A “progressive” propaganda website that’s spent the past three years shamelessly shilling for DFL politicians, reports not taking any backlash over its indirect ideological ties to the “Holodomor“, or Soviet-induced starvation of seven million Ukrainians in the 1930’s.
“Really, it’s been sixty years since the American left cuddled up to Stalin” reports Chris Steller, spokesbeing for the Minnesoros “Independent”, struggling to dissociate himself and the publication from the forced expropriations of food and destruction of crops and farmland, and mass-relocations of civilians to Siberia, that led to the slow, painful starvation of seven million human beings. “Hubert Humphrey drove the Stalinists out of the DFL in 1976″, he added, ignoring the fact that he, as a member of the media, shares culpability with Walter Duranty, the New York Times reporter that willfully suppressed details of Stalin’s atrocities.
Stellers also denies any backlash from his publication’s ideological comity with the Minnesota DFL, of which former Symbionese Liberation Army terrorist Kathleen Soliah was a member while hiding out for twenty years in Saint Paul. Soliah was recently released from prison after serving a sentence for complicity in a murder carried out during a botched bank robbery in the seventies, about which Steller also claims ignorance.
———-
Stupid, right?
Well, at least my bit is fictional. Chris Steller at the “Independent” gave us the real thing.
An “End the Fed” group that will rally this afternoon outside the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank hasn’t felt a backlash since Wednesday’s arrest of James von Brunn in the fatal shooting of a guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. Von Brunn, who mixed anti-Semitism with antipathy for the Federal Reserve, served six years in prison for his 1981 attempt to take Federal Reserve board members captive.
Conservative Web outlets with whom von Brunn consorted quickly moved to dissociate themselves from the 88-year-old white supremacist after Tuesday’s shooting.
Honestly, I try to stay civil. I try really, really hard to be the conservative that can have a face-to-face debate with the other guys and not troll through the gutter. I really do. And I try to take the high road; I keep the language on this blog generally PG13.
But I almost ripped Congressman Ellison’s head off Saturday for saying conservatives “nod and wink at James Von Brunn”.
He was a neo-Nazi and a convicted felon. He killed people. Had I been in DC, and the powers that be in their infinite wisdom allowed me to carry a concealed handgun, and no security guards were there to do it, and the shoot were legal under self-defense law, I’d have done it myself. And I know of no credible conservative anywhere who backs anything Von Brunn ever stood for – and writing for “The Freep” does not make him a “credible conservative”.
And to argue otherwise – as Representative Ellison did this past weekend on “Radio Free Nation” – is the depth of rhetorical cowardice.
So let me make this perfectly clear to every one of you lefties that wants to try to smear all conservatism by association with Von Brunn, from Keith Ellison (with all due respect) down to the most scabrous, spyrochaetal-paretic leftyblogger.
Go screw yourself. You are not worthy of civil discussion.
And grow some cojones while you’re at it and tell me to my face how much I support, and how closely I’m ideologically linked to James Von Brunn. Because while I try to take the high road, I will wipe the low road, and the gutters alongside, with your face.
Rhetorically speaking, of course.
Do this, or hold your scabrous tongue.
That is all.
Really, really all.
I agree. What possibly could the American far-right – a group of angry, anti-immigrant white people who see security threats wherever they look – have in common with the Nazis?
Has Ellison distanced himself from Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad yet?
What possibly could the American far-right – a group of angry, anti-immigrant white people who see security threats wherever they look – have in common with the Nazis?
Is it our Weekly Standard subscriptions? Or is it our aversion to:
Iranian/Muslim Holocaust denial?
“Israel Lobby” conspiracy theories?
Isolationism?
UN “racism conferences” blaming Israel for 99.9% of world racism?
Christianity in favor of Der Ring des Nibelungen paganism?
Is that what we have in common with the National Socialist German Workers Party? Really?
Now be nice to AC. He’s still feeling the backlash from the acts of serial killer / child molester / Chicago Democrat ward boss / part time clown John Wayne Gacy.
Far less than the Obama Oligarchy, AssClown. The Liberal Fascism of this administration is becoming obvious to most sane Americans. We don’t expect the sheeple to catch on for a while.
In your heart you know I am right.
A lot of suppositions there K-Rod, not the least of which is mangy clown having a heart. 😀
“But I almost ripped Congressman Ellison’s head off Saturday for saying conservatives “nod and wink at James Von Brunn””
You got a link for this or is this another case of you ‘quoting’ words you put in other people’s mouths?
Mitch says:
“He was a neo-Nazi and a convicted felon. He killed people. Had I been in DC, and the powers that be in their infinite wisdom allowed me to carry a concealed handgun, and no security guards were there to do it, and the shoot were legal under self-defense law, I’d have done it myself. And I know of no credible conservative anywhere who backs anything Von Brunn ever stood for – and writing for “The Freep” does not make him a “credible conservative”.
Being willing and able to shoot Von Brunn is not unique to you Mitch, or to conservatives as a group. I would do the same, not because I disagree with any of any his views (however distateful I find them) but because he was shooting at people – and I am an independent, neither conservative nor liberal.
It makes a lot of sense to differentiate between lunatic fringe extreme conservatives and credible conservatives. Less clear is to try to claim that only one of those two groups IS conservative however. There is overlap, including among issues, the whole stupid ‘birther’ mini-controvery.
People get to choose their own labels, and the problem with that is that others don’t always agree with them about who should be so labeled. You, Mitch are as different from Von Brunn in your decency as two people could be. Your desire to tell this scum to ‘get off my side’, in essence, is completely understandable and I applaud vigorously your intent.
Not so easily done is to define out of existence everyone further to the right or more conservative than yourself. Or to define them over to the extreme left or extreme liberal position. Both sides have appallingly extreme fringe elements, and the best anyone can attempt is to repudiate them and positively assert a more sensible point of view than the extremists. And don’t give them encouragement.
I listed the link in the piece early this morning about the interview w/Ellison.
As I recall, the “Nod and Wink” bit came toward the end of the Ellison segment – probably :45 or :50 minutes into the audio.
Let’s recall that the DFL party was funded by Stalin in the 1930s and 40s. Minnesota Historical Society did a story on what was found in Moscow after the collapse of the USSR. Documents that showed the years of cash transfers.
Has Ellison ever apologized for that?
“As I recall, the “Nod and Wink” bit came toward the end of the Ellison segment – probably :45 or :50 minutes into the audio.”
I think we need a peer review of this incident.
Dog Gone said:
“People get to choose their own labels”
No.
If Dog Gone says “I’m a human shaped grapefruit”, it doesn’t make it so. You can also say “I’m a conservative”, but you would be one only if “conservative” didn’t mean anything.
“am an [liberal Democrat] independent, neither conservative nor [Classical] liberal. [to infinity and beyond]
😆 😆 😆
Mr Truth SquadRickDFL,Did you listen to the segment yet?
Because you woudn’t have falsely attacked my accuracy, would you?
No, I’m sure not.
Troy says:
“Dog Gone said:
“People get to choose their own labels”
No.
If Dog Gone says “I’m a human shaped grapefruit”, it doesn’t make it so. You can also say “I’m a conservative”, but you would be one only if “conservative” didn’t mean anything. ”
Troy, I was pointing out that people use the same labels to mean sometimes very different things.
Example – Mitch is not one of the ‘birthers’ who assert that Obama doesn’t have a valid birth certificate necessary to be president, but he considers himself to be a conservative. That is none-the-less, a view held among some – not all – conservatives. I have never heard it advanced by either independents OR liberals, in contrast. I have however heard it advanced by conservatives like Rush Limbaugh (“What do god and Obama have in common? Neither have birth certificates.”) I’d bet that I can find other areas where Rush and Von Brunn agree – but I’d rather not go looking.
Similar comparisons could be made regarding a variety of other subjects that are shared by some but not all people who identify with a particular label.
However vehemently you disagree with some of those views, no individual gets to make the one and only definition for those labels. That is the problem with using them; there is not a clear, definitive, commonly agreed upon meaning.
That was the point I was trying to make to Terry back under the thread that addressed the Homeland Security documents. He drew conclusions from two; erroneous conclusions contradicted by the other documdents. So far, I’ve located six of those documents, the two most often cited, and four others. There is a general right wing extremist doc, an eco-terrorism specific/left wing extremist doc and a cyber-terrorism specific / left wing extremist doc – both of those deal with multiple groups. There is also a very specific right wing extremist doc – far more specific than any of the left wing groups covered – that deals entirely with one of the extremist militias in Missouri, and a Lexicon doc that addresses both left wing AND right wing extremist groups.
I doubt that most of these groups would be owned by less-extreme right OR left, OR that the extremist groups generally grouped to the left or to the right would agree with each other.
There are clearly more of these documents; from what I’ve seen so far, I’d guess several dozens more at least. They at least illustrate a functionally driven use for the terminology, along with regular definitions of who they mean and why, and descriptions of the violent conduct they are attempting to avert.
I’m equally disgusted with the right/conservatives for at least in some cases knowingly misrepresenting these documents; with Napolitano et al for the response, and most of all for the entire spectrum of the media that perpetuated a manipulative, deceptive and divisive faux-controversy through lazy, bad research and reporting.
Honestly, I try to stay civil. I try really, really hard to be the conservative that can have a face-to-face debate with the other guys and not troll through the gutter. I really do. And I try to take the high road; I keep the language on this blog generally PG13.
Mitch – I’m sorry, I like you, and while you’re not as virulent as Swift, you’re not civil. You interlace your commentary with wildly exagerative innuendo, red herrings, and strawmen. You make claims like “Anti-semitism is a key tenet of the American Left” and MANY MANY others.. you have little room to complain here.
And Mitch, I welcome you attempting to rip Keith Ellison’s head off – really – he’s a very, VERY bright man – not as up on some aspects of policy as you – but then again – let’s talk about civility for a moment – you’re going to rip his head off (would that be civily or uncivily)? And since when does someone else’s conduct excuse your own?? Anyway – I’d be pretty interested in hearing/reading it, as, since I’ve known you, in a public forum you’re ANYTHING but likely to be confrontational with someone who doesn’t agree with you, certainly not a politician like Ellison.
I think the thing is, you want to carp behind the scenes on this, rather than ask Ellison what he meant, because in the end, you’d rather have a boogey-man you can bitch about in Ellison, than deal with a rational explanation.
BTW – DG, don’t actually expect real research from these guys.
Oh – also, Foot, you were correct, and so, I owe you an apology (sort of anyway) – Scalia was following SCOTUS STANDARDS not law, nor rules, just historical practice, to not comment on a question not truly before it. As a result, I agree with you (based on a discussion with an attorney I respect).
See, I actually went and did the research – have no issue admitting to mistakes, and am happy to apologize – that would make me different from right wing nutjobs – for example, if someone fatuously claimeed I was practicing law without a license, especially if that someone was an attorney – I’d anticipate, especially if that someone phumpered about how ‘they knew what they were talking about’, that the person would come back and say, “Well, I grossly overstated it, and in fact, Pen was doing no such thing’, not too dissimilar say, to what I did when talking about malpractice – I mean, for example.
The point is, a. Foot was right and b. Rational, non-extreme people, people who desire civility, don’t make ludicrous strawman statements, and don’t bloviate and exagerate about the commentary of US Representatives out of context.
DG: “Rip head off” is a figure of speech.
Pen: What was “out of context?”
You don’t know the context, do you?
hey Bozo- Who`s “anti-immigrant”, as you say? Maybe anti-illegal immigrant, but that`s a totally different topic. The only thing true in that sentence was the color white.
Mitch:
“Did you listen to the segment yet? ”
I tried but I could not figure out how to fast forward. I don’t have 40 0r 50 plus minuets to waste trying to check your accuracy for you.
“I owe you an apology (sort of anyway)” – peev
“Sorry but not really” just doesn’t cut it.
Peevee just couldn’t bring herself to actually apologize, Dicky DFL does the same thing, calls Mitch a liar but when told to put up facts or STFU he claims he doesn’t have the time to “check your accuracy for you”. Here is a clue, DickyDFL, you should check the accuracy BEFORE you make claims that Mitch is a liar.
Pathetic, why don’t the two of you go play with yourselves on Penisblog.
RickDFL said:
“I tried but I could not figure out how to fast forward”
Could you be more lame? No.
“I don’t have 40 0r 50 plus minuets to waste trying to check your accuracy for you.”
As if your “check” were even valuable, this is your excuse for “‘quoting’ words you put in other people’s mouths”? You’ve got no class, RickDFL.
Mitch says:
“DG: “Rip head off” is a figure of speech.
Ok… I had assumed that, actually.
If you are half as angry as I think you are about this – and in many ways, I fully sympathize and agree with your anger – I’m still glad I’m not in closer physical proximity to you until that emotion wears off a bit. I have the greatest admiration for your restraint and self-control, but I’m betting people are tiptoeing around you wherever you are. Mon cher, I’m guessing the cats and the dog are going to give you more space than usual for awhile when you get home.
I think you are confusing here what I wrote, with others?
“I tried but I could not figure out how to fast forward”
Could you be more lame? No.
Ha, ha, the answer is actually “yes,” quite a bit more lame! How about attributing an incendiary quote to someone and then failing to provide any proof, save for a retarded “Uh, it’s like 40 or 50 minutes in, but you can’t fast-forward so you’ll just have to sit there, like, all day hoping you’ll hear it. Actually it might be 20 or 30 minutes in, or maybe 15 or 45 minutes in, somewhere around there, good luck.”
Would you like a blogging tip Mitch Berg? Here it is: There’s tons of free audio capture software on the Internets. Honest! That way you could capture the quote yourself and post it here, on your blog, so that your claims would have some merit instead of being cause for much eye-rolling and mockery. You are welcome!
“DG: “Rip head off” is a figure of speech.”
Mitch, if you ever decide to re-think that let me know. I’d be happy to snap teh peevee over like a shotgun while you stuff Hakim X’s head up AssClown’s workbench.
HA!
Seriously though; “the most scabrous, spyrochaetal-paretic leftyblogger”?
I think you’d better back off a tad on hatin’ on DFLdicks primary source of information; makes him crazy…it’s kind of like telling AC that “Tiger Beat” isn’t a good source for dating tips.
“Uh, it’s like 40 or 50 minutes in, but you can’t fast-forward so you’ll just have to sit there, like, all day hoping you’ll hear it.
Waaaaah.
Open it in ITunes or Windows Media Player or any other audio player. Sheesh. I’m used to having to do you thinking for you, but I’m worried I’ll have diaper patrol next.
Actually it might be 20 or 30 minutes in, or maybe 15 or 45 minutes in, somewhere around there, good luck.”
Er, no, it was in the forties. I didn’t even start talking until 35.
Would you like a blogging tip Mitch Berg?
From you? I’ll stick with “how would you prepare lead paint chips as a snack”. Fair enough?
Fair enough.
Here it is: There’s tons of free audio capture software on the Internets.
“Internets?” Oh. You are a hypstr.
Here’s a tip for you: use WindMedia or ITunes or pretty much any audio player you want.
Honest! That way you could capture the quote yourself and post it here, on your blog, so that your claims would have some merit instead of being cause for much eye-rolling and mockery.
To be fair, “mockery” from Tim In Saint Paul isn’t the same as mockery from a smart person.
And it’s not my job to do your research for you, you lazy pud.
Wow. Mitch had a chance to talk to a real, live Congress-person on radio … and he took advantage of it! Too bad it was Rep. Ellison; if it just could have been Rep. Bachmann, that would have been cool. Maybe Peev could have called in, too! What a country!
Tim in StP said:
“Ha, ha, the answer is actually “yes,” quite a bit more lame!”
No. That isn’t the answer, but I was convinced its lameness could not even be approached until you chimed in, Tim in StP.
I clicked on the progress bar in the middle of the BlogTalkRadio web widget and it moved to the middle of the conversation. No magic (or even “audio capture software”) required.
I would expect someone who speaks of themselves in such superior terms would be able to figure it out. I guess not.
It makes a lot of sense to differentiate between lunatic fringe extreme conservatives and credible conservatives.
Look, Dog, I know you have this weird fixation that nazi=conservative, but what part of ‘national socialist’ don’t you understand?
I am a conservative. I hate national socialism no less than I hate non-national socialism. Socialism for white people only is not conservatism, no matter what Time magazine, the NY Times, and NPR say.
Terry, you should get off that Nazism = socialism argument. It really just makes you look stupid. No matter how many times you say “Why do you think they called it National *Socialism*?”
Angryclown credited you with a higher level of stupid argument.
And Terry should – right when you get off the “Naziism is analogous with American Conservatism” bit.
Deal?
DG,
makes a lot of sense to differentiate between lunatic fringe extreme conservatives and credible conservatives.
In th same way that it “makes a lot of sense to distinguish between lunatic dog industry people and credible dog industry people”.
I mean, the “credible dog industry people” would say “Sheesh, that’s an insulting way to look at it, isn’t it? OF COURSE you distinguish between rational people IN ANY FIELD and nuts, don’t you? Does every clown have to defend himself against John Wayne Gacy? Does every dog lover have to make account for Adolph Hitler (who truly loved dogs; couldn’t bear to see people hurt ’em, in fact)?
Here’s a good way to distinguish between conservatives and…other people. How well do they stack up against this list of things actual conservatives believe.
Terry, you should get off that Nazism = socialism argument. It really just makes you look stupid. No matter how many times you say “Why do you think they called it National *Socialism*?”
Why do you think they called it *socialism*, Angry Clown?
Terry says:
“Look, Dog, I know you have this weird fixation that nazi=conservative, but what part of ‘national socialist’ don’t you understand?”
No Terry, I don’t equate conservative with Nazi. Not at all. I DO equate neo-nazis with the extreme right. I would never ever ever equate the conservative views of you or Mitch or other with Nazis.
There are those who style themselves conservatives who are so very very far to the right that some of their views DO overlap with the extremists. Birthers come to mind; along with some of the other views expressed by Limbaugh, Frank Gaffney, and others who share their more extreme views.
In practice, those individuals contribute more to a widely held perception, a common meaning if you will of what conservative and right wing means, than Mitch’s “list of things actual conservatives believe”. Further, that list is so vague and so general as to provide little structure or content to the concept; if ever there was truth that the devil is in the details, it is in that list.
Despite the word ‘socialist’ in the Nazi’s title, while they combined a few more left leaning concepts, they were essentially a more right wing oriented group. Those who simply focus on the word socialist in the Nazi name are trying to rewrite history. Likewise the neo-nazis tend to be more right wing than anything else.
There have been so many differing definitions of socialism as to render the word nearly meaningless.
If you want to take the original meaning for example of economic liberalism, as a component of classical liberalism, as originally formulated by Adam Smith and his successors, waaaay back in the Enlightenment, it meant the most minimal government involvement in the economy, free markets, and a long laundry list of….oh, yeah, conservative ideals = classical liberal ideals.
So long as you embrace the views of those who are just this side of the extremists, it is a lot harder to plausibly define where that line is between the credible and lunatic fringe extremists.
Those who would define trying to work with the Palestinians and other groups to support, for example, a more workable peace for Israel than has been generally achieved as left wing extremists anti-semitism / real neo-nazism are lunatics. Lunatics who conveniently ignore that it was working with those countries that used to oppose Israel that created that peace.
Here’s a thought – why don’t we simply object to any extremists, but especially the violent ones? Right OR left! It makes more sense, and it avoids those idealogical contortions that would do credit to Cirque du Soleil.
DG,
Your argument depends on a definition of ‘Right” and “Left” that make sense in the context of American politics, but lose meaning when applied to totalitarian groups.
“Conservatism” – the “Right wing”in America – supports the vote, the Constitution, the rule of law, enumerated powers, limited government, and (largely) constitutional constructionism. Can you say any of that about, say, Nazis? Francoists? Italian Fascists? Any “right wing” authoritarian movement?
And when I say “can you say…” that, I mean for other than comedic effect (angryclown)?
No. You can not.
Mitch says:
““Conservatism” – the “Right wing”in America – supports the vote, the Constitution, the rule of law, enumerated powers, limited government, and (largely) constitutional constructionism. Can you say any of that about, say, Nazis? Francoists? Italian Fascists? Any “right wing” authoritarian movement?
And when I say “can you say…” that, I mean for other than comedic effect (angryclown)?
No. You can not. ”
Lets start with the independence / secessionist group up in Alaska that Palin’s husband belonged to, and where Palin was a speaker. They believe they are conservative, right wing, and supporting constitutional constructionism, as do the larger Constitution Party of which it is a subset. For openers. If you want more, I think I can find some.
You also fail to address the challenges I raised previously: ” There are those who style themselves conservatives who are so very very far to the right that some of their views DO overlap with the extremists. Birthers come to mind; along with some of the other views expressed by Limbaugh, Frank Gaffney, and others who share their more extreme views. ” let me add – from very public platforms.
Let me be very clear; I do not like extremists of any stripe, right / left or liberal / conservative. I particularly am adamant against those who promote views which cannot pass the fact-check tests, that are calculated to deceive, to manipulate, to inflame, and artificially to cause division and alienation that would not legitimately exist.
Most of all, I dislike and oppose those who promote fear. Hatred is a close second.
You write here about how you would have shot the (alleged) shooter at the Holocaust museum; a man I (and the FBI) refer to as a domestic terrorist.
That was hypothetical, what you would have done. Let me share with you my own actual – NOT hypothetical – experience with domestic terrorism. In my case it was left wing extremism, the lunatic fringe dog liberating animal rights activists.
I and my now-ex, whom you also know, were hosting an AKC field event at our home. We were having the event in part because I was on the board of directors for the local club, and we had sufficient space; but also because we had adequate security. The head of that branch of the AKC was flying in from the east coast for it; friends and colleagues were traveling from as far away as Texas and Ohio to participate, in addition to the usual local participation.
And as the event was publicly announced – we were targeted by animal rights extremists. By ‘we’, I mean my home, my family, my dogs, my friends, those who were traveling to attend, and the other members of the hosting organization.
You know me; no way in hell would I cancel, or back down to intimidation.
Instead we drastically increased security, arranged for the appropriate sherrif’s department to be a continuing presence, with additional back up for them on call, as well as the usual EMT arrangements, etc. New locks, new chains on gates; people on guard at all entrances and screening of everyone coming in; regular perimeter checks of all fence lines between entrances, walkie talkies everywhere.
There were some suspicious people who showed up, but they left without incident; nothing they could be held or arrested for by the authorities. That kind of domestic terrorism was less well identified at the time; now they would more likely be pursued more aggressively. The sherrif’s department felt that our extremely unsual level of preparedness, very different from most similar events, was a successful deterrent.
Subsequently, none of the AKC events where I have been a member of an event committee in charge has had any incidents, but others I have attended as an exhibitor have had disruptions. I’ve not only observed them, I’ve provided information and statements on those disruptions to the authorities to aid in arrests and prosecutions. That means not only providing the information, but also my name and address, thereby making me a further potential target.
One of those DHS docs that I was researching I didn’t find on my own; it was part of a multi-dog list cross post. We have to share those kinds of documents and other alerts regularly, because it is a continuing threat.
We’re just coming up on the height of the event season. Every event is a potential target; we assume no warning. Warnings are the exception, not the norm.
One of the contributing factors cited in those DHS docs was the media; specifically the left wing media in one, but I would expect that the right wing media gets attention in others. So far, from what I have seen those documents have been very even handed in how they treat the extremes.
Every time I see Limbaugh, or Gaffney, or any of their fellows (male or female) stir up fear, with misinformation or exaggeration, I see it as pushing people towards those extremes. Birthers, truthers, their-coming-to-take-our-guns, false labelers of racism, gitmo terrorists are going to kill us in our sleep…. every line, every word that doesn’t pass fact check is a push the wrong way. Exaggerations are perhaps the smallest of the ‘pushes’, but they are the most common, the most insidious.
Every fact check, every examination of full documents to oppose cherry picking, every challenge to a more logical, rational, reasonable, less sensational thought…. is a push BACK, away from extremism. ALL extremism, left AND right.
I respect your convictions; I disagree with you from time to time, more about degree than essence. While I may disagree, I think you know me to be intelligent, and educated, not a coward, and to have intellectual integrity. On that basis, I have always expected you to respect me in return – even if you disagree with me.
You seem to define “extremism” as deception or hate mongering in service of a political agenda, Dog Gone? I’m not sure that is a common definition.
Dog Gone said:
“I DO equate neo-nazis with the extreme right”
WHY do you “equate neo-nazis with the extreme right”?
Dog Gone said:
“Despite the word ’socialist’ in the Nazi’s title, while they combined a few more left leaning concepts, they were essentially a more right wing oriented group.”
WHY were they “essentially a more right wing oriented group”?
WHY were they “essentially a more right wing oriented group”?
Yes, please elaborate.
I’ve written a couple of fairly involved comments, and at least two posts, explaining (on behalf of some pretty serious historians) why considering “Nazis” “right-wing” is myopic.
Do I need to do it again?
Liberal Fascism.