On 1/5/2018 8:03 AM, jim bell wrote:
Actually, most forms of totalitarian governments advocate killing people, including their own citizenry. Why narrow down your objections, artificially, to "fascism"?
Fascist governments most certainly do not advocate killing their own citizenry, but are apt to define "citizen" in an alarmingly narrow fashion. From her name, I would suspect that Marina might not necessarily be defined as a citizen were a fascist government take power in America. Left wing governments generally advocate killing class enemies, or royalists, or aristocrats, and this time around will probably advocate killing "racists" and "sexists" At the time that they start killing people belonging to this category, no one remains who believes that they belong to this category, but pretty soon, very large numbers of people belonging to this category are discovered. And soon after that, even larger numbers of such wicked people. And not long after that, even more. Right wing dictatorships generally forbid interest in politics. As Charles the first told us, politics is the King's business and no one elses. Thus right wing political killings are necessarily self limiting. If you start killing large numbers of people for taking excessive interest in politics, people lose interest in politics. Left wing dictatorships generally insist on interest in politics. The personal is political. Which rapidly becomes terrifying, and soon after that, increasingly terrifying. Thus left wing political repression, unlike right wing political repression, is not self limiting. Reflect on the infamous "Dear Colleague" letter from the Obama administration, recently rescinded by the Trump administration. The practical effect of the letter is that if a third party deems some woman has been raped the evil rapists life must be very publicly destroyed without bothering with any inconveniences like charges, investigation, or evidence. The circumstances leading to this letter was that we established the principle that women always tell the truth about rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. Well, actually we established the principle that women always lie when they deny rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, but if a woman arguably changes her story during a struggle session after three big fat hairy lesbians have been screaming in her face for two hours straight, *then* she is telling the truth. Hence the significance of the reference to "third parties" in the Dear Colleague letter. Note that the accused cannot cross examine the complainant, or even learn who the complainant is. Recollect that when Crystal Mangum was detained by police for drunken violence after a night of industrious whoring, she gave numerous different stories, only one of which accused the Duke University sports team of rape, but the authorities insisted on going with the story that accused the sports team. She could easily have been steered towards a less dramatic story, or steered to claiming flying saucer abduction, or best of all, steered to confessing to drunken violence after a night of industrious whoring. But hey, if sexual violence is on the table, women are always the victims, and men always the aggressors, even if it needs two cops to restrain the "victim". So if police catch a drunk woman in a criminal act, she just has to say "sexual assault, domestic abuse, domestic violence", and she is golden. Just as restraining illegal immigrants who murder white people for racial reasons might deter illegal immigrants from exercising their rights, restraining drunken violent women from criminal acts might deter them from complaining about sexual harassment and sexual violence. And we cannot have that, can we? We also saw this principle in operation in the safe space conflict. If someone said something that might make a member of the umpteenth gender uncomfortable, no actual complainant of the umpteenth gender need to be produced, nor any evidence that a single member of the umpteenth gender exists anywhere near the incident. And what with "microaggression" the possibility of making someone of an ever increasing number of ever smaller categories uncomfortable expands without limit.