[John Whitworth]

It's the same here, Charlie, and, I gather, in Australia, the left in command of the levers of power. My children were indoctrinated with lefty ideas. I must just hope my grandchildren won't be. Though I'm not holding my breath. But in the USA and over here we, the people, can say, 'You lost. Get over it.@ But they won't and they can't.

I gather Tony Blair wants to work for Trump. Well, how about that. There's a man who follows the money though, God knows, he's got plenty. That you sell your soul doesn't mean you can't sell it again... and again...

[Andrew Frisardi]

For me one of the saddest things about the current administration is its attitude toward environmental and wildlife protection. What did the rusty patch bumble bee or the sage grouse or the polar bear ever do to deserve extinction caused by selfish human beings? As a friend once said about not killing the bugs in his garden: “They’re nicer than people.”

Pretty hard to argue with that these days.

Is care for the world a "leftist" stance, Charlie and John? Or could it be that left or right has nothing to do with it, but rather it's a matter of ethics and compassion?

[John Whitworth]

I'm always suspicious of somebody who talks about ethics, Andrew. They usually want to pick my pocket.

[Ann Drysdale]

Here's my pocket, Andrew. Help yourself, friend.

[Andrew Mandelbaum]

You are close there Charlie. Your post is almost thought-like. Its hard to be sure though. So much of it was lifted. Like trying to nail down the use of sign language in other primate species. I think what gives away the final divide though is again the use of terms and concepts that are so hopelessly misapplied that the reader looses hope that there is a mind behind the gestures that is actually translatable into anything coherent.

Anarchism, even lose and unfaithful as mine, is not easily related to Bolshevism, Stalin, or the fascism words you through up onto the wall where the adults can see them. Those millions of bodies your appropriating, many of them were anarchists and true leftists of various commitments. It is tiring that you are so intellectually lazy that you never take the time to even form a basic grasp of anything you ever talk about, even the bits you post about your own theologies are school boy pantomimes of the voices you ape, usually unsuccessfully. I guess it is consistent with your poetics, so that kind of cool.

We are animals in a biosphere, related and dependent on the swirl of species around us. Any body who thinks they are conservative as they hail a party that is actively holding the door open for the total destruction of the wilderness for the sake of a handful of Once-ler parasites is an idiot.

Every one of the ideas in this debate wants to conserve some things, liberate others. So those words have become almost meaningless. Human techniques have created State-sized problems and your party is only interested in eliminating the areas of the State actively (if ineptly) engaged in trying to solve those problems.The parts of the State that continue to make these enormous holes in the fabric of life, those parts your party (and the mainstream Democratic party) well...those parts are served like Gods.

[Jim Moonan]

And now we pause for a message from our sponsors:

https://youtu.be/2RkjdYNvbVI

[Charlie Southerland]

Anarchism, anarchy, anarchists, however loosely defined as you would like it, Andrew, preceded all of the major tyrannies I admit to knowing nothing about. The kind of anarchy you may or may not be associated or affiliated with does have some semblance of structure or some defined order or hierarchy at the top and soldiers (loosely defined). So, it is not truly anarchy for anarchy's sake. Someone makes the cute masks/balaclavas, someone buys and pays for the paint for the silly A moniker, someone tells other someones where to meet and cause trouble. You know, the general way Brown Shirts and Leninists used to do it. It's why lots of Leftists embrace Mao's communism instead of Stalin's communism. Mao is much more palatable than Lenin's version as appropriated by Stalin. China was still pretty primitive when Mao took over in 1949. A certain amount of anarchy took place before he succeeded, and then "your kind" was put in the same camps along with the other academics who ushered Mao in. Imagine the betrayal those folks felt.

"Contemporary" Communism and Socialism, whatever the hell that means, is as it has always been, an means to an end, which is State control and ownership of business and its people. Contemporary Communism classifies the people into castes. Lower class, middle class, upper middle class, and so on. It dehumanizes individuals (workers) for the collective good. It has been largely successful since the anti-Macarthyites, the true communists with their cocktail parties and gauche movie stars endeared themselves to an compliant political elite to entrench themselves into the system like parasites. (Apologies to parasites.) Anarchists are nowadays pretty much laughed at, much like we laugh at the remnants of the KKK, whose power is now only a joke at keggers in the backwoods. No one likes being laughed at, so once in a while, one of those "kind" does something really stupid and awful. Your position is untenable. Pretense is an awful thing to carry around on your shoulders. The thing that makes America resistant to the isms is its love for individualism in the face of "groupthink". Why would we willingly give up that which makes us unique among the entire world. We wouldn't. I don't.

[Simon Hunt]

Charlie's most recent post, like the thread as a whole, reminds me why it's not a good idea to wrestle with a pig: you can't win; you get covered in filth; and only the pig is having any fun.

[Charlie, I'm not calling you a pig--although your extreme abuse of the apostrophe merits some kind of counter-attack and although you have called me and my "ilk"(love that word!) roaches in need of extermination. Just making an analogy...]

I'll try not to succumb to the temptation of pig-wrestling again, but I do hope (and here I'm addressing my aforementioned ilk) that folks will continue to use this thread to document the doings of the Trump administration. I find it useful, even if there's a lot of static...

[Quincy Lehr]

Quoth Charlie:

I don't have a rudimentary grasp of any of the political categories that Andrew espouses. He throws out words like racist, misogynist, low brow, Cracker and others because he is completely indoctrinated and a complete waste of time to speak with because he won't hear of it.

Words directed at Andrew but a pretty good indication of why I make the point of not taking Mr. Southerland too seriously. Charlie can run to the moderators with every case of mild butt-hurt (which rather casts a pall on claims of anti-authoritarianism, by the way), but a blatant admission that one neither knows nor cares where someone is coming from tends not to be conducive to civilized discourse. Sometimes that's fine. I doubt Charlie and Andrew will convince each other of very much. But if one is interested in a flame war (which is really the only way to go from Charlie's admission--he doesn't know what communism, socialism, and anarchism, are, but he knows he doesn't like 'em, by golly), it's probably best to be open about it.

[Andrew Frisardi]

Originally Posted by John Whitworth

I'm always suspicious of somebody who talks about ethics, Andrew. They usually want to pick my pocket.

What if the ethical considerations extend to the well-being of your descendants, John? Is that worth making sacrifices for and adjusting to environmental warnings? For instance, Polluted environments kill 1.7 million children a year. That includes your own, or their kids. Think about it. (And while you're at it, spot me a Fiver; somebody's gotta pay the Piper).

Here's my pocket, Andrew. Help yourself, friend.

Thanks, Ann. I just lightened John of his wallet, now that he has opened his heart for the benefit of his loin-fruit.