bleeding heart

Do you, cupcake?

You evolved your opinions from people writing on the subject; it didn't come to you fully-formed in the nature of Divine Revelation. So why do you need to take your opinion from those who aren't "scholars"? I don't think you've thought any of this through. No..but you agree with Noam Chomsky on the subject of Lenin. so do I. What's the problem? Get outta my face with that foolishness. I was offering you citations on the very subject we're discussing. that's not "name-dropping." And so where did you come by this information? I'm aweare of the conventional pieties, kraychik. But in fact, theorizing about what the contemporary right "believes" is an attempt to summon authority by simple virtue that some people make the claim you're making. Like everything else in life, the "contemporary right" is what the "contemporary right" does. You like things simple? It really is that simple. First of all, the right are statists too. Very much so. So is the self-described centre. With very few exceptions (mostly from the intellectual but usually untried traditions of the libertarian right and left) conservatives, liberals, cventrists are all statists in certain ways. And no, you are flatly ignorant about fascism and Nazism. Again: we have current, contemporary fascists, right here in North America, who adore fascism, who call themselves fascist, and who read and think about fascism all the time. And they're uniformly right-wingers, kraychik. I'm sorry you don't like that; if it's any consolation, I'm not crazy about it either.

So how is citing historians of fascism "elitist"...and citing Goldberg and Glenn Beck not "elitist"?

Read scholarly work on fascism...any scholarly work on fascism. There's tons of it; it's complex; and scholars do not all agree. Read Robert Paxton; Roger Griffin; and Mathew Feldman, for starters...they take the thesis on directly. Or you can go back and rtead Raul hilberg (commonly referred to as "The Dean of holocaust Studies", having virtually invented the filed single-handedly. Hilberg was a conservative, but was extremely clear on the right-wing impulses that made fascism possible. But I have yet to see one that agrees with Goldberg (which is where you got the idea, whether you know it or not); and of course Nazism has more to do with the contemporary right. There are still folks calling themselves Nazis. They are uniformly right-wingers. And interestingly, kraychik, if you go peruse Stormfront or one of the other neo-Nazi, white nationalist sites, I think you'll discover something intriguing: on the occasion where these buffoons aren't castigating the Jews, the blacks, the Arabs, and the hispanics...they are having conservative-leaning discussions that you would find instantly familiar. They sure as hell aren't lefties.

Than Beck? ....certainly. Definitely. There's no worship. Worship is an actual word with actual denotations and connotations.

Yes...and that, like I said, and tried (whether well or not is up to you) to briefly demonstrate...this tends to lead quite naturally to preferring the right over the left. Which is fine, of course. But that's the original claim, with which I think you disagreed.

But seriously, kraychik...are you really that un-self-aware? You've arrived at this forum, and done nothing but screech "the Left! The Left!" You inform us that the Left is arrogant, stupid, uneducated...and then you latch on to what I said about a tiny sector of the conservative movement??? What gives, man?

You mean hios conspiracy theories? He's a weepy little intellectual and moral weakling. Ah. too bad. He's an utter moron. I have debated many times with lefties over just this point...particularly Lenin, a dictatorial killer who is defended because he was "not as bad as Stalin"...which must make a man like myself heroic indeed, if we're to use such comparisons. But the Left has, thankfully, been dropping these creatures from their roster for a long time now; indeed, some of the more popular and influential leftists, like Chomsky, have always spoken out against them. Nice try, though, sneaking in a right-wing maniac, and the most infamous of the killers you list. I know, yes yes, of Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" thesis (which Beck, being unread and unintelligent, really admires...but then, Beck has also shilled for an anti-semite anti-communist author on his show...you didn't know that, did you? However, Goldberg's "liberal fascism" notion has been demolished handily by several scholars of fascism. Fascism was a right-wing movement that used elements of early 20th century leftism...but it was still (and remains) more of a right-wing phenomenon. At any rate, Ayn Rand was not a conservative...so why you're using the right-left comparison yet again is baffling.

No they don't. They just cherish the victim status. I don't begrudge you your hobby. Enjoy!

Oh sure, it couldn't be, say, a confirmation bias or anything. Palin aside, you have plainly never listened to a word Glenn Beck has said. He's a conspiracy theorist, a dunderhead, and...well, he's awfully bloody weepy, isn't he? Poor little fella. Here's your "intelligent" Glenn Beck; I challenge you, kraychik, to go to the 3:15 mark, and listen for about fifteen seconds. Go ahead, i dare you! I suffered through most of Atlas Shrugged, yes. Aside from being a poorly-written novel (the crucial criteria for...a novel, her "philosophy" aside), it's jaw-droppingly stupid. Also, she despised conservatives, and not a single conservative fan of hers is aware of it. But more offensive was her stated admiration for a child-murderer, because for her, "real men" have terrific will and the cojones to carry it out. so she hated altruists...but admired a child-killer. I await your defense of this awesome gem of information. (It's freely available and easy to find, should you wish to do so.) She was a degenerate. And she's a major influence on the so-called "libertarian" movement. Well, your rhetorical question implies you know the answer...but you don't. So I'll tell you. If one claims to be an Ayn Rand fan, but has never read her...that person is stupid, and has a strong tendency towards servility; they depend on other poeple informing them of what they should think about a primary source which they haven't read. But then, the Tea-Partiers aren't famous for being too bright, are they? your personal anecdotes about speaking with them notwithstanding.

Yes, the radical lefty Argus gets all his news and opinions from the CBC! It was in part a real grassroots movement--as Argus already pointed out, beating you to the point. However, it has been fully co-opted by one of the two most bloated and powerful big-moneyed political parties on Earth...and they are now simply Republicans. And so, by definition, statists. Ah, yes, the persecuted Christians theme. Poster Kimmy has aptly demolished this preposterous nonsense in the Religion threads. You should check it out.

Sure, but if a news organ is free market and "pro-West," it is going to lean at least slightly to the Right, or at least more often than not...when the chips are down. That is, if the Economist Editorial Board had to choose, it would fall behind a right-leaning government before a left-leaning one. Reflexively, and in a realm larger than economics. In fact, they routinely do so. If you read "The Americas" section, back when Uribe was Colombia's leader, they consistently had back-to-back assessments of Colombia and Venezuela. I certainly have no issue with criticisms of Chavez, who has pretty real authoritarian tendencies (though he's hardly the "dictator" that his critics so promiscuously label him); however, according to every international assessment to my knowledge--up to and including Canadian government reports and the US State Department--Colombia under Uribe had every major human rights issue that Venezuela had...except worse. The Economist assiduously avoids this sedulous truth; or, more likely, they're flatly unable to even perceive what is hidden in plain view. (By the radical lefties at the State Department, for example, or the crazed socialists who make up the Canadian Government.) The tone of the Economist's pieces--without a single exception that I ever saw--made great bones about Venezuela's less-than-stellar human rights record, coupled with repeated insistence that "working with Washington" was improving Colombia's record. (A historical first, if it were true..which it isn't.) In other words, states friendly to powerful Western/Northern interests are inherently good, or at least continually 'improving" (evidence not required); whereas more hostile states are like misbehaved children.

I've read it a zilliopn times. It leans slightly to the right; they're not doctrinaire conservatives, but they are doctrinaire "free marketers" and doctrinaire "powerful states are morally superior" theorists.

So you're critical of the Tea Party mouth-breathers? Finally.

No. They're ignorant dummies who don't even understand that it is a government program, what they otherwise refer to as--gasp!--an entitlement. After all, they think the centrist-capitalist in the White House is an extremist socialist...but then, they believe everything they're told by the slightly smarter knuckledragging morons among them. They admire Glenn Beck. They sigh at the sight of Sarah Palin. They also pretend to worship at the altar of Ayn Rand...that would be bad enough, what with her nihilistic silliness and her admiration for child-murderers as "real men"....but even funnier, they haven't read Rand, because they read nothing. (Hell, even subtitles connote fruity foreign films, and distract from the esplosions.) It's all moot anyway; as was widely predicted, what little of the Tea Party was a genuine, principled grassrooots movement has been utterly co-opted by one of the two most powerful political parties on the planet. They're just Republicans now, and will do as they're told by their "betters."

.....

[edit: double, or triple!!! post]

Seems unlikely, but you never know!

So...you really want to begin your lengthy post about my ignorance with a stated declaration that you have intentionally misread my remark? To what end? Please. I'm from the Maritimes. You think I've never heard disparaging words from other Canadians about it? Hell, a sitting Prime Minister--our current one, in fact--came over here and insulted our work ethic, drive, and so on. And some Maritimers (who work as hard as Albertans...no, I realize you don't believe it--how could it be?--but it's true!) don't appreciate an effete little One-Region Nationalist telling them they don't work hard enough and lack "ambition." (But who has more ambition than a PM, for fuck's sake? They're power-mad by definition.) But we got over it very quickly. Just sayin.' OK...why don't you do a littler of your "research" (ie reading stuff that aligns exactly with your pre-existing view) about Quebec, and Toronto? The insults to Alberta diminish into relative obscurity quite quickly, I should think. For one example...the remarks about these regions on this very website. And it extrapolates generally. As to my personal anecdote, to which you return a little overmuch throughout your post, let me clarify: I used my personal anecdote as an analogy. Because, sure, people writing and speaking in the public politicized sphere have said some unwarranted things about the province. (You know, not unlike a PM telling a region, to its face, that they really suck. And why do I guess that you didn't give a rat's ass about that little gem? Wrong "victim," perhaps.) However, Claudius, and here's my point (obviously...I'm not convinced that you honestly missed it): most Canadians (say, give or take, 99.9% of them) do not strut around denouncing Alberta and insulting its residents. They simply do not. They scarcely think about it at all. And for pity's sake, that's not an insult! If you believe they do, then I'm afraid you're suffering (embracing?) a paranoid delusion. Or simple narcissism.

Not having read the book, I can't comment in depth, but this is a serious problem, already nicely addressed by others [bolding mine]: If that's indeed the primary focus, then it would be a pretty lazy and aritifically narrow "study" indeed. Herman and Chomksy's Manufacturing Consent, on the other hand takes an institutional examination of news media; obviously, in studying an institution, this is the way to go. The political leanings of Walmart's top tier, for example (mostly very conservative, incidentally) is in most ways irrelevant to the company's business practices. Much the same can be said for media institutions. Most journalists, yes, are "liberal" (Establishment liberal, however, not "far left"...a profound difference, as the two camps are practically ideological enemies). But it's moot anyway, as journalists do not run the rodeo, so to speak, not in a large-scale institutional setting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

That's not "for sure," and is in fact a meaningless platitude. That's true enough; but a far more fascinating phenomenon is when the winners insist on victim status and continual whining.

My opponents are mostly pretty good, if we're talking about MLW, and some of them are formidably intelligent and insightful. And for every one of them that isn't so bright, it would appear they are more or less evenly matched by silliness from the other end, so...there we stand.

Your silliness, and your focus on obssessive trivialities, is increasing exponentially with every post. No small achievement.

Personally, I find this highly dubious.

I'm forced to agree; and we much appreciate it!