Why is the nationalist right hallucinating a ‘communist enemy’?

[mikewhitney]

There was a 3 part BBC documentary close to two decades ago, The Power of Nightmares. It chronicled and theorized about the rise of the US neoconservative movement up to the US invasion of Iraq. The idea was that US conservatives were given an enemy to be afraid of (re. Islamism/Islamists), which resulted in the ascendance of Republican political power here in the US.

The documentary is not without controversy, so I'm not quite advocating that it should be accepted uncritically - but your above quote touches on a number of themes in that documentary. He's a link to the first part on Youtube:
]

Now we are given covid-19 as this dreadful enemy. But what does all this have to do with the BLM leaders who have stated they are trained Marxists. Please get back on topic for the sake of Hypatia.

The politicians have been promoting fears and wars for as long as I have been alive. We have to back away from the propaganda and seek out the truth through trustworthy means.

[Starlight]

The BLM leaders were trained Marxists. What do you say of that fact?

That you are a gullible fool for believing that is a thing. It's a word-salad phrase.

One BLM founder said it in a moment of Trump-like nonsensical word-vomit, then corrected herself to explain what she meant by saying she felt she had studied enough politics to identify people's underlying political motivations. Ooooh, scary!!!

[rogue06]

And? The USA has a Communist Party - https://www.cpusa.org/

Who used to nominate their own candidate for president but because the Democrats have moved so far to the left they stopped bothering to run their own candidate and now endorse the Democrat instead.

Funny how nobody ever asks the Democrat candidate to denounce the endorsement of a group directly affiliated with a movement responsible for the slaughter of tens of millions in order to further their goals. And I'm not talking about causalities of war but genocidal policies like the Holodomor, the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution along with whatever you call the policies that resulted in the "killing fields" of Cambodia being among the "highlights."

[rogue06]

That you are a gullible fool for believing that is a thing. It's a word-salad phrase.

One BLM founder said it in a moment of Trump-like nonsensical word-vomit, then corrected herself to explain what she meant by saying she felt she had studied enough politics to identify people's underlying political motivations. Ooooh, scary!!!

Your typical nonsensical excuses unburdened by being connected to reality. Sort of like when you simply made up the claim that AOC was laughing and joking about her not being covered by the age restrictions for being president because she's a woman and she thought it said "no man" when it actually says "person"

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

How does it shift the goal posts to ask what you are wondering about?

My posting the thread and the OP was to elicit pertinent observations regarding this phenomenon. Parroting nonsense and/or animus, while remaining USA-centric does not deal with all the features of the OP.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

She's like the female version of another occasional poster here who goes by carpdm#### (I don't remember the numbers in his username). He, too, cries foul whenever you try to pin him down in an argument, or ask him to clarify something. But to his credit, he is slightly less insufferably arrogant than Hyper_Alexander.

This tendency to read what is not written is an unfortunate propensity among some here. I have not cried "foul", as you will note from my reply to mikewhitney above this.

[CivilDiscourse]

Why did you consider it to be an "insult"? Or is that a unconscious reaction on your part?

Well, it has absolutely no relevance to your thread, therefore you had to have thrown it in for some reason, the most common one is to be insulting. You've already shown you have no problem insulting groups of people (dehumanizing them).

So, the most logical conclusion is that you were mocking them, i.e. insulting.

[CivilDiscourse]

Gondwanaland seems to think there is another "compatriot" of mine posting to these boards. I am mystified as to who, precisely, he has in mind.

Ah, no he doesn't. You'll notice he used the phrase "former compatriot". So you are not being forthright or honest in your evaluation. The statement above is obviously false.

[CivilDiscourse]

I have not the slightest idea as to whom you are referring.



I did not issue you with an order. I made a polite request. Therein lies the difference between us. I employ good manners. You have an unfortunate tendency to revert to personal and abusive remarks.

No, you really don't. You employ euphemisms, remember when you dehumanized an entire group of people?

[Mountain Man]

This tendency to read what is not written is an unfortunate propensity among some here. I have not cried "foul", as you will note from my reply to mikewhitney above this.

You (falsely) accused him of moving the goalposts, so, yeah, you did cry foul.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Well, it has absolutely no relevance to your thread, therefore you had to have thrown it in for some reason, the most common one is to be insulting. You've already shown you have no problem insulting groups of people (dehumanizing them).

So, the most logical conclusion is that you were mocking them, i.e. insulting.

Ah, no he doesn't. You'll notice he used the phrase "former compatriot". So you are not being forthright or honest in your evaluation. The statement above is obviously false.

No, you really don't. You employ euphemisms, remember when you dehumanized an entire group of people?

Goodness me what a busy little bee you have been in barely six minutes.

Most informed individuals will acknowledge that single sex enclaves often have a propensity to homo-eroticism and/or homo-sociality.

You could read this: https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-...-homosociality

There are also various papers available for you to read online dealing with various aspects of homo-eroticism and homo-sociality.

I still have no idea who this "former compatriot" of mine might be.

In the case of Gondwanaland and this thread, I made a direct but polite request.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You (falsely) accused him of moving the goalposts, so, yeah, you did cry foul.

I expected him to make a relevant comment pertaining to the article, not simply leap on to his favourite hobbyhorse.

[Mountain Man]

I expected him to make a relevant comment pertaining to the article, not simply leap on to his favourite hobbyhorse.

Yes, and he asked you to narrow the discussion down to whatever part of the weedy and fallacy ridden article you felt was worthy of discussion, at which point you (falsely) accused him of moving the goalposts, which is to say that you cried foul when he attempted to pin you down to a specific position. For your information, refusing to plainly state your argument and thus deprive your opponents of an opening for attack does not mean you've won the debate by default.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yes, and he asked you to narrow the discussion down to whatever part of the weedy and fallacy ridden article you felt was worthy of discussion, at which point you (falsely) accused him of moving the goalposts, which is to say that you cried foul when he attempted to pin you down to a specific position. For your information, refusing to plainly state your argument and thus deprive your opponents of an opening for attack does not mean you've won the debate by default.

The following reply contains a soupçon of sarcasm.

Isn't it a relief to know that we can all take comfort from Mountain Man's assurances that Anders Behring Breivik and John Timothy Earnest were mere phantasms. Lula was not wrongly imprisoned, no such groups as the squadristi, Sturmabteilung or Brazil’s Green Shirts have ever existed, and that Robert Lansing never imagined that the Russian Revolution proved the veracity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

All of the above are merely constituent parts of what our sagacious contributor deems to be a "weedy and fallacy ridden article".

[Mountain Man]

The following reply contains a soupçon of sarcasm.

Yes, it seems that's all you have, little lady. Try engaging your brain instead of practicing your feeble wit, and you might accidentally start a real discussion for a change.