Yes, fascism is of the Left

Can the strength of the conservative resistance of the Social Democratic workers be calculated beforehand? It cannot. In the light of the events of the past years, this strength seems to be gigantic. But the truth is that what helped most of all to weld together Social Democracy was the wrong policy of the Communist Party, which found its highest expression in the absurd theory of social fascism. To measure the real resistance of the Social Democratic ranks, a different measuring instrument is required, that is, a correct Communist tactic. Given this condition—and it is not a small condition—the degree of internal corrosion of the Social Democracy can be revealed in a comparatively brief period. – Leon Trotsky

So, Mussolini was a Marxist leader. Hitler always declared National Socialism to be the true socialism in opposition to the Marxist variant. Leon Trotsky declares “social fascism” to be a form of “Social Democracy”, an errant Communist policy.

To which the good little American Democrat says: “but, but, but my teachers said that the Nazis were RIGHT-WING!!!!”

What do you call an organization whose largest occupational group is school teachers? The NEA? The Democratic Party? Both would be accurate answers, but the one I’m looking for is that historical champion of the state-run schools, the historical German National Socialist Worker’s Party.

Enjoy your unconstitutional holy day, everyone

Courtesy of the Physics Geek:

WHEREAS, It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor;

WHEREAS, Both the houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted’ for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

–George Washington – October 3, 1789

Strangely, I find that you all, freaks, friends and frauds alike, are among the many things for which I am thankful. To God.

Now, I’m not saying you’re particularly high on the list or anything… let’s not get carried away now.

Garbage gobblers and the trash that feeds them

Here we go again. SingleMind brings up the usual theme after first being kind enough to throw the snarling dog a few bones.

Vox challenged Shapiro–who is a 21-year-old law school student at Harvard–to put his money where his mouth is and join the military. In the exchange that ensued, Vox attacked Shapiro with implicit gay-baiting and suggested “methinks the lady doth protest too much.”

Now, Vox is in a long-standing spat with Michelle Malkin over her book In Defense of Internment, in which Malkin makes a case for modern-day threat profilng in the global war against terrorists (GWOT) by providing a framework for understanding the internment of Japanese Americans who resided on the West Coast in World War II. The spat has descended into a slingfest, which now has Vox calling Malkin a “liar” and referring to her with such derogatory terms as “Me-So Michelle” (which is tantamount to calling her a slut) and “media whore”.

Vox is a smart man, but this level of personal attack against Malkin–a fellow Christian, by the way–reveals a lack of maturity on his part. Having read Vox’s columns for quite some time, I hate to say this, but I think he’s jealous.

Ben Shapiro, after all, is only 21, and has written two outstanding books. Malkin is also widely published and has written three fine-selling books.

On one hand, he’s a first-rate intellect. He is so smart he can run circles around 99% of the population, but this has gotten to his head. When people challenge him, he ridicules their arguments and treats them like crap. That may arouse his loyal fans, but he ends up forgetting the Christian in his Christian libertarian label.

And Vox is published by a far bigger publishing house, has written as many books as Shapiro and Malkin combined and has almost certainly sold more copies as well. So, obviously, the reason for my biting criticism of these two twits is that I’m jealous.

Okay, that’s not really fair. Shapiro is a twit, Malkin is a – oh, Sweet Cthulhu, Bane, you know it’s physically hurting me not to say it – fraud. Both are third-rate intellects; to say that Shapiro’s books are “outstanding” defies belief. As I’ve written previously, now that the Littlest Chickenhawk has introduced us to the concepts of college professors being liberal and American men liking porn, we’re eagerly awaiting his next two books, Oxygen (very important!) and Water (wet!).

The problem with Shapiro and Malkin is that they are, along with a few others, being pushed to the forefront as the next generation of conservative opinion leader. This is a death trap for conservativism, because both are big government courtesans, the sort I referred to as Scortus medius washingtonia in Media Whores, the unpublished book for which a conservative publishing house initially offered a contract and then paid me not to write.

I’m not bitter about that – the only thing better than getting paid to write is getting paid not to write – and I’d rather write fiction anyhow. But don’t believe for one second that it’s a coincidence how every mainstream media figurehead, left and right, will ultimately come down on the side of big government.

I trash Malkin and Shapiro, not because they are intellectual garbage, but because they are intellectual garbage that far too many otherwise decent individuals inexplicably scarf up as though they were a three-course meal. If you saw a little kid gobbling used diapers, coffee grinds and banana peels from a trash can on the sidewalk, wouldn’t you try to stop him? Conservatives don’t need me to warn them about Maureen Dowd, Eric Alterman and Michael Moore, they need to be warned about the nominally right-wing big government lovers who are so busy pointing “look, no clothes!” at the Left that no one notices they are themselves skyclad.

At least Malkin has an excuse for being a girl and hiding instead of publicly defending her work. Shapiro tried to offer a pre-emptive defense, got deservedly bitchslapped and wasn’t even man enough to defend himself from an actual accuser despite previously spending two straight weeks addressing imaginary ones.

Unlike those I criticize so sharply, at least I take the time to address my critics’ arguments, often in depth, before I indulge myself by treating “them like crap”. And unlike Malkin, I never offer up pop psychological explanations for my critics’ attacks in lieu of a substantive response. As for Christianity, I seem to recall Jesus Christ wasn’t exactly shy or soft-spoken when he got in the face of hypocrites who made a habit of sucking up to government authority.

Still, I understand that there are plenty of those, like Singleminded, who consider this sort of thing to be distasteful and would rather I was more moderate in my polemics. I certainly respect this perspective and I take no offense at his expressing this nor at his recommendation.

Of course, I still don’t give an airborne rodent’s posterior and I will “cool it” with regards to “right-wing” courtesans and charlatans in the Commentariat about the same time I give up my repetitive and redundant attacks on feminist equalitarians, Marxist socialists, Republican backstabbers, Manchester United and the Green Bay Packers.

Isn’t it amazing how everyone has a pet theory of why you are attacking a target that somehow avoids them having to address the points raised? At least, that’s how it appears to a bitter, jealous, self-hating, secretly-gay capitalist running dog who can’t get laid.

PN responds to my response:

You exploit Malkin’s ethnicity and the fact that men generally find her attractive in an effort to humiliate her and further mock and discredit what she says. This is neither decent nor is it the equal treatment you claim women deserve (I don’t believe that women who want to play on an equal playing field deserve special treatment or respect–in case you forgot). Would you ever take advantage of a man’s looks (whether they be good or bad) or his ethnicity to do what you’re doing to Malkin? I highly doubt it. If you did, you’d sound so utterly stupid. Imagine, people talking about how you tried to refute what Mister-Man said by calling him ugly…or claiming that people only agree with him because he’s so gosh-darned-good-lookin’…! So if you wouldn’t do this to a man, you’re guilty of giving women the special treatment (albeit subpar) you so strongly expressed they don’t deserve.

So Michelle is a media whore–call her that. Call her exactly that. Don’t call her a name that alludes to a Da Nang hooker trying to solicit business by using the phrase, “Me so horny. Me love you long time.” You and I, along with everyone else who sees you calling her “Me-So,” knows that her media whorishness is not the only thing that this name references. Like I said above, it exploits her ethnicity, the way she looks, and her gender. Would this metaphor, this nickname, still be applicable if she were, say, an ugly, media whore Dutchman? He’d still be named Michelle, of course–we most certainly would not want to deprive you of that oh-so-clever and spicy use of alliteration.

First, if Me So doesn’t want to be mocked for her ethnicity and her gender, she should have known better than to be born a Philippina. The blame lies entirely with her. No one exploits Me So’s looks more than Miz Malkin herself; if she looked like Helen Thomas there is not a chance in Hell that she’d have a syndicated column or a book deal, much less appear from time to time on Fox. Seriously, other than her internment idiocy, she’s neither written nor said virtually anything that ten other faux conservatives haven’t said before.

That’s fine, I have no problem with those whose careers are entirely based on their physical attractions; I quite like them actually. But even the dimmest model or stripper understands this, while Malkin and other TV wanna-bees are desparate to convince us and them that it’s actually their intellects on offer. Please. It’s called marketing, get used to it as long as we still live in a quasi-capitalist society. In a truly meritocratic media, Fred Reed would be the most widely-syndicated columnist; he’s a far better writer than Ann Coulter and far more amusing than Jonah Goldberg, who is probably the best of the new breed. And yet, he never had a shot.

Everyone has to have a gimmick now. Me So’s schtick is Ann Coulter II: half the brains and twice the whore (minority included!). Shapiro’s bit is the same as Kyle Williams, look, ma, the little kid can write in complete sentences! Kyle lost interest in the trained monkey act; it will be interesting to see if Shapiro eventually does the same or goes right into politics proper. WND and UPS could never quite figure out what my gimmick was supposed to be – WND went with the male Ann Coulter thing, while UPS was thinking WFB with attitude – but I simply stuck with the arrogant white male motif that has served me so well for lo, these many years.

There is not, it turns out, a market for that in the mainstream media or in the conservative publishing world. C’est la vie. Not only was I not surprised, but I’m still shocked that UPS managed to sell the column to the Dallas Morning News, even if it was dropped before it ever ran.

Would I ever take advantage of a man’s weaknesses? In a heartbeat. Actually, there are those who would argue that what I did to Brave Sir William and the Littlest Chickenhawk was worse; the vast bulk of my criticism of Malkin is mind-numblingly substantive.

Which leaves us with the interesting question of what I would call an ugly, male Dutch media whore. Well, that’s obvious. Amstertrannie.

Mailvox: Blogspot inadequacies

MinnesotaSmith manages to keep it within three Haloscans:

BTW, Vox, when the heck are you going to get a modern discussion forum software like EZBoard for your site? It’s way overdue; you’ve certainly got the traffic/interest level to support it.

I will make the switch as soon as someone else arranges to do so. If you have an idea, talk to Digital Cowboy – his email should be at – and talk with him about incorporating the blog with the website there.

This is my hobby, not my job, and I’m not interested in doing anything that looks remotely like work. I understand that Blogger and Haloscan are suboptimal in the eyes of many, but they work for me with a minimum of effort.

Also, the ephemeral nature of the comments tends to prevent a few from too-easily dominating them as happens in many forums. Forums implies the need for forum cops, and while I’m sure we could arrange for that, it’s just one more thing that I know I’m not going to do myself.

Mailvox: typing very slow

Fresh from talking sense about the likely implications of a male birth control pill, qwerty decides to play logician and the results aren’t pretty:

Vox’s data isn’t quite this bad, but is very sloppy and is based on very poor logic. As a result it’s probably off by a factor of 5 or more. Hard to say. Being off by a factor of 2 is pretty lame.

First, he takes a number of murderers (about 3400) in a certain age group. Then, since he personally has only heard of 2 murderers who were homeschooled, he assumes all the rest of the 3400 must have had a public education.

The worse thing about Vox’s logic is in comparing a tiny number to a huge number, without consideration of it’s accuracy, then projecting this sketchy data over 3 years, increasing his error by threefold.

He concludes that a homeschooled kid is only 1/114th as likely to kill as a kid from the public school system.

It would only take the discovery of 2 more killers on the homeschooled side (be it crime of passion, drug crazed homicide, road rage, or whatever) to change the result by a factor of 2.

Very sloppy conclusion, all in all.

This is the sort of pedantic observation that is particularly embarassing, ignoring as it does the forest for the trees. For qwerty to be correct, one has to believe the following things:

1. In a nation full of compulsory public schooling, a significant percentage of children have never attended public school or been homeschooled.

2. In a nation where 45 murders are committed every day, primacy of publicity would be given to one over a period of ten days without there being man-bites-dog component given the absence of a celebrity aspect. qwerty also ignores that there are many homeschooled individuals over the age of 22; I left them out in order to simplify the analysis but any +22 homeschooled killers would be fair game for the media as well.

3. Given a media which consistently seeks to negatively publicize that which it opposes, and given that this media is overtly anti homeschooling, the media would neglect to report widely on a homeschooled killer.

4. There have been at least 8 additional homeschooled murderes under the age of 22 in the last three years. Given the publicity that accompanied the recent case, what the chances that we’ve simply missed the coverage of them.

Most importantly, qwerty fails to note that his estimate still leaves 218 of the 228 homeschooled killers indicated by the statistics missing. Thus, even if we accept his revision, this would mean that instead of being 114 times more likely to commit murder than a homeschooler, a public schooled individual would be only 25 more times likely to do so. In other words, my point about there being a significant difference linked to schooling still stands.

The true deleterious effect of public schools may in fact be even worse – my 1/114 estimate may be too generous in favor of the public schools – because ten percent of the 45 million students in America attend private schools. This is why I originally said 40 daily murders, not 45, but I do not know at the moment if the privately schooled are doing their fair share of the killing or not.

To be strictly fair, given the gaps in the data, we should collate the publicly schooled and the privately schooled as one collectively schooled group in asserting that murderous 1/114 ratio, although I expect that given the fact that most killers are of lower IQ and lower income status and the dearth of media stories devoted to “prep-school killers” I suspect that my original estimate will ultimately prove to be too low, rather than too high. In any case, any possible errors here lie in the admittedly incomplete data, not in the logical assessment of it.