Darn, you beat me to it. I was going to use this one to point out the telltale indicators that you're reading a piece of propagandistic bullshit instead of "news". Like the exclusive reliance on partisan sources; absence of any media, police or third party validation; highly flavoured but ambiguous phrasing (the poor "victim" was "catapulted" off his car, but there is no reference to physical contact with the alleged assailant); and of course, the omission or downplaying of a few crucial facts (one account notes that the "victim" was actually standing on a platform he had designed and constructed for the roof of his car, to enable him to harass people over a privacy fence).
Once again, I'm left wondering who these folks are trying to convince with this risible faux-news propaganda - it seems more and more like a high school pep rally, where the intent is simply to engrage the faithful rather than convince.
Well, that the lying liars are lying again is no great surprise.
But, yeah, it's an idiotic story. Not that we at Birth Pangs were above having some fun with it. 
"engrage?" May I use that sometime, Balb? I love it!
Fascism is anti-eros and anti-abortion is far more about anti-sex than it is about pro-life (otherwise, they wouldn't care about gays and lesbians, who have, and I'm totally guessing here, extremely low abortion rates).
This is the creeping nature of fascism that tends to suck people in before they realise what's happening to them.
Mountain, meet molehill.
Dawg, perhaps you are more of an expert than I on "the wonkier parts of the blogosphere" but I have seen no mention of this story - and this post prompted me to look for it. The site that you have recently held up as the exemplar of the conservative-fascist connection, Small Dead Animals, does not mention it. Neither does Steve Janke, Gay and Right, Damian Penny, or Dust my Broom. I went to Kathy Shaidle, on the assumption that she sits on or past the boundary of "wonky" - and yes, there it is. I was curious, though - since I had deliberately gone to a site expected to run the story it was hardly an unbiased sample of conservative thinking, so I wandered down the Blogging Tories blogroll. I looked as far back as their Christmas wishes (or equivalent message), since the story apparently broke on Friday, Dec 28th. So, what did I find? In a word, nothing. In the following blogs (every blog on the blogroll in sequence - HaloScan will not accept the full list), I did not spot a single mention of this incident:
Gay and Right...
... (42 blogs, IIRC)
TheoCon
And then I got tired of the game - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all. Granted, some of them shut down over Christmas, and a couple have not been active for even longer, but I think there is enough missing to ask the questions: "Who, exactly, is 'all alight' with this story?" and "Where, precisely, do you see the conservo-fascist connection?"
The post reeks to me, Dawg, of searching for a thin reed of support for a previously established conclusion.
dcardno:
I found it first at Shaidle's place (where else?). Oh, and it's here, too, of course. (I searched around after the original Catholic newswire source was reprinted by a feminist blog.) I wouldn't expect to find such a thing at more decorous sites. Not every conservative site is wonky, or I wouldn't link to so many of them.
I linked to four conservative websites in my post. If you go to Google Blog and enter the name "Ed Snell," you will find more.
The conservative/fascist connection is the uncritical reliance upon a fascist information source for a story to push the so-con agenda. But note that I did refer to "elements of the conservative movement," not "conservatives."
I'm sorry you had to spend so much time on this. : )
Happy New Year.
Hey - it got me looking around a little...
The conservative/fascist connection is the uncritical reliance upon a fascist information source for a story ...
Sure - but I think you are making too much of it; no doubt there are loopy sites on the left, too - but that doesn't discredit all left-leaning bloggers, or even more, all left-leaning thinkers outside the blogosphere. Didn't I read about someone who "isn't doing that sort of thing anymore?"
All the best in the New Year to you, too, Dawg.
"... searching for a thin reed of support for a previously established conclusion."
Not a bad line, though not as good as this one which can be found at another Progressive Bloggers' site who is describing a US MSM pundit: "... he treats the hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians world-wide as little more than fertilizer for a field of Republican dreams."
Perhaps not all members of the neocon media are fascist, but many of them have moved beyond first base, if you know what I mean, jelly bean?
If you look at the TFP web site, they have a whole page condemning Nazi-Fascism showing how the ideological roots of both are very similar to communism. The link is here:
http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think...nk/
fascism.html
If you are going to attack them, at least we should quote them right.
John:
That is purely a tactical move on their part, motivated, no doubt, by accurate critiques of their ideology and their goings-on in Latin America. They come to this by grossly misrepresenting fascism, which, inter alia, did not support the expropriation of private property. They quote, out of context, exclusively from the Nazi regime, rather than from spokespeople for the Mussolini corporate state whose ideology is most closely aligned with TFP's. And they end--not with a warning to eschew fascism--but only communism.
It's an artful piece of work, and utterly unconvincing.
That is purely a tactical move on their part, motivated, no doubt...
Well, if you feel free to dismiss whatever someone says in rebuttal as 'a tactical move' (and even better, to atribute motives to them) you can convict them of anything, can't you Dawg?
I assert that you are a 9/11 troofer; you believe that "property is theft," and that the richest 3% of the population should be summarily shot, pour encourager les autres. My proof? Your tactical denial!
They come to this by grossly misrepresenting fascism, which, inter alia, did not support the expropriation of private property
You have made this comment a couple of times, and it is distinction without a difference. While the fascists didn't expropriate private property, they appropriated it - the use, direction, and tranfer pricing (and thus profitability) of all significant parts of the economy (particularly heavy industry) was centrally planned exactly as if the assets had been converted to state ownership (see W Manchester's Arms of Krupp for a good discussion). This had the advantage (to the fascists) of less resistance and lower visibility than a campign of nationalization. The end result could not be meaningfully distinguished from expropriation.
I assert that you are a 9/11 troofer; you believe that "property is theft," and that the richest 3% of the population should be summarily shot, pour encourager les autres. My proof? Your tactical denial!
I don't think Dawg has ever denied that.
OMG...Dawg's a totalitarian nutcase commie!
OMG...Dawg's a totalitarian nutcase commie!
I deny that.
dcardno:
It's not that all denials are tactical--you always overstate your opponent's case. This denial is clearly tactical, along the same lines as David Duke's rejection of the "racist" label. The fascism that underlies both the theory and practice of TFP is Mussolini's corporatism, not Nazism--and the comments from ideologues of the latter stripe are wrenched well out of context, or simply stretched. In other words, this denial, almost certainly prompted by numerous opponents of TFP, reeks of disingenuousness.
Given that the fascist state could not have come into being and maintained itself without the support of capitalists, I would suggest that the rationalization of the means of production operated very much in the latter's favour, and with their consent. Krupp made millions during the war, and, thanks to the US and "reconstructed" Germany, continued to do so after the war, after a derisory sentence for the extensive use of slave labour. Corporations under fascism were no victims of the state.
Umm, dcardno? That should read 'pour décourager les autres' in your post. Unless your unconscious mind is subliminally suggesting that shooting rich people is a good tactic?
I thought it was from Voltaire, and was meant ironically.
...this denial, almost certainly prompted by numerous opponents of TFP, reeks of disingenuousness.
Dawg - you have the advantage, so long as you can discern your opponent's motives: TFP doesn't believe what they say, except when what they say plays into your preconceptions... Okay - they are whatever you say they are.
Krupp made millions during the war,...
My recollection was that it damned near bankrupted them. Granted, being on the losing side in "total warfare" will do that to you.
...and, thanks to the US and "reconstructed" Germany, continued to do so after the war
...and how do we blame "the fascists," unless Harry S Truman was a... ohhh; I get it.
I thought it was from Voltaire...
Bingo
On Krupp, there's Manchester's The Arms of Krupp: The Rise and Fall of the Industrial Dynasty that Armed Germany at War. The Krupps ran private concentration camps, made extensive use of slave labour, routinely practised torture, came nowhere close to bankruptcy so far as I am aware. As noted, the family escaped justice at Nuremberg, and was restored to its wealth. That doesn't mean that Truman and Adenauer were fascists, by the way. But fascism is, after all, just a form of capitalism, and business is business.
And my point about TFP stands, but based on their own tortured explanation of their "differences" with fascism, not on any supposed "motives" I'm allegedly trying to divine. But I've already gone into that. Is there some point I made earlier on this that you want to address?
More on Krupp:
Krupp and his father were initially hostile to the Nazi Party. However, in 1930 they were persuaded by Hjalmar Schacht that Adolf Hitler would destroy the trade unions and the political left in Germany. Schacht also pointed out that a Hitler government would considerably increase expenditure on armaments. In 1933 Krupp joined the Schutzstaffel (SS).
---
Krupp also built factories in German occupied countries and used the labour of over 100,000 inmates of concentration camps. This included a fuse factory inside Auschwitz. Inmates were also moved to Silesia to build a howitzer factory. It is estimated that around 70,000 of those working for Krupp died as a result of the methods employed by the guards of the camps.
In 1943 Adolf Hitler appointed Krupp as Minister of the War Economy. Later that year the SS gave him permission to employ 45,000 Russian civilians as forced labour in his steel factories as well as 120,000 prisoners of war in his coalmines.
Arrested by the Canadian Army in 1945 Alfried Krupp was tried as a war criminal at Nuremberg. He was accused of plundering occupied territories and being responsible for the barbaric treatment of prisoners of war and concentration camp inmates. Documents showed that Krupp initiated the request for slave labour and signed detailed contracts with the SS, giving them responsibility for inflicting punishment on the workers.
---
By 1950 the United States was involved in fighting the Cold War. In June of that year, North Korean troops invaded South Korea. It was believed that German steel was needed for armaments for the Korean War and in October, John J. McCloy, the high commissioner in American occupied Germany, lifted the 11 million ton limitation on German steel production. McCloy also began pardoning German industrialists who had been convicted at Nuremberg. This included Fritz Ter Meer, the senior executive of I. G. Farben, the company that produced Zyklon B poison for the gas chambers. He was also Hitler's Commissioner of for Armament and War Production for the chemical industry during the war.
McCloy was also concerned about the increasing power of the left-wing, anti-rearmament, Social Democratic Party (SDP). The popularity of the conservative government led by Konrad Adenauer was in decline and a public opinion poll in 1950 showed it only had 24% of the vote, while support for the SDP had risen to 40%. On 5th December, 1950, Adenauer wrote McCloy a letter urging clemency for Krupp. Hermann Abs, one of Hitler's personal bankers, who surprisingly was never tried as a war criminal at Nuremberg, also began campaigning for the release of German industrialists in prison.
In January, 1951, John J. McCloy announced that Alfried Krupp and eight members of his board of directors who had been convicted with him, were to be released. His property, valued a
cont'd.
His property, valued at around 45 million, and his numerous companies were also restored to him.
Some bankruptcy.
More on McCloy here. He got himself honorary German citizenship and was involved in quite a few shenanigans after his spring-the-war-criminals activities.
Wikipedia has it as:
In 1951, as the Cold War developed and no buyer came forward, the authorities released him, and in 1953 he resumed control of the firm.
"No buyer" is generally consistent with "no value" - we come down to duelling authorities, although I find this one
href:http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/imt/
01/htm/t137.htm
to be more persuasive - note the increase in profits and retained earnings over the period. I was wrong in my recollection of Manchester's book. At the same time, the comment that The services of Alfried Krupp and of Von Bohlen and their family to the war aims of the Nazi Party were so outstanding that the Krupp enterprises were made a special exception to the policy of nationalization of industries. (emphasis added) is rather at odds with your claim about the distinction between communists and fascists.
This "nationalization" wasn't quite what it seemed.
Here is an article with abstract on point:
Buchheim, C. and J. Scherner. "The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry." Journal of Economic History 66(2): June, 2006
Abstract:
Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency.
The authors review the literature at some length, on both sides of this question. Some excerpts from their findings:
For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, firms preserved a good deal of their autonomy even under the Nazi regime. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies.
[M]ost enterprises could freely choose among a whole range of production possibilities, all of which had privileged access to rationed materials, including the making of almost every finished product for export, because exports commanded a very high priority. In addition there often was allotted a quota of rationed inputs for unspecified use.
A corollary of the still great autonomy of industry with regard to its production plans and another difference to a centrally planned economy was that enterprises normally continued to select their customers themselves. An obligation to serve a specific demand hardly existed for the majority of firms. That also applied to orders from state agencies. Firms could, in principle, refuse to accept them. One of the rare exceptions to that rule occurred in late summer 1937 when the iron and steel industry
was obliged to accept orders from the military and other privileged customers. This step, however, was qualified even by Hermann Göring as a "very strong" measure and after two months it was to be lifted automatically.
cont'd.
It rather has to be stated that companies normally could refuse to engage in an investment project designed by the state—without any consequences. Besides those already mentioned there can be cited quite a few additional instances where they did so, even after the implementation of the Four Year Plan and after the beginning of war, both being sometimes considered as watersheds in the economic policy of the regime.49 In fact, the rhetoric may have become more aggressive after 1936. But the actual behavior of the Nazi state in relations with private enterprises appears to have not changed, because firms continued to act without indication of fear that they could be nationalized or otherwise put under unbearable pressure.
Available sources make perfectly clear that the Nazi regime did not want at all a German economy with public ownership of many or all enterprises. Therefore it generally had no intention ever of nationalizing private firms or creating state firms. On the contrary the reprivatization of enterprises was furthered wherever possible.
[O]ne has to keep in mind that Nazi ideology held entrepreneurship in high regard. Private property was considered a precondition to developing the creativity of members of the German race in the best interest of the people. Therefore, it is not astonishing that Otto Ohlendorf, an enthusiastic National Socialist and high-ranking SS officer, who since November 1943 held a top position in the Reich Economics Ministry, did not like Speer’s system of industrial production at all. He strongly criticized the cartel-like organization of the war economy where groups of interested private parties exercised state power to the detriment of the small and medium entrepreneur. For the postwar period he therefore advocated a clear separation of the state from private enterprises with the former establishing a general framework for the activity of the latter.
A second cause has to do with the conviction even in the highest
ranks of the Nazi elite that private property itself provided important incentives to achieve greater cost consciousness, efficiency gains, and technical progress.
Lots more good stuff in this article.
"Property is theft" is from Proudhon, not Voltaire. And it is half of the quote, the second half being:
"Property is freedom"
Proudhon's ironic point was that property, when obtained by unethical and amoral means can be used as a basis to steal the fruits of ones labour by those that do not take part in production.
Thus, "Property is theft".
But if those that actually work the land, or the plant or the printing press actually own it, then by openly and fairly trading the fruits of their labour in a free and open market, could they be truly free of oppression and tyranny.
Thus, "Property is freedom".
Proudhon's arguments amount to an anarchist (and Proudhon was an anarchist, not a communist) version of peasant land reform, of giving the land and property to those who work it - anarchist "control of the means of productions". Note that this was an idea that was first brought up in the 1860 when most land was owned by aristocrats and oligarchs of the ancien regime who obtained it via force from those who actually worked and an exploited them thereafter.
The idea doesn't hold as much today, as property is not as concentrated as it once was. Now, this would be the basis of a decentralized, neo-Lockean version of homesteading and use as the basis of property claims.
Just in case you wanted to know...
BTW, I agree with Dawg about the closeness of Conservatism with fascism. Both are heavily authoritarian, and Mussolini himself said it should more properly be called corporatism. Not many on the left on could call corporatist. Not that far left state socialists were any better, they just weren't fascists or corporatists.
They were all undemocratic authoritarians that thought they knew what was best. In that way they were similar.
Happy New Year Mike, and others here.
I actually meant the "pour encourager ..." quote. But your information about Proudhon is welcome. I did not know about the second half of that quotation. Last thing I'll learn all year, I bet. : )
Dawg - thanks for the Buchheim and Scherner abstract; I'll try to chase it down...
Best wishes for the new year to all..
Hillcrest staff gave Kelly Morse drugs she'd told them she was allergic to, then stood around with their thumbs up their asses while she turned blue.
If they don't even manage to care if their own patients live or die, an assult on an elderly man's gotta be low on their "compassion meter".
The fetus died. That's all that matters.
hey christina, prove there was an assault. you'll forgive me (the christian thing to do, doncha know) if i consider the current sources suspect.
"The fetus died. That's all that matters."
Exactly. Excellent summary of a the Foetishist's Mantra. And nice hypocritical expression of concern for the foetus's ambulatory bio-support unit, too (you know, that thing that we non-foetishists call a "mother"?)
if i consider the current sources suspect.
That's "source" in the singular, PSA. Happy New Year, all!
foetus's ambulatory bio-support unit
I'm going to wish my dear old maman (who nearly died having her last kid) Happy New Year with that.
Christina - Why don't you launch another Full Scale 30-day Prayer Assault? It sure worked out well the last time.
I thought it was from Voltaire...
Bingo said dcardno
In which case, the full quote from Candide being: "Il demanda qui était ce gros homme qu’on venait de tuer en cérémonie. C’est un amiral, lui répondit-on. - Et pourquoi tuer cet amiral ? - C’est, lui dit-on, parce qu’il n’a pas fait tuer assez de monde ; il a livré un combat à un amiral français, et on a trouvé qu’il n’était pas assez près de lui. - Mais, dit Candide, l’amiral français était aussi loin de l’amiral anglais que celui-ci l’était de l’autre ! - Cela est incontestable, lui répliqua-t-on ; mais dans ce pays-ci il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.", your use of the phrase in that context is inapropos.
But I'm sure that the neocon illiterati around you are quite épatés when you quote Voltaire, particularly if they're aware that you're subverting the meaning for your own propaganda.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
