Sunday, February 19, 2012

Jack Camwell: Selfish, Immoral Fascist Part III

We've finally arrived at part III dealing with how I'm a total fascist.  Silver, I answered your question from Part II, and I'm really sorry for the delayed response on that.

Anyway.  Fascist?  Really?  First of all, she called me a partisan hack and I'm pretty sure no one who has a shred of intelligence would ever consider me to be that.  When you consider the fact that I'm thinking about abandoning the Republican Party to be a Libertarian, I think partisan hack is pretty far fetched.  So if she doesn't understand what a partisan hack is, my guess is she has *no clue* as to what fascism even means.  It's a very complex term, and I'm not convinced that complexity is something she can handle.

I generally hate citing Wikipedia, but here it is.


For a more academic source:


So according to these there seems to be a common thread that runs through fascism.  The big one is that fascists believe in the idea of a dominant race, or people, and that race should rule everyone else.  Also, according to the britannica article fascists generally could be characterized by "extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism."

Jack Camwell

Woah woah, they had a contempt for cultural liberalism?!?!  That makes Teresa and dmarks calling me a fascist even more ironic than I originally thought.  They probably consider me to be culturally liberal, and if that's the case then who is more like a fascist?

Teresa claimed that she's read my work all over the internet, and she knows what I'm all about.  I guess that's how she came to the conclusion that I'm a fascist.  Let's take a look at some of the work I've produced in which I show contempt for liberty, justice, other races, and the democratic process, shall we?


Political Conversion: I think I'm a Libertarian

If You're Famous, Don't Show Your Religion

Only Americans Get Rights  (note: the title is meant to be sarcastic)

Ron Paul 2012

I guess it's time I shit on Unions

Americans Are So Civilized

Villains and Heroes: A stupid way to view politics

In a shocking turn of events, the Westboro Baptists still suck

Putin to run for president again . . . man this seems familiar

Let's Make Life Taste Like Shit

Why Are We Such Prudes? Part I

Why Are We Such Prudes? Part II

A Movie Everyone Should See: Network

Education Is Not Just For Citizens

Budget Cuts Aren't a Bad Thing

Apparently, Australia sucks just as much as France

Live Free or Die

Liberty?  Freedom of Choice?  What the fuck ever!

If you're a relativist, prepare to get pwned.  Hard.

Even without the slippery slope argument, torture is bullshit

Keep your damn fingers out of my food!

Jesse Jackson and Other Racist Assholes

Please, by all means, be gay

Libya Free or Die!

Okay, so I definitely don't expect anyone to re-read all of that stuff, but the links are there just in case you feel inclined to read the articles, or if the titles are not sufficient enough to prove that I love liberty.  For the past year now, all I have done is advocated for people to be as free as possible to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they are not causing any real harm to others or infringing on the rights of others.

Teresa and dmarks, if neither of you can see that, then you are both clearly retarded.  Disagreeing with another person's view points is not what makes you retarded: it's your value judgments upon me.  You dumbasses seek to take choices away from women.  You also decry gay marriage, as if what two consenting adults do is any of your fucking business.

The sad part is that you morons won't even really listen to anything I've said.  You'll just ignore it, and immediately reject it as false because admitting that you're wrong is way too uncomfortable.  When you two are capable of having reasoned, logical discussion then we can talk.  Otherwise, I strongly suggest that you both go fuck yourselves.

/endrant

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Over the time I have read your posts, the last things I would have put you in is immoral or fascist. If anything, it is clear you are a libertarian and hidden between much of your work is the fact that your still very much a closet-moralist (because your always thinking about it).

Do not be fooled by the likes of Teresa or dmarks, they are obviously to far connected to the American far-right (as it is unique in itself) and their inability to accept the views of others politically and whatever-morals-they-think-they-follow - we can argue that they are much closer to being fascist. I would also say that morality is respected the views of others, and thus they are abusing that as well.

As you may know, I am proudly Catholic and I find nothing anti-Catholic in what you (or in fact my own) believe. Does it say that there cannot be a right to question? That there is not a difference between what is actually considered standards or dogma and what those with influence like to push as "the only way"?

I was condemned by some in my local Church for being a true believer in Immanuel Kant - now read him and see what he would consider Teresa and dmarks.

Damien Charles QC
(currently in London)

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Teresa and dmarks, if neither of you can see that, then you are both clearly retarded."

Be careful, JC. Someone once left a comment on my blog that used the word "retarded" or "retard," I can't remember. But because I didn't delete the comment, dmarks accused me of bashing mentally ill people.

I tried to point out to him that there is more than one definition of retard, but he would have none of it.

If he read your blog post, I'm afraid in addition to everything else he calls you, you will now be a basher of mentally ill people.

Also, if you ever mention someone's race for whatever reason, you will, in dmarks' opinion, be a race basher.

Seriously. Don't bother with Teresa or dmarks. They are unbending in their opinions and, worst of all, humorless.

Jersey McJones said...

Teresa may be nuts, but dmarks is such a nasty little nitpicker. He can never argue the substance of an argument, only presentation. I give up with him.

For instance, I've used the expression "retarded" myself as a blogger, and in person, many times. I never used it in a way that could have been construed as anything other than a popular, common, sordid derogatory. It's how we all talk as kids. It's how we all talk among friends.

Some people are hypersensitive about these things, "PC" as we call them, but for Righties to take general umbrage is hypocrisy in it's purest puerility.

It's such a retarded thing to bring up in the first place. Or as the South Park kids would say, it's "gay." It's just another meaning of the word, said in humor.

dmarks simply doesn't understand any of this - or he's just a dumb punk who can't help but divert any reasonable argument into the abyss of political correctness. I prefer to think the former.

JMJ

bill said...

this evening, as i was into my third beer and playing a little blues guitar against a buddy guy cd
i had what i consider a lucid thought; for me, profound. thought i'd share it with you...

the extent of my problems are directly related to my ability to perceive them.

teresa's comments bug me but at least she has opinions, too many folks don't anymore. those who can't articulate their positions are fodder for the powers that be. so i have to give her and those like her some credence for that;
and yeah, it hurts my pride but these things shall pass away mr. camwell.

and regarding pride; forgive me but you seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time and blog-space defending your ...life?
against one inconsequential person's attack on your bona fides. methinks thou protest too much.

please don't get this wrong. i'd rather have you baby-sit my kids than someone like teresa, but it's obvious that you're still trying to come to grips with your spirituality and i've found a little humility goes a long way.

with true regard for your service, decency (as you've made your life an open book) and humor...b

Silverfiddle said...

Jack: You've acquitted yourself well, as if the charges even had any merit...

You and I usually find ourselves at odds with one another, but I thought Teresa's personal attack was unwarranted (and uncharacteristic of what I know of her. She has produced some pretty deep stuff over at Catholibertarian), and you have logically refuted them. I am disappointed that neither she nor Dmarks showed up.

You've also shown us why it is stupid to engage in ad hominem. Nobody knows you like you, so you are the most capable of marshaling information in your own defense.

Also, direct name-calling detracts from the issue at hand and ends up totally obliterating any point you may have made.

As I stated earlier, you and I are often at odds, and I find myself agreeing more with Dmarks and Teresa, but in this case, Jack wins in a KO (or would it be a forfeit since they threw the first punch and then disappeared?)

Jack Camwell said...

Thank you Silver. That really means a lot to me.

I'm glad that we are at odds with each other so often, because you push me to better explain myself, and in better explaining myself I figure out whether or not I truly believe in what I'm saying.

Jack Camwell said...

Bill,
Sorry for not responding to your comment. You obviously put a lot of thought into it, and I really appreciate that.

I'm always struggling with my own spirituality. I seriously envy people who feel like they've got it all figured out, because they have a comfort that I'm afraid I may never have.

It's not my pride that was hurt. In fact, nothing was really hurt. It didn't hurt my feelings that she called me a selfish, immoral Fascist. Actually, this whole thing wasn't even really about me.

The whole thing was about pointing out how ridiculous it is when we overgeneralize and erroneously categorize people. I say a few key phrases, and in her brain that triggers the word "fascist." She's been brainwashed, and she doesn't even get it. I mean, we're all brainwashed in some way, but people like her refuse to break through the fog of their own biases.

This wasn't an exercise in justifying my life, or to somehow prove what a great guy I am. This was an exercize in understanding that philosophy, whether it's of politics, life or religion, is a lot more complex than some people think.

How can I be pro-life if I'm pro-choice? How can I be a Machiavellian but not a utilitarian or a relativist?

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jack: I'm glad that we are at odds with each other so often, because you push me to better explain myself, and in better explaining myself I figure out whether or not I truly believe in what I'm saying.

That is why I started blogging and invited disagreement. Having you and others challenge me does the same for me.

Nothing like some pointed challenges to sharpen up my muddy thinking!