Conflating “Right Wing” with “Nationalist” with “Populist” – Slovenia, Hungary, Italy…

Not being a good year for the EU Globalist Internationalists.

As of Sunday (today) Slovenia joins Italy and Hungary in the “not wanting more immigrants” side and being of the opinion their country ought to first be taking care of the citizens of that country.

Somehow this is seen as “Right Wing”. Never mind that “Right Wing” is a horridly distorted term. Originally meaning Kings and The Church, now stretched to include business operators (who were ‘left wing’ in the original French usage) and even applied to Fascists (who were and are “3rd Way” Socialists, or National Socialists). But such is the corruption of the language by “The Left”.

https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/socialism-utopia-workers-paradise/

At any rate, during The French Revolution, the “Left” included both the Bourgeoisie (merchants) and the Proletariat (peasants) while the “Right” had the Kings, Queens, Princes and Bishops.
[…]
And, just as another caution on the use of words, remember that “Left Wing” and “Right Wing” are functionally useless terms in any kind of historical perspective. They have mutated massively over time.

So that “non-meaning” term of “Right Wing” is being applied to what is more accurately described as a “Populist” or “Nationalist” movement. People who mostly don’t care about the fine points of “3rd Way Market Socialism” vs “Kings & Bishops”. They just want their country to work for the citizens of the country (and not for some rich globalists off in some far away dictatorship) and they are tired of being overrun by foreigners. But there it is.

So I’m not going to call these governments “Right Wing”. After all, in Italy it’s a consortium of hard left with nationalist (called hard right). I’m sure the hard left part would not like to be called “right wing”.

So the latest is Slovenia:

I heard this on Al Jazeera, but I’m citing a text source.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/03/poll-anti-immigration-party-wins-slovenia-parliamentary-election/

Exit Poll: Anti-Immigration Party Wins Slovenia Parliamentary Election

A right-wing, anti-immigration opposition party led by a former Slovenian prime minister won the most votes in Slovenia’s parliamentary election Sunday, but not enough to form a government on its own, according to preliminary results.

The State Election Commission said after counting some 90 percent of the ballots that Janez Jansa’s Slovenian Democratic Party received around 25 percent of the vote. The anti-establishment List of Marjan Sarec trailed in second place with over 12 percent.

The Social Democrats, the Modern Center Party of the outgoing prime minister, Miro Cerar, and the left all received around 9 percent.

The preliminary tally means no party secured a majority in Slovenia’s 90-member parliament, and the likely next step is negotiations to form a coalition government.

So, like Italy, not a clear majority, but going to be a coalition.

http://time.com/5298025/italy-forms-western-europes-first-populist-government/

Italy Forms Western Europe’s First Populist Government

Italy’s anti-establishment 5-Star Movement and the right-wing League succeeded Thursday in forming western Europe’s first populist government, which will be headed by a political novice whose first try was rejected four days earlier as too risky for the Italian economy.

What changed was the willingness of 5-Star leader Luigi Di Maio and League leader Matteo Salvini to shuffle the proposed roster of government ministers amid a financial market scare. They moved an 81-year-old euroskeptic economist vetoed by Italy’s president from overseeing the economy ministry to a European affairs Cabinet post.

After the fits, starts and financial turbulence of recent days, the realization of a 5-Star-League coalition government put its populist posture on full display in Salvini’s first public remarks. He returned from Rome to address a crowd of supporters in his northern home region of Lombardy.
[…]
Emerging from a similar meeting with a different ending Thursday night, Conte read off his Cabinet list and pledged that “we will work with determination to improve the quality of life of all Italians.”

The Cabinet includes Di Maio— architect of the government’s proposed basic income for struggling Italians — as welfare minister and Salvini — who has pledged to expel hundreds of thousands of migrants — as interior minister.

The new economics minister, Giovanni Tria, is a mainstream economist at Rome University, while the foreign ministry goes to Enzo Moavero Milanesi, a former European Union official in Brussels who was European affairs minister in former Premier Mario Monti’s two-year technical government.

In his remarks to supporters, Salvini pledged to make sending migrants back to their home countries a priority.

“My commitment will regard the security of 60 million Italians,” Salvini said.

There was a brief attempt to force a new election by some EU Apparatchiks, until it became clear to them that the Italians were so pissed off in general, and increasingly at the EU telling them their election didn’t matter, that they were headed at an even stronger rejection of the EU preferred result…

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/04/08/hungary-leader-viktor-orban-sweeps-to-re-election-win-with-super-majority.html

Hungary leader Viktor Orban sweeps to re-election win with super majority

BUDAPEST, Hungary – Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said his “decisive” re-election victory and the super majority in parliament his right-wing populist party appeared to have won Sunday were “an opportunity to defend Hungary.”

Critics said they feared Orban will use his third consecutive term and the Fidesz party’s two-thirds control of Hungary’s national legislature to intensify his attacks on migration and to strengthen his command of the country’s centralized power structure.

Hungary’s remaining independent media, the courts that have made numerous rulings the government did not like and a university founded by Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros, also are among Orban’s likely targets.

“We created the opportunity for ourselves to defend Hungary,” Orban told a rapturous crowd after his landslide win became undisputable. “A great battle is behind us. We have achieved a decisive victory.”

With 98.5 percent of the votes counted, Fidesz and its small ally, the Christian Democrat party, together had secured 133 of the 199 seats in parliament, the minimum needed for a two-thirds majority.

It looks to me like the tide has turned on the One World Globalists and their plan to destroy the nation state and demographically flood Europe with non-Europeans. Only time will tell how the story ends, but what is clear is that Merkel had a “Jump The Shark” moment on immigration and now Europe is waking up to what is being do to them by others.

In Other News

We’ve also had rising resentment in France and even some stirrings from Germany. The UK is headed out the door, despite massive foot-dragging by the Remoaners.

In South America, we’ve all kept up on Venezuela and their slide into chaos as a Socialist Workers Paradise reaches the end stages. Strong Man refusing leave, arresting opposition and making their elections a farce of rigging. But what about Nicaragua? Yet Another Socialist Workers Paradise…

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/27/americas/nicaragua-unrest/index.html

More than 40 people were killed in unrest in Nicaragua, rights groups say

By Nicole Chavez, Samantha Lugo and Elizabeth Plaza, CNN

Updated 3:42 PM ET, Sun April 29, 2018

Protests erupted in Nicaragua last week, with violent consequences.

(CNN)Dozens of people died last week in Nicaragua as a result of anti-government protests, human rights groups there told CNN Friday — in contrast to the government’s official death toll, which stands at 10.

The Nicaraguan Center for Human Rights, based in the capital city of Managua, reported 42 deaths on Sunday. On Saturday, the group had reported 43 people died but revised the death toll, saying they’d mistakenly included a person who was in critical condition.

The Permanent Commission on Human Rights said 58 people died. The government reported its latest death toll April 20.
The deaths came amid the largest street protests the country has seen since the civil war ended in 1990. Protesters clashed with security forces, and different groups among the demonstrators also clashed with each other.

Demonstrators in Managua threw rocks and set fires as police responded with tear gas and rubber bullets. Several television stations were taken off the air as the government tried to stem the unrest.

Nicaraguan Attorney General Inés Miranda on Thursday announced an investigation into the deaths.

“A responsible and formal investigation was started regarding the following acts: the loss of life of students, police and civilians; the injuries sustained by students, police and civilians; looting and property damage, both public and private,” Miranda told reporters.

A journalist who was covering the protest was among those killed, state media outlet El 19 Digital reported.

The unrest, mostly led by students, started when President Daniel Ortega tried to change the country’s social security system. He implemented a controversial pension reform resolution intended to halt the growing deficit.
The changes increased contributions by workers and employers and reduced retired workers’ pensions.

Ortega revoked the resolution Sunday, putting an end to violent clashes. Peaceful protests continue in Nicaragua, with demonstrators now calling for Ortega’s resignation.

Even a Good Socialist like Ortega eventually must admit when they’ve spent all of the Other People’s Money and there just isn’t enough left to pay all the promises.

The US State Department issued a statement Monday ordering the departure of US government employees and their families. The department also urged travelers to reconsider travel plans to Nicaragua.
11 years in power

Ortega came to power as part of the Sandinista rebels who overthrew the Somoza dynasty in 1979. He fought against the US-backed contras during the 1980s and has remained a key ally to Venezuela.

[…]
In the last presidential election, Ortega was elected in a landslide victory, with his wife as vice president. Critics have accused the couple of skirting laws while building a political dynasty.

Nicaragua’s constitution bars presidents from being re-elected and also bars candidates who are relatives of the sitting president from running.

In 2014, Ortega used his power to pressure lawmakers to do away with term limits.

Gee, that sure sounds familiar…

I’m just amazed at how many times we must watch this same movie before folks catch a bit of clue.

Subscribe to feed

Advertisements

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Political Current Events and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Conflating “Right Wing” with “Nationalist” with “Populist” – Slovenia, Hungary, Italy…

  1. H.R. says:

    So Ortega tried to close the candy store and the peasants revolted. At least Ortega realized he had to watch the budget. However, the general population has become hooked on Socialist Crack and they want more, not less Socialist largess.

    Ortega caved this time, but it looks like his only out is going to be the Treasury printing press, and we all know how that ends.

  2. E.M.Smith says:

    @H.R.:

    Yup. That’s the problem. The Makers “Go Galt” and the stored wealth gets squandered; the lenders realize there will never be a return OF investment, having given up on return ON investment. Eventually even wealthy fellow travelers like (formerly oil rich) Venezuela run out of money to “donate”. Then reality intrudes and it is time to pick one:

    1) Shut down the party and ration the food.

    2) Crank up the printing press and plot your run for the border.

    3) Step out of the way and let the Capitalist “Invisible Hand” fix things.

    IIRC, Brazil and Peru have chosen Option #3 at times. But usually the novice Socialist Dictator goes for #2 first (and often last…). Occasionally with #1 either before or after…

    If I could mandate it for the world, I would mandate that ALL high school students have one economic history class and that it MUST show this cycle repeated over and over in governments throughout time. The promise of free stuff, the rush of the shooting up, then the inevitable collapse into inflation and ruin. Finally, how a free market naturally keeps the basics flowing while the economy recovers under capitalism (formal or informal).

    We really do need to learn to get off this wheel of socialism mis-fortune.

    Maybe a graphic with a wheel for each country showing them stopped on Capitalism and healthy, or their status in the circle of decay and speed of rotation toward collapse…

  3. gallopingcamel says:

    European countries that opt for controlling their borders and putting their people first should take note of an interesting statistic that popped up in the USA.

    April year on year salary growth was announced to be 2.7%. While that is encouraging it turns out that the gains were uneven:
    People with four year college degrees…..gained 0.5%
    People without a high school diploma……gained 10%

    This may be wrong in some details as I got it from a TV program on Fox News (Steve Hilton) yesterday and my memory is not as good as it was 70 years ago.

    In the USA the gap has been widening between the rich and the poor. That makes it easier for the divisive Left to stir up trouble. Will Trump’s policies will shrink the gap between rich and poor?

  4. H.R. says:

    E.M. – “[…] I would mandate that ALL high school students have one economic history class and that it MUST show this cycle repeated over and over in governments throughout time.”

    You have the correct solution; basic economic education. That’s why the Socialists keep the masses ignorant, so the sheeple don’t notice that ALL of their piggy banks are being robbed.

  5. Chris in Calgary says:

    Noam Chomsky had a good phrase: “manufacturing consent”. That’s all the Left/Right wing thing is, these days.

    I’m just amazed at how many times we must watch this same movie before folks catch a bit of clue.

    Sadly, they won’t, until it’s far too late. Whoever said that Venezuelans are more stupid than us? Maybe a little more gullible. Maybe just unlucky to get the full-on Marxist treatment sooner.

  6. E.M.Smith says:

    Why there is a rising populist / nationalist movement in European nations:

    https://www.lucify.com/the-flow-towards-europe/

    The only question in my mind is why Germany is so quiet given that they are the most overrun.

  7. LB says:

    The changes increased contributions by workers and employers and reduced retired workers’ pensions.

    ==========

    Back to basics.

    How do you make people richer by taking their money and giving it away?

    Keep asking socialists how that works

  8. kneel63 says:

    “Never mind that “Right Wing” is a horridly distorted term.”

    Yes, and it comes from the same background as “right-hand man” – that is, except for our south-paws, someone on your left is easier to stab, so someone standing on your right is “trusted”.

    Interestingly, it also means “left-wing” is “untrusted” :-))

  9. p.g.sharrow says:

    The Left or sinister hand, seems to me to be justified in this case. I just can’t understand how the left can claim to be Blue while in the rest of the world Socialists are Rouge or Reds…pg

  10. Larry Ledwick says:

    camoflage

  11. gallopingcamel says:

    @H.R…..You said:
    “You have the correct solution; basic economic education. That’s why the Socialists keep the masses ignorant, so the sheeple don’t notice that ALL of their piggy banks are being robbed.”

    I have worked hard to improve K-12 education which I believe is beneficial. When it comes to college education the benefits to society are more than offset by the negatives. There are strong arguments for removing all subsidies from post secondary education. Most of the majors in our universities train people for jobs that do not exist.

    For example there are only 3,800 salaried historians in the USA…..geographers even less (1,500). What work does an English major qualify someone to do? Taxi driver, waiter, burger flipper or what? While an economics degree may be more useful than English, History or Geography it can’t compare with a degree in engineering, law or medicine.

    We should discourage post secondary education by taxing it and spending the money saved on vocational education relating to jobs that really matter such as HVAC technician, auto mechanic, etc.

    Please take a look at “The Case Against Education” by Bryan Caplan.

    In an email conversation, one of the 20th century’s greatest economists, Milton Friedman opined: “The spread of PC [political correctness] right now would seem to be a very strong negative externality, and certainly the 1960s student demonstrations were negative externalities from higher education. A full analysis along those lines might lead you to conclude that higher education should be taxed to offset its negative externalities.”

  12. H.R. says:

    @GC: You’re preaching to the choir. I started working in manufacturing when I was 19. I loved making things and was fascinated how a bunch of bits and pieces of raw materials came in the back door and left the front door as something useful. I didn’t much care what the product was, I just loved the transformation process and liked to contribute to making the process more efficient. I got a lot of attaboys for my ideas.

    I was a bright boy and I’d always get promoted to Lead Man or Supervisor, but that was as high as I was going to go without a college degree. I was 26 – almost 27 – when my wife said, “You don’t have to work in factories all your life. Why don’t you go to college?” I lived in a city with one of the Big 10 land grant Universities, so I got their course catalogue, flipped through the pages looking for degree programs that would be useful in manufacturing, and stopped when I hit the Bachelor of Science, Industrial and Systems Engineering.

    When I graduated, I spent my career working to make the companies I worked for competitive in a cheap labor global market. I saw it as creating good-paying options for people who aren’t cut out for college.

    Over a period of 30 years, I watched the decline in education and cognitive skills of the incoming young workforce. The B and C students of my High School graduating class knew more, and were more capable than some of the rookie Engineers we’d hire. It is amazing how well a high school education, up until about 1975, prepared people to work in a variety of fields.

    I understand very well the points you brought up. One of the things I learned at an early age was to never equate education with intelligence. Having to deal with with the fruits of our educational system over the past 30 years, I also learned never to automatically equate a degree with an education, particularly any non-science college degree or H.S. Diploma granted after about 1980.

    We need high school graduates that are educated to the levels of ’60s and ’70s kids. Then it should only take about 2 years for them to receive job training in various fields. If they don’t like the field they chose after a couple of years, they are still young enough to do another stint of job training and switch fields.

    A good machinist is extremely hard to find nowadays, thanks to our education system.

  13. corsair red says:

    As to the ” work without a college degree in useful areas ” theme, a plumber or electrician should always be able to find work, shouldn’t they? I have always thought, ” How hard can it be to do plumbing work? There are two rules: water flows downhill, and it needs to stay in the pipes. ”

    ( No phone calls or angry letters, please. I know it is more complicated sometimes. :-) )

  14. E.M.Smith says:

    @H.R.:

    I continue to be amazed at just how good my High School education was. UC first year chemistry was basically just a refresher with a few interesting sidebars. Ditto physics & biology. Math was a little more advanced (as we had only done a few weeks of calculus and this was a 10 week quarter of it).

    In High School (farm town…) we had a full machine shop. I graduated H.S. with “welding” as my fall back “skill”. Most of the guys wanted shop, and we had a full sized lathe picked up “war surplus” by someone forward thinking. Turned out about 50 “machinists” a year in a class of 140. I also took Radio Class (about dozen of us) and learned Morse Code plus how to build a radio from scratch from parts – it was the year long project. Tube radio, we would start with building and testing the power supply then add one stage at a time along with theory.

    Most girls took Home Economics. Classroom with stoves all around the edges. Learned how to manage a food budget, make meals from scratch, do preserving and canning. Have sanitary conditions for food prep. Don’t know how many got jobs as cooks from that, or how many knew how to make a loaf of bread for 5¢ of materials instead of $1 at the store. I’d guess about 50 to 70 / year. The also took typing and were ready to be stenographers, secretaries, receptionists. I know because I was one of 2 boys who signed up for typing class (causing a bit of a stir, but a class that I’ve used more than any other…) IIRC you had to hit 50 words / minute to get your certificate… i managed to hit 52 ;-) (in one brief shining moment … )

    NOBODY thought it was a BAD thing to be cranking out people with marketable “trades” along with the academic topics.

    To this day, the radio and welding classes are the ones I enjoyed the most, the typing class was the most useful over the years; and I wish I’d taken home-ec but being from a Restaurant Family I already knew how to cook and plan menus and budget. I barely remember my English and History classes, forget “Civics”, and P.E. was forgotten at the end of each day. Spanish class was helpful. What ever other classes we had, I don’t even remember their names or topic areas.

    This was from a little farm town school of 140 kids (of which about 40 were from a more rural district 5 miles away that had k-8 but no high school). It ran without significant bureaucratic crap from above (as it was both district and school) and at fairly low cost.

    That school was turning out a steady stream of folks ready to make things, repair things, manage their lives (cook, clean, stay fit), run communications systems and offices, and build and operate various small businesses. From Tractor repair to restaurants. Even had Driver’s Ed so you were a licensed driver and optional fork lift training.

    My best friend dumped his jeep in the river (long lunch involving too much speed in a gravel corner) and spent a year in shop taking it apart, cleaning and repairing every part, and putting it back together. Engine, transmission, the works. He went on to be a jet engine mechanic.

    We need to realize that it is the “trade arts” that make school FUN. At that age, kids want to do things like “play with fire” in the welding class, or drive the fork lift around the dirt “course” or make a hamburger or sew a shirt. (Mum taught me how to make shirts… and knit…) Sitting on your butt listening to someone drone on and on and on about The War Of 1812 is deadly dull in comparison. Everyone involved is dead and the application to the world today is slim. Have the chemistry teacher run up a batch of molasses to alcohol then distill it to “white lightning” for the biochemistry segment had the whole class engaged! (He actually did that… used the distilled alcohol for a reagent – though he and the PE coach did test a shot of it each… )

    So yeah, I also came out of H.S. understanding how to make “hooch” and distill it to white lightning. Skills I’ve also used ;-)

    Where I designing an education system, I’d not do it the way we do now. We’re forcing 4 year old kids to learn “letters” and writing at a time they have zero use for it. Making them resent it. We ought to be having each year leveled at things they “get”. Put the 4 & 5 year olds in toy cars and have them drive a “course” learning what all the signs are. Pretty soon they will know the words STOP and YIELD and more. Have them “play soldier” where they need a “battle plan” – drawing and writing skills along with navigation and topography will happen.

    By the time you get to high school, having a bunch of “trades” available along with the academic track would be the best, IMHO. EVERYONE ought to have a “trade” they can do. Even someone headed to be the president of General Electric. It centers you on just what is involved in making things. How much individual skill matters.

    This business of seeing school as 8 hours of “Butts In Seats” doing rote memorization from a talking head is just incredibly stupid and ineffective. ( I say that having been a teacher, too…) School ought to be 80% “lab” and 20% “Q&A” with lecture if needed in the Q&A on some point.

    Oh Well…

    Sidebar:

    I loved chemistry. So when I went to my Son’s H.S. and asked his chemistry teacher some questions, I was aghast. I was asking about what labs he did for the kids to see. After a moment of puzzlement, in a condescending and slightly derisive tone, he said “OH… You mean demonstrations… I don’t like demonstrations.” That’s when I figured out why my kids were not fond of chemistry. It was all “butts in seats – listen and memorize”. What the hell is chemistry class without the chemicals?! Dead dry magic handwaving of incomprehensible words.

    Sigh.

  15. E.M.Smith says:

    @Corsair Red:

    I learned it as “Shit flows down hill and keep the pumped water in the pipes” ;-)

  16. Steve C says:

    Most of the words used in political discussions seem to have wandered a long way from their original meanings. Liberals are illiberal. Conservatives don’t conserve. Workers’ parties don’t care about the workers, and so on. No word is safe. Newspeak is with us.

    The real political problem IMO is the degree of authoritarianism which appears to characterise present day politics on all “sides” and at all levels. No party now suggests directions in which the public might want to see their country move, they have no great ideas to offer: they all want only to run their own big technocratic engine to control the rest of us. They decide, we get to approve, and only to approve.

    Bob Altemeyer got it exactly half right: his ‘tripartite’ analysis of authoritarianism is bang on, emphasising that the followers, the “little authoritarians”, are as much of the problem as the big authoritarians they follow. Then he foolishly declares that this situation is only found on one end of the (invented and largely meaningless) left-right dimension and loses half his audience. But yes. It’s the arrogant authoritarian bastards – of all colours – who are forcing problems on the rest of us.

    It is good, if a bit belated, to see “populism” (which, of course, in Global Newspeak is (ugh!) undesirable …) popping up in one country after another. Maybe when it’s all over, the resulting power holders will once again realise that they govern us only with our consent, not as some ordained gift of God. I’m only surprised by how long it has taken for the realities of what’s been building up since WWII to sink in, but happily the “technocrats” are getting so puffed up and worried now that they are making really stupid – and, importantly, really unpopular – moves, like Italy’s Glob “President” trying to veto the preferences of an elected popular government before it has even taken power. I say bring it on – the more naked arrogance they display, the quicker people will see them for what they are and do something about it.

    Perhaps we could push things along a bit. How about a popular worldwide movement demanding a complete and public audit of the entire international banking system? I can imagine that might send a chill down a few of the right spines … (what’s the smiley for a really evil smile? :)

    @H.R. – A good machinist is hard to find? Most of ’em can’t even write a legible hand, dammit!

  17. p.g.sharrow says:

    A plumbing contractor told me that :
    Shit runs down hill,
    Payday is on Friday,
    The boss is a S.O.B,
    Are the only things you have to know to get a job as a plumber.

    The first trade that I mastered before I became a teenager. Cast Iron bell and socket and threaded steel pipe in malleable fittings. Followed by Copper tube and brazed or soldered fittings. My father was a builder and mechanic and I was apprentice at 5.

    Smith just made it, as after he went to school, all the vocational education was stripped out, Labs eliminated, facilities disposed of, and teachers reassigned. Everyone was trained to be collage bound, This was cheaper and required much lower abilities in the teachers. Principals, a senior teacher, were replaced with Professional Administrators at 3-4 times the salary plus additional secretaries to handle the State department of Education mandates in the Socialists drive to create the new world citizens.

    Back in the 1950s and early 1960s California had the finest public schools in the world and they were directed to create trained capable citizens at the end of High School.
    In 1960 “Pat” Brown, Moonbeams father, sold out to the Unions and Professional Administrators to fund and gain power for the Brown family political aspirations. By governor directive the open shop became closed and the socialists gained control of Californian education… pg

  18. philjourdan says:

    That’s why the Socialists keep the masses ignorant, so the sheeple don’t notice that ALL of their piggy banks are being robbed.

    Ignorant AND drunk! There is a reason that booze is cheap in dictatorships.

  19. philjourdan says:

    Back in the 1950s and early 1960s California had the finest public schools in the world and they were directed to create trained capable citizens at the end of High School.

    In 1971/72 academic year, I had the rare opportunity to go from a California HS (Marin county, so not a poor place) to a Virginia HS (Norfolk – we are talking inner city). I went from an A student to failing in 3 subjects! (fortunately, I caught up quickly).

    So those “great” schools were gone by then. I came from another state to California in 66. And was quite surprised to learn that the history of the US started in the mid 19th century.

  20. Chris in Calgary says:

    @Steve C
    they are making really stupid … moves, like Italy’s Glob “President” trying to veto the preferences of an elected popular government before it has even taken power.

    I was astonished by this. Being Italian, he should have had some idea of the outrage he would provoke.

    This was so transparently daft that I’ve considered the possibility that he was deliberately sowing mayhem.

  21. Serioso says:

    Mr. Smith has managed to mangle the modern distinction between “right wing” and “left wing.” The distinction is quite clear: The “left” are primarily interested in what we call “human rights,” while the “right” are much more concerned with “property rights.” This is a very old distinction, but it correlates well with modern preferences: If you favor property rights you are likely to favor low taxation, nationalism (sometimes to the point of racism), private (often religious) education, and economic freedom. You are probably against labor unions. If you favor human rights you are likely to favor welfare, freedom of immigration, government-provided education and health care, public libraries, and an expansion of other public services. You are probably in favor of labor unions.

    I don’t know why Mr. Smith feels the need to bloviate at such length. The distinction between right and left is clear to nearly everyone but himself.

  22. H.R. says:

    Knock me down with a feather! Is Serioso is a 2nd Amendment supporter, for surely the right to self defense is one of the most basic of human rights?

    While you’re at it, Serioso, let’s have your address so the less well-off in your neighborhood can relieve you of all that property that you have no right to. Don’t forget to leave the keys to the car hanging by the door. It would be rude to make them search for the keys.

    What?!? Theft? There is no such thing as theft when there are no property rights. What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is mine, so get to work please, because it seems I’m always out and I’ll be needing some of ‘yours’.

  23. philjourdan says:

    @H.R. – maybe he found the first amendment as well – like the right to worship (or not) as you see fit? That is a basic human right. How about the right of Free Assembly? That one has gotten trampled on, but it is a basic human right! It seems that he has the viewpoint of “what is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine”. In other words, he only supports rights when they conform to his ideology. But in that regard he is typically left. No concern for other’s basic human rights. Just his own.

  24. E.M.Smith says:

    I guess it’s time for a little more “minced serioso”. It takes a certain amount of dissection to figure out what, if anything, was actually said.

    Serioso says:
    6 June 2018 at 6:34 pm (Edit)

    Mr. Smith has managed to mangle the modern distinction between “right wing” and “left wing.”

    Again with the formal tone. Must be really pissed about this one. Good, I’m over the target.

    “mangle the modern distinction”

    I take that to mean “effectively caught the {socialist | progressive | left | name du jour} in their corrupting of the language to suite their ends”. “Modern” basically meaning “we got away with the lie long enough, how dare you say it isn’t true now”.

    Me? I prefer that my definitions not change quite so fast as to completely invert the meaning of a word in a generation.

    The distinction is quite clear: The “left” are primarily interested in what we call “human rights,” while the “right” are much more concerned with “property rights.”

    So now we get a false dichotomy created so that it can be used as a foundation on which to build an edifice of lies.

    “Property rights” ARE human rights. If I have no rights in my property, and it can be taken at whim by the State, then I am a slave of the State. My liberty to live, work, and live in my home even if built by my own hands does not exist. All that exists is the word of some other person as to what I can and can not do. Property rights are the foundation of all other rights.

    Why do I say that? If I have no car, my freedom to travel in it as I see fit does not exist. If I have no home, my right to privacy and security in it does not exist. If I do not own my clothes and luggage (at a minimum) I can have no privacy, no security, no liberty (other than the liberty to die naked and cold in the street.) No ability to make / grow my own food, tools, or really anything.

    But let’s press on into this fantasy world where one can be secure and at liberty while being 100% dependent on some politician in the State for all that supports you. (Not like Obama would use the IRS to crush the opposition or the FBI to remove folks from their property and imprison them…)

    This is a very old distinction,

    Assertion without evidence. But I do note in passing the strong irony, lost on Serioso, of appealing to OLD having just said MODERN is all that matter. Consistency is not his strong suit.

    OK, I’ve sorted all this before in more detail here:
    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/nationalist-socialists/

    but just to put a direct link in:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

    The political terms “Left” and “Right” were first used during the French Revolution (1789–1799) and referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament: those who sat to the right of the chair of the parliamentary president were broadly supportive of the institutions of the monarchist Old Regime. The original Right in France was formed as a reaction against the “Left” and comprised those politicians supporting hierarchy, tradition and clericalism The use of the expression la droite (“the right”) became prominent in France after the restoration of the monarchy in 1815, when it was applied to the Ultra-royalists. The people of English-speaking countries did not apply the terms “right” and “left” to their own politics until the 20th century.

    So “right wing” IS Monarchy and The Church. Everything else is change added later.

    The wiki then goes off into bat-shit-crazy land trying to warp “right wing” to now put Capitalists in the Left Wing as they were in the 1700s, but have not been per “the left” for most of the 19th and 20th centuries:

    Although the right-wing originated with traditional conservatives, monarchists and reactionaries, the term extreme right-wing has also been applied to movements including fascists, Nazis and racial supremacists. From the 1830s to the 1880s, there was a shift in the Western world of social class structure and the economy, moving away from nobility and aristocracy towards capitalism. This general economic shift toward capitalism affected centre-right movements such as the British Conservative Party, which responded by becoming supportive of capitalism. In the United States, the Right includes both economic and social conservatives. In Europe, economic conservatives are usually considered liberal and the Right includes nationalists, nativist opposition to immigration, religious conservatives and historically a significant presence of right-wing movements with anti-capitalist sentiments including conservatives and fascists who opposed what they saw as the selfishness and excessive materialism inherent in contemporary capitalism

    Note the “has also been applied to”. Carefully avoiding any exploration of by whom and why. It was by Stalin and it was to finger the National Socialists as bad. (It’s history. Look it up if you don’t believe me. Stalin also got ANTIFA started.)

    Now what can you make of a term where Capitalists can be either right wing or left wing, where National Socialists can be extreme right wing or very extreme left wing, and where right-wing can include strong anti-captialists? Thus my pointing out it is a broken term and really meaningless these days.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

    The political terms “Left” and “Right” were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization, while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime. Use of the term “Left” became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 when it was applied to the “Independents”. The word “wing” was appended to Left and Right in the late 19th century] usually with disparaging intent and “left-wing” was applied to those who were unorthodox in their religious or political views.

    So who were those who supported the revolution? Oh, yeah, the capitalist merchants. So now “Left wing” means merchants and business? Oh dear…

    The term was later applied to a number of movements, especially republicanism during the French Revolution in the 18th century,

    Oh, those Horrible Nasty LEFT wing REPUBLICANS!!!” /sarc;

    See the problem yet? Originally it was King & Church on the right, business and population on the left. Then business gets chucked over on the right and socialists take over the left. Then the International Socialists toss the National Socialists over on the “extreme right”. As of that point “right wing” only really means “whatever the International Socialists don’t like today”. I.e. a useless term today due to that corruption of meaning over time.

    followed by socialism, communism, anarchism and social democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries. Since then, the term left-wing has been applied to a broad range of movements including civil rights movements, feminist movements, anti-war movements and environmental movements, as well as a wide range of parties. According to author Barry Clark, “[leftists] claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated”

    In short, The Left Wing now means whatever cause du jour tickles the fancy of folks who are against “differences in status, power, and wealth” – i.e. communists.

    So like I said, essentially useless and meaningless terms. But let’s get back to what Serioso thinks they mean (note again the use of “modern” as a cudgel as though consistency or tradition is a bad thing):

    but it correlates well with modern preferences: If you favor property rights you are likely to favor low taxation, nationalism (sometimes to the point of racism), private (often religious) education, and economic freedom.

    Well that’s quite a load to put on The Church. Or is it the King? Or Businessmen? Or National Socialists? We’re all apparently on the Right Wing together…

    I note in passing the attempt to conflate nationalism with racism. They are two different words for a reason. Nationalism has nothing to do with racisim. (Note the mixed race character of just about every major nation on the planet, including Russia, the USA, Brazil, UK, and many others) Bogus thinking to conflate the two. In fact, it’s mostly been National Socialists who have gone the racist route in the 20th century. China is rather racist and it’s communist.

    Yes, I favor property rights as without them no other rights survive.

    Yes, I favor low taxation as ALL taxation is just approved theft by The Government to be used for the purposes and priorities of some asshole politician. I’d like to think it was for the good of the people but history is against me on that one. So yes, lowest possible taxes, just enough to do what The People need. (Oddly, I don’t think that’s a Right Wing Only deal, as my Democrat buddies also hate taxes and it seems to me JFK cut taxes and the economy boomed… but maybe JFK was really Right Wing… And didn’t Clinton have a tax cut and the economy did better? Guess he’s “right wing” too… ) Yet I didn’t see taxation mentioned in the laundry list of right vs left above.

    Nationalism? Didn’t see that listed in the who’s who of left vs right either. But yes, I’m in favor of the Nation State. (As, BYW, were Mao, Pol Pot, and Putin – but i guess they are now Right Wing too?… ) In point of fact, the only ones NOT in favor of their Nation State are the International Socialists – aka Communists. So i guess that point is one you are making for “my side” that “Right Wing” includes anyone not an International Socialist aka Communist.

    You are probably against labor unions.

    I note in passing that at this point Serioso has slid, as he always does, from The Topic (really sidebar of left vs right) to The Personal: “You are”. But I suppose it could be the “royal you”…

    FWIW, I’m a member of The Teamsters International Union. (Never took a withdrawal from my last active time). Just FYI.

    But again, note this Union thing has NOTHING to do with actual usage or definitions. It is created from whole cloth out of the mind of Serioso. Now what DOES exist is that both International Socialism and National Socialism were really really big on using Unions as agents for social change and to take over control of private companies. So again Serioso is preaching the Communist / Fascist line about the utility of Unions. (Note that Fascist comes from the “bundle of sticks” uses as an emblem for The Union in Italy. Mussolini was a BIG supporter of union power and insisted they be brought in to management functions in his “3rd Way” socialism. It’s well documented history, which is why whenever you bring it up there will only be “crickets” in response).

    So I’m in favor of unions when business are abusive and against them as agents for Socialism in their drive to destroy private enterprise. Guess that leaves me out of both wings…

    But in any case, ‘Unions’ is not really in the definition until very recently when International Socialism started pushing it in.

    If you favor human rights you are likely to favor welfare, freedom of immigration, government-provided education and health care, public libraries, and an expansion of other public services. You are probably in favor of labor unions.

    Another “assertion without evidence”.

    Welfare is NOT a “human right”. Freedom of assembly, speech, protest, religion, those are human rights. Welfare is a transfer payment, often via government force, to support folks deemed “needy” by some third party. It often exists when things like Religious Charity have been driven from the public square.

    “Freedom of immigration” is NOT a “human right”. Immigration is a question of National Sovereignty.

    Government provided {list including health care and education} are NOT “human rights”. They are public services that a free people may choose to have provided by their government OR may choose to have provided privately, which ever works better for them. Do realize that “Public Education” is a plank right out of Marx and the Communist Manifesto.

    So Serioso’s list of “Human Rights” is essentially the list put forward by Good Communists. Got it.

    Then the resort to Unions again.

    And, for course, the inevitable return of Poor Johnny One Note to the only tool in his tool box: the Personal Insult. In this case “bloviate”:

    I don’t know why Mr. Smith feels the need to bloviate at such length. The distinction between right and left is clear to nearly everyone but himself.

    Um, tell me, did you personally interview “nearly everyone”? Have you got the results of your survey? Or are you just making stuff up again? I’ve seen LOTS of folks confused over right wing vs left wing and especially how it is applied to ‘extremes’. Often you see the phrase “at extreme right and left it’s the same”. That comes ENTIRELY out of the LIE that National Socialism is Right Wing; and it was the goal of Stalin when he assigned it to “the right”. So no, I reject outright your claim by assertion that it is clear. It isn’t. It is deliberately muddy for effect to hide the fact that both Mussolini / Fascism and Hitler / Nazism were, and are, National Socialist movements.

    Now to the insult:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloviation

    Bloviation is a style of empty, pompous political speech particularly associated with Ohio due to the term’s popularization by United States President Warren G. Harding, who, himself a master of the technique, described it as “the art of speaking for as long as the occasion warrants, and saying nothing”.

    I’ll have to leave “pompous” for others to decide. I think I’m pretty straight and ‘regular guy’ in my writing, but I can be prone to advanced vocabulary when needed. Not big on the self aggrandizement thing that pompous insinuates though, more self deprecating. I can be Prolix as I like to assure a topic is covered with some exactness (and I can see how precision, logic, history, facts, reason, and details could be construed by someone such as Serioso to be pompous as he is unfamiliar with them).

    “style of empty”? Hardly. In fact, my reference to right wing was a short quote and a couple of short paragraphs to say why I was not going to use the term. Only Serioso’s inability to learn and inability to “let it go” has forced this review (again…) of what are simple known facts of history.

    The bulk of the article is quotes from other sources and a listing of the various States of the EU that have given the finger (or are lubing it up to give the finger) to Soros and his ilk; or the EU Masters. Then a reminder of 2 failed Socialist States in Latin America preparing to go under. I think that’s rather a lot more than “empty”, and with my comments interleaved in a more ‘terse’ style.

    But I can understand why you (Serioso) get your panties in such a bunch over it so regularly. It must be hard as a good True Communist / Socialist Believer to come to grips with the real history of lying for effect, State deception, W.W. II National Socialism vs International Socialism (with a minor helping, with the USA getting in at the end, of Capitalism on the side) and then the most recent Socialist Workers Paradises all going down the sewer so reliably. You have my sympathies. (But it really would be easier to just let go of your love for all things Socialist / Fascist / National Socialist and realize that free markets, Capitalism, and a free Republic lead to wealth and a good life. I would help your emotional state greatly.)

  25. philjourdan says:

    To expound on a couple of your points EM:

    “Property rights” ARE human rights. If I have no rights in my property, and it can be taken at whim by the State, then I am a slave of the State. My liberty to live, work, and live in my home even if built by my own hands does not exist. All that exists is the word of some other person as to what I can and can not do. Property rights are the foundation of all other rights.

    You forgot the big one. If you have no “property” rights, you have no right to your own body. As defined by the Constitution, that is the most basic property right and IS the basis of Roe v. Wade. So Serioso is against Abortion as clearly he does not agree with property rights.

    Re: Immigration rights. That one is tricky. So who is on his side? Clearly NOT Obama! –

    Nor Hillary Clinton for that matter –

    But perhaps that is where he uses the weaselly word “Modern”. So one would have to ask, what is “modern”? Apparently to Serioso, “modern” is ONLY the last 10 years. A VERY tight restriction on the term! And since “modern” is ONLY the last 10 years, how has it been disseminated to everyone on the entire planet (all 7.3 billion) in such a short period of time? Does my Aunt, 83 now, who does not use a computer at all know that the definitions have changed in such a short period of time? I asked her. Her response was “Huh?”. So my survey, as scientific as Serioso’s, reveals his claim to be patently untrue.

  26. David A says:

    Serioso, and the responses to his comments are a hoot! And also quite an education. Keep it up Serioso, if you did not exist our host would have to invent you.

    Personally I have evolved the left right to Left = statists ( more central government less individual freedom) verses Right = libertarian ( individual rights, including property, vocation, the right to screw up and face consequences, free markets – capitalism – founding principles of the U.S.)

    This allows consistency and places a true monarchy on the left with Communism, the inevitable goal of socialism.

    Communism demands a monarchy; central power and children subjects. ( In all forms of Statism someone has to decide who gets what from others when)

  27. cdquarles says:

    No personal liberty————————————————————————-Maximum personal liberty
    Where do you stand?
    NB that liberty is not “anything goes”, since my rights end where your rights begin.

    Abortion, by definition, is homicide. Not all homicide is murder. Abortion is justified when you can’t save *both* lives. Rape or incest cases are a grey area. Abortion, “for convenience”, isn’t justified, since both lives are human lives and do have the God given right to exist.

  28. E.M.Smith says:

    @Phil:

    I thought about it after I hit send. But was already too prolix, so figured I’d “let it go”… but yes, THE most fundamental property right is ownership of yourself.

    Slavery is illegal and immoral precisely because someone has, by force, stolen your ownership of yourself. ( IMHO forced blood and breathalizer tests are equally flawed. If I do not own my blood and the inside of my own body, what do I own of me? Where it my 5th Amendment right in my body?)

    @David A:

    Why do you think I let him hang around? 8-)

    I actually get some pleasure out of the need to focus my beliefs a bit more. My only real complaint is the constant resorting to insult by Serioso. ( I don’t like it simply because my “Be the Mirror” fundamental structure then has ME wanting to do the “insult thing” and I don’t like that in me…)

    FWIW, I’ve adopted the use of the term “Central Authority” rather than the whole right / left garbage. It’s clear. It is not corrupted. It fits all forms from Monarchs to Dictators to Central Committee to Der Fuehrer to Madam President. There are folks who are 100% for Central Authority then there are those of us who want as much “Distributed Authority” (or devolved authority) as possible and maximum Individual Liberty.

    IMHO making the axis Central Authority ===== Individual Liberty makes it much more clear and dumps the historical (and increasingly hysterical…) baggage of Left Wing to Right Wing…

    @cdquarles:

    I stand at that point where my (and your) individual liberty is maximized just short of where increased liberty on my part requires decreased liberty on yours.

  29. Serioso says:

    So much of what has been posted above is so ridiculous that it would take far too much of my limited energy to respond. Yes, it’s obvious that without property rights there are no rights at all – did I say something different? Did I say something about the 2nd amendment? No, I didn’t. I’m afraid, Mr. Smith, that your readers are careless. They read what they want to see, not what has been written.
    But let me focus on one particular misunderstanding you seem to have fixed in your head: Communism, fascism and Nazism have NOTHING to do with socialism. Yes, of course, they called themselves socialists in order to attract adherents. In every case it was a false flag. Actual socialists were enemies to all three. Y’all need to study some history.
    That’s it for now. I fear I too will begin to bloviate.

  30. E.M.Smith says:

    Let me interpret…

    “it would take far too much of my limited energy to respond. ”

    Means “I don’t have a good answer”.

    “Yes, it’s obvious that without property rights there are no rights at all – did I say something different?”

    Means “Ohoh… ought not have said property rights were a Right Wing thing”.

    “I’m afraid, Mr. Smith, that your readers are careless. They read what they want to see, not what has been written.”

    Means “I was careless. They figured out where I was wrong, spotted the logical failures and showed how when elaborated it was a big problem.”

    “But let me focus on one particular misunderstanding you seem to have fixed in your head: Communism, fascism and Nazism have NOTHING to do with socialism.”

    Means “Let me try another Big Lie By Assertion and see who bites. I’m sure nobody would actually have read the works of Marx, or lived through the history of the entire Cold War.”

    “In every case it was a false flag. Actual socialists were enemies to all three. Y’all need to study some history.”

    Means “The ‘modern’ Socialists are so embarrassed by their past they have shouted that those other guys are NOT in the club anymore. Y’all need to study the New Revised Approved Socialist History to get the latest updates. It’s changed now, you know.”

    “That’s it for now. I fear I too will begin to bloviate.”

    Too late…. Speaking a lot and saying nothing is exactly what you just did.

    I’ll come back to this after the BBQ and dinner are done, but just as a tiny peak at what’s coming, I suggest you read your Communist Manifesto. I’ve read it several times and own my own personal copy…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

    The Communist Manifesto summarises Marx and Engels’ theories concerning the nature of society and politics, that in their own words, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. It also briefly features their ideas for how the capitalist society of the time would eventually be replaced by socialism. Near the end of the Manifesto, the authors call for “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions”, which served as the justification for all communist revolutions around the world.
    […]
    “Proletarians and Communists”, the second section, starts by stating the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class. The communists’ party will not oppose other working-class parties, but unlike them, it will express the general will and defend the common interests of the world’s proletariat as a whole, independent of all nationalities. The section goes on to defend communism from various objections, including claims that it advocates “free love” or disincentivises people from working. The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands—among them a progressive income tax; abolition of inheritances and private property; abolition of child labour; free public education; nationalisation of the means of transport and communication; centralisation of credit via a national bank; expansion of publicly owned etc.—the implementation of which would result in the precursor to a stateless and classless society.

    The third section, “Socialist and Communist Literature”, distinguishes communism from other socialist doctrines prevalent at the time—these being broadly categorised as Reactionary Socialism; Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism; and Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism.
    While the degree of reproach toward rival perspectives varies, all are dismissed for advocating reformism and failing to recognise the pre-eminent revolutionary role of the working class. “Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Opposition Parties”, the concluding section of the Manifesto, briefly discusses the communist position on struggles in specific countries in the mid-nineteenth century such as France, Switzerland, Poland, and Germany, this last being “on the eve of a bourgeois revolution”, and predicts that a world revolution will soon follow. It ends by declaring an alliance with the social democrats, boldly supporting other communist revolutions, and calling for united international proletarian action—Working Men of All Countries, Unite!.

    Note that the GOAL of communism is to replace capitalism with socialism.

    Note that they class Communism as the best kind of socialism and the other socialisms as being not quite revolutionary enough.

    This uneven geographical spread in the Manifesto’s popularity reflected the development of socialist movements in a particular region as well as the popularity of Marxist variety of socialism there. There was not always a strong correlation between a social-democratic party’s strength and the Manifesto’s popularity in that country. For instance, the German SPD printed only a few thousand copies of the Communist Manifesto every year, but a few hundred thousand copies of the Erfurt Programme. Further, the mass-based social-democratic parties of the Second International did not require their rank and file to be well-versed in theory; Marxist works such as the Manifesto or Das Kapital were read primarily by party theoreticians. On the other hand, small, dedicated militant parties and Marxist sects in the West took pride in knowing the theory; Hobsbawm says “This was the milieu in which ‘the clearness of a comrade could be gauged invariably from the number of earmarks on his Manifesto'”.

    Note that the SPD is the Socialist Democratic Party of Germany. If not closely tied, why would they print and distribute the Manifesto and why would such parties expect their leadership to look to it for “theory”?

    Even unto modern times:

    There are passages that could have come from the most recent writings on globalisation.” Alex Callinicos, editor of International Socialism, stated in 2010 that “This is indeed a manifesto for the 21st century.”

    BTW, you do remember my saying that Communism and Socialism were economic forms and that I’d been required to study them for my degree in Econ? Guess when / where I first read the Communist Manifesto and learned the different types of Socialism (including “Market Socialism” or “3rd Way”… i.e. Mussolini’s creation)? I don’t come to this from an armchair perspective and not having, literally, “done my homework”.

    So I’d suggest that it is YOU who need to read your history. And your Communist Manifesto. And trace the roots of the various Socialisms, including the National Socialists.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

    Known as Il Duce (“The Leader”), Mussolini was the founder of Italian Fascism. In 1912, Mussolini had been a leading member of the National Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI), but was expelled from the PSI for advocating military intervention in World War I, in opposition to the party’s stance on neutrality.

    So a hard core Socialist. His disagreement was that he wanted to be a militant Socialist…

    His economic and government / social programs continue in the Socialist model to the end.

    There’s LOADS more, but dinner calls. (Or, rather, if I don’t get started making it the spouse will be calling me all sorts of things in a couple of hours ;-)

  31. philjourdan says:

    Your energy is not the only thing limited.

    Yes, Communism is the END stage of socialism according to Marx. (when the state melts away magically). SO that is another of your errors.

    Fascism is 3rd way Socialism (as defined by Mussolini) so it IS socialism ,as is Nazism which has socialism in its name and over half of the Nazi planks on their platform are the same as any socialist.

    So the question is – can you get anything correct? All you are doing is bloviating. Instead of presenting facts, you reject documented facts out of hand, and present none of your own.

    But I guess that is all the left can do.

  32. H.R. says:

    @philjourdan who wrote: “Your energy is not the only thing limited.”

    That was a very perceptive observation, sir. However, I still stand by my recent observation that Serioso should be awarded the “Chiefio’s Golden Microphone” and proclaimed our Resident Top Comedian.

    May I present………… Serioso! Let’s give him a big hand, ladies and gentlemen!

  33. E.M.Smith says:

    @Phil:

    That’s a pretty good list, but #23 is kind of current, what with Faceplant and Goorble making themselves the Truth Squad:

    23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:

    (a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.

    (b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.

    (c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.

    Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

    Those Nazi Socialists always love a good strong control on just who’s “truth” gets printed and seen… Just replace German with Progressive and it fits nicely… so:

    (a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the Progressive language shall be Progressives.

    (b) Non-Progressive newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the Progressive language.

    (c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting Progressive newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Progressives by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Progressives from the Reich.

    Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

  34. philjourdan says:

    @H.R. Ah the unknown comic! The Gong Show had to be the worst show ever! It was so bad, you had to watch it. ;-)

  35. philjourdan says:

    @E.M. – Agreed. But I was pointing out the ones that are ON the democrat platform (23 may be next time). The words a little different, but the meaning is the same.

Anything to say?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.