Quote of the day—In Chains @InChainsInJail

Imagine thinking “encouraging minorities to build their own firearms in order to defend themselves” is a “fascist” position to take.

These people are insane.

In Chains @InChainsInJail
Tweeted on September 13, 2022
[This was in response to this tweet by coderedamerica.com@coderedamerica

Replying to @RICECUTTA0 @OleGelo5 and @POTUS

@FBI @FBIWFO here is a great thread to follow especially with people like @SamuelWhittemo3 involved. Nothing spells fascist like a maga follower pretending to be a christian and promoting ghost guns.

Words mean things and there are dictionaries which can be referenced determine those meanings when you are unsure. But some people see words meaning whatever suits their purpose as the time. Others see them as just sounds they make which give them some sort of satisfaction.

My first awareness of this was in conversations I attempted to follow with a particular family. Read my comments at that link!

This family trait was a source of considerable bafflement and some amusement to me. But things didn’t really “click” for me until, as I reported in the linked post, I was told my inability to resolve a contradiction in what someone had said was unimportant:

Oh Joe, it doesn’t matter. We are just talking.

They were just making sounds at each other. It was sort of like humming to a baby to help it go to sleep.

Casual conversation is one thing. Legal definitions is another. My first recollection of having frustrations with this was in “assault weapon” ban of ‘94. What does “shall not be infringed” mean to these people? The issue was brought into clarity when I realized it was, at least sometimes, deliberate deception using the definition of words.

Other examples:

See also, Speech Is Not Violence by John Stossel.

And redefining, or perhaps more accurate in many cases “undefining”, words applies to people who job depends upon the precise meaning of words.

As much clarity as I discovered on my own since my first awareness 30 or 40 years ago, this is not a new thing. Greater minds than mine made the practice far more clear pointed out the dangers. Lewis Carroll is one such example in his book Through the Looking Glass:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Circling back to the QOTD by In Chains above is something my daughter Jaime asked of me a few days ago:

Please look up the definition of “fascism” in your old timey dictionary*.

Here is the result:

Fascism The principles or methods of the Fascisti—Fascist, I. A member of the Fascisti. II. Of or pertaining to the Fascisti.

Fascisti … The members of a patriotic society in Italy, animated by a strong national spirit, and organized in connection with a repressive movement directed against the socialists and communists and the disturbances excited by them during 1919 and the years following, which regarded the government as criminally negligent in failing to deal with these disturbances, and took measure on its own account, often violent ones, to combat them, and which developed into a powerful party obtaining political control of the country in Oct., 1922, under its founder and leader, Benito Mussolini, as prime minister; hence, the members of a similar society or party elsewhere.

This definition is not the same as what is commonly used today but perhaps it has a hint of something more accurate than many people think. The people being called fascists typically are opposed to socialism and communism. But the violence component does not appear to have manifested itself.

So, is In Chains correct when he says, “These people are insane.”? Perhaps. I’m nearly certain some people redefining or undefining words have mental issues. Others, perhaps most, wish to be the master.


* “Old timey dictionary” means the unabridged The New Century Dictionary Copyright 1946, 1944, 1942, 1938, 1936,1934, 1933, 1931, 1929, 1927.

Share

9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—In Chains @InChainsInJail

  1. “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” Benito Mussolini.
    So the actual definition of fascist is more nationalist, and against communism.
    Then turns right around and goes full totalitarian communist?
    Well that fits right in place with Anitifa/BLM/US government’s line of bullshit.
    They all say their fighting against what they all want to become. With the real squeeze against the middle class. (As they are the only ones producing the necessary sustenance of life.)
    Once again proof positive. Leadership is mostly insane. And once again they see the slow reaction by the governed as consent to their insanity.
    “Whom the god’s would destroy, first they make mad.”
    And here I was thinking that was just some old Greek crap.

    • “Il Duce” is also famous for saying that “fascism” is a misnomer, and that the “correct” term should be “corporatism”, which he defined as “a privileged relationship between government and coporations”.

      • Which is the exact definition I have been working with my entire life.
        But now we know what anitafa, (gay version), is talking about when it tells us their against facism. Their just not that well read in history. (Looks like I ain’t either.)
        But that puts it all in a nice tight package.
        And one can see why Stalin said their useful idiots, and Yuri confirmed their the first to be done away with by real communists.

        • The “useful idiots” contribute nothing to society or the State. They are key to the government seizing power, but once that happens they go from “useful idiots” to “useless eaters”, which must be eliminated.

        • Yup. The *original* “antifa” actually *was* fighting fascism… with communism. Indeed, I would argue that it was antifa that created the fear in Germany of a communist uprising which caused people to demand a strong regime to fight communism, which is how they got Hitler.

          • “Fighting” fascism with communism is pretty silly, considering that the two are essentially the same thing. They differ very slightly in the particular items of evil they push hardest, but that’s a detail.

  2. This definition is not the same as what is commonly used today but perhaps it has a hint of something more accurate than many people think. The people being called fascists typically are opposed to socialism and communism.

    Expanding on what MTHead said: One thing to remember is that traditional, dictionary-definition fascism opposes socialism and communism similar to how Catholics oppose Protestants, or Shia Muslims oppose Sunni Muslims. Two sides of the same coin; same goals, opposed only over methods.

    It’s not that traditional fascism “opposes socialism and communism” and is therefore fundamentally capitalist. Both fascism and socialism/communism have Marxist roots and push nationalization and State control over the means of production. They are opposed over how to achieve those things.

    Socialism and communism seek public control of industry via the State, and fascism seeks public control of industry through a “public/private partnership” between corporations and the State. Both end up with government control of industry, and both require significant levels of violence against dissenters to maintain.

    The result, from the private citizen’s point of view, is the same. The difference is how it’s achieved.

    In today’s usage, the people being called fascist are indeed opposed to socialism and communism, but the people doing the calling aren’t accidentally correct; they’re still completely wrong. The people being called fascist oppose the “public/private partnership” — actual fascism — as much as they do direct State control (i.e. socialism/communism), and the people doing the calling want such a partnership.

    The real fascists are the collectivists currently in government, encouraging Big Tech, Big Pharma, Wall Street, banks, and payment processing companies (and others) to use their status as private corporations to restrict or violate individual liberties in ways the government is forbidden to do itself. That’s a “public/private partnership” between corporations and the State if I ever saw one.

    And they are all ideologically aligned with the people calling everyone else fascist.

    IOW, it’s all projection and/or distraction, just like every other name they call their opponents. Or as someone else put it, “Any accusation from the Left is also a confession.”

    • The argument for *both* is the same: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, so they are *both* socialist dead ends.

      Individual liberty, even individual sovereignty, is the *basis*, the motive for innovation, productivity, and a thriving civilization.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.