"Controversy at Museum of the American Revolution" Topic

OC's statement is consistent with many texts; those texts are wrong.

You mean with almost all of the texts. Even David Irving never denied that Nazism and Fascism were extreme right wing governments or ideologies.

I suppose all those tens of thousands of studies on Fascism are in error and the Dinesh Dsouza video got it right?

The left desperately tries to deny that the bloodiest regimes were all leftwing.

They do? Where is this?

Part of the problem here is that there are huge and varied texts on the ideology of both socialism and communism while fascism and Nazism basically emanate from the orifices of two men.

42nd, yes, probably. Or maybe it was a poorly chosen expression of a general truth, that controlling education is a good way to control everything else. Lots of other sources for that idea, most of whom are NOT Hitler. Including the Bible: "train up a child . . ."

If true, what you are saying might actually make Moms for Liberty's choice to cite AH worse. Out of the numerous people that supposedly expressed the same idea, they specifically wanted the Adolf Hitler version to represent their core belief.

Let's assume that this intricate explanation of why Moms for Liberty used the Adolf Hitler quote is true. We still need to examine its purpose.

If they are saying that the other side are the Nazis, then what Nazi behavior to they think they are fighting and trying to put a stop to?

For, instance, did the Nazis place a lot of books in libraries? Did they promote the queer community? Please let us know what Nazi evils Moms of Liberty are fighting on our behalf?

If you think that nazis and Soviets are basically the same regime, then why do you think Mom's for Liberty chose not to accuse the other side of some sort of Stalinist excess? After all, Stalin attacked the churches, isnt he the greater evil to bible lovin Moms?

So the attempt to tar the MOMS as Hitler-lovers is, in my view, invalid and not made in good faith.

What you are saying is that reputation does matter. If that is the case, we need to ask, Should a venue with a reputation to lose vet what sort of groups either gives talks or hosts events on its site?

If Moms of Liberty are being unfairly tarred, then why is it alright for them to call other people Nazis? Is this a case of calling other people names is alright but it's outrageous when it comes our way?

And who were they calling Nazis? The libraries, the schools? The queer community? Has the queer community become the Nazis?

It's hard to believe that Moms for Liberty can make the claim that Nazis are on our doorstep when they had to go library to library to find a handful of books no one cares much about to rile people up. Interestingly, none of the highlighted books have much to do with race, even though an enormous number of their larger list of books to be removed deal with racial situations. I suppose racism doesn't quite have the same sizzle with suburban moms that sex does?

Nor perhaps is telling them the they should activate to get the Great Gatsby out of schools.

And you should recognize the need to conflate kids with teens, classroom teaching with libraries. Really the amount of well crafted outrage would b worthy of a minister of Propaganda.

Additionally, what do you think the penalty should be for unfairly tarring Moms for Liberty with the Nazi label? Do you think that that speech should be shut down or eliminated? And if so, is that more a Fascist or a democratic approach?

Kevin, your posted definitions are flawed and unacceptable. And you rely far too much on other's thinking.

Why is that? Because they go against the learned teachings of the great Dinesh DSouza?

Meanwhile you are willing to accept a nationwide anti christian, vast censorship conspiracy by the ALA based on the say-so of one, money grubbing lunatic?

Who's thinking are you relying on?

A great example Doc, of the flaws of communal economics.

Charge, debating you is too wearisome. I sort of know who DSouza is but can't say I've read anything by him. I did teach comparative ideologies at the local university for a decade or so. I think for myself on these matters, informed by half a century of study of history.

Have you, per chance, read Chambers' WITNESS? It is as thorough an examination of the Communist mind as you will find. Read Kennan's SOURCES OF SOVIET CONDUCT and then WITNESS. Marxism-Leninism had a terrible power over minds, AT LEAST as great and evil as National Socialism, and I think rather more so; at a minimum, it lasted far longer and murdered enormously more people.

The daughter of a former German diplomat in Moscow was trying to explain to me why her father, who, as an enlightened modern man, had been extremely pro-Communist, had become an implacable anti-Communist. It was hard for her because, as an enlightened modern girl, she shared the Communist vision without being a Communist. But she loved her father and the irrationality of his defection embarrassed her. "He was immensely pro-Soviet," she said, "and then—you will laugh at me—but you must not laugh at my father—and then—one night—in Moscow—he heard screams. That's all. Simply one night he heard screams."
A child of Reason and the 20th century, she knew that there is a logic of the mind. She did not know that the soul has a logic that may be more compelling than the mind's. She did not know at all that she had swept away the logic of the mind, the logic of history, the logic of politics, the myth of the 20th century, with five annihilating words: one night he heard screams.

Why is that? Because they go against the learned teachings of the great Dinesh DSouza?

Relying on D'Souza for anything is chasing a fantasy. He's a right wing zealot who cannot be relied upon for factual material.

And no matter how long a person studies anything, if they don't use reliable material or sources, then it is all for naught.

He's just another conspiracy theorist.

Keep up the good work Au Pas…

+1 Brechtel198

I've been to the museum, if the Moms of Liberty would have their way many exhibits would be altered. The irony being so many here want to decry history as made up, when in fact, demonstrated by some poster here that they would try to bury the past.

Some information on D'Souza:

link

link

link

link

link

link

link

Why are we discussing DSouza? What has he to do with any of this?

dapeters, which poster here would try to bury the past?

See DN Jackson's posting of 8 July at 1039 pm. It's the link at the bottom of the posting.

Ah, okay. Well, DSousa's correct. I had arrived at the same view, oh, twenty or thirty years ago. Your "definitions" notwithstanding. The left has a long history of calling any conservative a fascist. or a racist. or now a "white supremacist." (even if they are black or brown). We no longer take such name-calling seriously.

Doc, according to MSNBC and the Guardian, even exercise could lead you down the path to racism, fascism, and white supremacy.

"Nobody expects the fascist Inquisition!"

Yes this is the stuff that keeps the left agitated, looking under their beds and in their closets. 😂😱🤣

"I see Facists" MSNBC and The Guardian! It must be true!

"By Cynthia Miller-Idriss, MSNBC Columnist
It appears the far right has taken advantage of pandemic at-home fitness trends to expand its decade-plus radicalization of physical mixed martial arts (MMA) and combat sports spaces

Initially lured with health tips and strategies for positive physical changes, new recruits are later invited to closed chat groups where far-right content is shared.

Earlier this month, researchers reported that a network of online "fascist fitness" chat groups on the encrypted platform Telegram are recruiting and radicalizing young men with neo-Nazi and white supremacist extremist ideologies. Initially lured with health tips and strategies for positive physical changes, new recruits are later invited to closed chat groups where far-right content is shared."

Subject: ‘Fascist fitness': how the far right is recruiting with online gym groups | Far right | The Guardian


link

and the Left's demand for white supremacists far exceeds the supply.

Ah, okay. Well, DSousa's correct.

It's such a relief that after all those tens of thousands of historians identifying the fascists as right wingers that you and DNesh have cleared this all up as wrong.

Maybe you and he can tackle the truth that the North was trying to force the South to keep their slaves and then, when they refused to go along, smeared them.

Thank god for crime stoppers like you guys.

I had arrived at the same view, oh, twenty or thirty years ago. Your "definitions" notwithstanding.

Do you feel that an erroneous conclusion improves with age?

The left has a long history of calling any conservative a fascist. or a racist. or now a "white supremacist."

This might be so but it has nothing to do with the nature of Fascism.

(even if they are black or brown). We no longer take such name-calling seriously.

Thats why Newt Gingrich started this "No, you're the Nazi" shtick. However, being hurt bc people are calling you names isnt a good reason to pervert history.

Desouza is the current fashion of extremists using a non-white face to hide racism. In some ways, his supporters have made him an honorary white man. See instead, Enrique Tarrio who recently apparently also compared the Moms for Liberty to the Gestapo. Is Enrique Tarrio calling the Mom's socilaists? But I thought the Moms were calling other people Nazis…er..socialists. Oh, it's so hard to keep track when Nazi apologists are constantly switching their propaganda du jour.

and the Left's demand for white supremacists far exceeds the supply.

You know this personally? Based on the same research and analysis youve used to vet the Moms for Liberty? That you like 'em cause theyre good decent folk?

Wait, who is on the left again? The FBI? Anyone who doesnt agree with library book bans? Pilotes Instructors?

Charge, you are bubbling over with shrewd comments.

He's also correct in his assertions in this regard.

We no longer take such name-calling seriously.

Who is 'we?'

Conservatives.

So you now speak for all conservatives? That is a dangerous position to take as too many who call themselves 'conservatives' are right wing radicals who do not talk or act in the best interests of the United States.

And D'Souza is not correct and could not be further from an accurate assessment.

"That is a dangerous position to take as too many who call themselves 'conservatives' are right wing radicals who do not talk or act in the best interests of the United States."

God! The Kool Aid is dosed heavily today. 😂🤣

Brech, I agree about the rise of radicalism, though many will disagree. But we can see and hear the actual words of our elected leaders, a win for reality.

Do the views and pronouncements of some members of Congress have historical precedents? It would be interesting to consider the decline of decorum and the rise of obstructionist tactics today in light of the conduct of pre Civil War Congresses. We know about the beating of Charles Sumner, we have not sunk to that depth.

But we have no Marine Commandant as of this week, hundreds of other appointments unaddressed, talking heads wonder if the entire defense budget could be stalled in the near future to leverage more power. "Best interests" of the United States, or only certain members?

No one speaks for all conservatives, but I am well informed about our movement. And I do not know a single radical nor "white supremacist" nor racist. Those mainly exist in the fevered imaginations of the Left.

35th, as you probably know, Sumner was an inflammatory speaker in Congress, certainly a radical by most standards, even for those days. This does not excuse
the man who beat him and maimed him for life, but he was definitely a master at insulting and strident characterizations.

Doc, I think one of the hard parts for me is often semantic. You speak of "our movement". I think this may put people in a sort of defensive crouch. I am not part of a movement. Just middle of the road American. I don't know anybody in a movement, or radicals, white supremacists either. This is not a dig at conservatives. My hero was Eisenhower. I wish he was here now. But it seems to speak to the discomfort of millions of moderates who want this self inflicted fight to end and both sides back to more civil interactions.

Tort, there are extremists on both sides, but not all realize this to be the case. I could write a list of people from the left, both media and politicians, and some would say: "they aren't extremists!". But that is only because the views from the left have moved closer to that radicalization than they actually realize themselves.

Just one case in point. Ask yourself this series of questions:

"30 years ago, would I have gone along with allowing a biological man, who believes he is a woman, to compete on the same sports team as my daughter, dress in the same locker room as my daughter, share the restroom with my daughter?"

Can you honestly say yes? How about today?

"The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long that nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was. The world around it will forget even faster."

— Milan Kundera, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1979

Tort, Progressivism was (and is) a movement, which influenced both political parties when Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt were leaders. Standard terminology: how else would one speak of something (a set of ideas and people who held them) that was important politically but which transcended the two parties? Today the Democrats are mostly Progressives and few if any Republicans are.

There used to be liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, but that hasn't been true for 40 or 50 years now.

We conservatives are indeed a movement. We tend to vote Republican as the lesser evil, but would vote for a conservative Democrat, if any appeared, over a liberal Republican. That is to say, IDEAS and VALUES matter most, not party identification.

BTw, Republican populism predates our previous president (see the Tea Party) and will continue after he has left the political stage. He didn't create it and only controls it in part, temporarily.

The return to civility will not happen. No matter how much we all wish it. It will get worse, potentially a LOT worse. There are reasons for this.

I am well informed about our movement

And your 'movement' stands for what?

The Abolitionists were a movement. Ditto feminists. Ditto environmentalists. Ditto Prohibitionists. Ditto America Firsters. MY reaction to those is varied, as I am sure yours is. But movements have always been a central feature of the American political scene.

It appears that some don't realize that the United States was founded as a liberal republic, soon to develop as a liberal democracy.

And the definition of 'conservative' does not mean the same as it used to, whether Democrat or Republican or whatever else you want to add.

And a return to civility most certainly can happen. Being a gentleman never goes out of fashion.

Kevin, we stand for a limited government (checks and balances and also the federal system) which protects natural rights, which are anterior to government. The Bill of Rights is our credo. (Civil rights such as voting -- which government DOES create -- are also important, but secondary to the personal liberties that are natural.)

Conservatives tend to be free speech absolutists, and also heavily committed to the Second Amendment. Which exists tom protect the First Amendment.

We see government as a necessary evil and try to keep it as small as possible consistent with it doing its essential functions.

There is not a more gentlemanly politician than George Bush (elder or younger). But we remember "Bushitler." link Mitt Romney is moderate but was likewise accused of all sorts of nastiness. BEING a gentleman is no guarantee of being treated as a gentleman.

Part of it is the splintering of the media. Media outlets that were formerly "mainstream" now cater to a highly committed minority; the NYT and WaPo are cases in point. Fox (until recently) is an example in the other direction. Today many if not most media identify their base and give them what they want. Which is often uncivil.

Also, most civility is based on unwritten rules, "gentlemen's agreements." Once one side violates those, the other side will do likewise, and the rule is GONE, never to be restored. Trust, once destroyed, cannot be restored. And there is very little trust left in our society.

35th, Id rather not make a personal response to your hypothetical here. I am in no way a supporter of such developments. Fortunately it does not come up locally. Yet…

I went as said not long after opening, have a good idea what the MOMS are fighting and doubt anything in the Revolution Museum would be in their removal list.
Ran across a article in porno information that has been used in schools and thought it would be a eye opener in this thread but it is porno so I didn't.

14 Bore have been to the Museum? The museum exhibits have bits of history that attempt to go beyond the high school American history/propaganda. Such as Von Steubens' homosexuality.

As far as fascist.. walk like a duck, quack like a duck…

As to librarians -- that's a battlefield too:

link

Mentions Moms.

So make a sweeping accusation and decline to specify?

Charge, you are bubbling over with shrewd comments.

Trust me, I'm behaving myself.

No one speaks for all conservatives, but I am well informed about our movement. And I do not know a single radical nor "white supremacist" nor racist. Those mainly exist in the fevered imaginations of the Left.

Movement? Do you consider yourself a moderate?

Conservatives tend to be free speech absolutists, and also heavily committed to the Second Amendment. Which exists tom protect the First Amendment.

You claim to be a free speech absolutist?

The return to civility will not happen. No matter how much we all wish it. It will get worse, potentially a LOT worse. There are reasons for this.

Tell us the reasons.

"The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long that nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was. The world around it will forget even faster."

— Milan Kundera, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1979

Who is destroying which books? Is someone destroying American cultural books?

Incidentally, I googled this quote and it came up on a site where two of the first comments by readers are:

Already happened. Every single month of the calendar is devoted to gays and various non-European racial groups, most of whom have absolutely *zero* connection to the history/heritage of this country and openly hate the nation. Every statue torn down and replaced, streets, buildings and parks renamed

Germany was just as [F'd] in the 20's as we are now. If not more so, and they fought back and stopped them for a time. Only thing that keeps me from getting depressed is that idea, we still can turn it around.
Slimmeddownwood_2016
7 oct 2021

Where does Dinesh DSouza fall? Is he inventing or manufacturing anything new here? Or is a dishonest, not very bright, religious extremist trying to make populists who feel bad that people call them Nazis just coincidentally better qualified at figuring out Fascists than all the actual scholars who have come before him? Or do you have other books who have claimed the Fascists were the same as the Communists?

We conservatives are indeed a movement. We tend to vote Republican as the lesser evil, but would vote for a conservative Democrat, if any appeared, over a liberal Republican.

You dont come across as a conservative. Not in the old skool republican sense of the word (Tennis Whites, Mild Mannered, White Wine). You do have lashings of populist about you but that is more a form of conservative who is afraid of anything they aren't used to or doesn't understand rather than an actual conservative.

Also, conservatives generally enjoy their tenets being challenged because it only reinforces the rightness of their convictions. However, I get the impression that you resent being challenged and consider it an opportunity to dismiss the challenge because anyone doing so must by necessity be with the other side.

Conservatives tend to be somewhat fair minded too. However, you give me an impression that you dont think the world can operate under any principles except the ones you hold dear. Im impressed how you believe that the policies, laws of the USA and the Constitution always align perfectly with how you want things to be run.

You believe in small government except, it seems, when you would like it to impose your authority on others. I think we've lost the fight for small government and the best chance for national survival is going to be cooperation and compromise.

I understand that a person can hold strong convictions but a person who holds them and doesn't believe anyone else can hold them too doesn't have much empathy. And empathy is important in strong a republic.

Charge, I do hope you understand yourself better than you understand me.

The BEE is reporting that California is closing all gyms for two weeks, to slow the spread of fascism.

Charge, I do hope you understand yourself better than you understand me.

Well, I dont know that either journey will ever be complete but I felt you'd appreciate my comments; you being a free speech absolutist and all.

The BEE is reporting that California is closing all gyms for two weeks, to slow the spread of fascism.

If someone could only send the governor the DSouza video, he'd realize they're really Marxists and reopen immediately. :)

Doc, you might be right. Went to work out yesterday and my gym was playing
"Deutschlandlied" over the speaker and my gym is around 65% African American. I guess that facist/racist/supremacy is highly contagious and moving through all races and sexes. The horror!!! 😨😥

Keep checking the closets and under those beds. Enjoy 😉

Subject: A Dedicated Follower Of Fascists – YouTube


YouTube link

This is a sympathetic but not uncritical account of the Moms.

link

They are still a hate groups, whether or not you want to admit it.

They are disruptive, bigoted, and anti-democratic.

Ummm … the Kool-aid must have been really strong tonight.

According to that Tampa Bay Times link, the group is funded by billionaire money, staffed by political and communications professionals. According to this it's a long way from being run by moms, although the real organizers and backers tapped into the angry parent emotions. Several of theses groups sprung up all but fully formed in the last three years, well funded and ready to campaign.

The article seems to be saying that the group's highly organized game plans were in play immediately after it was founded, suggesting that it is used parent grievances and mom images as a means of creating an instant professional political power broker.

I don't know how true any of this is, but I do not believe that this is a mom-based organization. Moms don't have time to give so much of their lives to the full time work and travel schedules of this suddenly prominent and very busy group.

Tort, I'd be very surprised were that billionaire stuff true. Maybe I know more moms than you! Plenty of demonstrations are astro-turfed, but few of them are on the right.

Kevin, SPLC IS itself a hate group. It falsely labels any group it hates as racists, and has gotten people shot. It is a scam, financed by the left who use its lies as weapons.

Haven't other groups get To Kill a Mockingbird banned?

That is an excellent novel, one that I read to my English classes some years ago-unedited.