Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

In the matter of Fascist Democrats, and Treason, and Free Speech

Posted by DNW on 2013/10/05


The title of the blog essay in question is, as a glance will tell: Fascist Democrats … Or is it Stalinist?”

The blog entry had been prompted by news reports recording prominent progressive politicians as having  labeled various conservatives who were standing on constitutional principles, and operating according to long-standing parliamentary rules, as traitors.

Which brings us to the matter of Mr. Perry Hood, a sometime blogger, and self described liberal activist.

Mr. Hood, although neither prominent nor a politician, has himself gone so far as to call on his blog for a mob to be gotten up in order to “literally” eject Ted Cruz, both a citizen and an elected Senator from Texas, from the United States.

I thought that this malevolent bit of hysteria was remarkable, even on progressive terms; since most of us had probably assumed, until relatively recently at least, that the homicidal rhetoric of the left was not quite matched by a literal, or at least immanent, intent.

Mr. Hood however, seems determined to prove otherwise.

Mr. Hood does not stop with calling for the  unlawful ejection of Senator Cruz from the United States.

But, in one of the most remarkably nonchalant examples of Orwellian doublethink I have ever witnessed out of a supposed American, Hood goes on to label anyone actively opposed to his own and the Democrat Party’s efforts to direct every aspect of our lives, as themselves totalitarian.

This remarkable accusation, as readers of the old Common Sense Political Thought blog will recall, comes from someone who has explicitly admitted that as far as he was concerned, there were in fact no legitimate moral or practical limits to the depth and extent of a government’s control of the lives of the “citizen”.

Yet, those who seek to maintain the opposing tradition, that of constitutional limits on government power and sway, and who do so while operating both within the public law and by parliamentary rules, are labeled as “totalitarian”, and as treasonous.

I commented on Mr. Hood’s remarkable attitude.

Mr. Hood, had the opportunity while visiting here to discuss or clarify his call for the illegal ejection of Mr. Cruz from the country, or to modify his accusation of treason.

Hood chose instead to repeat the treason theme, and to broaden his targeting.

Mr. Hood was admonished to address the issue or to lose his commenting privileges here, as he had already lost them on so many other forums.

Now, Mr. Hood, apparently uninterested in actually discussing the “limitless government” predicate which he assumes, finds himself frustrated, and claims that his ability to engage in “free speech” – primarily through the deposition of invective and accusation – is not being honored.

Of course, and looking at it from Mr. Hood’s likely perspective, he may believe, as his remarks have given us reason to suspect in the past, that some portions of the American population are simply behaviorally incompatible with the society he has planned, because their genetic constitutions render them less collective minded, self-sacrificing, and compliant to centralized direction, than he would permit.

If that is the case, and every time Mr. Hood opens his mouth he seems to confirm that it is, then it is little wonder that he merely wishes to use the web sites of more constitutionally minded others as a kind of perch, wherein he may eject his accumulating bile and vitriol on the heads of those who would frustrate his aims if they could.

Ahhhh ... I feel so much better now

Ahhhh … I feel so much better now

If he cannot argue his so-called principles, but only declare them, then it is no wonder that his comments, like those of so many other values nihilists, quickly degenerate into ad hominem.

In any event, there is little reason to give his malevolent and bitter gibbering an additional platform.

One of the other men he regularly reviles, is already giving him one, and a rather exclusive one, at that.

That Mr. Hood when at that home, winds up shouting to an empty room, is the fault of no one but himself.

About these ads

12 Responses to “In the matter of Fascist Democrats, and Treason, and Free Speech”

  1. AOTC said

    if i were to charged to state the one main condition of people like perry,

    i would list primarily their peculiar absence of hopes and dreams of their own. its downright weird.

    like rocks with eye sockets.

    Like

  2. Foxfier said

    He’s free to speak. Not to have folks listen, or agree, but he can talk– and even type!– all he wants, on exactly the same grounds we have….

    Like

  3. Observer said

    Thank you, Foxfier, for reminding DNW of a basic American Constitutional right of which he would selectively abrogate based on his own political whims.

    “The blog entry had been prompted by news reports recording prominent progressive politicians as having labeled various conservatives who were standing on constitutional principles, and operating according to long-standing parliamentary rules, as traitors.”

    And aptly labelled, DNW, of any person or faction which would hold hostage the workings of our government and people in order to advance their own wishes, forgetting that we have regular elections to accomplish said purpose.

    It is you who threatens to shut me down and out for statements with which you do not agree.

    It is you who strives to minimalize my standing, and others, as a human being because you do not like my/their politics.

    “If he cannot argue his so-called principles, but only declare them, then it is no wonder that his comments, like those of so many other values nihilists, quickly degenerate into ad hominem.”

    So says the master of ad hominems himself, for example: “If he cannot argue his so-called principles, but only declare them, then it is no wonder that his comments, [i]like those of so many other values nihilists[/i], quickly degenerate into ad hominem.”

    “One of the other men he regularly reviles, is already giving him one, and a rather exclusive one, at that.”

    I revile his politics, but not the man, a distinction of which you obviously cannot possibly comprehend. Though about 150 miles apart, we have gotten together on several occasions.

    And one last point for now: DNW made this claim: “Mr. Hood does not stop with calling for the unlawful ejection of Senator Cruz from the United States.” You need to provide a quote for that preposterous allegation, otherwise be known to all once again as an outright liar.

    PS: Also note the cowardly DNW, who while hiding his own identity, lashes out, even to the extent of outing mine. That’s character for you: NOT

    Like

  4. Observer said

    Suggested selected reading for …

    [This comment has been deleted due to the author's repeated violations of blog standards]

    Like

  5. AOTC said

    he is free to speak. presently, i am not required by law to allow him into my house to listen to him. (this may change if progressives have any say about it). this blog (“house”) has chosen to not hear his particular brand of “debate”. im a little tired of freedom of speech being twisted into the idea that people like perry ought to be invited, tolerated and celebrated in any venue they choose (or demand), be it private or public. There are plenty of blogs he can post to his hearts content. to say he must be permitted into any venue to spread his “gospel” is not much different than saying you have to invite the door to door religious peddlers into your house because..”free speech”. leftists have glued a thin veneer of free speech over their practice of tyrannical demands. and we fall for it.

    because this is their tactic: “According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.””

    then this seems a reasonable goal:

    “That Mr. Hood when at that home, winds up shouting to an empty room, is the fault of no one but himself.”

    Like

  6. Foxfier said

    Observer, I know it’s difficult to figure out when one thinks those who agree with one the only “real” persons, but I was not reminding DNW of a basic right he wished to ignore.

    Perry can get a blog and be rude there all he wishes, within the terms of his contract; however, he does not have the right to go to someone elses’ blog and do so, barring them having a contractual requirement to associate with all comers.

    Like

  7. DNW said

    AOTC said in part
    2013/10/06 at 09:48 e

    he is free to speak. presently, i am not required by law to allow him into my house to listen to him. (this may change if progressives have any say about it). this blog (“house”) has chosen to not hear his particular brand of “debate”. im a little tired of freedom of speech being twisted into the idea that people like perry ought to be invited, tolerated and celebrated in any venue they choose (or demand) …

    “According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.””

    … this seems a reasonable goal: “That Mr. Hood when at that home, winds up shouting to an empty room, is the fault of no one but himself.”

    Foxfier said in part
    2013/10/06 at 11:05 e

    Observer, … I was not reminding DNW of a basic right he wished to ignore.

    Perry can get a blog and be rude there all he wishes, within the terms of his contract; however, he does not have the right to go to someone elses’ blog and do so, barring them having a contractual requirement to associate with all comers.

    Seems like we have all been here before, doesn’t it.

    No matter how many times the wording of First Amendment is quoted to Mr. Hood, i.e., “Congress shall make no law …”, he still insists that it in effect constitutes his right to puke on your dining table; to come into your living room, to insult the guests, to refuse to abide by the rules of civility or conversational decorum, to refuse to actually address the precise issues mooted, to demand your enabling cooperation, and after all that, to then indict others as being guilty of capital crimes when he encounters their resistance.

    How many hundreds of chances has Perry Hood had elsewhere? How far have I gone out of our way to allow him here, on John’s blog, after John had already banned him?

    Mr. Hood has had his chance here.

    Instead of using it to argue the principles he mistakenly assumes, that is to say those collectivist social principles of distributive costs and transferred moral responsibility which we reject, he has decided to stick to the line of labeling those who will not cooperate with him in the destruction of their own way of life and their heritage of liberty, as treasonous and traitors to their country.

    Let us run this Senator out of the country back to where he came from, Canada, both literally and figuratively.” Perry Hood says.

    And then, when I remark on how extraordinary the call is, he comes in here and repeats it about some of us.

    Is there any point in trying to reason with or to tolerate the presence of such a man?

    Like

  8. Foxfier said

    Heading over to my facebook to equate bombing children with not giving Harry Reid what he wants in a bill is likewise not covered by the first amendment– and if you switch to another account to continue doing so after being blocked, you will be in violation of Facebook’s TOS and possibly of state harassment laws.

    Like

  9. Observer said

    DNW wrote:

    [This comment has been deleted due to the author's repeated violations of blog standards]

    Just what …”

    [This comment has also been deleted due to the author's repeated violations of blog standards]

    Like

  10. Observer said

    The truth is …

    [This comment has also been deleted due to the author's repeated violations of blog standards]

    Like

  11. Observer said

    Apparently, …

    [This comment has been deleted due to the author's repeated violations of blog standards]

    Like

  12. Foxfier said

    *head=>desk*

    Try reading comprehension. Please.

    First you can’t figure out what I say when it’s mickey-mouse simple, now you are apparently unable to figure out what the issue is WHEN THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT POSTS ABOUT IT.

    Like

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 221 other followers

%d bloggers like this: