Spyhopping the Right.



Support independent journalism: Donate!

David Neiwert is a freelance journalist based in Seattle. He is the author of Strawberry Days: How Internment Destroyed a Japanese American Community (Palgrave/St. Martin's Press, June 2005), as well as Death on the Fourth of July: The Story of a Killing, a Trial, and Hate Crime in America, (Palgrave/St. Martin's, 2004), and In God's Country: The Patriot Movement and the Pacific Northwest (1999, WSU Press). His reportage for MSNBC.com on domestic terrorism won the National Press Club Award for Distinguished Online Journalism in 2000. He can be contacted at dneiwert@hotmail.com.



Liberal Fascism: Two responses:
A: Review and Debate
B: "If conservatives really, really hate being called fascists ..." Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6

Sara Robinson has worked as an editor or columnist for several national magazines, on beats as varied as sports, travel, and the Olympics; and has contributed to over 80 computer games for EA, Lucasfilm, Disney, and many other companies. A native of California's High Sierra, she spent 20 years in Silicon Valley before moving to Vancouver, BC in 2004. She currently is pursuing an MS in Futures Studies at the University of Houston. You can reach her at srobinson@enginesofmischief.com.

Sara's recent series:

Kauffman's Rules: Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4

Cracks in the Wall: Parts I, II, and III.

Tunnels and Bridges: Parts I, II, III, and IV, plus a Short Detour.

Dave's recent series:

"Eliminationism in America": Parts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X, and Appendix.
The March of the Minutemen
Intro: Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Unhinged: Unhonest
Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
___
Other books by Dave [limited availability]:





"The Rise of Pseudo Fascism": An essay
Available in Adobe PDF format here



Original posts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, and Part 7.

______

Choice essays:
____

"The Political and the Personal"

____

"Bush, the Nazis and America":
Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4.

_______

Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An Exegesis
[PDF file]
[In HTML: Parts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X,, XI, XII, XIII, XIV and XV. See explanatory note.]

[Also available in HTML, and with art, at Cursor.]



_______

Orcinus Principium No. 1
Orcinus Principium No. 2

Why Orcinus?

Storm warning
Saturday, October 30, 2004  
It's already starting to look like the Kerry haters are going to eclipse the Clinton haters for sheer bile, and potentially violence as well, as revealed in this telling report from Salon's Michelle Goldberg:

Lisa Dupler, a 33-year-old from Columbus, held up a rainbow-striped John Kerry sign outside the Nationwide Arena on Friday, as Republicans streamed out after being rallied by George W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger. A thickset woman with very short, dark hair, Dupler was silent and barely flinched as people passing her hissed "faggot" into her ear. An old lady looked at her and said, "You people are sick!" A kid who looked to be about 10 or 11 affected a limp wrist and mincing voice and said, "Oh, I'm gay." Rather than restraining him, his squat mother guffawed and then turned to Dupler and sneered, "Why don't you go marry your girlfriend?" Encouraged, her son yelled, "We don't want faggots in the White House!"

The throngs of Republicans were pumped after seeing the president and the action hero. But there was an angry edge to their elation. They shrieked at the dozen or so protesters standing on the concrete plaza outside the auditorium. "Kerry's a terrorist!" yelled a stocky kid in baggy jeans and braces. "Communists for Kerry! Go back to Russia," someone else screamed. Many of them took up the chant "Kerry sucks"; old women and teenage boys shouting with equal ferocity.

... Dave, a 54-year-old electronic technician, said that if Kerry wins, "I'm going to leave the country and go to a Third World nation and start a ranch." His wife, Jenny, laughed and accused him of hyperbole, but he insisted he's been studying Portuguese, the language of Brazil, "so we'll have an escape route." Sitting near him was Greg Swalley, a blond electrical contractor. "I think Kerry is the anti-Christ," he said, only half-joking. "He scares me."

... Looking at the small knot of protesters, many of whom were chanting, "Four more days," 22-year-old Nick Karnes, wearing a knit ski cap and baggy jeans, yelled, "Shut up!" Then he turned to his friend and said, "We can take 'em."

"I'm definitely gonna vote for him," Karnes said of Bush. "Because he's been the president for four years and nothing bad has happened since Sept. 11. He's kept me alive for four years." If Kerry becomes president, he said, "We'll be dead within a year."

Karnes told me that most of his friends are voting for Bush, too, but a couple are voting for Kerry. "I'm not speaking to them right now," he said.

When the crowd came pouring out of the arena, the vitriol only increased. One clean-cut man, holding his son by the hand, yelled "coward!" at one of the protesters. I asked him what made him say that, and he said, "Because he's demeaning our troops by saying they are fighting a lost cause."

... A few of the protesters, meanwhile, were red-faced from yelling at their antagonists about homophobia and budget deficits and a senseless war. Republicans were incensed. A blond woman dragged her young redheaded son toward the protesters, pointed to them, and said, "These are the Democrats," speaking as if she was revealing an awful reality that he was finally old enough to face. As she walked away with a group of other mothers and children, she was so angry she could barely speak. A friend consoled her by promising her that Bush would win. After all, she pointed out, "Look how many more Bush supporters there were on the street!"

That calmed the angry blond woman down a little. But she was still mad. "We," she said, stammering and gesturing contemptuously at the demonstrators, "we are the way it should be!"

As I was saying ... the appearance of violence and intimidation tactics, encouraged by campaign rhetoric, and spouting beliefs that not only are disattached from reality, but threaten apocalyptic violence should Kerry win -- that is one of those the signs that the conservative movement is becoming less pseudo-fascist and is stepping closer to the real thing.

If it continues beyond Election Day, and it becomes expressly encouraged, watch out.
10:38 PM Spotlight



Sign-theft silliness
 
Another funny sign-theft story:

Homemade security catches act on tape

This involves a man in Encinitas, Calif., who put up a big Kerry/Edwards sign on his property. He also set up a security system in case someone decided to mess with it:

A man triggered the alarm and light Tuesday just before midnight as he ripped the sign, which is highly visible to traffic on Encinitas Boulevard, from the wall, according to an incident report filed with the Sheriff's Department.

Nolan said the man dropped the sign after realizing it was firmly attached to the structure by a thick rope, then jumped a fence and jogged south onto North Vulcan Avenue.

As neighbors called the Sheriff's Department, Nolan said, he chased the man, caught up to him near Vulcan and Encinitas Boulevard, grabbed his arm, then tackled him and "sat on him until the police got there."

The suspect, whom the sheriff's report identified as Jessie Irvin Mathews, 22, of Vista, initially told deputies that Nolan had "jumped him and tried to rape him" for no apparent reason, Nolan said.

One problem with that: Mathews was caught on camera pulling the banner off the garage and starting to run away with it, according to the incident report.

After viewing the tape, deputies transported Mathews to their Encinitas station and cited him for attempted petty theft.

Nolan, 40, said he "had a pretty good feeling" he would catch someone in the act and was overjoyed that his homemade security system did its job.

"It's my Republican trap," he said.

Add this to the collection.
10:14 PM Spotlight



Who benefits
 
The Osama bin Laden tape was a "little gift"?

Sure. And 9/11 was like "hitting the trifecta".

Why is it that when these characters say little things like this that reveal the shape of their "reality" -- the recognition (perhaps unconscious) that while the rest of America takes the hit from terrorists like bin Laden, Team Bush actually benefits from their activities -- no one ever seems to notice?

[Via Atrios.]
9:59 PM Spotlight



Liar in Chief
Friday, October 29, 2004  
Happened to catch Nick Kristoff's bizarre ramble in the NYT the other day, in which he makes the argument that even though Bush lies, they're not really that important:

The current president's hyped version of the incident reflects his casual relationship with truth. Like President Ronald Reagan, reality to him is not about facts, but about higher meta-truths: Mom and Dad are loving grandparents, Saddam Hussein is an evil man, and so on. To clarify those overarching realities, Mr. Bush harnesses "facts," both true and false.

We all do this to some extent, of course, discounting data points that don't fit our preconceptions. My Times colleague John Tierney wrote a few days ago of a new report suggesting, based on their scores on military intelligence tests taken in the 1960's, that Mr. Bush had an I.Q. in the 95th percentile of the population and that John Kerry's was in the 91st percentile. Yet most liberals have not revised their view that Mr. Bush is a nitwit.

In fact, I'm convinced that Mr. Bush is not only smarter, but also a better man than his critics believe. Most important, he's not a panderer. While Mr. Kerry zigs and zags on trade and Middle East policy, Mr. Bush has a core of values and provides genuine leadership (typically, I believe, in the wrong direction, by trying to reshape America and the world according to a far-right agenda).

As Bob Somerby pointed out:

But note how weak Kristof's reasoning is. He builds an entire column about Bush's honesty around this one silly, trivial incident. And he doesn't seem to have tried to determine whether Bush even knew that his story was semi-false.

What's especially noteworthy is that Kristoff hasn't even bothered to look at cases where Bush's "casual relationship with the truth" has had a role in making some of the most colossally incompetent decisions in presidential history. Instead of examining a trivial incident like this one, Kristoff should have examined one of Bush's lies with greater consequence -- say, the WMD "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein.

Or how about the "trifecta" joke? I wrote about it some time back:

Bush has now been telling the same, spectacularly tasteless joke to a variety of mostly Republican audiences as part of his stock stump speech for the better part of four months now. This is its basic telling:

"You know, when I was running for President, in Chicago, somebody said, would you ever have deficit spending? I said, only if we were at war, or only if we had a recession, or only if we had a national emergency. Never did I dream we’d get the trifecta."

According to the transcripts, this joke usually elicits laughter from the mostly GOP crowds to whom Bush tells it.

So far, Bush has told the joke on the record at least 14 times. It originated, evidently, as an anecdote he told to business leaders Oct. 3, 2001, when he explained his three-part reasoning for going into deficit spending.

However, the real problem with the joke is that it is a complete falsehood.

Bush never told any audience, or any reporter, in Chicago that he could foresee three conditions under which deficit spending might be necessary. In fact, throughout the entire campaign, Bush had been insistent that budget surpluses would continue, and only once does he appear to have told any public audience at any time that deficit spending might become necessary -- a Sept. 22, 2000 interview with Paula Zahn, in which he defended his tax cuts even in the face of a "short-term deficit." The only other times that Bush ever seems to have brought up the subject of deficit spending were those when he accused Al Gore of planning to resume the practice.

When reporters have sought the original remarks, the White House press office has been unable to come up with any evidence that Bush ever made the remarks that he claims. ...

This joke, of course, had it all: the pandering, the brazen falsity, and its use to deflect blame on a matter of great national import -- a veritable trifecta itself of reasons why it should have rung a few bells on Kristoff's outrage-o-meter. Guess he just wasn't keeping track of that one.

The real problem with non-thinking like Kristoff's is that it excuses the inexcusable. Bush lies, as he did in both these cases, because it's a way to manipulate others, including patsies like Nick Kristoff. And he does it without much conscience.

That strikes me as a serious character flaw that plays out in his policy choices. It obviously lends itself to a mindset in which the man only wants to hear what he wants to hear. Bush seems above all to be a guy who insists on creating his own truth (one of "history's actors," as it were); if the facts on the ground stand in his way, well, damn the facts.

That isn't providing genuine leadership -- that's a kind of megalomania. It certainly isn't, shall we say, reality-based. And this "casual relationship with the truth" isn't just a tic; it's bound to affect his judgment negatively.

In fact, that lack of judgment manifested itself in important ways: in the failure to heed the pre-Sept. 11 terrorist-attack warnings and being, essentially, asleep at the wheel when it came to terrorism on Sept. 10; and then by going to war in Iraq under what proved to be false pretenses; and most of all, his failure (despite multiple warnings) to adequately prepare or plan for an extended occupation coupled with a violent insurgency, not to mention providing enough troops to secure all the former Iraqi weapons sites.

How has Bush answered the justifiable criticism for these massive blunders? By questioning the patriotism of his opponents, of course.

But then, what else could we expect from someone with such a casual relationship with the truth?
9:25 PM Spotlight



Thugs R Us
Thursday, October 28, 2004  
It's certainly looking like the prospects of a clean Kerry victory are becoming plausible. But in case anyone forgot, that's just the first battle.

America is the most divided it has been in more than a century. Feelings are running extremely high on both sides. It's a bitter, ugly environment, and there's going to have to be a real effort to heal the divide.

The people who have brought us to this pass -- the dividers, not uniters -- are not going to go away. In fact, they're almost certainly going to step things up.

And considering the frenzy they are in now, it could get ugly.

Consider, for instance, the following contribution to civility from our friends at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler (whose disturbing eliminationist activities in previous instances have been duly noted), this time from a fellow named "B.C., Imperial Torturer":

The Backstabbin' Beantown Bastard Pisses On More Brave Soldiers' Graves

The levels of venom really are remarkable, with Kerry described as "a treasonous gold-digger", and the charming conclusion:

Rope. Tree. Justice. The only three things that Qerry deserves for his "service".

Hm. Well. I'm sure all the same people worked up over that ugly piece in the Guardian will leap to denounce this one, too, right?

Anyway, here's what this kind of rhetoric inspires. Down in the comments, another writer responds thus to an earlier post about how a Kerry presidency was sure to be the country's ruination:

Pretty much in the ballpark on all that, useless.

The effects of which will be, as LC Corey predicts above, the death of Liberty and the Grand Experiment which was America.

The evidence is abundant that Kerry has no concept of unintended consequences. He has been protected from those all of his life. Nutured as he is in the ideas so dear to the Left, of victimology and irresponsibility, of class warfare and division, of "situation ethics", nannystatism and "internationalism", he is as ill prepared to deal with the results of his "policies" as he is to tell the truth... or even to know what truth is.

He'll be sure to fuck it all up while remaining clueless, protesting his own innocence and blaming it all on Bush.

He simply must not be allowed to take office, no matter what the rigged results of the election may be. And we must not tolerate the kinds of post election shenanigans the dipocrats are planning.

It is our American tradition to tolerate the elction of those with whom we disagree. Gear up for the next election and try to reach some accomadation with the other side, for the good of the Nation. That has been or practice and our salvation. And we have been trying in naive good faith to accomodate the Left for most of a century, to our sorrow and peril. Most of the ills in our politics and in society generally can be ascribed to this alone.

This time, there will be nothing left of that Nation in which this was the way of peaceful and civil governance. If Kerry "wins", it will be too late to save the Nation which showed the world the miracle of representative republican government. Our soveriegnty and our Constitution will be further demolished, our economy and military weakened, our enemies emboldened, our confidence and spirit disheartened and, most likey, we will suffer catastrophic physical attack on our own soil.

The combination of disasters ensured by a Kerry "victory" amounts to a national crisis that we simply cannot allow. In four more years, it will be far too late.

Posted by LC Jon , Imperial Hunter at October 28, 2004 11:32 PM

OK. Now, just put the keyboard down, son. Nice and slowly. Sheesh.

And please, don't try to tell us this is supposed to be humor.

Well, I've frequently warned that, if these people see their grip on power genuinely threatened, their teeth will be bared. The violence quotient is already rising. If this kind of sentiment is common among the charged-up True Believers of the Right, look for a real volatile week, perhaps more in the aftermath of the election.

Also worth noting: This blog continues to be featured in the blogroll of certain prominent bloggers with supposedly mainstream reputations.

[Hat tip to Warren Terra.]
10:39 PM Spotlight



The clone army
 
Sure, everyone's enjoying a chortle or two over Bush's clone army.

Pretty soon, the truth will come out: Those images weren't photoshopped. Those really were clones! Bwah ha ha ha ha.

Go ahead, laugh. Call it a lunatic fringe conspiracy theory if you like. You'll see. You'll be sorry someday.

See, there's already been talk within GOP ranks about using a clone army to solve the Iraq manpower problem. Why, it sounds brilliant to me.

Matt Taibbi reported this a couple of weeks ago in Rolling Stone, in his piece about going undercover inside the Bush campaign:

In my first month on the campaign, I did not meet many people who came into the office with the serious intention of working hard for the president. I did, however, meet a great many very lonely people who came in because they knew the Bush offices were the one place where they could share certain deeply held ideas without being ridiculed.

Part of my job, I soon came to understand, was to be supportive when people like portly Tampa sheriff's deputy Ben Mills came in to share their very serious utopian ideas -- like the benefits of having a society guarded by a clone army. "We'd save a hell of a lot on benefits and medical expenses," he said. " 'Cause you know if they got wounded..."

"You could just shoot them," I said.

"Exactly -- pow! Just shoot 'em dead, right in the ground."

He went on.

"We'd just have a big breeding farm in Colorado," he said. "Course, it'd be a security problem if they got out, you know, if you had rogue clones running around. You'd have to have a special security force to maintain 'em."

"That's where folks like us would come in," I said.

"Exactly," he said.

Folks like us. I was getting the hang of it.

Sound like Sheriff Mills has been having an audience with the Strong and Resolute One Himself.

Maybe that'll be Bush's secret plan for winning the election: Clone voters!
4:19 PM Spotlight



The more things change ...
 




[Photo of a billboard in Pittsburgh, Pa., in 1949 by Charles "Teenie" Harris. Pittsburgh Courier Archives.]

[Hat tip to d. eaton.]
1:38 PM Spotlight



Shrill and creepy
 
I expected, when I undertook the work of documenting the interaction between the extremist right and mainstream conservatism -- particularly in such pieces as "The Rise of Pseudo Fascism" -- to have to deal not only with a lot of utter noncomprehension from the right, but also some vicious personal attacks. I just didn't expect it to be so ... half-assed.

Dean Esmay weighed in this week with a genuinely nasty little hit piece. Once you wade through the ad hominem, the attack comes down to this:

Back in May, a really creepy obsessive named Dave Neiwert, well known for lunatic fringe conspiracy theories, decided to identify your host (Dean Esmay) as a secret Nazi sympathizer. Or at least a fascist at heart, though my dark desires are hidden to anyone but clever brave scribblers such as the brilliant Dave Niewert, anyway.

Now, you'll notice that Esmay doesn't link anywhere to my site or to the post in question. (Nor did he, in lieu of that, extend the basic courtesy of notifying me of the attack; this is why I wasn't even aware of it until Wednesday afternoon.) Ostensibly this is because I'm such a reprehensible wretch he doesn't want to give me the hits.

I think there's another reason as well: He doesn't want his blithering idiocy immediately apparent. Because anyone actually reading what I wrote can see that Esmay's characterization is simply false -- a shrill overreaction to a relatively mild observation.

Now, here in its entirety is the post in question:

Remember Dolchstosslegende -- the Legend of the Stab in the Back?

It was one of the cornerstone myths of the Nazis, fueling both their rise to power, as well their justification for the Holocaust. The "stab in the back" of the German military in World War I -- and thus the source of German defeat -- you see, was a product of Communists and Jews.

Well, now that the invasion of Iraq is turning out not so well, we're getting a fresh version of the legend, tailored for the 21st century (Josh Marshall noticed it being trotted out awhile back).

Dean Esmay rather approvingly provides us with a recent example.

Now, you may read through this post a hundred times, and I don't think you'll find a anywhere a statement that I think Esmay harbors secret Nazi sympathies. For that matter, I don't even imply it.

Here's how Esmay puts it:

I once posted a cartoon that made a strong political statement about the hate-soaked left, and Niewert concluded that if anything looks like anything the Nazis ever put out, well, you do the math, right?

Now, is there anything in that post telling people to "do the math"? No. Anything in there saying, "This suggests Esmay has Nazi sympathies"? No.

What I clearly am saying is something that fits in with my larger thesis in pieces like "Rush, Newspeak and Fascism": Memes from the far right -- some of them with deep historical roots, like this one -- not only continue to have a half-life in modern society, they have been finding their way into mainstream conservatism in recent years.

Many of them appear almost unconsciously, out of the zeitgeist, the environment created by the shifts in the political framework that make society more receptive to these ideas. Many are boosted by the increasing interactions of mainstream conservatives with extremist belief systems. "Transmitters" -- figures like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter -- play key roles in bridging the two sectors by picking up extremist ideas and agendas and clothing them in rhetoric suitable for mainstream consumption. Regardless of the mechanism, ordinary conservatives then pick them up and run with them, often utterly oblivious about the origins of the ideas they're absorbing and then promoting.

Esmay, I think it's clear, falls well into this latter category. And nothing in the post even suggests otherwise.

The logic (or lack thereof) by which Esmay reached his absurd conclusion is roughly the same as that deployed by Glenn Reynolds when he accused me of "hurling unsubstantiated charges of racism" for tweaking his work thus: "the root of all evil in Reynoldsland are the twin threads of dark-skinned Muslims and left-wing antiwar liberals."

Now, regular readers are well aware that one of my recurring themes -- so much so that I sound like a stuck record, in fact -- is the fact that Americans generically, and the media/pundit class particularly, have a peculiar blind spot when it comes to terrorism. When they're white right-wing extremist Christians, they're just "aberrations" and "isolated incidents." When it's committed by brown-skinned foreigners of another religion, we declare a "war on terror."

This point, in fact, was made in the very first post on this blog, and I've repeated it so often it's gotten a little old: I've made it here, here, here, here, and here (for a quick sample). I've also discussed it in depth on several occasions, notably here.

The poke at Reynolds was clearly written within that context. All it says is that Reynolds shares the same blind spot when it comes to terrorism.

Indeed, I think that couldn't be more clear than in the Reynolds post that I cited in the post he attacked. In it, he says this:

One thing that's troubling is the potential for cooperation between Arab terrorists and domestic extremists.

Anyone who knows the rudimentary facts about Islamist extremism knows immediately that this is a false and narrow racial stereotype. Al Qaeda-style extremism includes not only Arabs, but also Persians, Pakistanis, Filipinos, Indonesians, and a wide range of other races.

Now, Reynolds does have a better case than Esmay for his complaint if you remove the remark from this context. But even then, at the worst, all one can definitively say is that I slyly imply that Reynolds partakes of and proliferates racist stereotypes.

And that simply does not, in my book, constitute racism. Racism, as I've explained in depth previously, entails an eliminationist contempt for other races, and always promotes exclusion and bigoted discrimination. Wallowing in racial stereotypes is endemic across all of society, and while it's problematic, it is not "racist" per se.

No, as I've pointed out before, when I think of someone "hurling unsubstantiated charges of racism," I think of prominent bloggers who call a campus Latino-pride group best known for holding bakes sales and voter-registration drives "fascist hatemongers", "racist and homophobic," and comparing them to Jim Crow and (in the case of another renowned conservative pundit) the Ku Klux Klan.

But maybe that's just me.

Now, as for the rest of Esmay's screed, I'm not going to waste too much of my time or yours rebutting this kind of nonsense. Suffice to say that, having examined and debunked hundreds of conspiracy theories in the process of reporting on the militia movement and writing In God's Country, I know enough about them to tell you that Esmay hasn't the slightest idea what he's talking about. (And yes, I've debunked many Larouchite conspiracy theories.)

For a sample of a more sensible approach to conspiracy theories, see my previous discussion of them. Moreover, there's simply nothing in any of the material that Esmay references (obliquely) that even suggests I think an actual conspiracy is at work here, particularly in the spread of right-wing extremism into the mainstream. It couldn't be more clear, I think, that I'm arguing on the side of a larger political dynamic that has nothing to do with conspiracy.

Oh, and Dean? The next time you want to devote 1,160 words to an ad hominem attack on someone, it really helps if you spell their name right.

Now, in somewhat better faith (and certainly more honest, not to mention competent) have been the critiques from Eric at Classical Values, especially his most recent entry. But it's hard to take this commentary seriously when it's clear he can't even distinguish between my ideas and those of Robert O. Paxton, or even acknowledge that the entirety of the ideas I'm basing my analysis upon is drawn from serious scholars of fascism. As anyone who's actually taken the time to read my work knows, I'm not drawing these ideas out of thin air. Moreover, he simply dismisses the heart of Paxton's thesis (that fascism is better understood as a set of "mobilizing passions" than as an "ism") without explanation. There's simply no substance to Eric's critique to address.

Well, as I said, I did expect to inspire a reaction from the right based on a simple failure of reading comprehension, or a lack of reading altogether. That's easy to predict, considering that the right has a well-established track record of distortion based on misrepresentation and non-comprehension. And my personal experience has been that they decline to read or comprehend simply because they don't want to.

But that's the thing about fascism. We tend to think of it in terms of alien things like Nazi uniforms and concentration camps. The reality is that the popular of imagery of fascism (as Paxton's work details) is actually derived from its later stages, when it proceeds into serious metastasis; while in the stages at which it has traditionally obtained power, fascism is constituted of things which seem everyday and familiar to us. It's when they come together in a particular constellation of political pathology that they take on a life of their own. But we often refuse to recognize it for what it is because it seems so ... familiar.

Not that I expect an intellectual titan like Dean Esmay to take the time to figure that out. It's so much easier to shriek, distort and falsify. That's the right-wing style of argument nowadays. And coming from someone who insists, no, demands, despite a remarkable paucity of evidence, that he really is a liberal, dammit, it frankly is kinda ... creepy.

[Update: Speaking of creepy: One of Esmay's admirers seems to be urging him to punch me. Or at least "come this close" to doing so. Or is it just a Larouchite? But then, he and Esmay seem to think I am a Larouchite, right? Hard to tell, because this is of course just idiocy.]

[Update II, to Infinity and Beyond: Dean Esmay writes back, in his best Buzz Lightyear (pre-awareness phase) imitation:

Utterly hilarious.

You are a sad, strange little man. You have my pity. Farewell!

Dean

Well hey. I'm convinced!]
11:40 AM Spotlight



More nastiness
 
Both of these are from Florida:

Presidential Politics Gets Ugly in Fla.

VERO BEACH, Fla. (AP) - An anti-John Kerry demonstrator was charged with felony aggravated assault with a gun for allegedly pointing a weapon at the head of a Kerry supporter.

Michael Garone, 52, was released from jail Tuesday on his on recognizance.

Garone and others were holding anti-Kerry signs at a street corner Monday in Vero Beach when Trevor Pickering drove up and said ``Go Kerry,'' according to an arrest affidavit.

Pickering argued with the anti-Kerry protesters, and then got out of the car and knocked a sign out of the hands of one of the demonstrators.

``That's when (Garone) walked up to my car and stuck a gun to my head,'' Pickering said. ``I said 'I'm sorry' and 'Please don't kill me,' drove away and called the cops.''

Garone denied pointing the gun at anyone.

And here's a story that speaks, I think, to the Bush appeal to the masculinity-obsessed:

West Boynton man allegedly threatens to kill girlfriend for backing Kerry

WEST BOYNTON -- When an 18-year-old couldn't convince his girlfriend that George W. Bush was the right choice for president, he became enraged, put a screwdriver to her throat and threatened to kill her, sheriff's officials said.

"You won't live to see the next election," Steven Soper told Stacey Silveira on Tuesday night as the two fought inside his gray, two-story home west of Boynton Beach, according to a police report.

... On Tuesday, Soper stormed off after Silveira's brother mentioned the family, including Silveira, supported Kerry, family members said.

Soper called and ended the relationship, so Silveira drove to his house in the 7500 block of Oakboro Drive to return his belongings. That's where things turned violent.

He dragged Silveira into the house kicking and screaming, a police report said. Neighbor Lisa Belout was watching television, heard the commotion and called 911.

Inside, Soper threw Silveira to the floor, spit in her face and bit her cheek, she said, pointing to the brown bruise on the left side of her face.

"He went and got a knife and put the knife in my hand and said, `Kill me because if you vote for Kerry I'm going to die anyway,'" she said while standing outside her home, which has a Kerry/Edwards campaign sign in the yard.

Deputies found an enraged Soper with a screwdriver to Silveira's throat, a police report said. He was ordered to put the tool down but refused, so they used Taser stun guns to subdue him, officials said.

"He shoved a Marine [video] tape in my face and said that's what I was going to be ruining for him if I went for Kerry," Silveira said Wednesday, having just returned from filing a restraining order against him.

Whew. Okaaay ...

These, of course, are being added to the Thuggery File.
9:10 AM Spotlight



The facts we know
Wednesday, October 27, 2004  
Following up on yesterday's post about the nuclear material stolen in Iraq after the invasion, apparently by experts ... nuclear-proliferation expert Peter Galbraith -- a supporter of the invasion -- has a must-read op-ed in the Boston Globe:

Eyewitness to a failure in Iraq

Galbraith provides detail on just how widespread the failure to secure key facilities was on the part of the Bush/Rumsfeld planners. He confirms much of the Sydney Morning Herald report, and provides even more detail about the wholesale theft of entire nuclear laboratories:

There was nothing secret about the Disease Center or the Tuwaitha warehouses. Inspectors had repeatedly visited the center looking for evidence of a biological weapons program. The Tuwaitha warehouses included materials from Iraq's nuclear program, which had been dismantled after the 1991 Gulf War. The United Nations had sealed the materials, and they remained untouched until the US troops arrived.

The looting that I observed was spontaneous. Quite likely the looters had no idea they were stealing deadly biological agents or radioactive materials or that they were putting themselves in danger. As I pointed out to Wolfowitz, as long as these sites remained unprotected, their deadly materials could end up not with ill-educated slum dwellers but with those who knew exactly what they were doing.

This is apparently what happened. According to an International Atomic Energy Agency report issued earlier this month, there was "widespread and apparently systematic dismantlement that has taken place at sites previously relevant to Iraq's nuclear program." This includes nearly 380 tons of high explosives suitable for detonating nuclear weapons or killing American troops. Some of the looting continued for many months -- possibly into 2004. Using heavy machinery, organized gangs took apart, according to the IAEA, "entire buildings that housed high-precision equipment."

This equipment could be anywhere. But one good bet is Iran, which has had allies and agents in Iraq since shortly after the US-led forces arrived.

This was a preventable disaster. Iraq's nuclear weapons-related materials were stored in only a few locations, and these were known before the war began. As even L. Paul Bremer III, the US administrator in Iraq, now admits, the United States had far too few troops to secure the country following the fall of Saddam Hussein. But even with the troops we had, the United States could have protected the known nuclear sites. It appears that troops did not receive relevant intelligence about Iraq's WMD facilities, nor was there any plan to secure them. Even after my briefing, the Pentagon leaders did nothing to safeguard Iraq's nuclear sites.

On the campaign trail today, George Bush attacked John Kerry for his criticism of the failure to secure the missing 380 tons of explosives at Al Qaqa, saying: "The senator is denigrating the action of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts."

Kerry isn't denigrating the performance of the troops. He's questioning the plainly incompetent judgment of the people at the top who put too few troops in to handle the job properly. It's clear that Al Qaqa was not the only such case. And the more facts we know, Mr. Bush, the clearer that picture becomes.

[Via Mark Follman at Salon's War Room.]
10:43 PM Spotlight



Tracking the thuggery
 
Projection: It's not just for theaters anymore.

The talk of the horror of a rising tide of left-wing nastiness is popping up all over among the chatterers of the right. In addition to the recent accusations from Professor Bainbridge, a fresh round of accusations comes our way from T. Bevan at Real Clear Politics [permalink seems not to be working, so scroll down to the entry titled "The Civilized Barbarians"].

Now, take a hard look at Bevan's list of "shameful incidents":

Dredging up decades old images of racism to play on the anger and fear of African-American voters.

There's nothing particularly shameful about this. The reality is that the efforts of conservatives to disenfranchise black voters has a long and ugly history, and it appears to be continuing today. If they don't like being reminded of it, well, too bad. In any event, there's nothing about this behavior suggestive of actual violence, or even advocating