As Far-Right Violence Surges, Ted Cruz Seeks To Brand Antifa A Terrorist Organization

Well, the others are wrong.
Let's be cunning, like FDR was, when he goaded the Japanese into firing the first shot, even though that meant a death count. He knew that a death count was inevitable, but the American people were isolationist, had their heads in the sand. By provoking them to attack first, he awoke the American people to a white-hot fury, to a desire, as Churchill put it, to grind the Japanese into powder. Then Hitler, God bless 'im, did us the enormous favor of gratuitously declaring war on us, thus bringing the wrath of the American people and the mighty war machine they were able to build, onto the Nazis.

We've got keep cool heads here. It's fire discipline. Wait until squad leader says to commence firing, when the targets have moved into the killing zone.

 

Its well researched so there's loads of sources to choose from. Better to select what feels comfy. Add in stuff on a slightly different dimension, right wing authoritarianism, and you're good to go.

 

I'm familiar with that old classic, The Authoritarian Personality, and of course it's something well known to those of us who love Jordan Peterson that dominance hierarchies are part of our biological nature.

As for "right wing authoritarianism" I've no doubt it exists. But I should tell you, I was in the Far Left for about 25 years, and in left wing organizations and movements I saw authoritarianism like you wouldn't believe. Start with the people who set up 'Not in My Name' during the Iraq invasion, and who are behind some of the flag burning incidents, the Revolutionary Communist Party -- they are an absolute cult around one Bob Avakian, who is in voluntary exile in the capitalist hell of Paris -- for some reason, although they were congenial to his politics when he fled the US, he didn't choose Albania. From time to time a leftwing group blows up, and the survivors reveal the reality of its internal life, and their abuse by the leadership. I was pleased to see that the International Socialists have just done a self-immolation, with the usual stories of leadership tyranny.

You would also profit from reading, if you haven't, Jo Freeman's The Tyranny of Structurelessness, which came out of 'the movement' in the early 70s, where the egotistical 'stars' dominated, but did so without formal organizational structure, all the more effectively.

And the most dictatorial organization of all was the Weathermen -- Ayers and Dohrn ruled it like emperor and empress. But then if we look at anywhere where the Left is or was in power, we see real, genuine, copper-plated, detailed, authoritarian dominance, backed up by the gulag and the firing squad. I'll take good old patriotic America anytime, thank you very much.

 

Do be sure to let those present know when supposed right wing terrorists are going out of their way to shut down the legitimate sharing of ideas with the same tactics being utilized by Antifa, and with the apparent backing of city mayors and law enforcement officers who allow such to continue unabated.

 

Which means what? Forgive me here, but you've just got to wear Jesus sandals and the American crows communist. Most lefties are anti-authoritarian, by definition. As a market socialist, for example, I share common ground with the Austrian school.

So far we've just seen evidence of patriotism and racism going hand in hand....

 

Except for the fact that such is not the case. Such only applies when they are the political minority and hold no power. When they hold the majority and are in office, they are in support of the authoritarian approach, as was demonstrated by the affordable care act and many other pieces of legislation that were signed into law.

 

They're repeatedly tested for authoritarian traits. You do get, mind you, Stalinists with rather similar testing outcomes as right wingers.

 

And yet it is fact. Each political party is equally opposed to the authoritarian approach to doing business, but only when they are in the minority and do not hold political office. Once they are the majority and hold political office, they abandon their previous position and support the full authoritarian approach to doing business.

 

Ignoring the psychological evidence and just stating 'it is fact' won't wash.

 

Punched Anti-Trump Protester: ‘A Bunch Of Fascists’ Won’t Intimidate Me
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...tester-a-bunch-of-fascists-wont-intimidate-me

 

No Jesus sandals. Membership of, in fact in the leadership of, a Leninist organization. And the usual experiences of several thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of young Americans of my generation.

The idea that lefties are "anti-authoritarian, by definition" shows what's wrong with the practice of trying to force the world into one's own framework by defining it to fit your views. I think it's called the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. For most of the 20th Century, 'the Left' was acknowledged by almost everyone to include the Communists, who were very definitely not anti-authority. The Right practices this virtue-by-definition game as well, of course, by trying to define Hitler as a 'socialist' and 'on the Left'. Ridiculous.

I've known lots of people in the far Left, and I wouldn't say that, as individuals, they are any more "authoritarian" than anyone else. I do think that many of them were very serious people, concerned about injustice, keen to make a better world. But like all of us they were shaped by events, by history, by circumstances. In my own organization, all human life was there -- from independent-minded upright people through to abject toadies seeking to please the Leadership. But it was definitely true that our dedication to 'The Revolution' and the necessity to 'build the vanguard party', made a lot of us swallow our doubts and accept things that we would not have in ordinary life.

If you're going to make a social revolution, you necessarily accept the necessity for authority. War is very much an authoritarian business, even, maybe especially, civil war. I believe you acknowledged earlier that your proposed market socialism would still require a revolution, since it means taking the property of some, and transferring it to others. Whether or not that's a good idea, it's not going to happen peacefully, and if you want your side to win, you're going to have to become pretty authoritarian.

'Authoritarian' is a neutral term, in any case. Even far short of civil war, workers on strike take a very authoritarian attitude to strikebreakers. Nothing is more authoritarian than an army, whether it's the Red Army or the White.

I always smile at attempts by either Left or Right to establish that their side has all the virtues, and the other side, all the vices. I have a great collection of articles by leftist academic psychologists straining to prove that conservatives suffer from a shrunken anterior cingulate cortex, or an enlarged amygdala. It reminds me of German academics in the 1930s with their investigations into 'race science'. Surprisingly, they found what their masters wanted them to find. Today, same same.

In the 'my side is better than yours' sillyness, what we often find is some kid, ignorant of history, asserting that going to college makes you a Lefty, totally ignorant of the fact that, for centuries, higher education was the preserve of the upper and upper-middle classes, whose offspring brought to the campus the political views of their parents. (Although probably adding a bit of youthful extremism --- thus it was that the Nazis achieved power, and not by a backstage coup, in the German students' union a year and a half before Hitler took power in the German state.)

Patriotism is on a spectrum with nationalism, and nationalism is on a spectrum with extreme tribalism, a form of which is racism. A Croatian nationalist is an unpleasant person, and a Croatian patriot who is not a nationalist probably has to work hard at it. But Orwell showed that English (as he called it) patriotism included many virtues, while still being on that spectrum. And the same is the case for American patriotism, which is not the same as it was a hundred years ago. I still recall with pleasure a hard-nosed Marine general in Afghanistan snarling about the Taliban's treatment of women. I think the Marxists would talk about 'contradictions' at this point, and they would be right.

 

The "hard left" accusation that's often thrown about today. Of course that "hard left" is actually teeny. Most folk accused of being radicals are just social democrats and similar ilk.

I'm merely going by the evidence. I know you like to give up on it. Regarding communists, the real attack that I saw as a nipper was from the left. Your hero Orwell is but one of many. Everything else was just military industrial complex games.

This is when I get bored. You never provide anything but tabloidism. You then go on and on about that tabloidism. Stick to the evidence. Do psychologists find authoritarianism within the left? If so, how and who? And if its the "far left", perhaps they offer an explanation for your right wing switch and how your position is alien to mine?

 

And the attacker was duly arrested and charged with assault. Good! I hope he gets a nice long spell in the free hotel. Maybe he can share his cell with these people, if the Portland police ever catch them.

 

I'm not trying to make a debater's point here but often what you post is difficult to understand.
What do you mean by "Regarding communists, the real attack that I saw as a nipper was from the left. Your hero Orwell is but one of many. Everything else was just military industrial complex games."
I can't take the time to do it today, and don't have access to my files at the moment anyway, but at some point I will put together a post on academic so-called social science, and how far it is from real, ie physical, science. I'm a bit surprised that a radical is so quick to just accept the authority of established institutions. I doubt you do that for Departments of Economics.

And, just out of curiousity, if American workers are so wicked, being patriotic and according to you, necessarily racist, as they are, how do you ever expect them to embrace socialism?

 

Happy to help if you need it. Of course that isn't really true. I've simply referred to the evidence.

Ultimately its a sneer at tabloidism. We know the reality of the "hard left". They were irrelevant and lacked allies. Its not surprising that many of them, like yourself, shifted to the right. Its a bit rich to refer to authoritarianism mind you, given the evidence shows you haven't made much of a switch!

Try to be concise. You do have a habit of going on, as shown by this weird post.

Please don't make stuff up. I've merely referred to the evidence into patriotism and racism; evidence you ignored.

 

I have no interest at all in just exchanging one- or two-sentence insults, or even longer ones, so I won't reply to your personal comments. I don't think it's possible to have a serious argument/discussion without 'going on' a bit. As for the idea that a single sociological study ends the discussion about the consciousness of the white working class ... well, I can't change your mind obviously. But I do hope other people besides you and me are reading this, and I again commend George Orwell's The Lion and the Unicorn to everyone who is interested in socialism, democracy, patriotism as experienced by real human beings in all their complexity and not some self-righteous moralizer's (oops!) cardboard caricatures.

 

Content is fine, but you have a habit of adding unnecessary fluff. I find that less agreeable when you're responding to evidence-based comment.

Making stuff up again! Why bother? That's the real caricature.

 

I'll tell you what. You're obviously a serious person, as shown by the fact that your version of socialism attempts to address the Economic Calculation Problem. (Most so-called socialists have never even heard of it.)

So why not, at some point in the future, let's have a debate on the sole topic of patriotism, and how people who believe in liberal democracy -- which I think includes you, even if you wouldn't use that phrase -- need to relate to it in the USA of today. I still don't understand your position, in particular the implications for political action which flow from it. Perhaps that's my fault.

It would probably be an interesting debate, and we even both might learn something.

 

Do I get all tabloid now and mention that all socialists I know do? Perhaps not, seems a waste of time.

Are you looking for an excuse to post pages without saying anything? If so, I'll pass.

Doubt it. I haven't seen any new insights from your responses. You've just said you love Orwell a lot (despite his anti-nationalism)

 

Well, your choice. (I wonder if you've actually read The Lion and the Unicorn? At some point I'll post some extracts from it, because he's very sympathetic to English patriotism there, and absolutely destroys the trendy Left of his time, whose anti-fascism he shows to be all hot air.)

 

Legacy media ignored Proud Boys presence at Trump’s rally
https://www.mediamatters.org/donald-trump/legacy-media-ignored-proud-boys-presence-trumps-rally

These "very fine people" support Don. There's a reason for that.

 

Super!

He shows no love for nationalism. And you've simply ignored the evidence over US patriotism. No need to be repetitive.

 

I don't support Don, but I don't make my choices by simply seeing who is supported by people I don't like. David Duke has some kind words to say for Tulsi Gabbard, but so what?

 

They were conservatives then and conservatives now.

 

Name the time you saw conservative printed on the ballot? They definitely were Democrats and that is what the ballot says.