More Right-Wing Language Manipulation.

It's getting to be all-Markadelphia-all-the-time around here (and that sh!#'s going to cease, soon) but here's his latest comment on my previous post, which - once again - requires a response:

Alright, so I guess I am little perplexed here.

Surprise, surprise.

When you first posted on my blog, Kevin, it was in regards to the Zumbo affair. You assured me that the large majority of gun owners were not Nazis and that Zumbo was out of line for calling people who owned AKs terrorists.

They are not, and he was. But you skipped over the part where he called for a ban.

You also have assured me that gun owners , especially the ones that read and post here, are fighting for their individual rights. You have accused liberals of being fascists, insisting and demanding that their way is the "right" way, forcing people to think and believe their truth and that you are not like that.

And here we have the redefinition of terms.

Markadelphia's "fascist" point is brought up by the recent discussion of Jonah Goldberg's current bestseller Liberal Fascism, wherein Mr. Goldberg points out the philosophical underpinnings of the modern Liberal/Progressive movement, and that those underpinnings share - in remarkable lockstep - the same basic philosophic principles of actual fascism. Problem is, there's no real agreed-upon definition for the word "fascism," because it's been abused to the point throughout the last seventy-plus years that it has simply become synonymous with "bad." Mr. Goldberg presents his own definition, going back to Mussolini, which I think is an accurate one:

Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore is defined as the enemy.

Apparently Markadelphia's understanding of the word "fascism" is limited to the last sentence of that definition.

He is, as usual, in error.

I listened to Schoenke on the radio today and he made it pretty clear that he is the enemy of NRA and gun bloggers like yourself. I have read the things that have been said about him, including the Confederate Yankee blog, and I have to say I see a pattern developing here that doesn't jibe with what you have told me. I'm afraid I'm having trouble seeing any allowance for individuality at all. Instead, I see a group of people saying basically the same thing:

Think like us..exactly like us..ANY wavering and....you are against us, are our enemy, and do not support 2nd amendment rights.

Correct me if I am wrong (Glad to.) but isn't this the very thing that you accuse liberals of doing?

If the reaction occurred with just the Zumbo thing...well...he did call decent people terrorists...but now Schoenke? Who will be next?

Here's the difference for you, Markadelphia:

Mr. Schoenke and his compatriots want to use the government ("the state") to take any action that they deem necessary to achieve "the common good." You know: "The last law didn't help, but the philosophy cannot be wrong. Do it again, only HARDER!"

I, and those like me here, want the government to do only that which it is chartered to do, and part of that charter is to protect and defend the pre-existing right to arms. As you note, Mr. Schoenke has declared us his enemy, because we don't want state power used against us in his quest to achieve that which they believe is "good." We oppose his objectives. It just so happens that we all believe (largely) the same thing - that the state should not do what he wants it to do. Some of us (David Codrea comes immediately to mind) are far more militant than others, but what we all share is a common understanding of what our form of government is not supposed to have the power to do. It's the niggling details on which we disagree. But David is not my enemy, nor am I his.

None of us want to use the government to "impose uniformity of thought and action." Ray Schoenke does, and his excuse is the achievement of "the common good" according to his beliefs.

So which of us fits the definition of "fascist" better?

Re-read Mr. Goldberg's definition of "fascism." Read up on the history of Mussolini prior to WWII.

Then think very hard about your support for Barack Obama in conjunction with the sentence,

"It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people."

I would ask: "Recognize yourself?" but I know that question would be futile.