobs. And they were right!"

    Yep, again, 'fascist' is used as some epithet or insult.

    Why is everyone is anti-fascist? People on the left and people on the Right and people on the Top and people on the Bottom all call each other 'fascist'.

    So, elitism is fascism, populism is fascism, liberalism is fascism, conservatism is fascism, socialism is fascism, libertarinism is fascism. Everyone accuses the other side of being 'fascist', and everyone denies that his side is 'fascist'.

    In fact, I'm the only true fascist, and I think all of humanity should just call me FASCIST and be done with it.

    Anyway, why is everyone so fearful of the term 'fascism'? I think it's because the truth is triggering. They fear and hate fascism because no ideology came so close to addressing the core essence of power. Is fascism dangerous? Yes. It's like fire is dangerous. Electricity is dangerous. Nuclear power is dangerous. Things of great power and truth are dangerous. So, fascism is something we need to be careful with. It's like the ring of power in Nibelungen. It's like Excalibur. Mismanage it and you end up with WWII.

    But just because something can be misused dangerously and disastrously doesn't mean that its power is untrue. If anything, it means it is all too true. It's like what Frankenstein learns of fire. It is good and bad and bad and good. But it is great power.



    So, why are people so afraid of fascism? Because it gets to the CORE of what it's all about: Power. Deep down inside, the Left must know this because it got obsessed with neo-Nietzscheanism via Foucault. It's like APOCALYPSE NOW where Willard comes face to face with the true source of power as explained by Kurtz(though Coppola copped out and took out a lot of Kurtz's philosophical musings about the power.)
    Especially with the fading of Marxism, the Left needed to fixate on something new and compelling. With Leftism, the theme was Justice. Violence and struggle for justice and equality. A war on power to create a world of equality.
    But eventually, the rhetoric changed to Power. Black Power, Brown Power, Gay Pride(a kind of power). EMPOWERMENT. Also, the Left came under the spell of capitalist egotism, celebrity, and megalomania. The Left came to admire Star Power, that of Elvis, Dylan, Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, the great Auteurs, and etc. It lost interest in the little guy, like in the film MARTY with Ernest Borgnine as ordinary Joe, a kind of Ralph Kramden with better temper.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktXm7CRXbsE

    The Counterculture was odd in its contradictions. On the one hand, young people found older people bigoted and repressive. They called for equality and liberation. But Liberation also meant the exultation of Star Power, the Icon, the Rocker as god, and etc. The older generation never revered pop stars like the boomers did theirs. Sure, the older folks love Sinatra and Como, but they weren't about to wet their pants over them. And older generations respected presidents, but it was the boomers who had the myth of Camelot. The Counterculture was enthralled, enraptured, and eye-ball-popping about their pop heroes who were worshiped like gods. Deadheads worshiped Garcia. I saw them bawling like mad when he died. "Jerrrrrrrryyyy"!!!
    Of course, this power-worship was nothing new in Leftism. The French Revolution led to the cult of Napoleon who was revered as a Promethean figure. And Marx came to be revered as modern Moses, and Lenin and Stalin became like gods to worship. And as Paul Johnson wrote in his book on 19th century, a lot of the 20th century obsessions began there. Wagner was like a god to many(though much of this wasn't necessarily leftist.)
    Still, the intellectual discipline and dogmatic rigor of Leftism demanded that leftists be good dutiful obedient commissars. Follow the Party, obey the Moscow Line, repress one's egotism for the Working Man. Socialist Realism. Overt personal ambition or experimentalism was condemned as adventurism and formalism.
    But the counterculture left became so into drugs, rock music, sex culture, and hedonism that it rebelled against both the Right and the Stalinist Left. And some took cues from Dylan who went electric. Images of Che and Mao were juxtaposed with those of rock stars and movie icons like Marlon Brando and James Dean. Charisma became a thing.
    BONNIE & CLYDE was romanticized as a revolutionary movie even though it was about a glamour couple who went around shooting regular folks. Nihilism seeped into Leftism... or Leftism was breaking out of its repressed shell. Just as Victorianism repressed sexuality, Leftism repressed what the fight was really about. It was about Power, not justice and abstract ideals. Nietzsche had been right.
    Of course, the post-Marxist Left continued to use the terminology of justice and equality against repression, tyranny, oppression, exploitation, privilege, and etc. But the more we look at it, it's a naked struggle for power for power's sake.

    And this is why people fear fascism. Fascism was to power-politics what Freudianism was to politics of psychology. Freud may have overstated the case, but he believed that powerful subconscious and biological forces were flowing underneath consciousness with its pat morals and manners. Fascism said the core element of history and society is the struggle for power. History is a story of Power.
    Marx would have admitted power is crucial to understanding history. But he thought this problem would be resolved, and utopia could finally result from dialectics of class struggle. History, according to Marx, is about the upper classes using their power to exploit the classes. This will eventually lead to capitalism that will eventually destroy itself but ONLY AFTER having created a giant industrial society full of wealth. When capitalism destroys itself, the workers shall inherit the wealth and share it equally and be happy and etc. So, in the end, Justice trumps everything in Marxist theory. In contrast, fascist theory says Power will always be the core theme of life. After all, we are organisms, and just look at nature. It is a never-ending struggle of survival and territory and advantage. It is about the use of power by various organisms to gain ground and survive. And every advantage has a disadvantage. Birds with wings can fly, but their upper limbs are useless for anything but flight. Snakes lack limbs but have poison. Since humans are organisms, they too struggle for power. This was made all the more evident by the discoveries of Darwin and Wallace.

    Fascism did with history what physics did with matter. Fascism peered into the nuclei of history and found the struggle for power. This wouldn't have been alarming to pagans such as Greeks, Romans, and Germanic barbarians who were familiar with the way of power. But the justice-heavy themes of Christianity and Islam that came to pervade much of the world were afraid to touch upon the true nature of man.
    And the Enlightenment, though anti-religious, shared something with Christianity in its lofty view of mankind. Since mankind had brains that could reason, history could and should be about remaking society on the basis of the loftiest 'ideals'. No wonder we still hear the elites yammer about 'western values'. Now, there is surely a need for higher ideals, morality, reason, logic, and etc. But are they the core of life? Maybe if humans could be like the body-less spirits in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY that travel across stars with their 'thoughts'.
    But in truth, humans are animals with bodies with all sorts of organs and material that developed before brains or along with brains. And organisms ensure survival and even supremacy by competition and game of power.
    Now, if we only act on the basis of power, we'd be like apes or wolves or lions or hyenas, and who wants that? We do want morality and even spirituality and idealism, BUT, they are mere addendum to the organism-ism that is, at its core, about the will to live, will to survive, the will to power. Some animals act in terms of solitary power. Some act socially. Humans act macro-socially, but there are limits to scale of human interaction. It's like a wolf pack. There's a limit to the viability to a pack size. 10 wolves in a pack can work well. But 100 wolves in a pack wouldn't function well, and it would naturally break into separate packs. Likewise, the viable limit for macro-social-organization seems to be the Nation. Empire tries to stretch beyond that, but all empires have failed and fallen apart and broken up into nations. Also, the nation is most stable with an overwhelming majority that allows unity and trust and cooperation. Sweden worked better as all-Swedish. It is falling apart with 'diversity' that is turning Sweden into a mini-empire of incompatible races and cultures.

    Anyway, just as one could use Marxist theory to understand history without being a Marxist revolutionary or diehard communist, one could use Fascist theory to understand society and history without becoming a black shirt or brown shirt.
    And the dirty secret of the Left is that, in a way, they've been doing this without even knowing it. Their emphasis on EMPOWERMENT is sub-fascist. Sure, they try to mask their power-obsession with rhetoric about White Privilege, i.e. blacks want black power because they are oppressed by white privilege. Or Jews obsess about Jewish issues ostensibly because of 'Nazis' and'anti-semites'. But such rationalization is specious because, in truth, blacks want power for power's sake, and so do Jews. Power feels good. It's like someone wants to be rich to be rich. The likes of Soros may argue that they made a ton of money just so they could do good works, but who's kidding whom? Soros loves money for money's sake. And his agendas all come down to empowering globalist oligarchs like himself by breaking down national barriers that stand in the way of globalist penetration. He's not breaking down national barriers for the good of the masses. It's for the power of globalist oligarchic class consisting of his ilk.
    Rapper may bitch about the White Man, but their real theme is "I want the power, the ho, the dough, the bling, the ring." And look at what the Russian communist elites did once communism fell. They tried to grab as much loot for themselves as possible. In a way, communism was less about justice than a game theory of power where politics would be shared so that no one would be the new tsar to hog it all.. but then Stalin came along and amassed all the power in the state, and then later, the insiders in the state gained most of the loot once the game theory of communism had run out of steam.

    Fascism is difficult for people to face because they don't want to peer into their souls and see the 'real me'. They don't want to find the Gordon Gekko who spells it all out. Now, fascism doesn't say power alone is enough or that life should be about nihilistic greed and self-aggrandizement. It doesn't praise the likes of Gekko. It doesn't say everyone should try to be like Emperor Nero.
    But then, Freud never said people should just take their clothes off, have massive orgies, and act like Lena Dunham. Rather, he was trying to come up with a healthier blueprint for a society that is founded on the truth of sexual drive as the essence of human nature.
    In a similar vein, fascism says that society must be founded and managed on the understanding that humans are organisms in a struggle for power. Fascism says that the most potent kind of power among humans is social and national and racial. Radical individualism atomizes. Universalism is too confusing, too grandiose, too impossible. Also, identity is key to national unity and stability since it clarifies who is 'us' and who is 'them'. This all works best on the national level.
    Many point to Italian Fascism and National Socialism as proof of fascism's failure, but the great paradox is that they failed by violating fascist principles. Both began to overstep national interests and went into imperialist mode, thereby raising the ire of other competing tribes.

    Fascism is a theory of how to interweave the various elements of society and humanity to arrive at maximum power and survivality for the race or species. Fascism rejects dogmatic conservatism and traditionalism that sticks only to conventions and received wisdom. After all, science taught us that new things will be discovered, and history never remains the same. Fascism rejects radical leftism that fixates on narrow definition of 'justice' and 'equality' as the end all of history when history will always be a struggle for power. Also, a fascist will say leftists are merely repressed fascists whose repressed will-to-power emerges as moral supremacism and virtue-signaling. We see that in Sweden's conceit of itself as a 'humanitarian superpower'.
    Why are young ones really attracted to punk music culture? Because of nice themes of justice and equality and being nice to fellow men? No, they are drawn to the display of power, rage, and machismo. Punk's 'garage marxism' is useful for justifying what they REALLY want: sense of empowerment and badassness. If antifa types really care for the little people, they should be volunteering to take care of the elderly and lonely. Instead, they indulge in macho-power-thuggery and lamely try to justify their penchant for brutality by invoking 'justice'.

    If the Age of Reason/Enlightenment was overly optimistic about the power of reason as the lofty guide to future history, the Romantic Era was overly optimistic about the power of the irrational. In some ways, Romanticism is a precursor to fascist thinking because it addressed the power of emotions and the sublime blend of animal passion and spiritual transcendence(like in the Christo-Pagan music of Wagner), but its obsession with beauty and poetics prevented it from delving into the true dark soul of the human organism. It overly idealized and aestheticized the irrational.
    Even the dark novel of FRANKENSTEIN was rather rhapsodic about this ungodly power. Fascism that emerged in the 20th century used the power of reason to delve into the power of unreason. It was a rational undertaking to understand the dynamics of the irrational soul of man; and mankind will remain mainly irrational(and the GLOB and Progs operate on this basis since they are invested in manipulating people with images and sounds than persuading them with reason and logical arguments. Why should we have 'gay marriage'. Oh, look at those colorful 'rainbow' flags. Aren't they lovely? One would have to be a 'hateful homophobe' to not get on the homo bandwagon and sing along to Village People").

    Just like a Freudian begins the discussion on the basis that 'you wanna do it', the fascist theorist begins on the basis that "you want the power"(or wanna be associated with the power). A fascist would be like Mel Brooks in this scene except talking about power than sex:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9a5-E5Zk3w

    The 'leftist' GLOB and Progs are so full of shi*. According to their professed logic, they don't want the power, or at least not an excess of it. They say everyone should have a fair portion of power and no more, and this goes for themselves too. They are into 'equality'. Yeah, that must be why George Clooney wants more and more. Or why Bono can't wait to get his hands on millions more. That must be why Oprah is worth billions. That must be why Hollywood is into raking in more and more. And that George Lucas the Libby Dib. He's been telling us that he has yet to make his Personal Films because he has to make money first. But 100 million isn't enough, 500 million isn't enough, 2 billion isn't enough. and 5 billion isn't enough. I'm not saying those who want lots of money and power are 'fascist', but only fascist theory understands what they are really about.
    Why is it that those who yammer about 'equality' never want to be part of the working class? If given a chance between being a starving artist and gluttonous pig, they almost always choose the latter. And Obama is likely to cash in big just like the Clintons. I wonder how much of his wealth he will invest in the ghettos of Detroit or give to poor Africans. All their 'progressive' talk is just that. Talk. What they really want is power. They want it and when they get some, they want more and more, like a Wall Street tycoon with 10 billion want 20 billion and then 50 billion.

    As for the 'leftist' 'losers' who aint got much and don't have a chance of getting any, notice they prefer to hang around rich cities and live off crumbs. If they really care about the have-nots, why not go to some depressed town and try to do good work? No, they wanna be 'creative' and leech off places that has the dough, status, prestige, and glamour. (Bernie-Sanderism is appealing to y0ung progs not because it offers equality but promises privilege of doing whatever and being funded by the state. Sanders' Kids want the state to pay for their tuition even if they major in the most useless studies. It's the privilege/power of being spoiled brats that attracts them to Sanders.) Also, it's interesting how these 'leftists' have as heroes and role models the rich, the famous, the popular, the glamorous, and etc. I mean when did you ever see a 'leftist loser' bitch that Springsteen or Jay-Z is too rich? Which Libby-dib ever complained that Oprah is too rich? Oh, they will say, the fact that a black woman can be so rich sends a positive message, right? What? That one black woman should hog so much while so many black women got nothing? Some 'leftism'.
    If 'leftists' are all about concern for the powerless and 'little people', why are they so obsessed with famous movie stars, rock stars, rich athletes, and celebrities? Why did all those pussy-hatters have to stand there mesmerized at madonna's narcissistic speech? Surely anyone with sense knows madonna and ashley judd are soul-damaged morons... but wait!! They are famous people, so they must be 'cool', and that means they must be right and worth listening to. So much for equality and concern for 'little people'. They'd rather listen to the egotistical vanity of rich bitches with entitlementality.

    And fascist theory also makes us understand what is really happening with progs, diversity, and all that crap. If we focus on the theme of power as essence than as theme of 'justice', their motivations become clearer.
    Take Asians in California. Lots of anti-Trumpers seem to be yellow on Berkeley campus. Now, these yellow progs might say Trump is 'hitler', milo is 'hitler', and etc. But what is this really about? Isn't it about shielding yellow advantage/power from browns and blacks? After all, yellows hog much of academics in CA, and that is bound to make lots of browns and blacks pissed off. So, what is an easy way for yellows to protect their 'yellow privilege'. By screaming KKK and NAZI!!! In other words, "we yellows are fellow victims with you blacks and browns against whitey." This isn't about justice. It's about guarding yellow power. It's about the Power. Now, it could be that yellow progs are consciously sincere in their PC dogma, but subconsciously, they seem to be operating to shield their power.

    And then take white Hispanics. Why are they so proggy? They too are trying to shield and expand their power. They feel insecure because their position in history and society is rather uneasy. Their relationship with the natives of Latin America is an uneasy one. Though everyone in Mexico and other such nations is called 'Hispanic', the fact is most are not. It's like American Indians and blacks speak English, but they are not Anglo. But for some reason, everyone who speaks Spanish in Latin America is called 'hispanic'. Since non-whites count as 'hispanic'(which should be mean people of European Spanish heritage), white Hispanics are conflated with non-whites and pass as 'people of color'. This is useful to white Hispanics since they fear the repressed populist rage of the native non-white masses. So, this shtick of white Hispanics posing as 'people of color' is to hide and keep their white privilege in Latin America. "Look, all of us are mestizo and one people against the Gringo!!" While Latin American elites may not be pure-white, they are helluva lot whiter than those on the bottom in places in Mexico.
    If white Hispanics feel fear in relation to the non-white masses in Latin America, they feel inferiority complex and resentment toward Anglo whites who did so much more in the New Land while Spanish elites built haciendas and acted like lazy & useless rich in Sam Peckinpah films, THE GODFATHER PART 2, and remake of SCARFACE. So, they pretend to be proggy & leftist and side with 'people of color' against gringo. But really, they are really pissed cuz they lost out in history. They are sore losers, and it's about Power, not justice.

    Indeed, even cuck behavior is best explained in terms of fascist theory. CucKen Burns will say he makes these documentaries about Negroes out of sympathy, and I'm sure there's some of that. But why is he so fixated on the Negroes? Isn't it because he's drawn to their louder voices, faster rhythms, tougher muscles, and colorfulness?
    Some want or have the Power for themselves, and others worship the Power. If whites had enslaved a bunch of Bolivian Indians and dragged them up north to work in plantations, would CucKen Burns be so into their history? NO, Negroes have raw power, and this is what excites the Cuck. It's not about equality but about fixation on power. When a cuck white male invites a Negro to do his wife, it's not about equality. It's about his worship of the Negro as the afro-aryan uberhumper. When college coaches and recruiters get Negro athletes by offering them white girls who are into jungle fever, it's all about Power, which is never equal.
    CucKen Burns feels the Power working on two levels in relation to blacks. As a lame wussy white boy, he wants to be associated with Black Prowess in jazz, sports, and sex(as Jack Johnson was major humper of white women) by making paeans to their greatness. But he also revels in his own power as a Good Whitey who uses his power of media to lend help to them poor poor helpless Negroes. He's like a massuh who slavishly worships the slave rebel. He waxes poetic in the redemptive power(which is Power just the same) of graciously handing over white power to the Negro who is deemed more deserving.

    If progs are really into 'justice of power', they should show no interest in anyone who gains excess of power, fame, fortune, popularity, but the fact is they are obsessed with the best of the best: best actor, richest producer, most famous celeb, most popular singer, and etc.

    And why is there so much worship of Jews in the US? Oh, we are told it's because poor poor Jews need sympathy cuz of Holocaust and there are all these 'nazis' around. (But if Jews are really fearful that Nazis are teeming all over the place, it is rather odd that they would be so arrogantly calling for the punching of 'nazis'. It'd be like a white kid in a school full of blacks saying, "Hey, punch out some negro thugs." If indeed Nazis are marching all around looking for people to kill, then Jews should be shhhhh and hunker down.) We know the real reason why Jews get so much attention. They got the power and they want more and more and more power. If Jews are into equality, they should demand that Jews as 2% of population should have 2% of wealth. But Jews never seem to tire of getting more and more.
    Seriously, if Jews indeed had only 2% of US wealth and had only 2% control of US media and Wall Street, would all these politicians really be lining up to praise Israel? Would there be annual AIPAC rallies that look rather like the infamous ones at Nuremberg?
    N0, the fascist explanation is the best. Jews get all that attention and 'affection' because they got the power.

    Also, morality is seen as a weapon against power, but it is as often an instrument for power. We saw this with the history of Christianity where an ideology for the poor was easily appropriated by the powerful to justify their power. And what happened with communism? Look at the Chinese Communist Party today. Or the elites in Cuba and North Korea. And look how many of the former commies of Poland and Russia did rather well for themselves after the fall of communism. So, what were these people really about?

    As for black bitching about justice, it's so laughable. Blacks are just sore because, apart from sports and music, they've lagged behind in the power and wealth sweepstakes, falling behind homos and immigrant groups. Blacks remain loyal to the Democratic Party cuz they've become so heavily invested in its politics, but they are falling behind others in the party. Will Keith Ellison change that? Blacks can provide the face and symbolism, but they can't provide the funds since other groups are so much richer.
    And notice how black person who bitches about 'inequality' doesn't mind getting a shi*load for himself. Black 'leaders' get blacks roused up to squeeze businesses to make concessions that mainly go into their own pockets. Jesse Jackson played that game many times over. Black pride and lack of integrity prevent them from honest talk: "We want more free stuff cuz we dumbass Negroes can't do much on ourselves except shooting one another and driving murder rates through the roof."

    If fascism gets to the core of power and exposes the true nature of what is really driving the world, why are people so afraid of it? The question answers itself. People cannot handle the truth. They'd rather believe that their position, interest, agenda, or narrative is about some highfalutin ideal or principle. To them, fascism seems too much like the pornography of power when, in fact, it is the nature studies of power. Stripped of all delusions, we can see humans as animals in the wild. Fascism doesn't say humans should operate on that level but must be conscious of the true foundation of human psychology and behavior before attempting to formulate a social & moral order. Morality must be based on the truth of power.

    But the West is now trembling because some of its false foundations. The West is like the Leaning Power of Pisa. More and more cables have to be used to prop it up since, left alone, it will topple and fall.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa#History_following_construction

    Replies: @Langley, @Romanian

    “Why is everyone is anti-fascist? People on the left and people on the Right and people on the Top and people on the Bottom all call each other ‘fascist’. ”

    Q: What is the greatest threat to any organism in its ecosystem?

    A: A similar organism.

    Q: What do Fascism and Socialism have in common?

    A: They are both totalitarian ideologies.

    https://mises.org/library/road-serfdom-0

    Q: Who taught you to be anti-fascist?

    A: Cultural Marxists fleeing German Fascists

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

    Q: How different are Fascism and Socialism?

    A: Not much.

    Colonel Molotov “fascism, socialism – it’s all just a matter of taste”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Langley

    People misunderstand fascism because only a few nations have been Open Fascist nations. Italy called itself 'fascist' cuz it invented the term. Nazis went with 'National Socialism', but it could be said a variant of fascism. Franco was allied with fascists but not really fascist. Peron's was a milder form of fascism, a kind of left-fascism.

    Anyway, because Germany and Italy lost big in WWII, it's assumed fascism was defeated. But there has been closed, hidden, and subsumed fascisms all over. But people don't want to discuss this because it would bring us to the closer to the truth of history.

    Take Israel. It is a fascist-democracy, and it goes to show that fascist themes and democracy can go well-together. Israel is about race, culture, history, and heritage of Jews. Its military culture is spartan and tough. It is about us and them. But it is also democratic. If anything, it goes to show that fascist themes and democracy actually work well together. If Israel were multi-culti in outlook and had a growing Muslim and Hindu population that threatened to outnumber the Jews, its democracy would be harder to sustain. Democracy is possible in Israel because of unity of Jews.

    And indeed, democracy flourished most in nations with ideal fascist settings. Now, when I say Ideal Fascist Setting, I don't mean that the people are necessarily fascist-minded. Suppose there is an island of only Swedes. Suppose all these Swedes are multi-culti cosmopolitans. So, they want massive immigration and wanna be minorities in their own islands. So, they are not fascist in thought. Still, let's say the island, for the time being, is safe, secure, rich, and decent with only Swedish people. Why? Because it has Ideal Fascist Setting of unity, homogeneity, and work ethic(developed under culture of discipline and restraint over the long Protestanty winters). It's like Madison Wisc is very proggy in outlook. But its white areas are very nice, safe, and secure. Why? Because of the proggy outlook OR because of its Ideal Fascist Setting? The nice parts of Madison are white and filled with Germanic folks. So, even if these people have proggy outlook, they are living in a world of Germanic habits, manners, and work ethic. They are living in an Ideal Fascist Setting.

    In contrast, suppose there's a nation that is 40% black, 40% Muslim, and 20% white. Suppose everyone were to read Mussolin's DOCTRINE OF FASCISM and agree with fascism. But the setting would not be Ideal by fascist ideals. Too many wild and aggressive blacks, too many nutty Muslims, and too many whites scared of their wits.

    So, a setting that is ideally fascist but filled with proggy people work better than a setting that is multi-culti & diverse but is fascist.



    Now, look at China under Maoist-leftism and China under defacto-fascism. Since Deng Era, China has essentially been about mixed economy of capitalism and socialism, mixed culture of old and modern, and heavy emphasis on nationalism. Isn't this model closer to fascism than to communism? What worked better? Maoism or this defacto fascism. But no one wants to use the term 'fascism' since it would state the obvious: fascism works.

    Fascist Theories aren't only about fascist societies or self-professed fascists. It is about a study of why certain societies work and why some don't.
    If we take Sweden, why did it work so well and why is it falling apart now?
    Even though Sweden was never officially fascist, it had many Ideal Fascist Qualities. It was homogeneous and united. It combined socialism with capitalism. It was a society of sobriety, work ethic, and discipline. If it later turned more libertine, such freedom could be enjoyed PRECISELY BECAUSE Sweden was such a safe and stable place.
    So, even if social-democrats of Sweden considered themselves as Marxist-lite and anti-fascist, the real reason why Sweden succeed owed to Ideal Fascist Elements.
    It's like a rich successful person may consider himself a Christo-Marxist and pretend that his success owes to his self-professed ideology. But the REAL reason for his success is high IQ, work ethic, individual ambition, and etc. So, despite what he SAYS, what made him SUCCEED was something closer to Ayn-Randism.

    Because Nazism gave fascism such a bad name, nations like Sweden have been falling all over themselves to be as anti-fascist as possible, and what is the result? Deterioration and decline. Swedes have been taking a close look and trying to purge whatever is sub-fascist: Homogeneity, unity, sobriety, and hardness. The result is a nation of pansies run by women who let rapists and murderers in to gain approving nods from the GLOB.

    Many successful or rising nations that call themselves non-fascist or even anti-fascist have some ideal fascist elements if we take a closer look. Because Russia fought a great war against officially fascist nations in WWII, Putin would never use that term positively. But whatever success he's had owes to pro-fascist or profa themes. Nationalism, culture of morality, unity and discipline. Russians, being drunken bums, need a long way to go, but their only hope of success is a kind of intelligent and sober fascism even if they don't call it that. In the end, a nation must be using all ideas to maximize its power and security, and fascism allows this because it is not a mono-ideology. And this is why Jews, even though most anti-fascist in their official pronouncements, are a very fascistic sort of people. Jews creatively combine various ideas and ideologies and shift from one position to another based on the premise of "Is it good for the Jews?"

    And it's all about the Power. People either want the power(the will to power) or want to be associated with power(will to cower). They want to command the field or cheer for the team that is on the field. Look at football or any sports. Spectators identify with their side and try to 'share' in the glory of the players.
    Christians will claim to be anti-power, but fascistics is a part of Christianity. After all, it claims that Jesus was really the Son of God, therefore God Himself. If Christianity said Jesus was a very nice guy who had these shining ideals and died for them and that was that, would it have become a great religion? People would have said Jesus was a nice guy but helpless and weak. The real appeal of Christianity is that Jesus revealed Himself as the Son of God, the greatest power that be, and that vengeance is really with Him. So, He died for our sins out of great love, but He is waiting in Heaven to whup some serious butt of those who will burn for all eternity in the afterlife. That is Power.

    And look at the appeal of all this homo stuff. Is it really about sympathy for these poor pitiful homos? No, homos have great appeal in globalism that is obsessed with status, riches, celebrity, and vanity because homos are associated with fashion, Hollywood, privilege, wealth, and power. Think of the costs involved to have those massive homo parades. It is the spectacle of power and riches that attracts people to homos. Suppose most homos were un-creative and poor and lived in trailers. Suppose they decided to throw a parade in their run-down dinky little town. How many politicians and celebrities and yuppies would show up?

    Power is like an addiction, a drug. Antifa types are bottom-feeders in this. Being dumb, trashy, idiotic, impatient, or immature, they fail to do anything in life. So, their experience of power is anarchy. They watch stuff like V FOR VENDETTA or listen to RAGE AGAINST MACHINE and throw tantrums. They wanna FEEL the power cuz they got none. The fact that they even attack Starbucks shows that they are confused.
    But those with IQ and talent don't become antifa. They don't go for bottom-feeding. They study, gain connections, attend Ivy League school, and serve in government and advise leaders to attack and destroy entire nations and populations, like in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and etc. They are Top-Bombers(hawks) than bottom-feeders(carps and crabs), and they do a lot more damage. And what is it really about? Sure, they invoke 'human rights' and 'democracy', but it's really addiction to power, be it Zionist or American Imperialist.

    Though fascism is seen as bad stuff --- and there can be bad fascism as Hitler certainly proved --- , I think we can have moral fascism if we identify and understand the true nature of power in the world. It's like alcohol. It can make you do crazy stuff, and it can even kill you. But a glass of red wine a day is good for you. And a few beers never killed anyone. So, we need to be honest about alcohol, what it is and how it should be handled.

    Censorship of fascist theoretics is like prohibition. Because alcohol did a lot of damage to society, a bunch of people decided to ban alcohol altogether, as if that will make it go away. But it only led to bootleg booze and organized crime. So, even though US was officially non-alcoholic, alcohol was all around underground. Eventually, the US came to its senses and acknowledged alcohol as part of what people want. The thing was to be honest about this and then have laws that best regulate the trade and use of alcohol.

    Likewise, because of WWII, there's been this suppression of honest discussion of fascism and race-ism; EVERYTHING associated with them was supposed to be irredeemably bad. They were condemned as 'obsession with power' and 'supremacism'. So, officially anyway, we were told that history since end of WWII has been all about 'equality', 'human rights', 'liberal democracy', 'tolerance', and etc.
    But in fact, just like alcohol went underground during the Prohibition, the power-obsession merely went underground. The Cold War was about the struggle for power and dominance than about ideology. After all, if it was all about ideology, why did the US become so aggressive after it won the Cold War? It should have welcomed the new peace and harmony. Because it loved the fact that it had the Supreme Power. It was like Madeline Albright saying that the US got all this power and might as well use it. For what? To spread 'human rights' by having 100,000s of Iraqi kids killed? If US is about equality and favoring the weak over the strong, why does it favor Israel over Palestinians? And if US is about secular values, why side with Saudi Arabia against secular modernizers like Assad? And why piss off Russia that is no longer an enemy and wants to get along with EU and the US? It's all about the Power. Jewish globalists want to gain supremacy over Russian resources, and US military-industrial complex will jump on any excuse to flex its muscle and act tough.

    Anyway, if we end the prohibition the Power Studies(fascist theoretics), we could better understand what is happening. It would become apparent that influential people who pretend to be sober with ideals of 'human rights' and 'liberal democracy' are actually intoxicated with Power Madness that ranges from Jewish Supremacism to Military-Industrial-Complex-mania.
    And what is Fareed Zakaria really about? Why is he here? I mean if he wants to use his talent to help a nation, why the US that is rich already? India has many many more problems, and he could use his smarts there. So, why is he here? Is it really about his embrace of nice kindly globo 'human rights'? Non, the punk wants the good life in the US, and also, he figures India can colonize the West with its rapidly expanding population. So, he's not just some nice guy promoting tolerance but an agent of Hindu-Muslim-Indian Globo Colonization. He may rinse his mouth with the 'human rights' mouthwash, but his stomach is filled with Power Moonshine.

    And this thing with the Megaphone and Gag Order. (Or MAGAG order since Trumpers are supposed to shut up.) Why are certain people given megaphones while others are gagged? Where is freedom of speech or equal opportunity of expression? 'Hate Speech Laws' are supposed to be about protecting the powerless from the powerful, but it's really about protecting the powerful(especially Jewish elites) from the relatively powerless.

    Best way to deal with alcoholism is to state the fact that someone has an alcohol problem. Only by stating that fact can the person learn to see what his problem is and learn to drink responsibly. Refusal to admit the problem makes the problem worse because he will pretend he has no problem while sneaking drinks all throughout the day.
    Similarly, the best way to control fascism as a moral ideology and instrument is to admit that the world is driven by competition for power and the natural organismic drive for supremacy. Every organism is 'supremacist' in that it seeks to gain more and more. Plants spread seeds all over and try to take over the entire field. Wolf pack tries to gain fresh territory. Mosquitoes breed like crazy and fill the air with bloodsuckers that try to suck everything. Bacteria try to spread as much as possible. So, nature is a world of competing supremacisms.
    Humans are the same way as all of human history has been about gaining dominance by invasion, trade, ideas, religion, etc. By admitting this aspect of human nature, we can control it better by coming to an understanding that all groups have this Will to Power even if they don't admit it. (Hitler was honest in stating what his ideology was all about. It was about the Power. And he was honest about what other great nations were about too. The Power and domination. This is why the Brits didn't like him. Hitler's admiration for British greatness made it plain as day that the empire was primarily about British domination than about Brits being noble carriers of the "white man's burden" to enlighten the world. He understood and stated the true nature of imperialism. This made the Brits nervous since they always justified their domination over dark folks in terms of being generous and tolerant. In a way, Hitler and Jews agreed on this aspect of Anglo domination of the world. Anglos were really about Power and Domination. The difference is Hitler admired & praised it whereas Jewish leftists reviled & condemned it. Either way, it made the Anglos nervous because it lifted the veil of its moral justification for empire. But Hitler was bad fascist because of his utter contempt for much of humanity and failure to understand that other peoples have a will-to-power of their own that should be respected. Also, whether the Brits intended to or not, they were spreading not only the light of civilization but the means-of-power to other peoples who learned from the Brits to gain power for themselves.) It's not ultimately about some higher ideal but about the Power. Now, if we just act like animals, we will be fighting endless wars and that will lead to a big mess. Therefore, we must work towards building a responsible and moral fascist order where all sides respect one's another's need for core power and core security. We must declare the Age of Empire to be over and promote a world of secure nations that respect one another and trade with one another. Then, Nation A respects the will-to-power of Nation B and Nation C, and Nation B respects the will-to-power of Nation A and Nation C, and Nation C respects the will-to-power of Nation A and Nation B.
    Let the will-to-power remain within national borders. Let Hungary be Hungary and let Poland be Poland. But Merkel the crazy globalist bitch decided to succumb to the Will to Power of disastrous globalism and then, by invoking 'human rights', denounced Hungary and Poland.
    This is what happens when a people are unwilling to fess up to the fascist will-to-power. Germans, if they were to be honest, would say they want to survive and thrive as Germans in Germany. Ideally, Germans should seek Will-to-Power in Germany. This makes total sense since Germany is the land of Germans. But because Germany isn't allowed to realize this, its repressed Will-to-Power seeks expression by something resembling Sweden's 'humanitarian super-power-ism'. Unlike Nazis who were for invading other nations, New Germany is about welcoming invasion and showing off their superior morals by being 'good', and then forcing this 'goodness' and 'human rights' on other nations like Hungary and Poland. It's so crazy.

    We need to be honest that all the world loves the alcohol of power. Only by admitting this fact can we honestly and soberly regulate this power and warn all the world to not get drunk on 'medicine water'. Best way to do it is by promoting nationalism that limits the nation's power within its borders and respects the will-to-power of other nations with their own national sovereignty.
    Globalism is one big bootleg operation by gangsters like Soros who pretend to be providing the milk and cookies of human kindness to world while shipping the alcohol of power to fellow oligarchs around the world. Soros and his ilk hate nationalism because it erects walls against the bootleggers of globalist power-domination.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jZQDEv6pYI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBcflBBGKhE

    Replies: @vinteuil, @vinteuil, @Clyde, @Charles Erwin Wilson

  59. @Mike1
    @Anon

    Not every conservative shares your sexual hangups. Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.

    Our side needs every win it can get. We have been sitting on our butt letting the left win for decades on EVERY issue. Time to grow up.

    Replies: @Randal, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Anon, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Dr. X, @Curle, @Olorin, @Daniel Chieh, @Bill

    Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.

    Dr. Alice Dreger is a professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine. She has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post.[4] On December 4, 2012 Dr. Degrer reported in the The Atlantic that among Aka and Ngandu people of central Africa homosexuality was rare or nonexistent.[5]

    In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green of Harvard University published in the journal Ethnology there were societies in which homosexuality was rare or absent.[6]

  60. @D. K.
    @ben tillman

    Does the federal statute that I linked to refer to state actors, Ben? Do you think that that statute applies only to state actors, Ben? Then why, Ben, do you assume that the commenter to whom I replied already knew the actual content of that federal statute (which does not refer to state actors, because it applies to anyone, not just to state actors), when the whole purpose of his comment [infra] was to ask whether such a law even could apply to private citizens who are not state actors?

    ***

    Because, as best I can tell, free speech is a right held only against the government (state or federal), wouldn’t the conspiracy felony only apply to instances fed/state action to suppress speech?

    ***

    There is a separate civil-rights statute, of much earlier vintage, which makes it illegal for state actors to deprive individuals of their civil rights "under color of law." This later statute was passed precisely to outlaw any group from doing something similar. In further response to that earlier commenter: Which Constitutional civil liberty (as opposed to statutorily granted civil rights, like access to fair housing and employment non-discrimination) is not "a right held only against the government," rather than against private individuals, as well?

    Replies: @Opinionator, @ben tillman

    The statute you cite does not expressly protect a right to general freedom of speech. It protects rights secured by the Constitition and federal law. Therefore, unless there is an affirmative general right to free speech in the Constitution or federal law (beyond the constitutional prohibition against governments infringing speech) it isn’t obvious how the statute would give rise to a cause of action against a private party who infringes freedom of speech but is not acting in concert with a government.

    Now then, if the mayor of Berkeley sent an ambiguous tweet that was intended to give anti-free speech activists the green light to shut down Milo’s speech, does that raise a 1A issue? If so, maybe the statute could apply.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @Opinionator

    The federal law to which I linked-- which is the same law to which the professor linked, albeit at a different Web site-- does not list any of the specific civil rights which it was designed to protect. It expressly protects them by their collective nature, not by their respective names (speech, religion, assembly, etc.). Your expecting there to be a Constitutional provision or statutory law about Free Speech, beyond its obvious First Amendment protection, is simply baffling to me!?!

    Replies: @Opinionator, @D. K., @ben tillman

  61. Well, the way the courts swarmed the immigration EO, I’m sure any Trump orders to enforce the law in this manner will be similarly swarmed.

    No rational basis, etc.

    The Trump Administration is challenging many long-standing conventions, from NATO to Political Correctness to MSM truth telling.

    Rampant judicial activism has been, well, rampant for a long time and just a fact of life for decades.

    The way things are shaping up, judicial overreach is perhaps the left’s only option for playing things via institutional legality, since they’ve been wiped out electorally during the Obama years.

    So expect that hand to get overplayed, as it did immediately in immigration EO. It is an obstacle that Trump will have to overcome, so an epic, historical battle to the death with judicial activism will play out over the coming years.

    Bank on it, major legal history will be written soon.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @anonguy

    In terms of the judicial overreach you know of, where do the Seattle rulings rank more or less and why?

    Replies: @anonguy

    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    @anonguy

    According to Article III of the Constitution the Congress has absolute control over what issues are subject to appellate review by federal courts. It is only cowardice/laziness/ineptitude that has prevented Congress from using this power.

    The Massachusetts General Court could have stopped the homosexual marriage agenda dead in its tracks by impeaching the Supreme Justice and her colleagues for their transparent subversion and corruption of judicial process, e.g., openly conspiring with plaintiffs. State pols chickened out and the flood gates opened. The dictators in black robes are bullies. A little push back would soon bring them to heel. All that's lacking is a soupcon of legislative courage.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  62. @Opinionator
    @Anon

    I may have given him too much credit then. He's really just a nihilist isn't he.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    Why is he a Zionist though? Financial and social necessity? Anti-Muslim brainwashing?

    • Replies: @biz
    @Opinionator

    How about just supporting the continuation of a reasonably successful, democratic, and technologically innovative state which provides a homeland for the world's longest lasting people instead of the alternative, which is the complete removal if not elimination of those people and the creation in its place of the 23rd Arab Muslim state, and the 54th Muslim state overall?

  63. @Barnard
    @Anon

    To the modern left, anyone who disagrees with them is a conservative. It doesn't matter what label that person uses to label himself or what would most accurately describe his views. They consider it a slur.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    I haven’t heard leftists accuse anyone of being a conservative lately. We’re all “nazis” now.

  64. @anonguy
    Well, the way the courts swarmed the immigration EO, I'm sure any Trump orders to enforce the law in this manner will be similarly swarmed.

    No rational basis, etc.

    The Trump Administration is challenging many long-standing conventions, from NATO to Political Correctness to MSM truth telling.

    Rampant judicial activism has been, well, rampant for a long time and just a fact of life for decades.

    The way things are shaping up, judicial overreach is perhaps the left's only option for playing things via institutional legality, since they've been wiped out electorally during the Obama years.

    So expect that hand to get overplayed, as it did immediately in immigration EO. It is an obstacle that Trump will have to overcome, so an epic, historical battle to the death with judicial activism will play out over the coming years.

    Bank on it, major legal history will be written soon.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Jus' Sayin'...

    In terms of the judicial overreach you know of, where do the Seattle rulings rank more or less and why?

    • Replies: @anonguy
    @Opinionator


    In terms of the judicial overreach you know of, where do the Seattle rulings rank more or less and why?

     

    Who needs yesterday's stale news when things are amped up daily:

    Now it is not just no rational basis, but that Trump's motives must be examined.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/07/words-matter-trumps-loose-talk-about-muslims-gets-weaponized-in-court-against-travel-ban/?utm_term=.c1ad26a83fd1
  65. @Steve Sailer
    @Evocatus

    He's slightly blacker looking than Rep. G.K. Butterfield.

    Replies: @Evocatus, @a Newsreader, @PiltdownMan, @Daniel H, @BB753, @Flip, @Lot

    Would be OK as a member of the CBC, Adam Clayton Powell, VIII

    View post on imgur.com

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Lot

    A more recent photo. Definitely African American.

    http://imgur.com/a/GE8d8

    Replies: @PiltdownMan, @Jack D

  66. @Lot
    @Steve Sailer

    Would be OK as a member of the CBC, Adam Clayton Powell, VIII

    http://imgur.com/a/mEo0Q

    Replies: @Lot

    A more recent photo. Definitely African American.

    View post on imgur.com

    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    @Lot

    Adam Clayton Powell VIII is actually Adam Clayton Powell IV.II

    The New York Times explained all this some years ago.

    https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/if-your-name-is-powell-take-a-number/?_r=0

    , @Jack D
    @Lot

    Here is the mother of this Powell IV:

    https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0257/3165/products/dfpy99099.jpeg?v=1463077660

    She was from Puerto Rico but appears to be mostly or all European.

  67. @Opinionator
    @D. K.

    The statute you cite does not expressly protect a right to general freedom of speech. It protects rights secured by the Constitition and federal law. Therefore, unless there is an affirmative general right to free speech in the Constitution or federal law (beyond the constitutional prohibition against governments infringing speech) it isn't obvious how the statute would give rise to a cause of action against a private party who infringes freedom of speech but is not acting in concert with a government.

    Now then, if the mayor of Berkeley sent an ambiguous tweet that was intended to give anti-free speech activists the green light to shut down Milo's speech, does that raise a 1A issue? If so, maybe the statute could apply.

    Replies: @D. K.

    The federal law to which I linked– which is the same law to which the professor linked, albeit at a different Web site– does not list any of the specific civil rights which it was designed to protect. It expressly protects them by their collective nature, not by their respective names (speech, religion, assembly, etc.). Your expecting there to be a Constitutional provision or statutory law about Free Speech, beyond its obvious First Amendment protection, is simply baffling to me!?!

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @D. K.

    The point I am trying to make relates to my understanding that this "obvious First Amendment protection" that exists provides protection for speech only against government infringement. Therefore, without more, some government infringement would be necessary to violate the statute. (Unless, possibly, some equal protection or other rights are found to be violated. But then they would be the primary violation that is causing the statute to apply.) Where are we misunderstanding each other?

    Replies: @D. K.

    , @D. K.
    @D. K.

    Let me clarify: the First Amendment's protection of Free Speech is not limited to Congress' lack of authority to pass any law abridging Free Speech-- nor even to the fifty sovereign states' or their respective municipalities' passing such statutes, ordinances or rules. Any government action at all abridging Free Speech is held to be unconstitutional, under the First Amendment itself-- not just actions undertaken in furtherance of an actual law or rule. Ergo, under the cited federal statute, any private group's action is likewise criminalized. (The following section of the United States Code criminalizes actions taken "under color of law." The Civil Rights Act of 1871, to which I was alluding earlier, made such actions taken "under color of law" actionable civilly, rather than prosecutable as criminal offenses. That civil provision remains a popular and potent antidote toward unconstitutional government actions infringing on civil liberties, including the Freedom of Speech.) If a gang of Berkeley or U.C. policemen had undertaken the same violent mob action, absent any written authority, to shut down Milo's speech, last Wednesday evening, they likewise would have been prosecutable, only under the subsequent section of the United States Code to that which the professor and I both had linked.

    , @ben tillman
    @D. K.


    The federal law to which I linked– which is the same law to which the professor linked, albeit at a different Web site– does not list any of the specific civil rights which it was designed to protect. It expressly protects them by their collective nature, not by their respective names (speech, religion, assembly, etc.). Your expecting there to be a Constitutional provision or statutory law about Free Speech, beyond its obvious First Amendment protection, is simply baffling to me!?!
     
    He doesn't expect that. He's asking a question. Clearly, the First Amendment does not "secure" a right to free speech that could be deprived in violation of the statute you cited. Now, maybe you can use the Ninth Amendment to make it a civil right that is "secured to [one] by the Constitution or laws of the United States", or maybe there's a statute somewhere, but you can't just beg the question by presenting a statute that punishes conspiracies to violate civil rights. You need to show that the alleged right is a civil right "secured to [one] by the Constitution or laws of the United States" to make the statute applicable.

    Replies: @D. K.

  68. @Charles Pewitt
    http://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/styles/cd_large/public/views-article/jeff_sessions_trump.jpg?itok=O6%E2%80%93yqDV

    Soon-to-be United States Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is on the way.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    Just as all generals (Lt, etc) are called “general”, I suggest we do the same with Sessions, or should I say General Sessions…

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    @Chrisnonymous

    https://twitter.com/DCameronSmith/status/578910827316670464


    General Washington was our greatest president. General Andrew Jackson was our second greatest president.

    General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III will be our greatest attorney general.

    , @Autochthon
    @Chrisnonymous

    I take your point; I much respect the man. Still, I'll risk pedantry and duck the rotten vegetables.

    A lieutenant general is a (particular sort of) general; lieutenant being an adjective in the case. It's the same with a lieutenant commander, lieutenant colonel, etc.

    An attorney general, however, is not a general; he is an attorney. In this case general is the adjective. Likewise with the surgeon general, the postmaster general, etc..

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Jack D

  69. @Dr. X
    @Canadian Observer


    In 1920, Kurt Eisner and his mob of left wing thugs came within a hair of creating a repressive Soviet dictatorship in Germany.
     
    No, they didn't just "come within a hair" of creating a Soviet dictatorship -- they actually did establish the "Bavarian Soviet Republic" for about six months until they were shot to death by the Freikorps.

    And right next door in Hungary, (((Bela Kun))), trained in Moscow by (((Leon Trotsky))), established a Hungarian Soviet dictatorship for about a year in 1919-1920 before it was overthrown by the "fascists."

    And on top of that you had (((Rosa Luxembourg))) and her failed Spartacist coup in Berlin...

    Real history's a bitch.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    What would those regimes have done to the people if they had remained in power? Would anything like the Red Terror have come to pass? What did they do?

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    @Opinionator

    Bela Kun's brief reign gives you an answer to that question. His repressive regime was so loathed that it more or less permanently inoculated Hungarians against radical leftism that seems to have lasted to this day. In 1956 this helped fuel the hopeless rebellion against the communist government imposed by the USSR.

    , @fnn
    @Opinionator

    There was a Red Terror in Hungary that even Wikipedia admits happened.

  70. @D. K.
    @Opinionator

    The federal law to which I linked-- which is the same law to which the professor linked, albeit at a different Web site-- does not list any of the specific civil rights which it was designed to protect. It expressly protects them by their collective nature, not by their respective names (speech, religion, assembly, etc.). Your expecting there to be a Constitutional provision or statutory law about Free Speech, beyond its obvious First Amendment protection, is simply baffling to me!?!

    Replies: @Opinionator, @D. K., @ben tillman

    The point I am trying to make relates to my understanding that this “obvious First Amendment protection” that exists provides protection for speech only against government infringement. Therefore, without more, some government infringement would be necessary to violate the statute. (Unless, possibly, some equal protection or other rights are found to be violated. But then they would be the primary violation that is causing the statute to apply.) Where are we misunderstanding each other?

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @Opinionator

    Did you look at the 1971 Supreme Court decision cited for you by 'Jack D' [supra]? The only reason that I posted the link to the United States Code section itself, in my original comment above, was to show precisely to which federal law the professor was referring, as used in Steve's chosen title for this post, and as also included in the extract of the professor's column that Steve chose to include in the body of this post.

  71. @D. K.
    @Opinionator

    The federal law to which I linked-- which is the same law to which the professor linked, albeit at a different Web site-- does not list any of the specific civil rights which it was designed to protect. It expressly protects them by their collective nature, not by their respective names (speech, religion, assembly, etc.). Your expecting there to be a Constitutional provision or statutory law about Free Speech, beyond its obvious First Amendment protection, is simply baffling to me!?!

    Replies: @Opinionator, @D. K., @ben tillman

    Let me clarify: the First Amendment’s protection of Free Speech is not limited to Congress’ lack of authority to pass any law abridging Free Speech– nor even to the fifty sovereign states’ or their respective municipalities’ passing such statutes, ordinances or rules. Any government action at all abridging Free Speech is held to be unconstitutional, under the First Amendment itself– not just actions undertaken in furtherance of an actual law or rule. Ergo, under the cited federal statute, any private group’s action is likewise criminalized. (The following section of the United States Code criminalizes actions taken “under color of law.” The Civil Rights Act of 1871, to which I was alluding earlier, made such actions taken “under color of law” actionable civilly, rather than prosecutable as criminal offenses. That civil provision remains a popular and potent antidote toward unconstitutional government actions infringing on civil liberties, including the Freedom of Speech.) If a gang of Berkeley or U.C. policemen had undertaken the same violent mob action, absent any written authority, to shut down Milo’s speech, last Wednesday evening, they likewise would have been prosecutable, only under the subsequent section of the United States Code to that which the professor and I both had linked.

    • Disagree: Autochthon
  72. I don’t see how this:

    “Ergo, under the cited federal statute, any private group’s action is likewise criminalized.”

    Follows from this:

    “Any government action at all abridging Free Speech is held to be unconstitutional, under the First Amendment itself– not just actions undertaken in furtherance of an actual law or rule.”

    Don’t you still need a government action? Where is it? And what has the government action been in the instances we have witnessed so far?

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @Opinionator

    No, there is no need for any government action to be involved. The whole point of that section of the United States Code was to make it illegal for groups of private individuals-- e.g., the Ku Klux Klan-- to undertake actions with the same intended result: to keep people from enjoying their civil rights, like speaking or assembling in public, voting, exercising religion, etc. A government action to that end is prosecutable, as I already have noted, through the following section of the United States Code, and also is civilly actionable under a different title of the United States Code that codifies the aforementioned Civil Rights Act of 1871.

  73. @Opinionator
    I don't see how this:

    "Ergo, under the cited federal statute, any private group’s action is likewise criminalized."

    Follows from this:

    "Any government action at all abridging Free Speech is held to be unconstitutional, under the First Amendment itself– not just actions undertaken in furtherance of an actual law or rule."

    Don't you still need a government action? Where is it? And what has the government action been in the instances we have witnessed so far?

    Replies: @D. K.

    No, there is no need for any government action to be involved. The whole point of that section of the United States Code was to make it illegal for groups of private individuals– e.g., the Ku Klux Klan– to undertake actions with the same intended result: to keep people from enjoying their civil rights, like speaking or assembling in public, voting, exercising religion, etc. A government action to that end is prosecutable, as I already have noted, through the following section of the United States Code, and also is civilly actionable under a different title of the United States Code that codifies the aforementioned Civil Rights Act of 1871.

  74. The whole point of that section of the United States Code was to make it illegal for groups of private individuals– e.g., the Ku Klux Klan– to undertake actions with the same intended result: to keep people from enjoying their civil rights, like speaking or assembling

    But is there a general civil right to speech and assembly? What is the authority? Or is there only a right to be free of their infringement by government?

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @Opinionator

    The Constitution of the United States-- like the Declaration of Independence, before it-- takes certain rights to be fundamental and unalienable. Specific protection against the government's own attempted abridgment of certain of those rights-- but not all of them, as is made explicit in the Ninth Amendment!-- is covered in the Bill of Rights, and especially in the First Amendment, because those particular rights were considered particularly important to a free people, and particularly subject to malign governmental attempts at abridgment. The right to Freedom of Speech-- to name the most pertinent one, vis-a-vis last Wednesday evening's riot at Berkeley-- was considered to inhere in our humanity itself, even before the invention of the institution of government. Freedom of Speech, therefore, is a concept separate and apart from the issue of government's own authority to proscribe it, as covered in the First Amendment. The cited federal statute was passed because the United States Congress decided that it was also the responsibility of the federal government to protect that broader right to Freedom of Speech-- not just to avoid abridging that right through its own actions, as explicitly required of it by the First Amendment.

    , @Jack D
    @Opinionator

    The requirement (or absence of requirement) that there be state action is contained in the statute, not the Constitution. If Congress makes it illegal for all persons to interfere with X, it doesn't make a difference whether X is protected in the Constitution or not, or Constitutionally protected only against state actors. The right to eat in a privately owned restaurant is not a Constitutional right but if Congress passes a law saying you now have that right (and the Courts decide that this doesn't violate the Constitutional rights of the restaurant owner), you have it. You could make a sympathetic case that a restaurant owner should be able to turn away customers (but even so, this position was a loser) but it's hard to make a sympathetic case that you as a private citizen have a Constitutional right to beat up other people which Congress can't take away from you.

    These Federal laws were written with the KKK and the situation in the South in mind. Certain citizens might try to assemble and exercise their Constitutional rights to free speech, etc. and masked men would prevent them from doing so. The state and local authorities would not participate in the oppression, but they would do nothing to stop it either. Congress did not impose a requirement of state action because it would not have capture the conduct they were trying to prevent. So Sec. 1985 says If two or more persons . . . conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving . . . any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, etc. Not two or more state officials, just any 2 persons.

    We now have the same situation in Berkeley and the anti-KKK laws are written broadly enough that they cover this situation as well.

  75. @Opinionator
    @D. K.

    The point I am trying to make relates to my understanding that this "obvious First Amendment protection" that exists provides protection for speech only against government infringement. Therefore, without more, some government infringement would be necessary to violate the statute. (Unless, possibly, some equal protection or other rights are found to be violated. But then they would be the primary violation that is causing the statute to apply.) Where are we misunderstanding each other?

    Replies: @D. K.

    Did you look at the 1971 Supreme Court decision cited for you by ‘Jack D’ [supra]? The only reason that I posted the link to the United States Code section itself, in my original comment above, was to show precisely to which federal law the professor was referring, as used in Steve’s chosen title for this post, and as also included in the extract of the professor’s column that Steve chose to include in the body of this post.

  76. @Opinionator
    The whole point of that section of the United States Code was to make it illegal for groups of private individuals– e.g., the Ku Klux Klan– to undertake actions with the same intended result: to keep people from enjoying their civil rights, like speaking or assembling

    But is there a general civil right to speech and assembly? What is the authority? Or is there only a right to be free of their infringement by government?

    Replies: @D. K., @Jack D

    The Constitution of the United States– like the Declaration of Independence, before it– takes certain rights to be fundamental and unalienable. Specific protection against the government’s own attempted abridgment of certain of those rights– but not all of them, as is made explicit in the Ninth Amendment!– is covered in the Bill of Rights, and especially in the First Amendment, because those particular rights were considered particularly important to a free people, and particularly subject to malign governmental attempts at abridgment. The right to Freedom of Speech– to name the most pertinent one, vis-a-vis last Wednesday evening’s riot at Berkeley– was considered to inhere in our humanity itself, even before the invention of the institution of government. Freedom of Speech, therefore, is a concept separate and apart from the issue of government’s own authority to proscribe it, as covered in the First Amendment. The cited federal statute was passed because the United States Congress decided that it was also the responsibility of the federal government to protect that broader right to Freedom of Speech– not just to avoid abridging that right through its own actions, as explicitly required of it by the First Amendment.

  77. @PiltdownMan
    @Steve Sailer


    He’s slightly blacker looking than Rep. G.K. Butterfield.
     
    Adriano Espaillat has the sweetest smile, but it crosses my mind that he could have played a heavy in The Sopranos.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriano_Espaillat#/media/File:Adriano_Espaillat_official_portrait.jpg

    Replies: @SteveRogers42

    “Big Pussy” Espaillat.

  78. @Lot
    @Lot

    A more recent photo. Definitely African American.

    http://imgur.com/a/GE8d8

    Replies: @PiltdownMan, @Jack D

    Adam Clayton Powell VIII is actually Adam Clayton Powell IV.II

    The New York Times explained all this some years ago.

    https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/if-your-name-is-powell-take-a-number/?_r=0

  79. @Anon
    PC mentality explains a lot about the Japanese leadup to debacle in WWII.

    There were three kinds of people: the fanatical true believers, the fearful conformists, and the gamblers.

    The true believers were low in intellect and/or too constricted in emotions to think beyond the dogma and sacred narrative.

    The spineless conformists knew something wasn't right(and the game is dangerous and built on false premises), but too afraid to stick out their necks and say what's what. Some were cynical careerists, some were yes-men, the corporate or bureaucratic types who like to do as they're told.

    Then, there were the gamblers who knew the odds were against them, but they just couldn't go all the way. It was a long shot that Japan could survive the war, but they went along just the same.
    When we look at the shibboleths of PC, we know it's a long shot built on false premises, and they will lead to a glorious future. But some are willing to gamble on it cuz they are emotionally, egotistically, and morally too invested in the game.
    It's like a gambler who is fixed on the big prize but lost half his fortune is more likely to go on playing until he loses all than stop and walk away with the remaining half.

    PC has its true believers. These fanatics cannot think beyond the holy dogma.
    But I suspect lots of college administrators and corporate types know that PC is mostly caca, but they are colorless & gutless and dare not ruffle the feathers and prefer to keep their jobs and titles. Even if they do believe in PC, they force themselves to swallow the pill out of fear than conviction.
    And I suspect the gamblers are a combo of dogma and cynicism. They are emotionally invested in PC but too smart to really believe in all or most of it. But their game of power is invested with PC, and they wanna play it all the way. People like Hillary and Biden. No way they really believe in much of PC. Hillary knows about the 'superpredators'. She knows globalism isn't about equality but about the Power of the GLOB. But it's the only game in town for her play and get hers.

    Replies: @Expletive Deleted

    Just take the money away. They’ll be crying uncle inside a year.

    All of it. You take part in rioting? No welfare or grants for you, sonny/petal/shoggoth. Rioting and intimidation on campus, and you didn’t instantly ring for the state stormtroopers? No fed funds, no alumnus donations etc.

  80. @Mike1
    @Anon

    Not every conservative shares your sexual hangups. Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.

    Our side needs every win it can get. We have been sitting on our butt letting the left win for decades on EVERY issue. Time to grow up.

    Replies: @Randal, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Anon, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Dr. X, @Curle, @Olorin, @Daniel Chieh, @Bill

    Mutations are a “clear part of the natural biological order.”

    One might argue that butt-pirates, goat-shtuppers, carpet munchers, and schlong-gobblers are mutations of norm-al human sexual impulses. Rather than urban/cultural/situational perversions of those impulses that arise when natural forces/limits are removed and powerful social players want to re-engineer human evolution/existing population genetics.

    But as with all mutations evolution selects against them unless they demonstrate some survival or reproductive benefit to the species.

    I’m not sure what such benefit Yiannopoulos provides with his Degeneracy Minstrel Show… unless you consider his filthy joke about “swallowing millions of potential African males.”

    BTW, not every liberal shares YOUR idea that gay males are part of the natural biological order.

    Including some liberal gays I’ve known. There are few things sadder IME than a liberal gay/lesbian/etc. honestly wondering why they cannot find an opposite sex mate and settle down and be happy with them…and then having (((someone with a social work degree or shrink or therapist))) tell them lies about that that eventually makes them one form or another of crazy.

    For starters, forced race mixing/PC/diversitopia/multicult kept a lot of these people from ever meeting people of their own genetic stock who could attract them at the deeper level.

    Which of course is part of that Rootless Cosmopolitan/Globo population genetic strategy. Which expends so much energy removing the right of whites to freely associate with other whites in majority white nations.

    This is why colleges are particularly under attack for PC indoctrination. For at least the past century in the US and Europe colleges have been an important setting for whites of high intelligence or social standing to send their offspring to seek mating opportunities with similar others.

    It is not irrelevant here that the Book of Genesis projects “putting enmity between man and woman” onto “god.” See Russell Gmirkin’s Old Testament scholarship for more on that point.

  81. Chicago tore down the worst all Black public housing projects like Cabrini Green and the Robert Taylor Homes.

    Think that’s the only viable solution to places like the University of California Berkeley. Don’t see really any practical way to “reform” such a place populated by the likes of Robert Reich.

    Robert Reich is doubling down on the narrative that there is no problem with censored free speech at U Cal Berkeley and students there are just right to protest hateful, racist speech by “Conservatives” like Milo and the few (150-200) protesters who did riot were outside agitators probably Trump supporters or people paid by Breitbart News. Robert Reich can still get on CNN and spout these blatant cultural marxist, Leftist lies. And yes there is a strong Jewish component to these cultural marxist Left lies at Berkeley and now my alma mater Vanderbilt University that now has a Chancellor who was a Left law professor at the University of Wisconsin Madison.

  82. OT – Trump gains another small victory

    “Lena Dunham says Donald Trump caused her to lose weight because the election made her too upset to eat”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/07/lena-dunham-says-donald-trump-caused-lose-weight-election-made/

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Anonymous Nephew

    The Kardashians are attention-whores, but Lena Dunham gives them a run for the money. If a week goes by without her getting press attention, she has to take strong measures.

  83. @Anon
    "They told me if Donald Trump were elected, voices of dissent would be shut down by fascist mobs. And they were right!"

    Yep, again, 'fascist' is used as some epithet or insult.

    Why is everyone is anti-fascist? People on the left and people on the Right and people on the Top and people on the Bottom all call each other 'fascist'.

    So, elitism is fascism, populism is fascism, liberalism is fascism, conservatism is fascism, socialism is fascism, libertarinism is fascism. Everyone accuses the other side of being 'fascist', and everyone denies that his side is 'fascist'.

    In fact, I'm the only true fascist, and I think all of humanity should just call me FASCIST and be done with it.

    Anyway, why is everyone so fearful of the term 'fascism'? I think it's because the truth is triggering. They fear and hate fascism because no ideology came so close to addressing the core essence of power. Is fascism dangerous? Yes. It's like fire is dangerous. Electricity is dangerous. Nuclear power is dangerous. Things of great power and truth are dangerous. So, fascism is something we need to be careful with. It's like the ring of power in Nibelungen. It's like Excalibur. Mismanage it and you end up with WWII.

    But just because something can be misused dangerously and disastrously doesn't mean that its power is untrue. If anything, it means it is all too true. It's like what Frankenstein learns of fire. It is good and bad and bad and good. But it is great power.



    So, why are people so afraid of fascism? Because it gets to the CORE of what it's all about: Power. Deep down inside, the Left must know this because it got obsessed with neo-Nietzscheanism via Foucault. It's like APOCALYPSE NOW where Willard comes face to face with the true source of power as explained by Kurtz(though Coppola copped out and took out a lot of Kurtz's philosophical musings about the power.)
    Especially with the fading of Marxism, the Left needed to fixate on something new and compelling. With Leftism, the theme was Justice. Violence and struggle for justice and equality. A war on power to create a world of equality.
    But eventually, the rhetoric changed to Power. Black Power, Brown Power, Gay Pride(a kind of power). EMPOWERMENT. Also, the Left came under the spell of capitalist egotism, celebrity, and megalomania. The Left came to admire Star Power, that of Elvis, Dylan, Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, the great Auteurs, and etc. It lost interest in the little guy, like in the film MARTY with Ernest Borgnine as ordinary Joe, a kind of Ralph Kramden with better temper.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktXm7CRXbsE

    The Counterculture was odd in its contradictions. On the one hand, young people found older people bigoted and repressive. They called for equality and liberation. But Liberation also meant the exultation of Star Power, the Icon, the Rocker as god, and etc. The older generation never revered pop stars like the boomers did theirs. Sure, the older folks love Sinatra and Como, but they weren't about to wet their pants over them. And older generations respected presidents, but it was the boomers who had the myth of Camelot. The Counterculture was enthralled, enraptured, and eye-ball-popping about their pop heroes who were worshiped like gods. Deadheads worshiped Garcia. I saw them bawling like mad when he died. "Jerrrrrrrryyyy"!!!
    Of course, this power-worship was nothing new in Leftism. The French Revolution led to the cult of Napoleon who was revered as a Promethean figure. And Marx came to be revered as modern Moses, and Lenin and Stalin became like gods to worship. And as Paul Johnson wrote in his book on 19th century, a lot of the 20th century obsessions began there. Wagner was like a god to many(though much of this wasn't necessarily leftist.)
    Still, the intellectual discipline and dogmatic rigor of Leftism demanded that leftists be good dutiful obedient commissars. Follow the Party, obey the Moscow Line, repress one's egotism for the Working Man. Socialist Realism. Overt personal ambition or experimentalism was condemned as adventurism and formalism.
    But the counterculture left became so into drugs, rock music, sex culture, and hedonism that it rebelled against both the Right and the Stalinist Left. And some took cues from Dylan who went electric. Images of Che and Mao were juxtaposed with those of rock stars and movie icons like Marlon Brando and James Dean. Charisma became a thing.
    BONNIE & CLYDE was romanticized as a revolutionary movie even though it was about a glamour couple who went around shooting regular folks. Nihilism seeped into Leftism... or Leftism was breaking out of its repressed shell. Just as Victorianism repressed sexuality, Leftism repressed what the fight was really about. It was about Power, not justice and abstract ideals. Nietzsche had been right.
    Of course, the post-Marxist Left continued to use the terminology of justice and equality against repression, tyranny, oppression, exploitation, privilege, and etc. But the more we look at it, it's a naked struggle for power for power's sake.

    And this is why people fear fascism. Fascism was to power-politics what Freudianism was to politics of psychology. Freud may have overstated the case, but he believed that powerful subconscious and biological forces were flowing underneath consciousness with its pat morals and manners. Fascism said the core element of history and society is the struggle for power. History is a story of Power.
    Marx would have admitted power is crucial to understanding history. But he thought this problem would be resolved, and utopia could finally result from dialectics of class struggle. History, according to Marx, is about the upper classes using their power to exploit the classes. This will eventually lead to capitalism that will eventually destroy itself but ONLY AFTER having created a giant industrial society full of wealth. When capitalism destroys itself, the workers shall inherit the wealth and share it equally and be happy and etc. So, in the end, Justice trumps everything in Marxist theory. In contrast, fascist theory says Power will always be the core theme of life. After all, we are organisms, and just look at nature. It is a never-ending struggle of survival and territory and advantage. It is about the use of power by various organisms to gain ground and survive. And every advantage has a disadvantage. Birds with wings can fly, but their upper limbs are useless for anything but flight. Snakes lack limbs but have poison. Since humans are organisms, they too struggle for power. This was made all the more evident by the discoveries of Darwin and Wallace.

    Fascism did with history what physics did with matter. Fascism peered into the nuclei of history and found the struggle for power. This wouldn't have been alarming to pagans such as Greeks, Romans, and Germanic barbarians who were familiar with the way of power. But the justice-heavy themes of Christianity and Islam that came to pervade much of the world were afraid to touch upon the true nature of man.
    And the Enlightenment, though anti-religious, shared something with Christianity in its lofty view of mankind. Since mankind had brains that could reason, history could and should be about remaking society on the basis of the loftiest 'ideals'. No wonder we still hear the elites yammer about 'western values'. Now, there is surely a need for higher ideals, morality, reason, logic, and etc. But are they the core of life? Maybe if humans could be like the body-less spirits in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY that travel across stars with their 'thoughts'.
    But in truth, humans are animals with bodies with all sorts of organs and material that developed before brains or along with brains. And organisms ensure survival and even supremacy by competition and game of power.
    Now, if we only act on the basis of power, we'd be like apes or wolves or lions or hyenas, and who wants that? We do want morality and even spirituality and idealism, BUT, they are mere addendum to the organism-ism that is, at its core, about the will to live, will to survive, the will to power. Some animals act in terms of solitary power. Some act socially. Humans act macro-socially, but there are limits to scale of human interaction. It's like a wolf pack. There's a limit to the viability to a pack size. 10 wolves in a pack can work well. But 100 wolves in a pack wouldn't function well, and it would naturally break into separate packs. Likewise, the viable limit for macro-social-organization seems to be the Nation. Empire tries to stretch beyond that, but all empires have failed and fallen apart and broken up into nations. Also, the nation is most stable with an overwhelming majority that allows unity and trust and cooperation. Sweden worked better as all-Swedish. It is falling apart with 'diversity' that is turning Sweden into a mini-empire of incompatible races and cultures.

    Anyway, just as one could use Marxist theory to understand history without being a Marxist revolutionary or diehard communist, one could use Fascist theory to understand society and history without becoming a black shirt or brown shirt.
    And the dirty secret of the Left is that, in a way, they've been doing this without even knowing it. Their emphasis on EMPOWERMENT is sub-fascist. Sure, they try to mask their power-obsession with rhetoric about White Privilege, i.e. blacks want black power because they are oppressed by white privilege. Or Jews obsess about Jewish issues ostensibly because of 'Nazis' and'anti-semites'. But such rationalization is specious because, in truth, blacks want power for power's sake, and so do Jews. Power feels good. It's like someone wants to be rich to be rich. The likes of Soros may argue that they made a ton of money just so they could do good works, but who's kidding whom? Soros loves money for money's sake. And his agendas all come down to empowering globalist oligarchs like himself by breaking down national barriers that stand in the way of globalist penetration. He's not breaking down national barriers for the good of the masses. It's for the power of globalist oligarchic class consisting of his ilk.
    Rapper may bitch about the White Man, but their real theme is "I want the power, the ho, the dough, the bling, the ring." And look at what the Russian communist elites did once communism fell. They tried to grab as much loot for themselves as possible. In a way, communism was less about justice than a game theory of power where politics would be shared so that no one would be the new tsar to hog it all.. but then Stalin came along and amassed all the power in the state, and then later, the insiders in the state gained most of the loot once the game theory of communism had run out of steam.

    Fascism is difficult for people to face because they don't want to peer into their souls and see the 'real me'. They don't want to find the Gordon Gekko who spells it all out. Now, fascism doesn't say power alone is enough or that life should be about nihilistic greed and self-aggrandizement. It doesn't praise the likes of Gekko. It doesn't say everyone should try to be like Emperor Nero.
    But then, Freud never said people should just take their clothes off, have massive orgies, and act like Lena Dunham. Rather, he was trying to come up with a healthier blueprint for a society that is founded on the truth of sexual drive as the essence of human nature.
    In a similar vein, fascism says that society must be founded and managed on the understanding that humans are organisms in a struggle for power. Fascism says that the most potent kind of power among humans is social and national and racial. Radical individualism atomizes. Universalism is too confusing, too grandiose, too impossible. Also, identity is key to national unity and stability since it clarifies who is 'us' and who is 'them'. This all works best on the national level.
    Many point to Italian Fascism and National Socialism as proof of fascism's failure, but the great paradox is that they failed by violating fascist principles. Both began to overstep national interests and went into imperialist mode, thereby raising the ire of other competing tribes.

    Fascism is a theory of how to interweave the various elements of society and humanity to arrive at maximum power and survivality for the race or species. Fascism rejects dogmatic conservatism and traditionalism that sticks only to conventions and received wisdom. After all, science taught us that new things will be discovered, and history never remains the same. Fascism rejects radical leftism that fixates on narrow definition of 'justice' and 'equality' as the end all of history when history will always be a struggle for power. Also, a fascist will say leftists are merely repressed fascists whose repressed will-to-power emerges as moral supremacism and virtue-signaling. We see that in Sweden's conceit of itself as a 'humanitarian superpower'.
    Why are young ones really attracted to punk music culture? Because of nice themes of justice and equality and being nice to fellow men? No, they are drawn to the display of power, rage, and machismo. Punk's 'garage marxism' is useful for justifying what they REALLY want: sense of empowerment and badassness. If antifa types really care for the little people, they should be volunteering to take care of the elderly and lonely. Instead, they indulge in macho-power-thuggery and lamely try to justify their penchant for brutality by invoking 'justice'.

    If the Age of Reason/Enlightenment was overly optimistic about the power of reason as the lofty guide to future history, the Romantic Era was overly optimistic about the power of the irrational. In some ways, Romanticism is a precursor to fascist thinking because it addressed the power of emotions and the sublime blend of animal passion and spiritual transcendence(like in the Christo-Pagan music of Wagner), but its obsession with beauty and poetics prevented it from delving into the true dark soul of the human organism. It overly idealized and aestheticized the irrational.
    Even the dark novel of FRANKENSTEIN was rather rhapsodic about this ungodly power. Fascism that emerged in the 20th century used the power of reason to delve into the power of unreason. It was a rational undertaking to understand the dynamics of the irrational soul of man; and mankind will remain mainly irrational(and the GLOB and Progs operate on this basis since they are invested in manipulating people with images and sounds than persuading them with reason and logical arguments. Why should we have 'gay marriage'. Oh, look at those colorful 'rainbow' flags. Aren't they lovely? One would have to be a 'hateful homophobe' to not get on the homo bandwagon and sing along to Village People").

    Just like a Freudian begins the discussion on the basis that 'you wanna do it', the fascist theorist begins on the basis that "you want the power"(or wanna be associated with the power). A fascist would be like Mel Brooks in this scene except talking about power than sex:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9a5-E5Zk3w

    The 'leftist' GLOB and Progs are so full of shi*. According to their professed logic, they don't want the power, or at least not an excess of it. They say everyone should have a fair portion of power and no more, and this goes for themselves too. They are into 'equality'. Yeah, that must be why George Clooney wants more and more. Or why Bono can't wait to get his hands on millions more. That must be why Oprah is worth billions. That must be why Hollywood is into raking in more and more. And that George Lucas the Libby Dib. He's been telling us that he has yet to make his Personal Films because he has to make money first. But 100 million isn't enough, 500 million isn't enough, 2 billion isn't enough. and 5 billion isn't enough. I'm not saying those who want lots of money and power are 'fascist', but only fascist theory understands what they are really about.
    Why is it that those who yammer about 'equality' never want to be part of the working class? If given a chance between being a starving artist and gluttonous pig, they almost always choose the latter. And Obama is likely to cash in big just like the Clintons. I wonder how much of his wealth he will invest in the ghettos of Detroit or give to poor Africans. All their 'progressive' talk is just that. Talk. What they really want is power. They want it and when they get some, they want more and more, like a Wall Street tycoon with 10 billion want 20 billion and then 50 billion.

    As for the 'leftist' 'losers' who aint got much and don't have a chance of getting any, notice they prefer to hang around rich cities and live off crumbs. If they really care about the have-nots, why not go to some depressed town and try to do good work? No, they wanna be 'creative' and leech off places that has the dough, status, prestige, and glamour. (Bernie-Sanderism is appealing to y0ung progs not because it offers equality but promises privilege of doing whatever and being funded by the state. Sanders' Kids want the state to pay for their tuition even if they major in the most useless studies. It's the privilege/power of being spoiled brats that attracts them to Sanders.) Also, it's interesting how these 'leftists' have as heroes and role models the rich, the famous, the popular, the glamorous, and etc. I mean when did you ever see a 'leftist loser' bitch that Springsteen or Jay-Z is too rich? Which Libby-dib ever complained that Oprah is too rich? Oh, they will say, the fact that a black woman can be so rich sends a positive message, right? What? That one black woman should hog so much while so many black women got nothing? Some 'leftism'.
    If 'leftists' are all about concern for the powerless and 'little people', why are they so obsessed with famous movie stars, rock stars, rich athletes, and celebrities? Why did all those pussy-hatters have to stand there mesmerized at madonna's narcissistic speech? Surely anyone with sense knows madonna and ashley judd are soul-damaged morons... but wait!! They are famous people, so they must be 'cool', and that means they must be right and worth listening to. So much for equality and concern for 'little people'. They'd rather listen to the egotistical vanity of rich bitches with entitlementality.

    And fascist theory also makes us understand what is really happening with progs, diversity, and all that crap. If we focus on the theme of power as essence than as theme of 'justice', their motivations become clearer.
    Take Asians in California. Lots of anti-Trumpers seem to be yellow on Berkeley campus. Now, these yellow progs might say Trump is 'hitler', milo is 'hitler', and etc. But what is this really about? Isn't it about shielding yellow advantage/power from browns and blacks? After all, yellows hog much of academics in CA, and that is bound to make lots of browns and blacks pissed off. So, what is an easy way for yellows to protect their 'yellow privilege'. By screaming KKK and NAZI!!! In other words, "we yellows are fellow victims with you blacks and browns against whitey." This isn't about justice. It's about guarding yellow power. It's about the Power. Now, it could be that yellow progs are consciously sincere in their PC dogma, but subconsciously, they seem to be operating to shield their power.

    And then take white Hispanics. Why are they so proggy? They too are trying to shield and expand their power. They feel insecure because their position in history and society is rather uneasy. Their relationship with the natives of Latin America is an uneasy one. Though everyone in Mexico and other such nations is called 'Hispanic', the fact is most are not. It's like American Indians and blacks speak English, but they are not Anglo. But for some reason, everyone who speaks Spanish in Latin America is called 'hispanic'. Since non-whites count as 'hispanic'(which should be mean people of European Spanish heritage), white Hispanics are conflated with non-whites and pass as 'people of color'. This is useful to white Hispanics since they fear the repressed populist rage of the native non-white masses. So, this shtick of white Hispanics posing as 'people of color' is to hide and keep their white privilege in Latin America. "Look, all of us are mestizo and one people against the Gringo!!" While Latin American elites may not be pure-white, they are helluva lot whiter than those on the bottom in places in Mexico.
    If white Hispanics feel fear in relation to the non-white masses in Latin America, they feel inferiority complex and resentment toward Anglo whites who did so much more in the New Land while Spanish elites built haciendas and acted like lazy & useless rich in Sam Peckinpah films, THE GODFATHER PART 2, and remake of SCARFACE. So, they pretend to be proggy & leftist and side with 'people of color' against gringo. But really, they are really pissed cuz they lost out in history. They are sore losers, and it's about Power, not justice.

    Indeed, even cuck behavior is best explained in terms of fascist theory. CucKen Burns will say he makes these documentaries about Negroes out of sympathy, and I'm sure there's some of that. But why is he so fixated on the Negroes? Isn't it because he's drawn to their louder voices, faster rhythms, tougher muscles, and colorfulness?
    Some want or have the Power for themselves, and others worship the Power. If whites had enslaved a bunch of Bolivian Indians and dragged them up north to work in plantations, would CucKen Burns be so into their history? NO, Negroes have raw power, and this is what excites the Cuck. It's not about equality but about fixation on power. When a cuck white male invites a Negro to do his wife, it's not about equality. It's about his worship of the Negro as the afro-aryan uberhumper. When college coaches and recruiters get Negro athletes by offering them white girls who are into jungle fever, it's all about Power, which is never equal.
    CucKen Burns feels the Power working on two levels in relation to blacks. As a lame wussy white boy, he wants to be associated with Black Prowess in jazz, sports, and sex(as Jack Johnson was major humper of white women) by making paeans to their greatness. But he also revels in his own power as a Good Whitey who uses his power of media to lend help to them poor poor helpless Negroes. He's like a massuh who slavishly worships the slave rebel. He waxes poetic in the redemptive power(which is Power just the same) of graciously handing over white power to the Negro who is deemed more deserving.

    If progs are really into 'justice of power', they should show no interest in anyone who gains excess of power, fame, fortune, popularity, but the fact is they are obsessed with the best of the best: best actor, richest producer, most famous celeb, most popular singer, and etc.

    And why is there so much worship of Jews in the US? Oh, we are told it's because poor poor Jews need sympathy cuz of Holocaust and there are all these 'nazis' around. (But if Jews are really fearful that Nazis are teeming all over the place, it is rather odd that they would be so arrogantly calling for the punching of 'nazis'. It'd be like a white kid in a school full of blacks saying, "Hey, punch out some negro thugs." If indeed Nazis are marching all around looking for people to kill, then Jews should be shhhhh and hunker down.) We know the real reason why Jews get so much attention. They got the power and they want more and more and more power. If Jews are into equality, they should demand that Jews as 2% of population should have 2% of wealth. But Jews never seem to tire of getting more and more.
    Seriously, if Jews indeed had only 2% of US wealth and had only 2% control of US media and Wall Street, would all these politicians really be lining up to praise Israel? Would there be annual AIPAC rallies that look rather like the infamous ones at Nuremberg?
    N0, the fascist explanation is the best. Jews get all that attention and 'affection' because they got the power.

    Also, morality is seen as a weapon against power, but it is as often an instrument for power. We saw this with the history of Christianity where an ideology for the poor was easily appropriated by the powerful to justify their power. And what happened with communism? Look at the Chinese Communist Party today. Or the elites in Cuba and North Korea. And look how many of the former commies of Poland and Russia did rather well for themselves after the fall of communism. So, what were these people really about?

    As for black bitching about justice, it's so laughable. Blacks are just sore because, apart from sports and music, they've lagged behind in the power and wealth sweepstakes, falling behind homos and immigrant groups. Blacks remain loyal to the Democratic Party cuz they've become so heavily invested in its politics, but they are falling behind others in the party. Will Keith Ellison change that? Blacks can provide the face and symbolism, but they can't provide the funds since other groups are so much richer.
    And notice how black person who bitches about 'inequality' doesn't mind getting a shi*load for himself. Black 'leaders' get blacks roused up to squeeze businesses to make concessions that mainly go into their own pockets. Jesse Jackson played that game many times over. Black pride and lack of integrity prevent them from honest talk: "We want more free stuff cuz we dumbass Negroes can't do much on ourselves except shooting one another and driving murder rates through the roof."

    If fascism gets to the core of power and exposes the true nature of what is really driving the world, why are people so afraid of it? The question answers itself. People cannot handle the truth. They'd rather believe that their position, interest, agenda, or narrative is about some highfalutin ideal or principle. To them, fascism seems too much like the pornography of power when, in fact, it is the nature studies of power. Stripped of all delusions, we can see humans as animals in the wild. Fascism doesn't say humans should operate on that level but must be conscious of the true foundation of human psychology and behavior before attempting to formulate a social & moral order. Morality must be based on the truth of power.

    But the West is now trembling because some of its false foundations. The West is like the Leaning Power of Pisa. More and more cables have to be used to prop it up since, left alone, it will topple and fall.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa#History_following_construction

    Replies: @Langley, @Romanian

    This is a very interesting post. It could have done with some tighter editing so more people would have the patience to see it through.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Romanian

    Way too long and rambling, unfortunately.

  84. @Daniel H
    @Buffalo Joe

    >>This would be a great article if it was in either the NYT or WaPo, but that would never happen.

    You see, here is the problem. If you keep asserting this fallacy you only give it credence and make the fallacy real. The Washington Post and NY Times DON'T MATTER anymore. Bezos bought the Post and Newsweek for what? One US dollar. I'm sure that the intrinsic value of the NY Times and Time magazine is not worth that much more.

    When your company or organ has a net worth $ 1.....well, that can't even get you a coup of coffee at Starbucks.

    No matter, the leftist media oligopoly is over.

    Replies: @Clyde

    Bezos, whose entrepreneurship has made him one of the world’s richest men, will pay $250 million in cash for The Post and affiliated publications to The Washington Post Co., which owns the newspaper and other businesses.

    From the internet

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Clyde

    Let's see him sell it for $250 million.

    Newsweek really did sell for $1.

    In Philadelphia, the Inquirer (typical leftist rag) went thru maybe 3 or 4 hands, with bankruptcies in between, each time selling for a small fraction of the prior sale price until finally the last owners donated it to a non-profit foundation.

    Prominent newspapers nowadays are run as political playthings by rich men, not as profit making businesses. Local papers are still businesses, so they have laid off most of their staff in response to falling revenue and are mere shadows of their former selves.

    People who print newspapers might as well be making buggy whips but once they shift to digital they have to compete with every other digital source. Tailoring your content to appeal to the left wing of the Democrat party means that you have lost the confidence of 85% of the population, which is what surveys show.

    Replies: @Clyde

  85. @Chrisnonymous
    @Charles Pewitt

    Just as all generals (Lt, etc) are called "general", I suggest we do the same with Sessions, or should I say General Sessions...

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Autochthon

    General Washington was our greatest president. General Andrew Jackson was our second greatest president.

    General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III will be our greatest attorney general.

  86. @Opinionator
    @Opinionator

    Why is he a Zionist though? Financial and social necessity? Anti-Muslim brainwashing?

    Replies: @biz

    How about just supporting the continuation of a reasonably successful, democratic, and technologically innovative state which provides a homeland for the world’s longest lasting people instead of the alternative, which is the complete removal if not elimination of those people and the creation in its place of the 23rd Arab Muslim state, and the 54th Muslim state overall?

  87. @Anonymous Nephew
    OT - Trump gains another small victory

    "Lena Dunham says Donald Trump caused her to lose weight because the election made her too upset to eat"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/07/lena-dunham-says-donald-trump-caused-lose-weight-election-made/

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    The Kardashians are attention-whores, but Lena Dunham gives them a run for the money. If a week goes by without her getting press attention, she has to take strong measures.

  88. @Romanian
    @Anon

    This is a very interesting post. It could have done with some tighter editing so more people would have the patience to see it through.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    Way too long and rambling, unfortunately.

  89. @Clyde
    @Daniel H

    Bezos, whose entrepreneurship has made him one of the world’s richest men, will pay $250 million in cash for The Post and affiliated publications to The Washington Post Co., which owns the newspaper and other businesses.

    From the internet

    Replies: @Jack D

    Let’s see him sell it for $250 million.

    Newsweek really did sell for $1.

    In Philadelphia, the Inquirer (typical leftist rag) went thru maybe 3 or 4 hands, with bankruptcies in between, each time selling for a small fraction of the prior sale price until finally the last owners donated it to a non-profit foundation.

    Prominent newspapers nowadays are run as political playthings by rich men, not as profit making businesses. Local papers are still businesses, so they have laid off most of their staff in response to falling revenue and are mere shadows of their former selves.

    People who print newspapers might as well be making buggy whips but once they shift to digital they have to compete with every other digital source. Tailoring your content to appeal to the left wing of the Democrat party means that you have lost the confidence of 85% of the population, which is what surveys show.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    @Jack D

    Newsweek was a legitimate competitor to Time magazine with about 75% of the pull. Yes, you are correct that it eventually sold for a dollar. Pinch Z/NY Times bought the Boston Globe, Worcester Telegram for 1.1 billion, then ten years later sold Globe to John Henry, Sox owner, for 60 million. Going by memory here.

  90. @Opinionator
    The whole point of that section of the United States Code was to make it illegal for groups of private individuals– e.g., the Ku Klux Klan– to undertake actions with the same intended result: to keep people from enjoying their civil rights, like speaking or assembling

    But is there a general civil right to speech and assembly? What is the authority? Or is there only a right to be free of their infringement by government?

    Replies: @D. K., @Jack D

    The requirement (or absence of requirement) that there be state action is contained in the statute, not the Constitution. If Congress makes it illegal for all persons to interfere with X, it doesn’t make a difference whether X is protected in the Constitution or not, or Constitutionally protected only against state actors. The right to eat in a privately owned restaurant is not a Constitutional right but if Congress passes a law saying you now have that right (and the Courts decide that this doesn’t violate the Constitutional rights of the restaurant owner), you have it. You could make a sympathetic case that a restaurant owner should be able to turn away customers (but even so, this position was a loser) but it’s hard to make a sympathetic case that you as a private citizen have a Constitutional right to beat up other people which Congress can’t take away from you.

    These Federal laws were written with the KKK and the situation in the South in mind. Certain citizens might try to assemble and exercise their Constitutional rights to free speech, etc. and masked men would prevent them from doing so. The state and local authorities would not participate in the oppression, but they would do nothing to stop it either. Congress did not impose a requirement of state action because it would not have capture the conduct they were trying to prevent. So Sec. 1985 says If two or more persons . . . conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving . . . any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, etc. Not two or more state officials, just any 2 persons.

    We now have the same situation in Berkeley and the anti-KKK laws are written broadly enough that they cover this situation as well.

    • Agree: Simon in London
  91. @Opinionator
    It is a felony under federal civil rights law to conspire to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights, among which is free speech.

    Because, as best I can tell, free speech is a right held only against the government (state or federal), wouldn't the conspiracy felony only apply to instances fed/state action to suppress speech?

    Replies: @Jack D, @D. K., @Connecticut Famer

    If an organization (such as Berzerkly) in its capacity as a public institution receives federal funding while ostensibly violating one’s constitutional rights, the government can punish them by shutting down their account as it were. During the Civil Rights Era the government wielded the threat of withholding federal funding (to public institutions) like a hammer to desegregate The South. Trump has threatened to do the same thing to Cal/Bezerk.

  92. Via Drudge:

    ‘Leftist Fight Club’ trains UCF students to fight Republicans

    There a lot of wrong there, but this one really stuck out:

    “Ladies: The Commander in thief is a sexual predator and rapist,” the description warns. “He has normalised sexual assault and it is expected that sexual violence against women is going to skyrocket in the next 12 months. Please join us! There will be other women there for you to spar against!”

    The lying is the thing that gets me the most about leftists. Trump didn’t release that tape. Leftists did. Trump didn’t make a national media frenzy out of that tape. Leftists did. This is the kind of lie people tell, that makes them look more crazy than anything else.

    And then there’s Bill Clinton, who’s been accused of rape and sexual harassment how many times now? And he was PotUS for 8 years, IIRC.

    Then there’s Blacks, who are Democrats’ most loyal constituency, and have a rape rate six and a half times the White rate.

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    @Svigor

    As you say, a mighty amount of Fail in there


    There will be other women there for you to spar against!”
     
    .. as it's inevitable that your sexual assailant will be another woman.

    This is just irresponsible. That tankgrrrl crap will result in some silly person of femality thinking they can go mano-a-mano against a bred-in-the-bone street thug, and they'll just end up getting ragdolled around the parking lot, at minimum.

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Svigor

    Speaking of lies, they're peddling the myth that self-defense classes will let women take on men.


    There will be other women there for you to spar against!
     
    Or maybe they expect sexual violence from women to skyrocket.
  93. @Anonymous
    Nation's wealthiest county votes to become sanctuary for immigrants...

    http://wbaltv.com/article/howard-county-council-to-vote-on-sanctuary-bill/8683652?src=app

    Hmmmm, polls show smart, rich white people are all massively against Trump's insane policies.

    Yet here is Steve Sailer (obvious alias) and his swastika crew trying to speak on behalf of white people. You poors and stupids give white folks a bad name!

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @anon, @Clyde, @ben tillman

    The comment so nice you posted it twice? Did you just spam it everywhere, Jay? Was that the best you could do? What, no tailoring of the comment to your intended audience? Sad!

  94. @Jus' Sayin'...
    @Mike1


    "Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order."
     
    So are plague, smallpox, dengue fever, scabies, lice, schizophrenia, rape, suicide, murder, and every other affliction of mankind. Just because something is "part of the natural biological order" does not mean it is good for humanity; that it should be praised, encouraged or even defended; or even that criticisms of and attempts to eradicate it are necessarily a bad thing.

    Replies: @Hunsdon

    You don’t have to like Milo, you don’t have to support Milo, you don’t have to praise Milo. How about you settle for not attacking Milo? He clearly drives the left bat-guano crazy. Why not let him? If it helps, you could think of him as a “useful idiot” for our team.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Hunsdon

    quite

    , @BB753
    @Hunsdon

    The real question is why Milo? Out of the hundreds of capable altrighters who could do his job, why pick up a flaming gay? As always, there's this crippling mentality of using a front with some kind of privilege or leniency in his favor, either a pussy pass ( Coulter, Ingraham, etc), a gay pass, as in Milo's case, a color pass (D'Souza), etc.

    Replies: @Jack D, @anon

    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    @Hunsdon

    I find Milo to be very intelligent, witty, charming, and extraordinarily courageous. I think he does incredible good opposing the progs/establishment/globalists. More personally, I have many homosexual friends, closeted and un, and find them on average to be more pleasant company than my heterosexual ones. I believe that baiting and mistreating homosexuals in any way is a great social and moral wrong, a grievous sin.

    None of this blinds me to the fact that homosexuality is a personal affliction and most likely the result of some type of infectious process. Homosexuals are, on the most fundamental, existential level, alienated from about 95% of the population. They live an average of ten to twenty years less. They commit suicide and indulge dangerous lifestyles at much higher rates than the general population.

    They are much more susceptible to many diseases, particularly STDs. As a result the homosexual population is a breeding ground and infection pool for new and extremely concerning diseases that threaten the population at large, e.g. MDR STDs and MDR TB. This last fact alone, should make homosexuality a major public health concern and not a cause for celebration or consideration as some normal condition.

    And I'd just add that there is no evidence at all that greater social acceptance of homosexuality has in any way mitigated the personal and social impacts of this disorder.

  95. Nation’s wealthiest county votes to become sanctuary for immigrants…

    http://wbaltv.com/article/howard-county-council-to-vote-on-sanctuary-bill/8683652?src=app

    Hmmmm, polls show smart, rich white people are all massively against Trump’s insane policies.

    Yet here is Steve Sailer (obvious alias) and his swastika crew trying to speak on behalf of white people. You poors and stupids give white folks a bad name!

    You have gotten a mistaken impression somewhere, Jay. I’m 100% simpatico. I am 100% in favor of the wealthiest neighborhoods (not counties; far to crude a level of resolution) getting all the immigration. In fact, I’d love to see low-income housing built right next to the wealthiest neighborhoods in places like Howard County, Martha’s Vineyard, Marin County, etc.

    And I’m willing to ignore the haters, who say this is just rich Howard County folks making sure they have access to low-wage nannies and gardeners.

    Heck, I’m even willing to ignore your not-very-leftist trash-talking about the poor. And your implication that non-White folks already have a bad name, and are thus immune to being given one by poor and stupid people.

    C’mon, let’s work together on this. The wretched refuse and the richest of the rich should be living right on top of each other, everywhere they are found. It’s an idea whose time has come (though unfortunately, it should be the “bluest” of the rich who go first, since they are, regrettably, the only ones with the charitable natures to make this work).

    Next time, try honey, you’ll get more buzz. Our two sides can work together on this, man.

  96. @Lot
    @Lot

    A more recent photo. Definitely African American.

    http://imgur.com/a/GE8d8

    Replies: @PiltdownMan, @Jack D

    Here is the mother of this Powell IV:

    She was from Puerto Rico but appears to be mostly or all European.

  97. @Anonymous
    Nation's wealthiest county votes to become sanctuary for immigrants...

    http://wbaltv.com/article/howard-county-council-to-vote-on-sanctuary-bill/8683652?src=app

    Hmmmm, polls show smart, rich white people are all massively against Trump's insane policies.

    Yet here is Steve Sailer (obvious alias) and his swastika crew trying to speak on behalf of white people. You poors and stupids give white folks a bad name!

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @anon, @Clyde, @ben tillman

    rich people in 99% white areas benefit from cheap labor and off-shoring

  98. @Hunsdon
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    You don't have to like Milo, you don't have to support Milo, you don't have to praise Milo. How about you settle for not attacking Milo? He clearly drives the left bat-guano crazy. Why not let him? If it helps, you could think of him as a "useful idiot" for our team.

    Replies: @anon, @BB753, @Jus' Sayin'...

    quite

  99. @Hunsdon
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    You don't have to like Milo, you don't have to support Milo, you don't have to praise Milo. How about you settle for not attacking Milo? He clearly drives the left bat-guano crazy. Why not let him? If it helps, you could think of him as a "useful idiot" for our team.

    Replies: @anon, @BB753, @Jus' Sayin'...

    The real question is why Milo? Out of the hundreds of capable altrighters who could do his job, why pick up a flaming gay? As always, there’s this crippling mentality of using a front with some kind of privilege or leniency in his favor, either a pussy pass ( Coulter, Ingraham, etc), a gay pass, as in Milo’s case, a color pass (D’Souza), etc.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @BB753

    Your question answers itself. A straight white guy is obviously just another Nazi who can be instantly dismissed on sight. Someone with a "pass" they have to listen to for at least a minute until it become obvious that he is a traitor to the Cause. Maybe during that minute he can change some minds. He also serves as an example to other Fringe members that they are individuals with minds of their own so they are not automatically obligated to join the Coalition. Straight white guys, painted as intolerant by the left, are actually MORE tolerant and are willing to listen to anyone, so Milo can sell to everyone whereas a straight white guy can only talk to other straight white guys (because of the intolerance of the Left, who hates, hates, hates straight white guys). So it makes perfect sense to use "diverse' spokesmen for the right. It also makes leftist's heads explode - how is it even possible that these evil Nazis have all these colorful spokesmen when we "know" that they are intolerant racists? [Answer - they are Uncle Toms and not authentic whatevers, but it takes them a minute to come up with it.]

    , @anon
    @BB753


    The real question is why Milo? Out of the hundreds of capable altrighters who could do his job, why pick up a flaming gay?
     
    explaining this to people who don't get it undermines the effect so

    1) he's not alt-right

    2) he is anti-SJW

    3) anti-SJW is currently useful for both alt-right and others

    Milo creates opportunities for the good guys to put politically correct senior police, academics and politicians in jail.

    This is useful.

    Replies: @BB753

  100. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Colleges should be safe spaces or sanctuaries for free speech and honest discourse.
    But they are now sanctuaries for PC, censorship, and intimidation of free thinkers.

    US cities/states should be sanctuaries for citizens and rule of law from the predatory behavior of globalist oligarchs and masses of illegal invaders.
    But they are now sanctuaries for plutocrats and people who broke the law to come here.

    But then, it isn’t hard to understand why cities prefer globalist oligarchs and illegals.
    Oligarchs who pushed globalism enriched cities at the expense of all else and illegals have been useful for the urban elites in serving as buffer against blacks and providing cheap labor.

  101. @Hunsdon
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    You don't have to like Milo, you don't have to support Milo, you don't have to praise Milo. How about you settle for not attacking Milo? He clearly drives the left bat-guano crazy. Why not let him? If it helps, you could think of him as a "useful idiot" for our team.

    Replies: @anon, @BB753, @Jus' Sayin'...

    I find Milo to be very intelligent, witty, charming, and extraordinarily courageous. I think he does incredible good opposing the progs/establishment/globalists. More personally, I have many homosexual friends, closeted and un, and find them on average to be more pleasant company than my heterosexual ones. I believe that baiting and mistreating homosexuals in any way is a great social and moral wrong, a grievous sin.

    None of this blinds me to the fact that homosexuality is a personal affliction and most likely the result of some type of infectious process. Homosexuals are, on the most fundamental, existential level, alienated from about 95% of the population. They live an average of ten to twenty years less. They commit suicide and indulge dangerous lifestyles at much higher rates than the general population.

    They are much more susceptible to many diseases, particularly STDs. As a result the homosexual population is a breeding ground and infection pool for new and extremely concerning diseases that threaten the population at large, e.g. MDR STDs and MDR TB. This last fact alone, should make homosexuality a major public health concern and not a cause for celebration or consideration as some normal condition.

    And I’d just add that there is no evidence at all that greater social acceptance of homosexuality has in any way mitigated the personal and social impacts of this disorder.

  102. @Opinionator
    @anonguy

    In terms of the judicial overreach you know of, where do the Seattle rulings rank more or less and why?

    Replies: @anonguy

    In terms of the judicial overreach you know of, where do the Seattle rulings rank more or less and why?

    Who needs yesterday’s stale news when things are amped up daily:

    Now it is not just no rational basis, but that Trump’s motives must be examined.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/07/words-matter-trumps-loose-talk-about-muslims-gets-weaponized-in-court-against-travel-ban/?utm_term=.c1ad26a83fd1

  103. @Opinionator
    @Dr. X

    What would those regimes have done to the people if they had remained in power? Would anything like the Red Terror have come to pass? What did they do?

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'..., @fnn

    Bela Kun’s brief reign gives you an answer to that question. His repressive regime was so loathed that it more or less permanently inoculated Hungarians against radical leftism that seems to have lasted to this day. In 1956 this helped fuel the hopeless rebellion against the communist government imposed by the USSR.

  104. @anonguy
    Well, the way the courts swarmed the immigration EO, I'm sure any Trump orders to enforce the law in this manner will be similarly swarmed.

    No rational basis, etc.

    The Trump Administration is challenging many long-standing conventions, from NATO to Political Correctness to MSM truth telling.

    Rampant judicial activism has been, well, rampant for a long time and just a fact of life for decades.

    The way things are shaping up, judicial overreach is perhaps the left's only option for playing things via institutional legality, since they've been wiped out electorally during the Obama years.

    So expect that hand to get overplayed, as it did immediately in immigration EO. It is an obstacle that Trump will have to overcome, so an epic, historical battle to the death with judicial activism will play out over the coming years.

    Bank on it, major legal history will be written soon.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Jus' Sayin'...

    According to Article III of the Constitution the Congress has absolute control over what issues are subject to appellate review by federal courts. It is only cowardice/laziness/ineptitude that has prevented Congress from using this power.

    The Massachusetts General Court could have stopped the homosexual marriage agenda dead in its tracks by impeaching the Supreme Justice and her colleagues for their transparent subversion and corruption of judicial process, e.g., openly conspiring with plaintiffs. State pols chickened out and the flood gates opened. The dictators in black robes are bullies. A little push back would soon bring them to heel. All that’s lacking is a soupcon of legislative courage.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Agree absolutely. Nothing in the Constitution gives any judge the authority to declare anything unconstitutional.

    Replies: @ben tillman

  105. @Chrisnonymous
    @Charles Pewitt

    Just as all generals (Lt, etc) are called "general", I suggest we do the same with Sessions, or should I say General Sessions...

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Autochthon

    I take your point; I much respect the man. Still, I’ll risk pedantry and duck the rotten vegetables.

    A lieutenant general is a (particular sort of) general; lieutenant being an adjective in the case. It’s the same with a lieutenant commander, lieutenant colonel, etc.

    An attorney general, however, is not a general; he is an attorney. In this case general is the adjective. Likewise with the surgeon general, the postmaster general, etc..

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Autochthon

    I know. I knew. I was being silly. Just playing with the language.

    , @Jack D
    @Autochthon

    The Surgeon General is the chief commissioned officer in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, one of the seven uniformed services of the United States. However, for historic reasons, he carries a Naval rank (vice admiral). Otherwise, the Surgeon General could have been a General in both senses.

  106. @Opinionator
    @Dr. X

    What would those regimes have done to the people if they had remained in power? Would anything like the Red Terror have come to pass? What did they do?

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'..., @fnn

    There was a Red Terror in Hungary that even Wikipedia admits happened.

  107. @Evocatus
    OT: The coalition of the fringes continues to fray:

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/03/latino-rep-tries-to-join-congressional-black-caucus/

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Sammler

    Espaillat? Is he related to Arturo “Razor” Espaillat of the Trujillo regime?

  108. @Mike1
    @Anon

    Not every conservative shares your sexual hangups. Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.

    Our side needs every win it can get. We have been sitting on our butt letting the left win for decades on EVERY issue. Time to grow up.

    Replies: @Randal, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Anon, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Dr. X, @Curle, @Olorin, @Daniel Chieh, @Bill

    I agree with the others here that the “appeal to nature” is pretty silly. But Mike’s point is valid. We need every win we can get.

    Let him be our Oscar Wilde, we need to win.

  109. OT Vanity Fair writer praises Trumpism with faint damns – http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/decoding-stephen-miller-nationalist-mind

    Miller’s “America is a family” sounds very Sailer Strategy. I think we have Citizenists in the White House!

  110. European but highly relevant to the US, from today’s newspaper of record. Bet the Guardian doesn’t report this.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4200272/92-Berlin-left-wing-activists-live-parents.html

    The vast majority of left-wing protesters arrested on suspicion of politically-fuelled offences in Berlin are young men who live with their parents, a new report found. The figures, which were published in daily newspaper Bild revealed that 873 suspects were investigated by authorities between 2003 and 2013.

    Of these 84 per cent were men, and 72 per cent were aged between 18 and 29. A third of them were unemployed, and 92 per cent still live with their parents.

    The figures published in the Berlin newspaper said of the offences committed against a person, in four out of five cases the victims were police officers.

    In 15 per cent of these cases, the victims were right wing activists.

    The new figures were released by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV).

    Between 2009 and 2013, the Bild report claims, left-wing assassins attempted to commit 11 murders.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Anonymous Nephew

    Alex, in Clockwork Orange, lived with his Pee and Em.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Anonymous Nephew


    The vast majority of left-wing protesters arrested on suspicion of politically-fuelled offences in Berlin are young men who live with their parents...
     
    The Germans got pretty good at judo and other Japanese pursuits, so why not hikokomori?

    Replies: @Ivy

    , @anon
    @Anonymous Nephew

    a list of their parent's occupations would be interesting

    i'd bet college lecturer would be one of the main ones

  111. @Anonymous Nephew
    European but highly relevant to the US, from today's newspaper of record. Bet the Guardian doesn't report this.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4200272/92-Berlin-left-wing-activists-live-parents.html

    The vast majority of left-wing protesters arrested on suspicion of politically-fuelled offences in Berlin are young men who live with their parents, a new report found. The figures, which were published in daily newspaper Bild revealed that 873 suspects were investigated by authorities between 2003 and 2013.

    Of these 84 per cent were men, and 72 per cent were aged between 18 and 29. A third of them were unemployed, and 92 per cent still live with their parents.

    The figures published in the Berlin newspaper said of the offences committed against a person, in four out of five cases the victims were police officers.

    In 15 per cent of these cases, the victims were right wing activists.

    The new figures were released by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV).

    Between 2009 and 2013, the Bild report claims, left-wing assassins attempted to commit 11 murders.
     

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @Reg Cæsar, @anon

    Alex, in Clockwork Orange, lived with his Pee and Em.

  112. @Jus' Sayin'...
    @Buffalo Joe

    I suspect, although I cannot confirm, that USA Today's circulation is greater than the combined circulation of the two fake news sources which you mention.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I suspect, although I cannot confirm, that USA Today’s circulation is greater than the combined circulation of the two fake news sources which you mention.

    Probably, but it’s called “TV on paper” for a reason.

  113. @Anonymous Nephew
    European but highly relevant to the US, from today's newspaper of record. Bet the Guardian doesn't report this.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4200272/92-Berlin-left-wing-activists-live-parents.html

    The vast majority of left-wing protesters arrested on suspicion of politically-fuelled offences in Berlin are young men who live with their parents, a new report found. The figures, which were published in daily newspaper Bild revealed that 873 suspects were investigated by authorities between 2003 and 2013.

    Of these 84 per cent were men, and 72 per cent were aged between 18 and 29. A third of them were unemployed, and 92 per cent still live with their parents.

    The figures published in the Berlin newspaper said of the offences committed against a person, in four out of five cases the victims were police officers.

    In 15 per cent of these cases, the victims were right wing activists.

    The new figures were released by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV).

    Between 2009 and 2013, the Bild report claims, left-wing assassins attempted to commit 11 murders.
     

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @Reg Cæsar, @anon

    The vast majority of left-wing protesters arrested on suspicion of politically-fuelled offences in Berlin are young men who live with their parents…

    The Germans got pretty good at judo and other Japanese pursuits, so why not hikokomori?

    • Replies: @Ivy
    @Reg Cæsar

    Merkel even tried to get Germans interested in seppuku, with mixed results. Fieldwork continues.

  114. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Langley
    @Anon

    "Why is everyone is anti-fascist? People on the left and people on the Right and people on the Top and people on the Bottom all call each other ‘fascist’. "

    Q: What is the greatest threat to any organism in its ecosystem?

    A: A similar organism.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4


    Q: What do Fascism and Socialism have in common?

    A: They are both totalitarian ideologies.

    https://mises.org/library/road-serfdom-0


    Q: Who taught you to be anti-fascist?

    A: Cultural Marxists fleeing German Fascists

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School


    Q: How different are Fascism and Socialism?

    A: Not much.

    Colonel Molotov "fascism, socialism - it's all just a matter of taste"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

    Replies: @Anon

    People misunderstand fascism because only a few nations have been Open Fascist nations. Italy called itself ‘fascist’ cuz it invented the term. Nazis went with ‘National Socialism’, but it could be said a variant of fascism. Franco was allied with fascists but not really fascist. Peron’s was a milder form of fascism, a kind of left-fascism.

    Anyway, because Germany and Italy lost big in WWII, it’s assumed fascism was defeated. But there has been closed, hidden, and subsumed fascisms all over. But people don’t want to discuss this because it would bring us to the closer to the truth of history.

    Take Israel. It is a fascist-democracy, and it goes to show that fascist themes and democracy can go well-together. Israel is about race, culture, history, and heritage of Jews. Its military culture is spartan and tough. It is about us and them. But it is also democratic. If anything, it goes to show that fascist themes and democracy actually work well together. If Israel were multi-culti in outlook and had a growing Muslim and Hindu population that threatened to outnumber the Jews, its democracy would be harder to sustain. Democracy is possible in Israel because of unity of Jews.

    And indeed, democracy flourished most in nations with ideal fascist settings. Now, when I say Ideal Fascist Setting, I don’t mean that the people are necessarily fascist-minded. Suppose there is an island of only Swedes. Suppose all these Swedes are multi-culti cosmopolitans. So, they want massive immigration and wanna be minorities in their own islands. So, they are not fascist in thought. Still, let’s say the island, for the time being, is safe, secure, rich, and decent with only Swedish people. Why? Because it has Ideal Fascist Setting of unity, homogeneity, and work ethic(developed under culture of discipline and restraint over the long Protestanty winters). It’s like Madison Wisc is very proggy in outlook. But its white areas are very nice, safe, and secure. Why? Because of the proggy outlook OR because of its Ideal Fascist Setting? The nice parts of Madison are white and filled with Germanic folks. So, even if these people have proggy outlook, they are living in a world of Germanic habits, manners, and work ethic. They are living in an Ideal Fascist Setting.

    In contrast, suppose there’s a nation that is 40% black, 40% Muslim, and 20% white. Suppose everyone were to read Mussolin’s DOCTRINE OF FASCISM and agree with fascism. But the setting would not be Ideal by fascist ideals. Too many wild and aggressive blacks, too many nutty Muslims, and too many whites scared of their wits.

    So, a setting that is ideally fascist but filled with proggy people work better than a setting that is multi-culti & diverse but is fascist.

    [MORE]

    Now, look at China under Maoist-leftism and China under defacto-fascism. Since Deng Era, China has essentially been about mixed economy of capitalism and socialism, mixed culture of old and modern, and heavy emphasis on nationalism. Isn’t this model closer to fascism than to communism? What worked better? Maoism or this defacto fascism. But no one wants to use the term ‘fascism’ since it would state the obvious: fascism works.

    Fascist Theories aren’t only about fascist societies or self-professed fascists. It is about a study of why certain societies work and why some don’t.
    If we take Sweden, why did it work so well and why is it falling apart now?
    Even though Sweden was never officially fascist, it had many Ideal Fascist Qualities. It was homogeneous and united. It combined socialism with capitalism. It was a society of sobriety, work ethic, and discipline. If it later turned more libertine, such freedom could be enjoyed PRECISELY BECAUSE Sweden was such a safe and stable place.
    So, even if social-democrats of Sweden considered themselves as Marxist-lite and anti-fascist, the real reason why Sweden succeed owed to Ideal Fascist Elements.
    It’s like a rich successful person may consider himself a Christo-Marxist and pretend that his success owes to his self-professed ideology. But the REAL reason for his success is high IQ, work ethic, individual ambition, and etc. So, despite what he SAYS, what made him SUCCEED was something closer to Ayn-Randism.

    Because Nazism gave fascism such a bad name, nations like Sweden have been falling all over themselves to be as anti-fascist as possible, and what is the result? Deterioration and decline. Swedes have been taking a close look and trying to purge whatever is sub-fascist: Homogeneity, unity, sobriety, and hardness. The result is a nation of pansies run by women who let rapists and murderers in to gain approving nods from the GLOB.

    Many successful or rising nations that call themselves non-fascist or even anti-fascist have some ideal fascist elements if we take a closer look. Because Russia fought a great war against officially fascist nations in WWII, Putin would never use that term positively. But whatever success he’s had owes to pro-fascist or profa themes. Nationalism, culture of morality, unity and discipline. Russians, being drunken bums, need a long way to go, but their only hope of success is a kind of intelligent and sober fascism even if they don’t call it that. In the end, a nation must be using all ideas to maximize its power and security, and fascism allows this because it is not a mono-ideology. And this is why Jews, even though most anti-fascist in their official pronouncements, are a very fascistic sort of people. Jews creatively combine various ideas and ideologies and shift from one position to another based on the premise of “Is it good for the Jews?”

    And it’s all about the Power. People either want the power(the will to power) or want to be associated with power(will to cower). They want to command the field or cheer for the team that is on the field. Look at football or any sports. Spectators identify with their side and try to ‘share’ in the glory of the players.
    Christians will claim to be anti-power, but fascistics is a part of Christianity. After all, it claims that Jesus was really the Son of God, therefore God Himself. If Christianity said Jesus was a very nice guy who had these shining ideals and died for them and that was that, would it have become a great religion? People would have said Jesus was a nice guy but helpless and weak. The real appeal of Christianity is that Jesus revealed Himself as the Son of God, the greatest power that be, and that vengeance is really with Him. So, He died for our sins out of great love, but He is waiting in Heaven to whup some serious butt of those who will burn for all eternity in the afterlife. That is Power.

    And look at the appeal of all this homo stuff. Is it really about sympathy for these poor pitiful homos? No, homos have great appeal in globalism that is obsessed with status, riches, celebrity, and vanity because homos are associated with fashion, Hollywood, privilege, wealth, and power. Think of the costs involved to have those massive homo parades. It is the spectacle of power and riches that attracts people to homos. Suppose most homos were un-creative and poor and lived in trailers. Suppose they decided to throw a parade in their run-down dinky little town. How many politicians and celebrities and yuppies would show up?

    Power is like an addiction, a drug. Antifa types are bottom-feeders in this. Being dumb, trashy, idiotic, impatient, or immature, they fail to do anything in life. So, their experience of power is anarchy. They watch stuff like V FOR VENDETTA or listen to RAGE AGAINST MACHINE and throw tantrums. They wanna FEEL the power cuz they got none. The fact that they even attack Starbucks shows that they are confused.
    But those with IQ and talent don’t become antifa. They don’t go for bottom-feeding. They study, gain connections, attend Ivy League school, and serve in government and advise leaders to attack and destroy entire nations and populations, like in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and etc. They are Top-Bombers(hawks) than bottom-feeders(carps and crabs), and they do a lot more damage. And what is it really about? Sure, they invoke ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’, but it’s really addiction to power, be it Zionist or American Imperialist.

    Though fascism is seen as bad stuff — and there can be bad fascism as Hitler certainly proved — , I think we can have moral fascism if we identify and understand the true nature of power in the world. It’s like alcohol. It can make you do crazy stuff, and it can even kill you. But a glass of red wine a day is good for you. And a few beers never killed anyone. So, we need to be honest about alcohol, what it is and how it should be handled.

    Censorship of fascist theoretics is like prohibition. Because alcohol did a lot of damage to society, a bunch of people decided to ban alcohol altogether, as if that will make it go away. But it only led to bootleg booze and organized crime. So, even though US was officially non-alcoholic, alcohol was all around underground. Eventually, the US came to its senses and acknowledged alcohol as part of what people want. The thing was to be honest about this and then have laws that best regulate the trade and use of alcohol.

    Likewise, because of WWII, there’s been this suppression of honest discussion of fascism and race-ism; EVERYTHING associated with them was supposed to be irredeemably bad. They were condemned as ‘obsession with power’ and ‘supremacism’. So, officially anyway, we were told that history since end of WWII has been all about ‘equality’, ‘human rights’, ‘liberal democracy’, ‘tolerance’, and etc.
    But in fact, just like alcohol went underground during the Prohibition, the power-obsession merely went underground. The Cold War was about the struggle for power and dominance than about ideology. After all, if it was all about ideology, why did the US become so aggressive after it won the Cold War? It should have welcomed the new peace and harmony. Because it loved the fact that it had the Supreme Power. It was like Madeline Albright saying that the US got all this power and might as well use it. For what? To spread ‘human rights’ by having 100,000s of Iraqi kids killed? If US is about equality and favoring the weak over the strong, why does it favor Israel over Palestinians? And if US is about secular values, why side with Saudi Arabia against secular modernizers like Assad? And why piss off Russia that is no longer an enemy and wants to get along with EU and the US? It’s all about the Power. Jewish globalists want to gain supremacy over Russian resources, and US military-industrial complex will jump on any excuse to flex its muscle and act tough.

    Anyway, if we end the prohibition the Power Studies(fascist theoretics), we could better understand what is happening. It would become apparent that influential people who pretend to be sober with ideals of ‘human rights’ and ‘liberal democracy’ are actually intoxicated with Power Madness that ranges from Jewish Supremacism to Military-Industrial-Complex-mania.
    And what is Fareed Zakaria really about? Why is he here? I mean if he wants to use his talent to help a nation, why the US that is rich already? India has many many more problems, and he could use his smarts there. So, why is he here? Is it really about his embrace of nice kindly globo ‘human rights’? Non, the punk wants the good life in the US, and also, he figures India can colonize the West with its rapidly expanding population. So, he’s not just some nice guy promoting tolerance but an agent of Hindu-Muslim-Indian Globo Colonization. He may rinse his mouth with the ‘human rights’ mouthwash, but his stomach is filled with Power Moonshine.

    And this thing with the Megaphone and Gag Order. (Or MAGAG order since Trumpers are supposed to shut up.) Why are certain people given megaphones while others are gagged? Where is freedom of speech or equal opportunity of expression? ‘Hate Speech Laws’ are supposed to be about protecting the powerless from the powerful, but it’s really about protecting the powerful(especially Jewish elites) from the relatively powerless.

    Best way to deal with alcoholism is to state the fact that someone has an alcohol problem. Only by stating that fact can the person learn to see what his problem is and learn to drink responsibly. Refusal to admit the problem makes the problem worse because he will pretend he has no problem while sneaking drinks all throughout the day.
    Similarly, the best way to control fascism as a moral ideology and instrument is to admit that the world is driven by competition for power and the natural organismic drive for supremacy. Every organism is ‘supremacist’ in that it seeks to gain more and more. Plants spread seeds all over and try to take over the entire field. Wolf pack tries to gain fresh territory. Mosquitoes breed like crazy and fill the air with bloodsuckers that try to suck everything. Bacteria try to spread as much as possible. So, nature is a world of competing supremacisms.
    Humans are the same way as all of human history has been about gaining dominance by invasion, trade, ideas, religion, etc. By admitting this aspect of human nature, we can control it better by coming to an understanding that all groups have this Will to Power even if they don’t admit it. (Hitler was honest in stating what his ideology was all about. It was about the Power. And he was honest about what other great nations were about too. The Power and domination. This is why the Brits didn’t like him. Hitler’s admiration for British greatness made it plain as day that the empire was primarily about British domination than about Brits being noble carriers of the “white man’s burden” to enlighten the world. He understood and stated the true nature of imperialism. This made the Brits nervous since they always justified their domination over dark folks in terms of being generous and tolerant. In a way, Hitler and Jews agreed on this aspect of Anglo domination of the world. Anglos were really about Power and Domination. The difference is Hitler admired & praised it whereas Jewish leftists reviled & condemned it. Either way, it made the Anglos nervous because it lifted the veil of its moral justification for empire. But Hitler was bad fascist because of his utter contempt for much of humanity and failure to understand that other peoples have a will-to-power of their own that should be respected. Also, whether the Brits intended to or not, they were spreading not only the light of civilization but the means-of-power to other peoples who learned from the Brits to gain power for themselves.) It’s not ultimately about some higher ideal but about the Power. Now, if we just act like animals, we will be fighting endless wars and that will lead to a big mess. Therefore, we must work towards building a responsible and moral fascist order where all sides respect one’s another’s need for core power and core security. We must declare the Age of Empire to be over and promote a world of secure nations that respect one another and trade with one another. Then, Nation A respects the will-to-power of Nation B and Nation C, and Nation B respects the will-to-power of Nation A and Nation C, and Nation C respects the will-to-power of Nation A and Nation B.
    Let the will-to-power remain within national borders. Let Hungary be Hungary and let Poland be Poland. But Merkel the crazy globalist bitch decided to succumb to the Will to Power of disastrous globalism and then, by invoking ‘human rights’, denounced Hungary and Poland.
    This is what happens when a people are unwilling to fess up to the fascist will-to-power. Germans, if they were to be honest, would say they want to survive and thrive as Germans in Germany. Ideally, Germans should seek Will-to-Power in Germany. This makes total sense since Germany is the land of Germans. But because Germany isn’t allowed to realize this, its repressed Will-to-Power seeks expression by something resembling Sweden’s ‘humanitarian super-power-ism’. Unlike Nazis who were for invading other nations, New Germany is about welcoming invasion and showing off their superior morals by being ‘good’, and then forcing this ‘goodness’ and ‘human rights’ on other nations like Hungary and Poland. It’s so crazy.

    We need to be honest that all the world loves the alcohol of power. Only by admitting this fact can we honestly and soberly regulate this power and warn all the world to not get drunk on ‘medicine water’. Best way to do it is by promoting nationalism that limits the nation’s power within its borders and respects the will-to-power of other nations with their own national sovereignty.
    Globalism is one big bootleg operation by gangsters like Soros who pretend to be providing the milk and cookies of human kindness to world while shipping the alcohol of power to fellow oligarchs around the world. Soros and his ilk hate nationalism because it erects walls against the bootleggers of globalist power-domination.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    @Anon

    anon - this, I think is really, really interesting:

    "...all of human history has been about gaining dominance by invasion, trade, ideas, religion, etc. ...all groups have this Will to Power even if they don’t admit it. (Hitler was honest in stating what his ideology was all about. It was about the Power. And he was honest about what other great nations were about too. The Power and domination. This is why the Brits didn’t like him. Hitler’s admiration for British greatness made it plain as day that the empire was primarily about British domination [rather] than about Brits being noble carriers of the “white man’s burden” to enlighten the world. He understood and stated the true nature of imperialism. This made the Brits nervous since they always justified their domination over dark folks in terms of being generous and tolerant. In a way, Hitler and Jews agreed on this aspect of Anglo domination of the world. Anglos were really about Power and Domination. The difference is Hitler admired & praised it whereas Jewish leftists reviled & condemned it. Either way, it made the Anglos nervous because it lifted the veil of its moral justification for empire..."

    I dunno if you're right about this, but it's a really, really interesting suggestion.

    , @vinteuil
    @Anon

    btw - have you, in fact, read Mussolini's The Doctrine of Fascism?

    I bet you've also read quite a bit of Thomas Carlyle.

    , @Clyde
    @Anon

    You are a riff factory and I mean this in the nicest way. Jack Kerouac typed onto a roll of teletype paper. Just saying.
    ___
    It was typed on a single roll of teletype paper. Kerouac liked to type on rolls of ... A street in Lowell was renamed "Jack Kerouac Alley" in his memory. In other......
    ___
    On the Road: The Original Scroll - Jack Kerouac - Books ...
    www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/
    Aug 19, 2007 · ... Jack Kerouac feverishly pounded out the first draft of “On the Road” in three weeks on a single huge roll of paper. ... roll of teletype paper ...

    (from internet)

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Anon

    Are you Mendicious Moldbug? I was told to read you by a friend. I did not have the endurance.


    Swedes have been taking a close look and trying to purge whatever is sub-fascist: Homogeneity, unity, sobriety, and hardness. The result is a nation of pansies run by women who let rapists and murderers in to gain approving nods from the GLOB.
     
    Where is reiner tor when I need him?
  115. @Mike1
    @Anon

    Not every conservative shares your sexual hangups. Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.

    Our side needs every win it can get. We have been sitting on our butt letting the left win for decades on EVERY issue. Time to grow up.

    Replies: @Randal, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Anon, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Dr. X, @Curle, @Olorin, @Daniel Chieh, @Bill

    Gay males are a very clear part of the natural biological order.

    Link needed.

  116. @Svigor
    Via Drudge:

    'Leftist Fight Club' trains UCF students to fight Republicans

    There a lot of wrong there, but this one really stuck out:

    “Ladies: The Commander in thief is a sexual predator and rapist,” the description warns. “He has normalised sexual assault and it is expected that sexual violence against women is going to skyrocket in the next 12 months. Please join us! There will be other women there for you to spar against!”
     
    The lying is the thing that gets me the most about leftists. Trump didn't release that tape. Leftists did. Trump didn't make a national media frenzy out of that tape. Leftists did. This is the kind of lie people tell, that makes them look more crazy than anything else.

    And then there's Bill Clinton, who's been accused of rape and sexual harassment how many times now? And he was PotUS for 8 years, IIRC.

    Then there's Blacks, who are Democrats' most loyal constituency, and have a rape rate six and a half times the White rate.

    Replies: @Expletive Deleted, @Chrisnonymous

    As you say, a mighty amount of Fail in there

    There will be other women there for you to spar against!”

    .. as it’s inevitable that your sexual assailant will be another woman.

    This is just irresponsible. That tankgrrrl crap will result in some silly person of femality thinking they can go mano-a-mano against a bred-in-the-bone street thug, and they’ll just end up getting ragdolled around the parking lot, at minimum.

  117. @Jack D
    @Opinionator

    No.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/88/case.html

    How are masked anarchists different than the Klan, except that they aim their hatred at a different race?

    Replies: @ben tillman, @Bill

    They are different in that “blah, blah, blah; therefore, this precedent is not controlling.”

  118. @27 year old
    Dems are real fascists!!

    When we get the "new laws" that mr instapundit thinks we need, and they are ignored just like the laws we already have that he mentioned are being ignored, what will we do then?

    Replies: @David, @Bill

    Contribute a lot of money and time to the GOP so that “the right people” get put on the Supreme Court and in the DOJ. Amirite?

  119. @Svigor
    Via Drudge:

    'Leftist Fight Club' trains UCF students to fight Republicans

    There a lot of wrong there, but this one really stuck out:

    “Ladies: The Commander in thief is a sexual predator and rapist,” the description warns. “He has normalised sexual assault and it is expected that sexual violence against women is going to skyrocket in the next 12 months. Please join us! There will be other women there for you to spar against!”
     
    The lying is the thing that gets me the most about leftists. Trump didn't release that tape. Leftists did. Trump didn't make a national media frenzy out of that tape. Leftists did. This is the kind of lie people tell, that makes them look more crazy than anything else.

    And then there's Bill Clinton, who's been accused of rape and sexual harassment how many times now? And he was PotUS for 8 years, IIRC.

    Then there's Blacks, who are Democrats' most loyal constituency, and have a rape rate six and a half times the White rate.

    Replies: @Expletive Deleted, @Chrisnonymous

    Speaking of lies, they’re peddling the myth that self-defense classes will let women take on men.

    There will be other women there for you to spar against!

    Or maybe they expect sexual violence from women to skyrocket.

  120. @Autochthon
    @Chrisnonymous

    I take your point; I much respect the man. Still, I'll risk pedantry and duck the rotten vegetables.

    A lieutenant general is a (particular sort of) general; lieutenant being an adjective in the case. It's the same with a lieutenant commander, lieutenant colonel, etc.

    An attorney general, however, is not a general; he is an attorney. In this case general is the adjective. Likewise with the surgeon general, the postmaster general, etc..

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Jack D

    I know. I knew. I was being silly. Just playing with the language.

  121. @Jus' Sayin'...
    @anonguy

    According to Article III of the Constitution the Congress has absolute control over what issues are subject to appellate review by federal courts. It is only cowardice/laziness/ineptitude that has prevented Congress from using this power.

    The Massachusetts General Court could have stopped the homosexual marriage agenda dead in its tracks by impeaching the Supreme Justice and her colleagues for their transparent subversion and corruption of judicial process, e.g., openly conspiring with plaintiffs. State pols chickened out and the flood gates opened. The dictators in black robes are bullies. A little push back would soon bring them to heel. All that's lacking is a soupcon of legislative courage.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Agree absolutely. Nothing in the Constitution gives any judge the authority to declare anything unconstitutional.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Jim Don Bob


    Agree absolutely. Nothing in the Constitution gives any judge the authority to declare anything unconstitutional.
     
    Article VI, Section 2, states, " This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...."

    That authorizes and effectively requires judges to declare statutes to be void if they conflict with the Constitution.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  122. This Ian Miller who has been outed as one of the Black Bloc terrorists at Berkeley is apparently the son of Victor Miller, who wrote or directed the original Friday the 13th.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Miller_(writer)

    Ian is a 49 year old “musician” in a crap metal band called Kowloon Walled City in San Francisco.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    @JX37


    This Ian Miller who has been outed as one of the Black Bloc terrorists at Berkeley is apparently the son of Victor Miller, who wrote or directed the original Friday the 13th.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Miller_(writer)
    Ian is a 49 year old “musician” in a crap metal band called Kowloon Walled City in San Francisco.
     
    He is a U Berkley staffer, a taxpayer supported POS. What a surprise. The real measure of socialist success is how much taxpayer money they can divert to pay gov't salaries to otherwise unemployable leftist rats AKA useless eaters.
    ________________

    http://unclesamsmisguidedchildren.com/uc-berkeley-staff-member-investigated-for-assaulting-milo-fan/
    One man who participated in the riots at Berkeley, and assaulted a Milo supporter, then bragged about it online, has been identified as a UC Berkeley staff member at the school. An investigation is underway.
    Ian Dabney Miller is the staff member who allegedly assaulted a man during the riots, and posted a picture of the victim on Twitter along with the note: “Hey, come get your boy, he just got rocked.”

  123. @Anon
    @Langley

    People misunderstand fascism because only a few nations have been Open Fascist nations. Italy called itself 'fascist' cuz it invented the term. Nazis went with 'National Socialism', but it could be said a variant of fascism. Franco was allied with fascists but not really fascist. Peron's was a milder form of fascism, a kind of left-fascism.

    Anyway, because Germany and Italy lost big in WWII, it's assumed fascism was defeated. But there has been closed, hidden, and subsumed fascisms all over. But people don't want to discuss this because it would bring us to the closer to the truth of history.

    Take Israel. It is a fascist-democracy, and it goes to show that fascist themes and democracy can go well-together. Israel is about race, culture, history, and heritage of Jews. Its military culture is spartan and tough. It is about us and them. But it is also democratic. If anything, it goes to show that fascist themes and democracy actually work well together. If Israel were multi-culti in outlook and had a growing Muslim and Hindu population that threatened to outnumber the Jews, its democracy would be harder to sustain. Democracy is possible in Israel because of unity of Jews.

    And indeed, democracy flourished most in nations with ideal fascist settings. Now, when I say Ideal Fascist Setting, I don't mean that the people are necessarily fascist-minded. Suppose there is an island of only Swedes. Suppose all these Swedes are multi-culti cosmopolitans. So, they want massive immigration and wanna be minorities in their own islands. So, they are not fascist in thought. Still, let's say the island, for the time being, is safe, secure, rich, and decent with only Swedish people. Why? Because it has Ideal Fascist Setting of unity, homogeneity, and work ethic(developed under culture of discipline and restraint over the long Protestanty winters). It's like Madison Wisc is very proggy in outlook. But its white areas are very nice, safe, and secure. Why? Because of the proggy outlook OR because of its Ideal Fascist Setting? The nice parts of Madison are white and filled with Germanic folks. So, even if these people have proggy outlook, they are living in a world of Germanic habits, manners, and work ethic. They are living in an Ideal Fascist Setting.

    In contrast, suppose there's a nation that is 40% black, 40% Muslim, and 20% white. Suppose everyone were to read Mussolin's DOCTRINE OF FASCISM and agree with fascism. But the setting would not be Ideal by fascist ideals. Too many wild and aggressive blacks, too many nutty Muslims, and too many whites scared of their wits.

    So, a setting that is ideally fascist but filled with proggy people work better than a setting that is multi-culti & diverse but is fascist.



    Now, look at China under Maoist-leftism and China under defacto-fascism. Since Deng Era, China has essentially been about mixed economy of capitalism and socialism, mixed culture of old and modern, and heavy emphasis on nationalism. Isn't this model closer to fascism than to communism? What worked better? Maoism or this defacto fascism. But no one wants to use the term 'fascism' since it would state the obvious: fascism works.

    Fascist Theories aren't only about fascist societies or self-professed fascists. It is about a study of why certain societies work and why some don't.
    If we take Sweden, why did it work so well and why is it falling apart now?
    Even though Sweden was never officially fascist, it had many Ideal Fascist Qualities. It was homogeneous and united. It combined socialism with capitalism. It was a society of sobriety, work ethic, and discipline. If it later turned more libertine, such freedom could be enjoyed PRECISELY BECAUSE Sweden was such a safe and stable place.
    So, even if social-democrats of Sweden considered themselves as Marxist-lite and anti-fascist, the real reason why Sweden succeed owed to Ideal Fascist Elements.
    It's like a rich successful person may consider himself a Christo-Marxist and pretend that his success owes to his self-professed ideology. But the REAL reason for his success is high IQ, work ethic, individual ambition, and etc. So, despite what he SAYS, what made him SUCCEED was something closer to Ayn-Randism.

    Because Nazism gave fascism such a bad name, nations like Sweden have been falling all over themselves to be as anti-fascist as possible, and what is the result? Deterioration and decline. Swedes have been taking a close look and trying to purge whatever is sub-fascist: Homogeneity, unity, sobriety, and hardness. The result is a nation of pansies run by women who let rapists and murderers in to gain approving nods from the GLOB.

    Many successful or rising nations that call themselves non-fascist or even anti-fascist have some ideal fascist elements if we take a closer look. Because Russia fought a great war against officially fascist nations in WWII, Putin would never use that term positively. But whatever success he's had owes to pro-fascist or profa themes. Nationalism, culture of morality, unity and discipline. Russians, being drunken bums, need a long way to go, but their only hope of success is a kind of intelligent and sober fascism even if they don't call it that. In the end, a nation must be using all ideas to maximize its power and security, and fascism allows this because it is not a mono-ideology. And this is why Jews, even though most anti-fascist in their official pronouncements, are a very fascistic sort of people. Jews creatively combine various ideas and ideologies and shift from one position to another based on the premise of "Is it good for the Jews?"

    And it's all about the Power. People either want the power(the will to power) or want to be associated with power(will to cower). They want to command the field or cheer for the team that is on the field. Look at football or any sports. Spectators identify with their side and try to 'share' in the glory of the players.
    Christians will claim to be anti-power, but fascistics is a part of Christianity. After all, it claims that Jesus was really the Son of God, therefore God Himself. If Christianity said Jesus was a very nice guy who had these shining ideals and died for them and that was that, would it have become a great religion? People would have said Jesus was a nice guy but helpless and weak. The real appeal of Christianity is that Jesus revealed Himself as the Son of God, the greatest power that be, and that vengeance is really with Him. So, He died for our sins out of great love, but He is waiting in Heaven to whup some serious butt of those who will burn for all eternity in the afterlife. That is Power.

    And look at the appeal of all this homo stuff. Is it really about sympathy for these poor pitiful homos? No, homos have great appeal in globalism that is obsessed with status, riches, celebrity, and vanity because homos are associated with fashion, Hollywood, privilege, wealth, and power. Think of the costs involved to have those massive homo parades. It is the spectacle of power and riches that attracts people to homos. Suppose most homos were un-creative and poor and lived in trailers. Suppose they decided to throw a parade in their run-down dinky little town. How many politicians and celebrities and yuppies would show up?

    Power is like an addiction, a drug. Antifa types are bottom-feeders in this. Being dumb, trashy, idiotic, impatient, or immature, they fail to do anything in life. So, their experience of power is anarchy. They watch stuff like V FOR VENDETTA or listen to RAGE AGAINST MACHINE and throw tantrums. They wanna FEEL the power cuz they got none. The fact that they even attack Starbucks shows that they are confused.
    But those with IQ and talent don't become antifa. They don't go for bottom-feeding. They study, gain connections, attend Ivy League school, and serve in government and advise leaders to attack and destroy entire nations and populations, like in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and etc. They are Top-Bombers(hawks) than bottom-feeders(carps and crabs), and they do a lot more damage. And what is it really about? Sure, they invoke 'human rights' and 'democracy', but it's really addiction to power, be it Zionist or American Imperialist.

    Though fascism is seen as bad stuff --- and there can be bad fascism as Hitler certainly proved --- , I think we can have moral fascism if we identify and understand the true nature of power in the world. It's like alcohol. It can make you do crazy stuff, and it can even kill you. But a glass of red wine a day is good for you. And a few beers never killed anyone. So, we need to be honest about alcohol, what it is and how it should be handled.

    Censorship of fascist theoretics is like prohibition. Because alcohol did a lot of damage to society, a bunch of people decided to ban alcohol altogether, as if that will make it go away. But it only led to bootleg booze and organized crime. So, even though US was officially non-alcoholic, alcohol was all around underground. Eventually, the US came to its senses and acknowledged alcohol as part of what people want. The thing was to be honest about this and then have laws that best regulate the trade and use of alcohol.

    Likewise, because of WWII, there's been this suppression of honest discussion of fascism and race-ism; EVERYTHING associated with them was supposed to be irredeemably bad. They were condemned as 'obsession with power' and 'supremacism'. So, officially anyway, we were told that history since end of WWII has been all about 'equality', 'human rights', 'liberal democracy', 'tolerance', and etc.
    But in fact, just like alcohol went underground during the Prohibition, the power-obsession merely went underground. The Cold War was about the struggle for power and dominance than about ideology. After all, if it was all about ideology, why did the US become so aggressive after it won the Cold War? It should have welcomed the new peace and harmony. Because it loved the fact that it had the Supreme Power. It was like Madeline Albright saying that the US got all this power and might as well use it. For what? To spread 'human rights' by having 100,000s of Iraqi kids killed? If US is about equality and favoring the weak over the strong, why does it favor Israel over Palestinians? And if US is about secular values, why side with Saudi Arabia against secular modernizers like Assad? And why piss off Russia that is no longer an enemy and wants to get along with EU and the US? It's all about the Power. Jewish globalists want to gain supremacy over Russian resources, and US military-industrial complex will jump on any excuse to flex its muscle and act tough.

    Anyway, if we end the prohibition the Power Studies(fascist theoretics), we could better understand what is happening. It would become apparent that influential people who pretend to be sober with ideals of 'human rights' and 'liberal democracy' are actually intoxicated with Power Madness that ranges from Jewish Supremacism to Military-Industrial-Complex-mania.
    And what is Fareed Zakaria really about? Why is he here? I mean if he wants to use his talent to help a nation, why the US that is rich already? India has many many more problems, and he could use his smarts there. So, why is he here? Is it really about his embrace of nice kindly globo 'human rights'? Non, the punk wants the good life in the US, and also, he figures India can colonize the West with its rapidly expanding population. So, he's not just some nice guy promoting tolerance but an agent of Hindu-Muslim-Indian Globo Colonization. He may rinse his mouth with the 'human rights' mouthwash, but his stomach is filled with Power Moonshine.

    And this thing with the Megaphone and Gag Order. (Or MAGAG order since Trumpers are supposed to shut up.) Why are certain people given megaphones while others are gagged? Where is freedom of speech or equal opportunity of expression? 'Hate Speech Laws' are supposed to be about protecting the powerless from the powerful, but it's really about protecting the powerful(especially Jewish elites) from the relatively powerless.

    Best way to deal with alcoholism is to state the fact that someone has an alcohol problem. Only by stating that fact can the person learn to see what his problem is and learn to drink responsibly. Refusal to admit the problem makes the problem worse because he will pretend he has no problem while sneaking drinks all throughout the day.
    Similarly, the best way to control fascism as a moral ideology and instrument is to admit that the world is driven by competition for power and the natural organismic drive for supremacy. Every organism is 'supremacist' in that it seeks to gain more and more. Plants spread seeds all over and try to take over the entire field. Wolf pack tries to gain fresh territory. Mosquitoes breed like crazy and fill the air with bloodsuckers that try to suck everything. Bacteria try to spread as much as possible. So, nature is a world of competing supremacisms.
    Humans are the same way as all of human history has been about gaining dominance by invasion, trade, ideas, religion, etc. By admitting this aspect of human nature, we can control it better by coming to an understanding that all groups have this Will to Power even if they don't admit it. (Hitler was honest in stating what his ideology was all about. It was about the Power. And he was honest about what other great nations were about too. The Power and domination. This is why the Brits didn't like him. Hitler's admiration for British greatness made it plain as day that the empire was primarily about British domination than about Brits being noble carriers of the "white man's burden" to enlighten the world. He understood and stated the true nature of imperialism. This made the Brits nervous since they always justified their domination over dark folks in terms of being generous and tolerant. In a way, Hitler and Jews agreed on this aspect of Anglo domination of the world. Anglos were really about Power and Domination. The difference is Hitler admired & praised it whereas Jewish leftists reviled & condemned it. Either way, it made the Anglos nervous because it lifted the veil of its moral justification for empire. But Hitler was bad fascist because of his utter contempt for much of humanity and failure to understand that other peoples have a will-to-power of their own that should be respected. Also, whether the Brits intended to or not, they were spreading not only the light of civilization but the means-of-power to other peoples who learned from the Brits to gain power for themselves.) It's not ultimately about some higher ideal but about the Power. Now, if we just act like animals, we will be fighting endless wars and that will lead to a big mess. Therefore, we must work towards building a responsible and moral fascist order where all sides respect one's another's need for core power and core security. We must declare the Age of Empire to be over and promote a world of secure nations that respect one another and trade with one another. Then, Nation A respects the will-to-power of Nation B and Nation C, and Nation B respects the will-to-power of Nation A and Nation C, and Nation C respects the will-to-power of Nation A and Nation B.
    Let the will-to-power remain within national borders. Let Hungary be Hungary and let Poland be Poland. But Merkel the crazy globalist bitch decided to succumb to the Will to Power of disastrous globalism and then, by invoking 'human rights', denounced Hungary and Poland.
    This is what happens when a people are unwilling to fess up to the fascist will-to-power. Germans, if they were to be honest, would say they want to survive and thrive as Germans in Germany. Ideally, Germans should seek Will-to-Power in Germany. This makes total sense since Germany is the land of Germans. But because Germany isn't allowed to realize this, its repressed Will-to-Power seeks expression by something resembling Sweden's 'humanitarian super-power-ism'. Unlike Nazis who were for invading other nations, New Germany is about welcoming invasion and showing off their superior morals by being 'good', and then forcing this 'goodness' and 'human rights' on other nations like Hungary and Poland. It's so crazy.

    We need to be honest that all the world loves the alcohol of power. Only by admitting this fact can we honestly and soberly regulate this power and warn all the world to not get drunk on 'medicine water'. Best way to do it is by promoting nationalism that limits the nation's power within its borders and respects the will-to-power of other nations with their own national sovereignty.
    Globalism is one big bootleg operation by gangsters like Soros who pretend to be providing the milk and cookies of human kindness to world while shipping the alcohol of power to fellow oligarchs around the world. Soros and his ilk hate nationalism because it erects walls against the bootleggers of globalist power-domination.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jZQDEv6pYI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBcflBBGKhE

    Replies: @vinteuil, @vinteuil, @Clyde, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    anon – this, I think is really, really interesting:

    “…all of human history has been about gaining dominance by invasion, trade, ideas, religion, etc. …all groups have this Will to Power even if they don’t admit it. (Hitler was honest in stating what his ideology was all about. It was about the Power. And he was honest about what other great nations were about too. The Power and domination. This is why the Brits didn’t like him. Hitler’s admiration for British greatness made it plain as day that the empire was primarily about British domination [rather] than about Brits being noble carriers of the “white man’s burden” to enlighten the world. He understood and stated the true nature of imperialism. This made the Brits nervous since they always justified their domination over dark folks in terms of being generous and tolerant. In a way, Hitler and Jews agreed on this aspect of Anglo domination of the world. Anglos were really about Power and Domination. The difference is Hitler admired & praised it whereas Jewish leftists reviled & condemned it. Either way, it made the Anglos nervous because it lifted the veil of its moral justification for empire…”

    I dunno if you’re right about this, but it’s a really, really interesting suggestion.

  124. @Anon
    @Langley

    People misunderstand fascism because only a few nations have been Open Fascist nations. Italy called itself 'fascist' cuz it invented the term. Nazis went with 'National Socialism', but it could be said a variant of fascism. Franco was allied with fascists but not really fascist. Peron's was a milder form of fascism, a kind of left-fascism.

    Anyway, because Germany and Italy lost big in WWII, it's assumed fascism was defeated. But there has been closed, hidden, and subsumed fascisms all over. But people don't want to discuss this because it would bring us to the closer to the truth of history.

    Take Israel. It is a fascist-democracy, and it goes to show that fascist themes and democracy can go well-together. Israel is about race, culture, history, and heritage of Jews. Its military culture is spartan and tough. It is about us and them. But it is also democratic. If anything, it goes to show that fascist themes and democracy actually work well together. If Israel were multi-culti in outlook and had a growing Muslim and Hindu population that threatened to outnumber the Jews, its democracy would be harder to sustain. Democracy is possible in Israel because of unity of Jews.

    And indeed, democracy flourished most in nations with ideal fascist settings. Now, when I say Ideal Fascist Setting, I don't mean that the people are necessarily fascist-minded. Suppose there is an island of only Swedes. Suppose all these Swedes are multi-culti cosmopolitans. So, they want massive immigration and wanna be minorities in their own islands. So, they are not fascist in thought. Still, let's say the island, for the time being, is safe, secure, rich, and decent with only Swedish people. Why? Because it has Ideal Fascist Setting of unity, homogeneity, and work ethic(developed under culture of discipline and restraint over the long Protestanty winters). It's like Madison Wisc is very proggy in outlook. But its white areas are very nice, safe, and secure. Why? Because of the proggy outlook OR because of its Ideal Fascist Setting? The nice parts of Madison are white and filled with Germanic folks. So, even if these people have proggy outlook, they are living in a world of Germanic habits, manners, and work ethic. They are living in an Ideal Fascist Setting.

    In contrast, suppose there's a nation that is 40% black, 40% Muslim, and 20% white. Suppose everyone were to read Mussolin's DOCTRINE OF FASCISM and agree with fascism. But the setting would not be Ideal by fascist ideals. Too many wild and aggressive blacks, too many nutty Muslims, and too many whites scared of their wits.

    So, a setting that is ideally fascist but filled with proggy people work better than a setting that is multi-culti & diverse but is fascist.



    Now, look at China under Maoist-leftism and China under defacto-fascism. Since Deng Era, China has essentially been about mixed economy of capitalism and socialism, mixed culture of old and modern, and heavy emphasis on nationalism. Isn't this model closer to fascism than to communism? What worked better? Maoism or this defacto fascism. But no one wants to use the term 'fascism' since it would state the obvious: fascism works.

    Fascist Theories aren't only about fascist societies or self-professed fascists. It is about a study of why certain societies work and why some don't.
    If we take Sweden, why did it work so well and why is it falling apart now?
    Even though Sweden was never officially fascist, it had many Ideal Fascist Qualities. It was homogeneous and united. It combined socialism with capitalism. It was a society of sobriety, work ethic, and discipline. If it later turned more libertine, such freedom could be enjoyed PRECISELY BECAUSE Sweden was such a safe and stable place.
    So, even if social-democrats of Sweden considered themselves as Marxist-lite and anti-fascist, the real reason why Sweden succeed owed to Ideal Fascist Elements.
    It's like a rich successful person may consider himself a Christo-Marxist and pretend that his success owes to his self-professed ideology. But the REAL reason for his success is high IQ, work ethic, individual ambition, and etc. So, despite what he SAYS, what made him SUCCEED was something closer to Ayn-Randism.

    Because Nazism gave fascism such a bad name, nations like Sweden have been falling all over themselves to be as anti-fascist as possible, and what is the result? Deterioration and decline. Swedes have been taking a close look and trying to purge whatever is sub-fascist: Homogeneity, unity, sobriety, and hardness. The result is a nation of pansies run by women who let rapists and murderers in to gain approving nods from the GLOB.

    Many successful or rising nations that call themselves non-fascist or even anti-fascist have some ideal fascist elements if we take a closer look. Because Russia fought a great war against officially fascist nations in WWII, Putin would never use that term positively. But whatever success he's had owes to pro-fascist or profa themes. Nationalism, culture of morality, unity and discipline. Russians, being drunken bums, need a long way to go, but their only hope of success is a kind of intelligent and sober fascism even if they don't call it that. In the end, a nation must be using all ideas to maximize its power and security, and fascism allows this because it is not a mono-ideology. And this is why Jews, even though most anti-fascist in their official pronouncements, are a very fascistic sort of people. Jews creatively combine various ideas and ideologies and shift from one position to another based on the premise of "Is it good for the Jews?"

    And it's all about the Power. People either want the power(the will to power) or want to be associated with power(will to cower). They want to command the field or cheer for the team that is on the field. Look at football or any sports. Spectators identify with their side and try to 'share' in the glory of the players.
    Christians will claim to be anti-power, but fascistics is a part of Christianity. After all, it claims that Jesus was really the Son of God, therefore God Himself. If Christianity said Jesus was a very nice guy who had these shining ideals and died for them and that was that, would it have become a great religion? People would have said Jesus was a nice guy but helpless and weak. The real appeal of Christianity is that Jesus revealed Himself as the Son of God, the greatest power that be, and that vengeance is really with Him. So, He died for our sins out of great love, but He is waiting in Heaven to whup some serious butt of those who will burn for all eternity in the afterlife. That is Power.

    And look at the appeal of all this homo stuff. Is it really about sympathy for these poor pitiful homos? No, homos have great appeal in globalism that is obsessed with status, riches, celebrity, and vanity because homos are associated with fashion, Hollywood, privilege, wealth, and power. Think of the costs involved to have those massive homo parades. It is the spectacle of power and riches that attracts people to homos. Suppose most homos were un-creative and poor and lived in trailers. Suppose they decided to throw a parade in their run-down dinky little town. How many politicians and celebrities and yuppies would show up?

    Power is like an addiction, a drug. Antifa types are bottom-feeders in this. Being dumb, trashy, idiotic, impatient, or immature, they fail to do anything in life. So, their experience of power is anarchy. They watch stuff like V FOR VENDETTA or listen to RAGE AGAINST MACHINE and throw tantrums. They wanna FEEL the power cuz they got none. The fact that they even attack Starbucks shows that they are confused.
    But those with IQ and talent don't become antifa. They don't go for bottom-feeding. They study, gain connections, attend Ivy League school, and serve in government and advise leaders to attack and destroy entire nations and populations, like in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and etc. They are Top-Bombers(hawks) than bottom-feeders(carps and crabs), and they do a lot more damage. And what is it really about? Sure, they invoke 'human rights' and 'democracy', but it's really addiction to power, be it Zionist or American Imperialist.

    Though fascism is seen as bad stuff --- and there can be bad fascism as Hitler certainly proved --- , I think we can have moral fascism if we identify and understand the true nature of power in the world. It's like alcohol. It can make you do crazy stuff, and it can even kill you. But a glass of red wine a day is good for you. And a few beers never killed anyone. So, we need to be honest about alcohol, what it is and how it should be handled.

    Censorship of fascist theoretics is like prohibition. Because alcohol did a lot of damage to society, a bunch of people decided to ban alcohol altogether, as if that will make it go away. But it only led to bootleg booze and organized crime. So, even though US was officially non-alcoholic, alcohol was all around underground. Eventually, the US came to its senses and acknowledged alcohol as part of what people want. The thing was to be honest about this and then have laws that best regulate the trade and use of alcohol.

    Likewise, because of WWII, there's been this suppression of honest discussion of fascism and race-ism; EVERYTHING associated with them was supposed to be irredeemably bad. They were condemned as 'obsession with power' and 'supremacism'. So, officially anyway, we were told that history since end of WWII has been all about 'equality', 'human rights', 'liberal democracy', 'tolerance', and etc.
    But in fact, just like alcohol went underground during the Prohibition, the power-obsession merely went underground. The Cold War was about the struggle for power and dominance than about ideology. After all, if it was all about ideology, why did the US become so aggressive after it won the Cold War? It should have welcomed the new peace and harmony. Because it loved the fact that it had the Supreme Power. It was like Madeline Albright saying that the US got all this power and might as well use it. For what? To spread 'human rights' by having 100,000s of Iraqi kids killed? If US is about equality and favoring the weak over the strong, why does it favor Israel over Palestinians? And if US is about secular values, why side with Saudi Arabia against secular modernizers like Assad? And why piss off Russia that is no longer an enemy and wants to get along with EU and the US? It's all about the Power. Jewish globalists want to gain supremacy over Russian resources, and US military-industrial complex will jump on any excuse to flex its muscle and act tough.

    Anyway, if we end the prohibition the Power Studies(fascist theoretics), we could better understand what is happening. It would become apparent that influential people who pretend to be sober with ideals of 'human rights' and 'liberal democracy' are actually intoxicated with Power Madness that ranges from Jewish Supremacism to Military-Industrial-Complex-mania.
    And what is Fareed Zakaria really about? Why is he here? I mean if he wants to use his talent to help a nation, why the US that is rich already? India has many many more problems, and he could use his smarts there. So, why is he here? Is it really about his embrace of nice kindly globo 'human rights'? Non, the punk wants the good life in the US, and also, he figures India can colonize the West with its rapidly expanding population. So, he's not just some nice guy promoting tolerance but an agent of Hindu-Muslim-Indian Globo Colonization. He may rinse his mouth with the 'human rights' mouthwash, but his stomach is filled with Power Moonshine.

    And this thing with the Megaphone and Gag Order. (Or MAGAG order since Trumpers are supposed to shut up.) Why are certain people given megaphones while others are gagged? Where is freedom of speech or equal opportunity of expression? 'Hate Speech Laws' are supposed to be about protecting the powerless from the powerful, but it's really about protecting the powerful(especially Jewish elites) from the relatively powerless.

    Best way to deal with alcoholism is to state the fact that someone has an alcohol problem. Only by stating that fact can the person learn to see what his problem is and learn to drink responsibly. Refusal to admit the problem makes the problem worse because he will pretend he has no problem while sneaking drinks all throughout the day.
    Similarly, the best way to control fascism as a moral ideology and instrument is to admit that the world is driven by competition for power and the natural organismic drive for supremacy. Every organism is 'supremacist' in that it seeks to gain more and more. Plants spread seeds all over and try to take over the entire field. Wolf pack tries to gain fresh territory. Mosquitoes breed like crazy and fill the air with bloodsuckers that try to suck everything. Bacteria try to spread as much as possible. So, nature is a world of competing supremacisms.
    Humans are the same way as all of human history has been about gaining dominance by invasion, trade, ideas, religion, etc. By admitting this aspect of human nature, we can control it better by coming to an understanding that all groups have this Will to Power even if they don't admit it. (Hitler was honest in stating what his ideology was all about. It was about the Power. And he was honest about what other great nations were about too. The Power and domination. This is why the Brits didn't like him. Hitler's admiration for British greatness made it plain as day that the empire was primarily about British domination than about Brits being noble carriers of the "white man's burden" to enlighten the world. He understood and stated the true nature of imperialism. This made the Brits nervous since they always justified their domination over dark folks in terms of being generous and tolerant. In a way, Hitler and Jews agreed on this aspect of Anglo domination of the world. Anglos were really about Power and Domination. The difference is Hitler admired & praised it whereas Jewish leftists reviled & condemned it. Either way, it made the Anglos nervous because it lifted the veil of its moral justification for empire. But Hitler was bad fascist because of his utter contempt for much of humanity and failure to understand that other peoples have a will-to-power of their own that should be respected. Also, whether the Brits intended to or not, they were spreading not only the light of civilization but the means-of-power to other peoples who learned from the Brits to gain power for themselves.) It's not ultimately about some higher ideal but about the Power. Now, if we just act like animals, we will be fighting endless wars and that will lead to a big mess. Therefore, we must work towards building a responsible and moral fascist order where all sides respect one's another's need for core power and core security. We must declare the Age of Empire to be over and promote a world of secure nations that respect one another and trade with one another. Then, Nation A respects the will-to-power of Nation B and Nation C, and Nation B respects the will-to-power of Nation A and Nation C, and Nation C respects the will-to-power of Nation A and Nation B.
    Let the will-to-power remain within national borders. Let Hungary be Hungary and let Poland be Poland. But Merkel the crazy globalist bitch decided to succumb to the Will to Power of disastrous globalism and then, by invoking 'human rights', denounced Hungary and Poland.
    This is what happens when a people are unwilling to fess up to the fascist will-to-power. Germans, if they were to be honest, would say they want to survive and thrive as Germans in Germany. Ideally, Germans should seek Will-to-Power in Germany. This makes total sense since Germany is the land of Germans. But because Germany isn't allowed to realize this, its repressed Will-to-Power seeks expression by something resembling Sweden's 'humanitarian super-power-ism'. Unlike Nazis who were for invading other nations, New Germany is about welcoming invasion and showing off their superior morals by being 'good', and then forcing this 'goodness' and 'human rights' on other nations like Hungary and Poland. It's so crazy.

    We need to be honest that all the world loves the alcohol of power. Only by admitting this fact can we honestly and soberly regulate this power and warn all the world to not get drunk on 'medicine water'. Best way to do it is by promoting nationalism that limits the nation's power within its borders and respects the will-to-power of other nations with their own national sovereignty.
    Globalism is one big bootleg operation by gangsters like Soros who pretend to be providing the milk and cookies of human kindness to world while shipping the alcohol of power to fellow oligarchs around the world. Soros and his ilk hate nationalism because it erects walls against the bootleggers of globalist power-domination.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jZQDEv6pYI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBcflBBGKhE

    Replies: @vinteuil, @vinteuil, @Clyde, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    btw – have you, in fact, read Mussolini’s The Doctrine of Fascism?

    I bet you’ve also read quite a bit of Thomas Carlyle.

  125. @Reg Cæsar
    @Anonymous Nephew


    The vast majority of left-wing protesters arrested on suspicion of politically-fuelled offences in Berlin are young men who live with their parents...
     
    The Germans got pretty good at judo and other Japanese pursuits, so why not hikokomori?

    Replies: @Ivy

    Merkel even tried to get Germans interested in seppuku, with mixed results. Fieldwork continues.

  126. @Jack D
    @Clyde

    Let's see him sell it for $250 million.

    Newsweek really did sell for $1.

    In Philadelphia, the Inquirer (typical leftist rag) went thru maybe 3 or 4 hands, with bankruptcies in between, each time selling for a small fraction of the prior sale price until finally the last owners donated it to a non-profit foundation.

    Prominent newspapers nowadays are run as political playthings by rich men, not as profit making businesses. Local papers are still businesses, so they have laid off most of their staff in response to falling revenue and are mere shadows of their former selves.

    People who print newspapers might as well be making buggy whips but once they shift to digital they have to compete with every other digital source. Tailoring your content to appeal to the left wing of the Democrat party means that you have lost the confidence of 85% of the population, which is what surveys show.

    Replies: @Clyde

    Newsweek was a legitimate competitor to Time magazine with about 75% of the pull. Yes, you are correct that it eventually sold for a dollar. Pinch Z/NY Times bought the Boston Globe, Worcester Telegram for 1.1 billion, then ten years later sold Globe to John Henry, Sox owner, for 60 million. Going by memory here.

  127. @Anon
    @Langley

    People misunderstand fascism because only a few nations have been Open Fascist nations. Italy called itself 'fascist' cuz it invented the term. Nazis went with 'National Socialism', but it could be said a variant of fascism. Franco was allied with fascists but not really fascist. Peron's was a milder form of fascism, a kind of left-fascism.

    Anyway, because Germany and Italy lost big in WWII, it's assumed fascism was defeated. But there has been closed, hidden, and subsumed fascisms all over. But people don't want to discuss this because it would bring us to the closer to the truth of history.

    Take Israel. It is a fascist-democracy, and it goes to show that fascist themes and democracy can go well-together. Israel is about race, culture, history, and heritage of Jews. Its military culture is spartan and tough. It is about us and them. But it is also democratic. If anything, it goes to show that fascist themes and democracy actually work well together. If Israel were multi-culti in outlook and had a growing Muslim and Hindu population that threatened to outnumber the Jews, its democracy would be harder to sustain. Democracy is possible in Israel because of unity of Jews.

    And indeed, democracy flourished most in nations with ideal fascist settings. Now, when I say Ideal Fascist Setting, I don't mean that the people are necessarily fascist-minded. Suppose there is an island of only Swedes. Suppose all these Swedes are multi-culti cosmopolitans. So, they want massive immigration and wanna be minorities in their own islands. So, they are not fascist in thought. Still, let's say the island, for the time being, is safe, secure, rich, and decent with only Swedish people. Why? Because it has Ideal Fascist Setting of unity, homogeneity, and work ethic(developed under culture of discipline and restraint over the long Protestanty winters). It's like Madison Wisc is very proggy in outlook. But its white areas are very nice, safe, and secure. Why? Because of the proggy outlook OR because of its Ideal Fascist Setting? The nice parts of Madison are white and filled with Germanic folks. So, even if these people have proggy outlook, they are living in a world of Germanic habits, manners, and work ethic. They are living in an Ideal Fascist Setting.

    In contrast, suppose there's a nation that is 40% black, 40% Muslim, and 20% white. Suppose everyone were to read Mussolin's DOCTRINE OF FASCISM and agree with fascism. But the setting would not be Ideal by fascist ideals. Too many wild and aggressive blacks, too many nutty Muslims, and too many whites scared of their wits.

    So, a setting that is ideally fascist but filled with proggy people work better than a setting that is multi-culti & diverse but is fascist.



    Now, look at China under Maoist-leftism and China under defacto-fascism. Since Deng Era, China has essentially been about mixed economy of capitalism and socialism, mixed culture of old and modern, and heavy emphasis on nationalism. Isn't this model closer to fascism than to communism? What worked better? Maoism or this defacto fascism. But no one wants to use the term 'fascism' since it would state the obvious: fascism works.

    Fascist Theories aren't only about fascist societies or self-professed fascists. It is about a study of why certain societies work and why some don't.
    If we take Sweden, why did it work so well and why is it falling apart now?
    Even though Sweden was never officially fascist, it had many Ideal Fascist Qualities. It was homogeneous and united. It combined socialism with capitalism. It was a society of sobriety, work ethic, and discipline. If it later turned more libertine, such freedom could be enjoyed PRECISELY BECAUSE Sweden was such a safe and stable place.
    So, even if social-democrats of Sweden considered themselves as Marxist-lite and anti-fascist, the real reason why Sweden succeed owed to Ideal Fascist Elements.
    It's like a rich successful person may consider himself a Christo-Marxist and pretend that his success owes to his self-professed ideology. But the REAL reason for his success is high IQ, work ethic, individual ambition, and etc. So, despite what he SAYS, what made him SUCCEED was something closer to Ayn-Randism.

    Because Nazism gave fascism such a bad name, nations like Sweden have been falling all over themselves to be as anti-fascist as possible, and what is the result? Deterioration and decline. Swedes have been taking a close look and trying to purge whatever is sub-fascist: Homogeneity, unity, sobriety, and hardness. The result is a nation of pansies run by women who let rapists and murderers in to gain approving nods from the GLOB.

    Many successful or rising nations that call themselves non-fascist or even anti-fascist have some ideal fascist elements if we take a closer look. Because Russia fought a great war against officially fascist nations in WWII, Putin would never use that term positively. But whatever success he's had owes to pro-fascist or profa themes. Nationalism, culture of morality, unity and discipline. Russians, being drunken bums, need a long way to go, but their only hope of success is a kind of intelligent and sober fascism even if they don't call it that. In the end, a nation must be using all ideas to maximize its power and security, and fascism allows this because it is not a mono-ideology. And this is why Jews, even though most anti-fascist in their official pronouncements, are a very fascistic sort of people. Jews creatively combine various ideas and ideologies and shift from one position to another based on the premise of "Is it good for the Jews?"

    And it's all about the Power. People either want the power(the will to power) or want to be associated with power(will to cower). They want to command the field or cheer for the team that is on the field. Look at football or any sports. Spectators identify with their side and try to 'share' in the glory of the players.
    Christians will claim to be anti-power, but fascistics is a part of Christianity. After all, it claims that Jesus was really the Son of God, therefore God Himself. If Christianity said Jesus was a very nice guy who had these shining ideals and died for them and that was that, would it have become a great religion? People would have said Jesus was a nice guy but helpless and weak. The real appeal of Christianity is that Jesus revealed Himself as the Son of God, the greatest power that be, and that vengeance is really with Him. So, He died for our sins out of great love, but He is waiting in Heaven to whup some serious butt of those who will burn for all eternity in the afterlife. That is Power.

    And look at the appeal of all this homo stuff. Is it really about sympathy for these poor pitiful homos? No, homos have great appeal in globalism that is obsessed with status, riches, celebrity, and vanity because homos are associated with fashion, Hollywood, privilege, wealth, and power. Think of the costs involved to have those massive homo parades. It is the spectacle of power and riches that attracts people to homos. Suppose most homos were un-creative and poor and lived in trailers. Suppose they decided to throw a parade in their run-down dinky little town. How many politicians and celebrities and yuppies would show up?

    Power is like an addiction, a drug. Antifa types are bottom-feeders in this. Being dumb, trashy, idiotic, impatient, or immature, they fail to do anything in life. So, their experience of power is anarchy. They watch stuff like V FOR VENDETTA or listen to RAGE AGAINST MACHINE and throw tantrums. They wanna FEEL the power cuz they got none. The fact that they even attack Starbucks shows that they are confused.
    But those with IQ and talent don't become antifa. They don't go for bottom-feeding. They study, gain connections, attend Ivy League school, and serve in government and advise leaders to attack and destroy entire nations and populations, like in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and etc. They are Top-Bombers(hawks) than bottom-feeders(carps and crabs), and they do a lot more damage. And what is it really about? Sure, they invoke 'human rights' and 'democracy', but it's really addiction to power, be it Zionist or American Imperialist.

    Though fascism is seen as bad stuff --- and there can be bad fascism as Hitler certainly proved --- , I think we can have moral fascism if we identify and understand the true nature of power in the world. It's like alcohol. It can make you do crazy stuff, and it can even kill you. But a glass of red wine a day is good for you. And a few beers never killed anyone. So, we need to be honest about alcohol, what it is and how it should be handled.

    Censorship of fascist theoretics is like prohibition. Because alcohol did a lot of damage to society, a bunch of people decided to ban alcohol altogether, as if that will make it go away. But it only led to bootleg booze and organized crime. So, even though US was officially non-alcoholic, alcohol was all around underground. Eventually, the US came to its senses and acknowledged alcohol as part of what people want. The thing was to be honest about this and then have laws that best regulate the trade and use of alcohol.

    Likewise, because of WWII, there's been this suppression of honest discussion of fascism and race-ism; EVERYTHING associated with them was supposed to be irredeemably bad. They were condemned as 'obsession with power' and 'supremacism'. So, officially anyway, we were told that history since end of WWII has been all about 'equality', 'human rights', 'liberal democracy', 'tolerance', and etc.
    But in fact, just like alcohol went underground during the Prohibition, the power-obsession merely went underground. The Cold War was about the struggle for power and dominance than about ideology. After all, if it was all about ideology, why did the US become so aggressive after it won the Cold War? It should have welcomed the new peace and harmony. Because it loved the fact that it had the Supreme Power. It was like Madeline Albright saying that the US got all this power and might as well use it. For what? To spread 'human rights' by having 100,000s of Iraqi kids killed? If US is about equality and favoring the weak over the strong, why does it favor Israel over Palestinians? And if US is about secular values, why side with Saudi Arabia against secular modernizers like Assad? And why piss off Russia that is no longer an enemy and wants to get along with EU and the US? It's all about the Power. Jewish globalists want to gain supremacy over Russian resources, and US military-industrial complex will jump on any excuse to flex its muscle and act tough.

    Anyway, if we end the prohibition the Power Studies(fascist theoretics), we could better understand what is happening. It would become apparent that influential people who pretend to be sober with ideals of 'human rights' and 'liberal democracy' are actually intoxicated with Power Madness that ranges from Jewish Supremacism to Military-Industrial-Complex-mania.
    And what is Fareed Zakaria really about? Why is he here? I mean if he wants to use his talent to help a nation, why the US that is rich already? India has many many more problems, and he could use his smarts there. So, why is he here? Is it really about his embrace of nice kindly globo 'human rights'? Non, the punk wants the good life in the US, and also, he figures India can colonize the West with its rapidly expanding population. So, he's not just some nice guy promoting tolerance but an agent of Hindu-Muslim-Indian Globo Colonization. He may rinse his mouth with the 'human rights' mouthwash, but his stomach is filled with Power Moonshine.

    And this thing with the Megaphone and Gag Order. (Or MAGAG order since Trumpers are supposed to shut up.) Why are certain people given megaphones while others are gagged? Where is freedom of speech or equal opportunity of expression? 'Hate Speech Laws' are supposed to be about protecting the powerless from the powerful, but it's really about protecting the powerful(especially Jewish elites) from the relatively powerless.

    Best way to deal with alcoholism is to state the fact that someone has an alcohol problem. Only by stating that fact can the person learn to see what his problem is and learn to drink responsibly. Refusal to admit the problem makes the problem worse because he will pretend he has no problem while sneaking drinks all throughout the day.
    Similarly, the best way to control fascism as a moral ideology and instrument is to admit that the world is driven by competition for power and the natural organismic drive for supremacy. Every organism is 'supremacist' in that it seeks to gain more and more. Plants spread seeds all over and try to take over the entire field. Wolf pack tries to gain fresh territory. Mosquitoes breed like crazy and fill the air with bloodsuckers that try to suck everything. Bacteria try to spread as much as possible. So, nature is a world of competing supremacisms.
    Humans are the same way as all of human history has been about gaining dominance by invasion, trade, ideas, religion, etc. By admitting this aspect of human nature, we can control it better by coming to an understanding that all groups have this Will to Power even if they don't admit it. (Hitler was honest in stating what his ideology was all about. It was about the Power. And he was honest about what other great nations were about too. The Power and domination. This is why the Brits didn't like him. Hitler's admiration for British greatness made it plain as day that the empire was primarily about British domination than about Brits being noble carriers of the "white man's burden" to enlighten the world. He understood and stated the true nature of imperialism. This made the Brits nervous since they always justified their domination over dark folks in terms of being generous and tolerant. In a way, Hitler and Jews agreed on this aspect of Anglo domination of the world. Anglos were really about Power and Domination. The difference is Hitler admired & praised it whereas Jewish leftists reviled & condemned it. Either way, it made the Anglos nervous because it lifted the veil of its moral justification for empire. But Hitler was bad fascist because of his utter contempt for much of humanity and failure to understand that other peoples have a will-to-power of their own that should be respected. Also, whether the Brits intended to or not, they were spreading not only the light of civilization but the means-of-power to other peoples who learned from the Brits to gain power for themselves.) It's not ultimately about some higher ideal but about the Power. Now, if we just act like animals, we will be fighting endless wars and that will lead to a big mess. Therefore, we must work towards building a responsible and moral fascist order where all sides respect one's another's need for core power and core security. We must declare the Age of Empire to be over and promote a world of secure nations that respect one another and trade with one another. Then, Nation A respects the will-to-power of Nation B and Nation C, and Nation B respects the will-to-power of Nation A and Nation C, and Nation C respects the will-to-power of Nation A and Nation B.
    Let the will-to-power remain within national borders. Let Hungary be Hungary and let Poland be Poland. But Merkel the crazy globalist bitch decided to succumb to the Will to Power of disastrous globalism and then, by invoking 'human rights', denounced Hungary and Poland.
    This is what happens when a people are unwilling to fess up to the fascist will-to-power. Germans, if they were to be honest, would say they want to survive and thrive as Germans in Germany. Ideally, Germans should seek Will-to-Power in Germany. This makes total sense since Germany is the land of Germans. But because Germany isn't allowed to realize this, its repressed Will-to-Power seeks expression by something resembling Sweden's 'humanitarian super-power-ism'. Unlike Nazis who were for invading other nations, New Germany is about welcoming invasion and showing off their superior morals by being 'good', and then forcing this 'goodness' and 'human rights' on other nations like Hungary and Poland. It's so crazy.

    We need to be honest that all the world loves the alcohol of power. Only by admitting this fact can we honestly and soberly regulate this power and warn all the world to not get drunk on 'medicine water'. Best way to do it is by promoting nationalism that limits the nation's power within its borders and respects the will-to-power of other nations with their own national sovereignty.
    Globalism is one big bootleg operation by gangsters like Soros who pretend to be providing the milk and cookies of human kindness to world while shipping the alcohol of power to fellow oligarchs around the world. Soros and his ilk hate nationalism because it erects walls against the bootleggers of globalist power-domination.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jZQDEv6pYI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBcflBBGKhE

    Replies: @vinteuil, @vinteuil, @Clyde, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    You are a riff factory and I mean this in the nicest way. Jack Kerouac typed onto a roll of teletype paper. Just saying.
    ___
    It was typed on a single roll of teletype paper. Kerouac liked to type on rolls of … A street in Lowell was renamed “Jack Kerouac Alley” in his memory. In other……
    ___
    On the Road: The Original Scroll – Jack Kerouac – Books …
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/
    Aug 19, 2007 · … Jack Kerouac feverishly pounded out the first draft of “On the Road” in three weeks on a single huge roll of paper. … roll of teletype paper …

    (from internet)

  128. @JX37
    This Ian Miller who has been outed as one of the Black Bloc terrorists at Berkeley is apparently the son of Victor Miller, who wrote or directed the original Friday the 13th.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Miller_(writer)

    Ian is a 49 year old "musician" in a crap metal band called Kowloon Walled City in San Francisco.

    Replies: @Clyde

    This Ian Miller who has been outed as one of the Black Bloc terrorists at Berkeley is apparently the son of Victor Miller, who wrote or directed the original Friday the 13th.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Miller_(writer)
    Ian is a 49 year old “musician” in a crap metal band called Kowloon Walled City in San Francisco.

    He is a U Berkley staffer, a taxpayer supported POS. What a surprise. The real measure of socialist success is how much taxpayer money they can divert to pay gov’t salaries to otherwise unemployable leftist rats AKA useless eaters.
    ________________

    http://unclesamsmisguidedchildren.com/uc-berkeley-staff-member-investigated-for-assaulting-milo-fan/
    One man who participated in the riots at Berkeley, and assaulted a Milo supporter, then bragged about it online, has been identified as a UC Berkeley staff member at the school. An investigation is underway.
    Ian Dabney Miller is the staff member who allegedly assaulted a man during the riots, and posted a picture of the victim on Twitter along with the note: “Hey, come get your boy, he just got rocked.”

  129. According to Article III of the Constitution the Congress has absolute control over what issues are subject to appellate review by federal courts. It is only cowardice/laziness/ineptitude that has prevented Congress from using this power.

    The left would vigorously oppose any attempt to change this state of affairs, and it wouldn’t be out of cowardice, laziness, or ineptitude.

    Speaking of lies, they’re peddling the myth that self-defense classes will let women take on men.

    My suspicion is that women don’t want real self-defense training. They want yoga + sparring. Because if they wanted real self-defense training, there are plenty of guys out there who will teach them knives, guns, improvised weapons, situational awareness, and slimming down their target profile.

    Or maybe there are legal barriers to this sort of thing, I dunno. But I suspect really learning where to cut someone, carrying a knife, becoming mentally prepared to use it…it’s all a bit too icky.

    That’s the only kind of self-defense that deserves the name. Same thing is true for men, too, but less so.

  130. @Anonymous
    Nation's wealthiest county votes to become sanctuary for immigrants...

    http://wbaltv.com/article/howard-county-council-to-vote-on-sanctuary-bill/8683652?src=app

    Hmmmm, polls show smart, rich white people are all massively against Trump's insane policies.

    Yet here is Steve Sailer (obvious alias) and his swastika crew trying to speak on behalf of white people. You poors and stupids give white folks a bad name!

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @anon, @Clyde, @ben tillman

    Nation’s wealthiest county votes to become sanctuary for immigrants…
    http://wbaltv.com/article/howard-county-council-to-vote-on-sanctuary-bill/8683652?src=app
    Hmmmm, polls show smart, rich white people are all massively against Trump’s insane policies.

    How many poor illegal aliens, non-English speakers and anchor babies are in their schools? What illegals can even afford to live in this allegedly wealthiest county?

    Talk is cheap. Virtue signalling is cheaper.

  131. @Achmed E Newman
    I agree with Opinionator (Post 4). This is what happens when conservatives leave their libertarian roots and the US Constitution behind. OK, Glenn's the law professor, but it's very clear that Amendment I stipulates that the US Federal Gov't may not prohibit free speech and assembly (which it does all the time, anyway). It's not about what a private party can do to another private party regarding restriction of speech, though, and "civil rights" law is inarguably a bunch of crap. Real civil rights law has been around since 1789, when the Bill of Rights was put into the US Constitution - there's your civil rights law, pal.

    I read the USA article by Mr. Reynolds, but to me, only the withdrawal of Federal funds is the way to go - live by the Federal teet, die by the federal teet (clogging-up, I guess, in this crude, but somehow sexy, analogy). If the Feds weren't so involved in everything and didn't control all of the purse strings, there wouldn't be a problem. The Berzerkely faculty/admins/students could decide who can speak there. Get the governments involved in anything, and life gets complicated fast.

    The rioting is a whole nother crime, and doesn't have to do with any civil rights. The violence we have seen is all against the law, and always has been.

    On the lighter side,

    They told me if Donald Trump were elected, voices of dissent would be shut down by fascist mobs. And they were right!
     
    Professor Reynolds has been using this joke for well nigh 15 years, and it's still funny. Heh, Indeed!

    Replies: @Anonym, @Prof. Woland, @David Davenport

    Professor Reynolds has been using this joke for well nigh 15 years, and it’s still funny. Heh, Indeed!

    I too have been reading Prof. Glenn Reynolds’ blog for the last fifteen years.

    He’s never said that he’s sorry he was for invading Iraq.

    He’s always deploring the Left, but never calls for a ban or time-out on immigration.

    Mostly using his surrogates on his Instapundit blog, Reynold disdained Trump during the election months.

    Prof.. Reynolds frequently editorializes that new laws need to be passed, but he himself never gets involved in any lawsuits or similar legal work.

    My conclusion: Reynolds is basically an Establishmentarian and RINO Republican — He talks somewhat like a conservative, but he never takes any real risks or unpaid work or advocates anything really consequential, such as immigration restriction.

    Fifteen plus years of the Instapundit blog is about the same as the last fifteen years of *National Review* magazine, or of Victor David Hansom columns. Always viewing the Left with alarm, year after year after …

  132. @BB753
    @Hunsdon

    The real question is why Milo? Out of the hundreds of capable altrighters who could do his job, why pick up a flaming gay? As always, there's this crippling mentality of using a front with some kind of privilege or leniency in his favor, either a pussy pass ( Coulter, Ingraham, etc), a gay pass, as in Milo's case, a color pass (D'Souza), etc.

    Replies: @Jack D, @anon

    Your question answers itself. A straight white guy is obviously just another Nazi who can be instantly dismissed on sight. Someone with a “pass” they have to listen to for at least a minute until it become obvious that he is a traitor to the Cause. Maybe during that minute he can change some minds. He also serves as an example to other Fringe members that they are individuals with minds of their own so they are not automatically obligated to join the Coalition. Straight white guys, painted as intolerant by the left, are actually MORE tolerant and are willing to listen to anyone, so Milo can sell to everyone whereas a straight white guy can only talk to other straight white guys (because of the intolerance of the Left, who hates, hates, hates straight white guys). So it makes perfect sense to use “diverse’ spokesmen for the right. It also makes leftist’s heads explode – how is it even possible that these evil Nazis have all these colorful spokesmen when we “know” that they are intolerant racists? [Answer – they are Uncle Toms and not authentic whatevers, but it takes them a minute to come up with it.]

  133. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @BB753
    @Hunsdon

    The real question is why Milo? Out of the hundreds of capable altrighters who could do his job, why pick up a flaming gay? As always, there's this crippling mentality of using a front with some kind of privilege or leniency in his favor, either a pussy pass ( Coulter, Ingraham, etc), a gay pass, as in Milo's case, a color pass (D'Souza), etc.

    Replies: @Jack D, @anon

    The real question is why Milo? Out of the hundreds of capable altrighters who could do his job, why pick up a flaming gay?

    explaining this to people who don’t get it undermines the effect so

    1) he’s not alt-right

    2) he is anti-SJW

    3) anti-SJW is currently useful for both alt-right and others

    Milo creates opportunities for the good guys to put politically correct senior police, academics and politicians in jail.

    This is useful.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @anon

    Ok, have him tour the whole country and provoke a thousand riots! That'd be fun to watch. But he'll need bodyguards... As long as he doesn't get to choose them. No Reggie Loves for you, dear Milo!

  134. @Anonymous Nephew
    European but highly relevant to the US, from today's newspaper of record. Bet the Guardian doesn't report this.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4200272/92-Berlin-left-wing-activists-live-parents.html

    The vast majority of left-wing protesters arrested on suspicion of politically-fuelled offences in Berlin are young men who live with their parents, a new report found. The figures, which were published in daily newspaper Bild revealed that 873 suspects were investigated by authorities between 2003 and 2013.

    Of these 84 per cent were men, and 72 per cent were aged between 18 and 29. A third of them were unemployed, and 92 per cent still live with their parents.

    The figures published in the Berlin newspaper said of the offences committed against a person, in four out of five cases the victims were police officers.

    In 15 per cent of these cases, the victims were right wing activists.

    The new figures were released by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV).

    Between 2009 and 2013, the Bild report claims, left-wing assassins attempted to commit 11 murders.
     

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @Reg Cæsar, @anon

    a list of their parent’s occupations would be interesting

    i’d bet college lecturer would be one of the main ones

  135. @Autochthon
    @Chrisnonymous

    I take your point; I much respect the man. Still, I'll risk pedantry and duck the rotten vegetables.

    A lieutenant general is a (particular sort of) general; lieutenant being an adjective in the case. It's the same with a lieutenant commander, lieutenant colonel, etc.

    An attorney general, however, is not a general; he is an attorney. In this case general is the adjective. Likewise with the surgeon general, the postmaster general, etc..

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Jack D

    The Surgeon General is the chief commissioned officer in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, one of the seven uniformed services of the United States. However, for historic reasons, he carries a Naval rank (vice admiral). Otherwise, the Surgeon General could have been a General in both senses.

  136. If the consequences of Colleges and Universities stifling free speech was to have their eligibility for Federal Student Aid and there non-profit 501(3)(c) status reduced or eliminated, they’d wake up in a hurry.

  137. @Anon
    @Langley

    People misunderstand fascism because only a few nations have been Open Fascist nations. Italy called itself 'fascist' cuz it invented the term. Nazis went with 'National Socialism', but it could be said a variant of fascism. Franco was allied with fascists but not really fascist. Peron's was a milder form of fascism, a kind of left-fascism.

    Anyway, because Germany and Italy lost big in WWII, it's assumed fascism was defeated. But there has been closed, hidden, and subsumed fascisms all over. But people don't want to discuss this because it would bring us to the closer to the truth of history.

    Take Israel. It is a fascist-democracy, and it goes to show that fascist themes and democracy can go well-together. Israel is about race, culture, history, and heritage of Jews. Its military culture is spartan and tough. It is about us and them. But it is also democratic. If anything, it goes to show that fascist themes and democracy actually work well together. If Israel were multi-culti in outlook and had a growing Muslim and Hindu population that threatened to outnumber the Jews, its democracy would be harder to sustain. Democracy is possible in Israel because of unity of Jews.

    And indeed, democracy flourished most in nations with ideal fascist settings. Now, when I say Ideal Fascist Setting, I don't mean that the people are necessarily fascist-minded. Suppose there is an island of only Swedes. Suppose all these Swedes are multi-culti cosmopolitans. So, they want massive immigration and wanna be minorities in their own islands. So, they are not fascist in thought. Still, let's say the island, for the time being, is safe, secure, rich, and decent with only Swedish people. Why? Because it has Ideal Fascist Setting of unity, homogeneity, and work ethic(developed under culture of discipline and restraint over the long Protestanty winters). It's like Madison Wisc is very proggy in outlook. But its white areas are very nice, safe, and secure. Why? Because of the proggy outlook OR because of its Ideal Fascist Setting? The nice parts of Madison are white and filled with Germanic folks. So, even if these people have proggy outlook, they are living in a world of Germanic habits, manners, and work ethic. They are living in an Ideal Fascist Setting.

    In contrast, suppose there's a nation that is 40% black, 40% Muslim, and 20% white. Suppose everyone were to read Mussolin's DOCTRINE OF FASCISM and agree with fascism. But the setting would not be Ideal by fascist ideals. Too many wild and aggressive blacks, too many nutty Muslims, and too many whites scared of their wits.

    So, a setting that is ideally fascist but filled with proggy people work better than a setting that is multi-culti & diverse but is fascist.



    Now, look at China under Maoist-leftism and China under defacto-fascism. Since Deng Era, China has essentially been about mixed economy of capitalism and socialism, mixed culture of old and modern, and heavy emphasis on nationalism. Isn't this model closer to fascism than to communism? What worked better? Maoism or this defacto fascism. But no one wants to use the term 'fascism' since it would state the obvious: fascism works.

    Fascist Theories aren't only about fascist societies or self-professed fascists. It is about a study of why certain societies work and why some don't.
    If we take Sweden, why did it work so well and why is it falling apart now?
    Even though Sweden was never officially fascist, it had many Ideal Fascist Qualities. It was homogeneous and united. It combined socialism with capitalism. It was a society of sobriety, work ethic, and discipline. If it later turned more libertine, such freedom could be enjoyed PRECISELY BECAUSE Sweden was such a safe and stable place.
    So, even if social-democrats of Sweden considered themselves as Marxist-lite and anti-fascist, the real reason why Sweden succeed owed to Ideal Fascist Elements.
    It's like a rich successful person may consider himself a Christo-Marxist and pretend that his success owes to his self-professed ideology. But the REAL reason for his success is high IQ, work ethic, individual ambition, and etc. So, despite what he SAYS, what made him SUCCEED was something closer to Ayn-Randism.

    Because Nazism gave fascism such a bad name, nations like Sweden have been falling all over themselves to be as anti-fascist as possible, and what is the result? Deterioration and decline. Swedes have been taking a close look and trying to purge whatever is sub-fascist: Homogeneity, unity, sobriety, and hardness. The result is a nation of pansies run by women who let rapists and murderers in to gain approving nods from the GLOB.

    Many successful or rising nations that call themselves non-fascist or even anti-fascist have some ideal fascist elements if we take a closer look. Because Russia fought a great war against officially fascist nations in WWII, Putin would never use that term positively. But whatever success he's had owes to pro-fascist or profa themes. Nationalism, culture of morality, unity and discipline. Russians, being drunken bums, need a long way to go, but their only hope of success is a kind of intelligent and sober fascism even if they don't call it that. In the end, a nation must be using all ideas to maximize its power and security, and fascism allows this because it is not a mono-ideology. And this is why Jews, even though most anti-fascist in their official pronouncements, are a very fascistic sort of people. Jews creatively combine various ideas and ideologies and shift from one position to another based on the premise of "Is it good for the Jews?"

    And it's all about the Power. People either want the power(the will to power) or want to be associated with power(will to cower). They want to command the field or cheer for the team that is on the field. Look at football or any sports. Spectators identify with their side and try to 'share' in the glory of the players.
    Christians will claim to be anti-power, but fascistics is a part of Christianity. After all, it claims that Jesus was really the Son of God, therefore God Himself. If Christianity said Jesus was a very nice guy who had these shining ideals and died for them and that was that, would it have become a great religion? People would have said Jesus was a nice guy but helpless and weak. The real appeal of Christianity is that Jesus revealed Himself as the Son of God, the greatest power that be, and that vengeance is really with Him. So, He died for our sins out of great love, but He is waiting in Heaven to whup some serious butt of those who will burn for all eternity in the afterlife. That is Power.

    And look at the appeal of all this homo stuff. Is it really about sympathy for these poor pitiful homos? No, homos have great appeal in globalism that is obsessed with status, riches, celebrity, and vanity because homos are associated with fashion, Hollywood, privilege, wealth, and power. Think of the costs involved to have those massive homo parades. It is the spectacle of power and riches that attracts people to homos. Suppose most homos were un-creative and poor and lived in trailers. Suppose they decided to throw a parade in their run-down dinky little town. How many politicians and celebrities and yuppies would show up?

    Power is like an addiction, a drug. Antifa types are bottom-feeders in this. Being dumb, trashy, idiotic, impatient, or immature, they fail to do anything in life. So, their experience of power is anarchy. They watch stuff like V FOR VENDETTA or listen to RAGE AGAINST MACHINE and throw tantrums. They wanna FEEL the power cuz they got none. The fact that they even attack Starbucks shows that they are confused.
    But those with IQ and talent don't become antifa. They don't go for bottom-feeding. They study, gain connections, attend Ivy League school, and serve in government and advise leaders to attack and destroy entire nations and populations, like in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and etc. They are Top-Bombers(hawks) than bottom-feeders(carps and crabs), and they do a lot more damage. And what is it really about? Sure, they invoke 'human rights' and 'democracy', but it's really addiction to power, be it Zionist or American Imperialist.

    Though fascism is seen as bad stuff --- and there can be bad fascism as Hitler certainly proved --- , I think we can have moral fascism if we identify and understand the true nature of power in the world. It's like alcohol. It can make you do crazy stuff, and it can even kill you. But a glass of red wine a day is good for you. And a few beers never killed anyone. So, we need to be honest about alcohol, what it is and how it should be handled.

    Censorship of fascist theoretics is like prohibition. Because alcohol did a lot of damage to society, a bunch of people decided to ban alcohol altogether, as if that will make it go away. But it only led to bootleg booze and organized crime. So, even though US was officially non-alcoholic, alcohol was all around underground. Eventually, the US came to its senses and acknowledged alcohol as part of what people want. The thing was to be honest about this and then have laws that best regulate the trade and use of alcohol.

    Likewise, because of WWII, there's been this suppression of honest discussion of fascism and race-ism; EVERYTHING associated with them was supposed to be irredeemably bad. They were condemned as 'obsession with power' and 'supremacism'. So, officially anyway, we were told that history since end of WWII has been all about 'equality', 'human rights', 'liberal democracy', 'tolerance', and etc.
    But in fact, just like alcohol went underground during the Prohibition, the power-obsession merely went underground. The Cold War was about the struggle for power and dominance than about ideology. After all, if it was all about ideology, why did the US become so aggressive after it won the Cold War? It should have welcomed the new peace and harmony. Because it loved the fact that it had the Supreme Power. It was like Madeline Albright saying that the US got all this power and might as well use it. For what? To spread 'human rights' by having 100,000s of Iraqi kids killed? If US is about equality and favoring the weak over the strong, why does it favor Israel over Palestinians? And if US is about secular values, why side with Saudi Arabia against secular modernizers like Assad? And why piss off Russia that is no longer an enemy and wants to get along with EU and the US? It's all about the Power. Jewish globalists want to gain supremacy over Russian resources, and US military-industrial complex will jump on any excuse to flex its muscle and act tough.

    Anyway, if we end the prohibition the Power Studies(fascist theoretics), we could better understand what is happening. It would become apparent that influential people who pretend to be sober with ideals of 'human rights' and 'liberal democracy' are actually intoxicated with Power Madness that ranges from Jewish Supremacism to Military-Industrial-Complex-mania.
    And what is Fareed Zakaria really about? Why is he here? I mean if he wants to use his talent to help a nation, why the US that is rich already? India has many many more problems, and he could use his smarts there. So, why is he here? Is it really about his embrace of nice kindly globo 'human rights'? Non, the punk wants the good life in the US, and also, he figures India can colonize the West with its rapidly expanding population. So, he's not just some nice guy promoting tolerance but an agent of Hindu-Muslim-Indian Globo Colonization. He may rinse his mouth with the 'human rights' mouthwash, but his stomach is filled with Power Moonshine.

    And this thing with the Megaphone and Gag Order. (Or MAGAG order since Trumpers are supposed to shut up.) Why are certain people given megaphones while others are gagged? Where is freedom of speech or equal opportunity of expression? 'Hate Speech Laws' are supposed to be about protecting the powerless from the powerful, but it's really about protecting the powerful(especially Jewish elites) from the relatively powerless.

    Best way to deal with alcoholism is to state the fact that someone has an alcohol problem. Only by stating that fact can the person learn to see what his problem is and learn to drink responsibly. Refusal to admit the problem makes the problem worse because he will pretend he has no problem while sneaking drinks all throughout the day.
    Similarly, the best way to control fascism as a moral ideology and instrument is to admit that the world is driven by competition for power and the natural organismic drive for supremacy. Every organism is 'supremacist' in that it seeks to gain more and more. Plants spread seeds all over and try to take over the entire field. Wolf pack tries to gain fresh territory. Mosquitoes breed like crazy and fill the air with bloodsuckers that try to suck everything. Bacteria try to spread as much as possible. So, nature is a world of competing supremacisms.
    Humans are the same way as all of human history has been about gaining dominance by invasion, trade, ideas, religion, etc. By admitting this aspect of human nature, we can control it better by coming to an understanding that all groups have this Will to Power even if they don't admit it. (Hitler was honest in stating what his ideology was all about. It was about the Power. And he was honest about what other great nations were about too. The Power and domination. This is why the Brits didn't like him. Hitler's admiration for British greatness made it plain as day that the empire was primarily about British domination than about Brits being noble carriers of the "white man's burden" to enlighten the world. He understood and stated the true nature of imperialism. This made the Brits nervous since they always justified their domination over dark folks in terms of being generous and tolerant. In a way, Hitler and Jews agreed on this aspect of Anglo domination of the world. Anglos were really about Power and Domination. The difference is Hitler admired & praised it whereas Jewish leftists reviled & condemned it. Either way, it made the Anglos nervous because it lifted the veil of its moral justification for empire. But Hitler was bad fascist because of his utter contempt for much of humanity and failure to understand that other peoples have a will-to-power of their own that should be respected. Also, whether the Brits intended to or not, they were spreading not only the light of civilization but the means-of-power to other peoples who learned from the Brits to gain power for themselves.) It's not ultimately about some higher ideal but about the Power. Now, if we just act like animals, we will be fighting endless wars and that will lead to a big mess. Therefore, we must work towards building a responsible and moral fascist order where all sides respect one's another's need for core power and core security. We must declare the Age of Empire to be over and promote a world of secure nations that respect one another and trade with one another. Then, Nation A respects the will-to-power of Nation B and Nation C, and Nation B respects the will-to-power of Nation A and Nation C, and Nation C respects the will-to-power of Nation A and Nation B.
    Let the will-to-power remain within national borders. Let Hungary be Hungary and let Poland be Poland. But Merkel the crazy globalist bitch decided to succumb to the Will to Power of disastrous globalism and then, by invoking 'human rights', denounced Hungary and Poland.
    This is what happens when a people are unwilling to fess up to the fascist will-to-power. Germans, if they were to be honest, would say they want to survive and thrive as Germans in Germany. Ideally, Germans should seek Will-to-Power in Germany. This makes total sense since Germany is the land of Germans. But because Germany isn't allowed to realize this, its repressed Will-to-Power seeks expression by something resembling Sweden's 'humanitarian super-power-ism'. Unlike Nazis who were for invading other nations, New Germany is about welcoming invasion and showing off their superior morals by being 'good', and then forcing this 'goodness' and 'human rights' on other nations like Hungary and Poland. It's so crazy.

    We need to be honest that all the world loves the alcohol of power. Only by admitting this fact can we honestly and soberly regulate this power and warn all the world to not get drunk on 'medicine water'. Best way to do it is by promoting nationalism that limits the nation's power within its borders and respects the will-to-power of other nations with their own national sovereignty.
    Globalism is one big bootleg operation by gangsters like Soros who pretend to be providing the milk and cookies of human kindness to world while shipping the alcohol of power to fellow oligarchs around the world. Soros and his ilk hate nationalism because it erects walls against the bootleggers of globalist power-domination.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jZQDEv6pYI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBcflBBGKhE

    Replies: @vinteuil, @vinteuil, @Clyde, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Are you Mendicious Moldbug? I was told to read you by a friend. I did not have the endurance.

    Swedes have been taking a close look and trying to purge whatever is sub-fascist: Homogeneity, unity, sobriety, and hardness. The result is a nation of pansies run by women who let rapists and murderers in to gain approving nods from the GLOB.

    Where is reiner tor when I need him?

  138. @International Jew
    @Arclight

    Or we could trade it away in a grand bargain with the left: we don't use the government to prosecute private citizens who interfere with the right to free speech, and in exchange we dismantle the EEOC and all other government machinery designed to prosecute private citizens who interfere with "civil rights".

    Replies: @David Davenport

    Or we could trade it away in a grand bargain with the left: we don’t use the government to prosecute private citizens who interfere with the right to free speech, and in exchange we dismantle the EEOC and all other government machinery designed to prosecute private citizens who interfere with “civil rights”.

    The Left would never fulfill its end of the bargain.

  139. @Anonymous
    Nation's wealthiest county votes to become sanctuary for immigrants...

    http://wbaltv.com/article/howard-county-council-to-vote-on-sanctuary-bill/8683652?src=app

    Hmmmm, polls show smart, rich white people are all massively against Trump's insane policies.

    Yet here is Steve Sailer (obvious alias) and his swastika crew trying to speak on behalf of white people. You poors and stupids give white folks a bad name!

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @anon, @Clyde, @ben tillman

    Hmmmm, polls show smart, rich white people are all massively against Trump’s insane policies.

    No, they don’t. There are no polls that identify “smart people”.

  140. @D. K.
    @ben tillman

    Does the federal statute that I linked to refer to state actors, Ben? Do you think that that statute applies only to state actors, Ben? Then why, Ben, do you assume that the commenter to whom I replied already knew the actual content of that federal statute (which does not refer to state actors, because it applies to anyone, not just to state actors), when the whole purpose of his comment [infra] was to ask whether such a law even could apply to private citizens who are not state actors?

    ***

    Because, as best I can tell, free speech is a right held only against the government (state or federal), wouldn’t the conspiracy felony only apply to instances fed/state action to suppress speech?

    ***

    There is a separate civil-rights statute, of much earlier vintage, which makes it illegal for state actors to deprive individuals of their civil rights "under color of law." This later statute was passed precisely to outlaw any group from doing something similar. In further response to that earlier commenter: Which Constitutional civil liberty (as opposed to statutorily granted civil rights, like access to fair housing and employment non-discrimination) is not "a right held only against the government," rather than against private individuals, as well?

    Replies: @Opinionator, @ben tillman

    Does the federal statute that I linked to refer to state actors, Ben? Do you think that that statute applies only to state actors, Ben? Then why, Ben, do you assume that the commenter to whom I replied already knew the actual content of that federal statute (which does not refer to state actors, because it applies to anyone, not just to state actors), when the whole purpose of his comment [infra] was to ask whether such a law even could apply to private citizens who are not state actors?

    No, that wasn’t the question. The question was whether there is a civil right of “free speech” that goes beyond the prohibition that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”

    And the statute says nothing on that point.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @ben tillman

    No, Ben, the issue was whether he was "already familiar with the statute" that I (and the professor himself, by linking to it in his article-- as Steve chose not to do, while reproducing the professor's own reference to the federal statute) had cited, as you claimed, based simply on his initial inquiry. There was no evidence-- and there still is no evidence-- that he was "already familiar with [the content of] the statute" at issue in the professor's article, and in Steve's title to this blog post, to which I pointed him, in my initial comment, above, since Steve's excerpt of the professor's article does not include a link to the statute, and the professor's article, although containing a hyperlink to the statute, never cites the statute's name, nor its location within the United States Code.

  141. @D. K.
    @Opinionator

    The federal law to which I linked-- which is the same law to which the professor linked, albeit at a different Web site-- does not list any of the specific civil rights which it was designed to protect. It expressly protects them by their collective nature, not by their respective names (speech, religion, assembly, etc.). Your expecting there to be a Constitutional provision or statutory law about Free Speech, beyond its obvious First Amendment protection, is simply baffling to me!?!

    Replies: @Opinionator, @D. K., @ben tillman

    The federal law to which I linked– which is the same law to which the professor linked, albeit at a different Web site– does not list any of the specific civil rights which it was designed to protect. It expressly protects them by their collective nature, not by their respective names (speech, religion, assembly, etc.). Your expecting there to be a Constitutional provision or statutory law about Free Speech, beyond its obvious First Amendment protection, is simply baffling to me!?!

    He doesn’t expect that. He’s asking a question. Clearly, the First Amendment does not “secure” a right to free speech that could be deprived in violation of the statute you cited. Now, maybe you can use the Ninth Amendment to make it a civil right that is “secured to [one] by the Constitution or laws of the United States”, or maybe there’s a statute somewhere, but you can’t just beg the question by presenting a statute that punishes conspiracies to violate civil rights. You need to show that the alleged right is a civil right “secured to [one] by the Constitution or laws of the United States” to make the statute applicable.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @ben tillman

    'Jack D' already had provided him with a link to the 1971 Supreme Court opinion deciding that issue, Ben-- for which you yourself, above, thanked the man! I merely linked to the actual statute at issue, since it was not only alluded to in the professor's article, but used in Steve's own title for this blog post. If you or 'Opinionator' have a problem with the claim that the statute even applies to Free Speech as a civil right that groups of private citizens-- e.g., "antifa" mobs-- cannot abridge, as proscribed in the federal statute, feel free to take it up with Professor Reynolds, who made the claim in his article (hyperlinking to the statute itself, but not bothering to cite the 1971 Supreme Court decision, which 'Jack D' so graciously supplied [supra]), and which Steve, by virtue of his title to this blog post, appeared readily to accept. As a retired attorney, I accept it, as well.

  142. @Jim Don Bob
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Agree absolutely. Nothing in the Constitution gives any judge the authority to declare anything unconstitutional.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    Agree absolutely. Nothing in the Constitution gives any judge the authority to declare anything unconstitutional.

    Article VI, Section 2, states, ” This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land….”

    That authorizes and effectively requires judges to declare statutes to be void if they conflict with the Constitution.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @ben tillman

    Article VI, Section 2, states, ” This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land….”

    The above, without the subordinate clauses, says, "This Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land". No mention of the Supreme Court.

    Article III, Section 2 says, "2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

    No mention of the authority of the SC to declare laws unconstitutional. Nice try at cherry picking though.

    Replies: @ben tillman

  143. @anon
    @BB753


    The real question is why Milo? Out of the hundreds of capable altrighters who could do his job, why pick up a flaming gay?
     
    explaining this to people who don't get it undermines the effect so

    1) he's not alt-right

    2) he is anti-SJW

    3) anti-SJW is currently useful for both alt-right and others

    Milo creates opportunities for the good guys to put politically correct senior police, academics and politicians in jail.

    This is useful.

    Replies: @BB753

    Ok, have him tour the whole country and provoke a thousand riots! That’d be fun to watch. But he’ll need bodyguards… As long as he doesn’t get to choose them. No Reggie Loves for you, dear Milo!

  144. @ben tillman
    @Jim Don Bob


    Agree absolutely. Nothing in the Constitution gives any judge the authority to declare anything unconstitutional.
     
    Article VI, Section 2, states, " This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...."

    That authorizes and effectively requires judges to declare statutes to be void if they conflict with the Constitution.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Article VI, Section 2, states, ” This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land….”

    The above, without the subordinate clauses, says, “This Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land”. No mention of the Supreme Court.

    Article III, Section 2 says, “2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

    No mention of the authority of the SC to declare laws unconstitutional. Nice try at cherry picking though.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Jim Don Bob


    No mention of the authority of the SC to declare laws unconstitutional. Nice try at cherry picking though.
     
    No need to mention it. It's a logical necessity. If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and a judge is confronted with a lawsuit involving a government action that conflicts with the Constitution, the judge has to pick one or the other as the basis for deciding the case. Either the judge declares the action in question void, or the judge declares the Constitution void. Those are the only possibilities.
  145. @ben tillman
    @D. K.


    Does the federal statute that I linked to refer to state actors, Ben? Do you think that that statute applies only to state actors, Ben? Then why, Ben, do you assume that the commenter to whom I replied already knew the actual content of that federal statute (which does not refer to state actors, because it applies to anyone, not just to state actors), when the whole purpose of his comment [infra] was to ask whether such a law even could apply to private citizens who are not state actors?
     
    No, that wasn't the question. The question was whether there is a civil right of "free speech" that goes beyond the prohibition that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."

    And the statute says nothing on that point.

    Replies: @D. K.

    No, Ben, the issue was whether he was “already familiar with the statute” that I (and the professor himself, by linking to it in his article– as Steve chose not to do, while reproducing the professor’s own reference to the federal statute) had cited, as you claimed, based simply on his initial inquiry. There was no evidence– and there still is no evidence– that he was “already familiar with [the content of] the statute” at issue in the professor’s article, and in Steve’s title to this blog post, to which I pointed him, in my initial comment, above, since Steve’s excerpt of the professor’s article does not include a link to the statute, and the professor’s article, although containing a hyperlink to the statute, never cites the statute’s name, nor its location within the United States Code.

  146. @ben tillman
    @D. K.


    The federal law to which I linked– which is the same law to which the professor linked, albeit at a different Web site– does not list any of the specific civil rights which it was designed to protect. It expressly protects them by their collective nature, not by their respective names (speech, religion, assembly, etc.). Your expecting there to be a Constitutional provision or statutory law about Free Speech, beyond its obvious First Amendment protection, is simply baffling to me!?!
     
    He doesn't expect that. He's asking a question. Clearly, the First Amendment does not "secure" a right to free speech that could be deprived in violation of the statute you cited. Now, maybe you can use the Ninth Amendment to make it a civil right that is "secured to [one] by the Constitution or laws of the United States", or maybe there's a statute somewhere, but you can't just beg the question by presenting a statute that punishes conspiracies to violate civil rights. You need to show that the alleged right is a civil right "secured to [one] by the Constitution or laws of the United States" to make the statute applicable.

    Replies: @D. K.

    ‘Jack D’ already had provided him with a link to the 1971 Supreme Court opinion deciding that issue, Ben– for which you yourself, above, thanked the man! I merely linked to the actual statute at issue, since it was not only alluded to in the professor’s article, but used in Steve’s own title for this blog post. If you or ‘Opinionator’ have a problem with the claim that the statute even applies to Free Speech as a civil right that groups of private citizens– e.g., “antifa” mobs– cannot abridge, as proscribed in the federal statute, feel free to take it up with Professor Reynolds, who made the claim in his article (hyperlinking to the statute itself, but not bothering to cite the 1971 Supreme Court decision, which ‘Jack D’ so graciously supplied [supra]), and which Steve, by virtue of his title to this blog post, appeared readily to accept. As a retired attorney, I accept it, as well.

  147. @Jim Don Bob
    @ben tillman

    Article VI, Section 2, states, ” This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land….”

    The above, without the subordinate clauses, says, "This Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land". No mention of the Supreme Court.

    Article III, Section 2 says, "2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

    No mention of the authority of the SC to declare laws unconstitutional. Nice try at cherry picking though.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    No mention of the authority of the SC to declare laws unconstitutional. Nice try at cherry picking though.

    No need to mention it. It’s a logical necessity. If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and a judge is confronted with a lawsuit involving a government action that conflicts with the Constitution, the judge has to pick one or the other as the basis for deciding the case. Either the judge declares the action in question void, or the judge declares the Constitution void. Those are the only possibilities.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS