Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Bill Flax, writing at Forbes, linked by Trevor Loudon:
In Argentina, everyone acknowledges that fascism, state capitalism, corporatism – whatever – reflects very leftwing ideology. Eva Peron remains a liberal icon. President Obama’s Fabian policies promise similar ends. His proposed infrastructure bank is just the latest gyration of corporatism. Why then are fascists consistently portrayed as conservatives?
Well obviously, the answer is: Because it is friendly to the liberal agenda to portray fascists as conservatives, and what liberals want, they get. But that raises the question: How come it is that liberals keep getting what they want, when it comes to writing down history?
The short answer is, because they do most of the talking.
Long answer is, we have reached an era in which talking has become more-or-less mutually exclusive from doing. If you can manage to do enough talking, and recruiting others to do your talking for you, within a bureaucratic mess that will tolerate no dissent, you’re probably not a producer of consumable goods. If you’re a producer of consumable goods, you are probably too busy to do much talking. Which is a shame, because as a producer of consumable goods, you have to make sure your shit works or else you aren’t going to have a paycheck tomorrow. Which suggest that when you do get around to talking, your talking might be on the boring side, but there’s merit in it and it’s a worthy decision others make to go ahead & listen to it.
When you talk for a living, on the other hand, your paycheck comes in when you…talk. And you know what you’re saying must be right because you…we-ell…say so. Your friends all say so. And they know they’re right because they agree with you. They know you’re right because you agree with them.
It even works with economics, in which we can see with our own eyes what works and what doesn’t. Nevertheless we still have “economists” who say Obama’s policies are good, and would be even better if only He could get more power. In other words, they say the precise opposite of what the evidence says, and in this so-called “science” they get away with it. Well, on the ladder of testability, it turns out history is on the next rung down. We “know” whatever someone took the time to write down. As far as verifying it? All we can do is recall, footnote where we can, and guess. There’s a lot of uncertainty involved; some people choose not to acknowledge it just because they can’t comprehend uncertainty, which ends up being a very silly way to go about studying history.
But we have a wedge driven between academe and reality now. And that’s how it’s done now, through the magic of manufacturing consensus by booting out dissent, and then calling it science. That is why fascists are portrayed as right wing, even though the evidence clearly shows they are left wing.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You know, it’s funny — I can actually see how they arrive at the “fascists are conservatives” thing from first principles, without any overt bias. You start with the true-by-definiton premise that socialism is internationalist — the proletariat is the proletariat everywhere, and capital knows no boundaries. Then you add the true-by-definition premise that socialists, and especially communists, are of the Left. The opposite of “internationalist” is “nationalist;” the opposite of “Left” is “Right.” Therefore the fascists, who hated the communists, are “right-wingers.”
Of course, that’s “black and white thinking,” which I’m informed by no less than the Mount Vernon Association of Experts on the Expertise of Mount Vernon Association Experts, is the quintessential conservative sin. And then there’s the fact that the Nazis called themselves National Socialists, but hey, no true Scotsman yadda yadda (or, if you prefer the lingo of the anointed, “false consciousness”). And then there’s the fact that the Bolsheviks hated the Mensheviks way more than the fascists hated either, but both were still leftist, and… well, whatever. It’s in a peer-reviewed journal, so it must be right. Because science, bitchez.
- Severian | 01/06/2015 @ 12:03House of Eratosthenes: fascists as conservatives
Fascists are not conservatives.
- Zachriel | 01/07/2015 @ 14:51Z: “Communists are not liberals. Fascists are not conservatives.”
- Zachriel | 01/11/2015 @ 07:02http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/four-things-more-important-than-mitt-romneys-tax-returns/#comment-17027