Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Defending Connor's Honour, So Far (And One Comment,15, Was Censored as I Corrected It) · Friendly Atheist Took On Connor (part I) · I Prefer Per Engdahl over Fridtjuv Bergh · New blog on the kid: In Response to Doug Wilson Who Responded to Caleb Campbell (pastor)
One actual misgiving about Connor, and lots of other Fascists but also NS ... they could be into pushing homeless out of liberties, but not offering actual homes with freedoms. The reason I don't count this against historic Fascism is, every other state did so too (Social Democratic Scandinavia, Democrats of the US, Progressive Democrats in Canada ...), to some degree even Austria (Aufenthaltslager).
The Debate on Jubilee with Mehdi Hasan earned a Fascist Catholic sacking*
Friendly Atheist | 24 July 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is1sRF6wj7c
The only one I hear about is Connor.
I didn't find him scary.
I do NOT think Connor made it a "me" vs "you" thing.
In a certain way, "us" vs "them" ... yes. He doesn't like abortionists or Church looters (neither do I). You don't like Fascists.
In each case, you are both disliking or we are all three disliking someone not for himself or not liking the shape of his nose, but for something added to the person, some choice.
I'm not really sure where Connor stands on a Commie who is:
- not providing or seeking abortion or contraception
- not attacking the Catholic Church
- not trying to overthrow a government because it's Fascist.
If he'd be fine with shooting or even just in peacetime imprisoning someone over simple Ostalgia, I'd be against that, but I don't find it all that probable. If that's so, he would be somewhat like you, except you may prefer sacking over shooting. As he's a Fascist, he's syndical, so, sacking isn't really his thing.
If, like me, he wouldn't hurt that kind of Commie or a Commie probably in those situations, you are the one closest to us three to wanting to degrade someone for simple identity, even if it is a chosen one.
3:14 How much do you have to back up your views against Connor?
"crazy, doesn't want to live in a democracy"
Sounds like prejudice.
3:26 "the rules that apply to you should not have to apply to me"
Not what he's saying. More like the limitations on power that apply to your side should not apply to my side.
In other words, kind of a turning the tables on the situation as it is. In "democracy" as it is now, power limitations on Fascists don't apply to people who loved the governments handing the US abortions, contraception and gay marriage. In fact, the kind of things I've seen being pushed against Connor would be regarded as beyond insane if a Fascist tried to push them against run of the mill modern Democrats.
3:47 What right out racist thing could you link to, if not copy?
Are you making this up?
Connor did say the American nation which should be represented by an American government is mainly a white population.
He did specifically say it also included some non-white populations.
I did not specifically hear him say that excluded the Afro-Americans. More probably included, if I can give an educated guess.
4:15 If I may venture an educated guess ... Connor would want US American mothers to have 52 weeks paid maternity leave per child.
As they haven't that, they have less of a chance being homemakers.
Nazis, so presumably Fascists too, have complained on how two incomes have become a standard necessity to even have an appartment.
Citing an actual Nazi (no longer among my FB friends, I can't recall why), "women on the labour market have been driving wages down since ..." (forget the year).
On a video about how other countries are making better deals for their workers, which was spoken by a voice not totally unlike his, though not in a heated debate tone, I heard that some decades back (1960?) only 20 % of women worked full time, now it's far more, not having two incomes is basically a luxury these days ... (the video mentioned countries with 52 weeks paid maternity leave, I think Afghanistan was among them, unless that was the one with even more weeks).**
4:53 It was in actual fact Mehdi who, at once, pin pointed Carl Schmitt as a Nazi. In historic fact and probably more to Connor's taste, he went over to Franco's Spain after a while.
The "yeah" should probably be interpreted "yes, that's the guy" than "yes, that's how I see him too" when he specifically was condescending to NS régime and enthusiastic for Franco's.
Carl Schmitt was not a simple propagandist, he was a philosopher. You may detest his philosophy, but that doesn't make him just a propagandist.
He was the one promoting a nominal adherence to the former constitution rather than a simple change of constitution in 1933, didn't like Jewish authors (a prejudice somewhat common at the time, neither did Waldemar Bonsels) and he fell out of favour as early as 1936. In 1937 Goebbels stopped the NS administration from harrassing him, which they had by then done for a year.
He was after the war banned from professorship, because he refused denazification (persecution for his political views, with the difference that in Germany they were becoming illegal), was a friend of Ernst Jünger and a few more and in 1962 / 63 wrote a work on Franco in the civil war, and the partisans supporting him.
In 1962, Schmitt gave lectures in Francoist Spain, two of which resulted in the publication, the next year, of Theory of the Partisan, in which he characterized the Spanish Civil War as a "war of national liberation" against "international Communism". Schmitt regarded the partisan as a specific and significant phenomenon which, during the latter half of the 20th century, indicated the emergence of a new theory of warfare.
Probably this is where Connor Estelle has his views on Franco from. I used other sources, including documentaries in Swedish state owned TV and one biography written by Michel del Castillo, son of Spanish Republicans who went to France. I didn't know some of the things Paul Preston wrote until yesterday. They are less flattering than what Michel del Castillo had to say. Or the early 1980's documentary on Swedish TV. I suppose the reverse can reasonably be said for Carl Schmitt's work.
6:45 Noting, Connor didn't even vote Trump. Perhaps not even a Republican. Maybe pretty probably not.
7:18 "I do have a problem with giving them this chance to espouse their views"
Expose, I suppose you meant, slip of the tongue, happens.
In other words, you think that while a man has legal freedom of speech, people should by private initiative band together to exclude some from this freedom?
Why don't you worry about a real NS? Kyle Langford:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esj4WN2L-cQ
* Not sure of the exact English title, youtube unfortunately pushes an automated French translation on someone watching from France: "Le débat du jubilé de Mehdi Hasan a valu le licenciement d'un fasciste catholique"
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhBkeAo2Hlg
No comments:
Post a Comment