wingnuts

Wingnuts over Holland

Dutch politics, Geertje Wilders, wingnuts
Published on

The socalled “freedom party” is a Dutch extreme righwing party founded by professional Islamophobe Geert Wilders. In an effort to prove that all Wingnuts over Holland, it has now proposed to force women undergoing abortion to pay for it themselves and so stop the government subsidising abortion clinics. This proposal is so absurd that even the main anti-abortion organisation in the Netherlands, the VBOK, has rejected it. They prefer (sex) education in schools and practical support for unplanned pregnancies as ways to minimise the number of abortions.

The Netherlands, which has always had a large population of conservative Christians, was late in legalising abortion, only doing so in 1984. Since then it had largely stopped being a controversial subject, playing little to no role in politics, with none of the battles waged against it as seen in the US. Opponents largely concentrated either on limiting the need for abortions through sex ed and use of birth control or on providing support for women going through unplanned pregnancies.

With the worldwide return of conservatism since 2001 however wingnut ideas about abortion have been introduced here as well. It’s not just a fringe party coming up with such ideas to make abortion more difficult, the government as well has floated ideas to make it harder, Dutch police has taken an interest in prosecuting women for undergoing “illegal” abortions abroad, etc. The wingnut right thinks it’s in the ascend, so is now much more confident in attacking hardwon liberties.

What Jonah wants

US politics, wingnuts
Published on

Earlier I said that Jonah is just another kind of Holocaust denier, the way he distorts the true history and politics of fascism, but the big question is what he tries to achieve with this distortion. You can do worse than to read John Emerson’s explanation, who argues it’s done partially to slime the left, partially to inoculate the Republicans against the charge of fascism and partially, perhaps unconsciously as a dominance game within the media: “no matter how stupid we make our arguments, you will take them seriously”. All fine points, but there’s still something missing. There’s more going on and it’s best expressed through that stupid backcover quote:

The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn’t an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

What Goldberg is saying with that, and with so many other examples, is that all traditional, stereotypical liberal dogoodery is fascist. That it doesn’t matter whether state power is used benignly or malignantly, the fact that it’s state power is enough to make it fascist. A public school system, a national health service, all fascist. Ridiculous of course, but it is an extreme version of what a lot of rightwingers half believe already. Which makes Jonah’s book so dangerous, as it strengthens the paranoid beliefs of an already radicial and powerful group. Worse, because it’s so extreme it helps legitamise less extreme versions of this idea. The American media is already saturated with reports and stories that push the idea all state interference is bad, all social programmes are evil and pushing the idea that it’s not just wrong but fascist to have welfare can only help in further eroding public support.

What’s to be done? Debating Jonah on the merits of his book is pointless, as that only strengthens the perception of legitamicy, though just straightforward education in what fascism is should be done. Making fun of him and his book is better, but in itself is not enough. What we want is to make sure the sheer stupidity of these beliefs is exposed, which I think is best done by dragging these half hidden ideas I outlined above into the spotlights and then ridiculing them. Fortunately, most people are still not stupid enough to think a female school teacher is really the modern equivalent of a concentration camp guard.

Jonah Goldberg: just another kind of Holocaust denier

US politics, wingnuts
Published on

So Jonah Goldberg, the cheetos munching spawn of Lucianne, has actually managed to complete his magnus opus Liberal Fascism: from Mussoline to Muscle Beach, showing us how no really, it wasn’t the fascists that were fascists, it was the liberals! Since it came out David Neiwert has, as usual, done a sterling duty in calmly explaining how and why Goldberg is talking cock, but of course without leaving any impression on the man himself. Goldberg knows it doesn’t matter what David says or how carefully he explains he’s wrong, as his audience will never see nor (want to) understand David’s arguments. As long as the message of “liberals = Fascism!”is out there, Jonah has done his job.

Which is why the important point David makes is not that Jonah is wrong, but that he is just another kind of Holocaust denier:

Goldberg is much offended, of course, that I’ve compared his work to David Irving’s in this regard, saying “he tries ever so slightly to tag me as a member of the David Irving Holocaust-denier camp.” But that, of course, isn’t what I’m saying at all: Rather, my point is that he employs the same historical methodology as Holocaust deniers, which is rather a different thing. I once made a similar point about Michelle Malkin’s methodology in her book In Defense of Internment — and predictably, as Jonah did, she simply tossed it off as a “smear” rather than answer the point.

what Jonah does is just as offensive, morally and factually wrong as denying that the Holocaust has happened. He distorts history to make the victims of fascism into their own oppressors, just like some Holocaust deniers blame the Jews for their own persecution. Therefore it is not possible to get into a “reasonable debate” with Goldberg, nor should we want to. Instead he should be shunned and mocked for his beliefs. Wasting time refuting his arguments just helps establishing the idea that his opinions on this are respectable, if wrong in its particulars.

This is not the impression anybody who is serious about history, who is serious about fascism, whether liberal, conservative or socialist, should want to encourage. Already the idea of what fascism was and is has been diluted by overuse as a general purpose insult. Imprinting the belief on the general public that it’s the liberals who are the true fascists, or even the idea that this is a reasonable thing to believe means we can give up any hope of being able to use fascism in its true meaning. And that’s just what Jonah Goldberg would like to happen.

People who really need to stop goddamn whining now

wingnuts
Published on

Malkin

  1. Christians who think their beliefs excuse them from doing their goddam job, but who do not expect this to cause them problems, like this fucker. No, it’s not religious discrimination if you get fired for not doing your job properly, you asshole.
  2. Police who complain about judges’ decisions, no matter how awful you think they are. It’s not your job to decide on what constitutes a fitting punishment, it’s to catch bad guys and hopefully not shoot too many innocent Brazilians in the process.
  3. I was going to say, “anybody who thinks slandering a twelve year old is a-okay but who get their panties in a bunch when somebody twits Bush, but I think i’ll just amend that to the motherfucking Malkin“.

David Price: superhack

War on Iraq, wingnuts
Published on

This is the most hackish thing Dean Esmay David Price ever wrote, until the next thing EsmayPrice writes, (to paraphrase a certain sarky blogger:

Little noticed this month was the news that Iraq’s electricity production has set a new all-time high in September of around 6,860 MW, including 2,000 MW or more of non-public generation (p40), illegal under Saddam (because like any good national socialist despot, he outlawed private generators). Oil revenue also set a new record of $3.79 billion (p39).

When he’s talking about “non-public generation” he means people with diesel generators people! He thinks his readers are stupid enough to read that and go “Whoo! Power to the free market!”. Well, perhaps he’s right; every writer gets the audience he deserves. But does he really believe anybody else will not realise that, you know, having to rely on your own generator to get electricity is not a good thing? Especially when you’re not living in some shack in Alaska five hours from the nearest village, but in a multimillion city? Or would David be happy to trade in his state controlled electricity for some free market solution?