Moxon's neurotic fear of losing any part of the status quo (this is why gun grabbing fascists always talk about "muh kids in schools" or whatever, or during Covid, "muh deaths"), of the administered society, drives him to hysterics because Trump represents the possibility of change in the status quo, he represents the crisis of neoliberalism.
It is this clinging to "life", a shitty unfree life, is what makes an actual fascist.
An actual "extreme" solution to the problems we are living through would be to abolish welfare, abolish all guns laws, and abolish all market regulations. This is of course not extreme but simply the path to socialism, which is not extreme but a logical conclusion of capitalism (truly, just a higher form of capitalism).
More Hitlerite nonsense. To be clear, the support of any law controlling firearms is Hitlerism, you are a Hitler worshipper, a reactionary, an esoteric fascist who wants to return to feudal Europe. 500 years of bourgeois philosophy, from Rousseau to Lenin, prove what I just said correct.
The question of authoritarianism is of course absurd. Trump was no more an authoritarian than Obama, Bush, or Clinton. Perhaps even less so. Authoritarianism is how the security state has responded to normal civic social struggle (Jan 6th) and the bio-security fascism of the pandemic measures (do you ever wonder what happened to Foucault citations?) These things are actual fascism, or at least authoritarianism, which are not the same thing, and we know they are not because Adorno did not write about "fascism" but about authoritarianism.
Moxon's call to essentially abolish the Supreme Court is quite literally no different from Jan 6th (which was also not a big deal, is my point) or Trump/Caesar wanting to "abolish the senate". Ultimately the entire piece is devoted to trying to manufacture consent for the state to kill Republicans, which is explicitly what Moxon wants to happen. (You'll notice that his biggest issue with the South is apparently that they were "traitors", as though if the North had wanted to preserve slavery it would've been fine. It is all trying to generate "Republicans are traitors so you can kill them" propaganda).
The reference to Lincoln as some ideal figure is strange, considering Lincoln did not want to abolish slavery and did not think black people were human (and in fact was more interested in preserving the Union than slavery). There is a reason natsocs (actual Nazis, not le bad orange or whatever) praise Lincoln, they believe he had a more "race realist" view of how to "deal with" the "Black Question".
Finally, we see the decrepit "ideal" all of this is leading to, what all of this advocation of mass slaughter (despite his claims to the contrary) is for. Nothing so high an ideal as ending slavery. Rather....welfare liberalism? Moxon's "radical" new ideas are about 200 years old, and should be opposed by all freedom loving people, socialists, libertarians, Marxists, etc. Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Lenin, all opposed welfare. "Not a single farthing for this government!" Moxon would like to continue the status quo because he is comfortable in it, and the status quo might even give him an opportunity to see that Trump voting family next door driven from their homes and beaten to death, something he would love to see (again, this is provable via searching his Twitter)
I've followed you on The Twitters™ for a few years now, but have really appreciated reading your writing here the last two weeks. While the two pieces I consumed here do not need any more "punch"--they hit me like a car filled with arguing cribbage players slamming into a pile of flaming tractor trailers and toxic chemicals--reading them in long form rather than a Twitter thread somehow more powerful.
And I agree with you: time to try, very loudly and often, to make the extreme choices clearer to those who do not see the danger while there is still time.
While I am in total agreement with you, I think that sadly we are in an era where the opponents of extremists--let’s call them the Left, generally--simply cannot recognize the threat before them and construct workable if radical solutions. So few pundits, politicians, people on the street are ready for this oncoming crisis. It’s almost as if they want to get to a point where they can just shrug and say they gave it their best shot, which will never be true. We need myrmidons for democracy now, not flailing, civil Democrats who are trying to play by the rules of the game while their opponents cheat and upend the board because why not? It’s THEIRS.
I'm dumbfounded. I have no idea how you manage to convince me that you're the best writer today with everything you post. Even better that the guy who wrote your last article. Like, how? How are you getting better and better? How does it happen every time?
Well said. It’s terrible that we had to come to a point where something so radical is called for, and I agree; it may not be this particular solution. But at the LEAST, we need to expand the Court.
I'll quibble about terminology, because it is, depending on one's perspective, one of my true talents, or an annoying personality trait (feel free not to take a poll among my immediate family members which they consider it to be).
I think that the term extreme is frequently misapplied in politcal discussions. Here's why.
In statistics (no reference, you'll just have to take my word for it), the extreme values are considered *outliers* of the data set. The outliers are (sometimes wrongly, by the way) deemed suspect, as they are so much less frequently occuring than data that hover around the mean. The outlier might be viewed as spurious, a mismeasurement, or simply not deserving of consideration because in most instances under study, we will not encounter the outlier, and the outlier is deemed (pro forma, or by fiat) to have little usable significance for the group the hovers around the mean.
I'm hoping you might be starting to catch the drift of how this applies to our current sociopolitcal reality, but I'll elaborate.
First, we need to introduce the notion of false equivalency, set it aside, but come back to it in a moment.
Whether an idea, or proposal, is extreme, depends entirely on the set of individuals under consideration.
So, let's start with team genocide (aka the GOP, aka the American fascist movement).
There are many on team genocide who insist that the actual mass murderers among them (those distinguished by pulling the trigger of an AR-15, or driving their motor vehicle into a crowd with the intent of owning some libs) are not represenatve of the whole. Therefore, the whole of team genocide is, according to this, um, logic, is not to be characterized by the actions of a few outliers that nobody knows where they came from, and wouldn't be invited to parties anyway (nevermind the video evidence of the actual mass murderers hanging around casually with the other members of team genocide, and being invited as welcome guests to all sorts of team genocide parties). The old saw 'don't paint them all with that awfully broad brush', and some such. (It's amazing how many individuals who describe themselves as 'on the left' engage in just this sort of finger-wagging, not uncommonly followed with the claim that such broad brush flapping entirely discredits any other observation or contention made by the broad brush flapper, and makes the broad brush flapper no different from the likes of Tucker or Rush. Apparently, some contingent on the left struggles with the whole forest and trees situation. And manifest empirical reality. And the meaning of words. But I digress.)
Anywho, the members of team genocide who do not wish to be judged by their association with the actual mass murderers would have us accept their disavowal of any connection to such extreme views.
These (by self-ascription) not actual mass murderers are, of course, lying.
It takes a fair amount of community support and encouragement to prep and outfit the actual mass murderers to commit actual mass murder. Among other things, it takes some real doing to ensure the sociopolitical environment is one in which actual mass murder is made more likely, and condoned.
Back to the math bit.
Ensuring the sociopolitical environment is one in which actual mass murder is condoned is certainly not the extreme of this cohort, it is more like the mean, but even that is not quite the case.
Rather, ensuring the sociopolitical environment is one in which actual mass murder is condoned is a basic feature of team genocide. One cannot be included in the reference set, or invited to team genocide parties, without this basic feature. It is a defining characteristic of every member of that particular class of objects (mathy allusion there, because that's the kick I'm on).
Now, those of us not on team genocide might consider a sociopolitical environment in which actual mass murder is condoned to be extreme, but only because we (wrongly) might assume there's some amount of overlap between the circles on the Venn diagram (more math) between those who enlist with team genocide and, well, literally every other human being, with regard to such traits as grounding in reality and possessing a moral conscience. That is, within OUR sociopolitcal cohort, condoning mass murder would be extreme. For team genocide, for every single participant, every rank and file voting member and every elected official under the GOP banner, the fascist crowd in its entirety, it is neither the extreme nor the mean, but rather it is the normative standard, and ritual token of allegiance, to condone mass murder.
It's also the normative standard to lie about all this, partly to sucker a few lefty's into finger wagging at broad brush flappers, but mostly to own some libs, without personally risking criminal charges in a polity that is not yet fully captured by fascism.
Which brings us back to false equivalency. 'Each side has it's extremes and extremists' relies on the notion that all progressives worship Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. I mean, the 'thought leaders' and prominent media figureheads of team genocide say shit like this all the time. Because (cognitively stunted as they are), they struggle with idea that I might oppose all mass murderers, and I might oppose the capture of governments by sociopaths and psychopaths generally. (For reasons that don't require any further analysis, members of team genocide are unable to grok that other people are not like them. Progressives, in the fullest, original and most accurate use of the label, on the other hand both recognize and value diversity amongst Homo Sapeins, as one defining feature of this cohort.)
This stuff is not reducible to a political stance, it's a moral philosophy, one that team genocide does not partake of.
As a cohort, team genocide is what emerges from the congregation of individuals who harbor just enough of the features of sociopathy and psychopathy, with a dash of social dominance orientation (that's a social psychology term of art, look it up, but it's pretty self-explanatory) thrown in.
Which is why I say fascism is not a political arrangement, it is a worldview. This worldview guides the members of team genocide in all interpersonal situations, and so shapes their engagement in the polity (any polity) in their specific manner, with a singular purpose- impunity.
The impunity to brutalize, deprive and murder anyone and everyone not of the preferred demograhic to be invited to join team genocide. To be in charge, no constraints. To impose the social environent that tickles their nether regions onto everyone else.
Make no mistake, every assault and mass murder tickles their nether regions, and that is what all of the grotesque posturing and obscence displays by team genocide are all about.
What's my point with all this quibbling?
The use of the terms extreme and extremist in discussions of what to do about team genocide can obscure a different aspect of dealing with fascism (wasn't there a hit Broadway number 'A Problem Called Team Genocide'?)-- the grotesque posturing and obscene displays by team genocide are not relegated to the extremes among their ranks, and in fact we're simply describing what is manifest, what is abundantly clear. Every member of team genocide is complicit, and knowingly so. They vote, and use positions of authority, with the express aim of constructing a sociopolitical environment in which actual mass murder is condoned.
I don't use the words extreme or extemist in these conversations. Instead, I just say clear and obvious.
Sign on to team genocide, in any capacity, and you show yourself for who you are, and what you want the world to be.
Plain and simple.
As always, thanks for the engaging writing Mr. Moxon.
I see the plutocratic ruling class ceaselessly gaslighting the masses into an exhausting, soul-destroying, culture war. All of your points are valid but they address the distraction being used to draw attention away from the wholesale strip-mining of planetary resources and human labor. The goal of the ruling class is economic exploitation of the masses and if you have seen the wealth gap lately you can see they are sucking us and the planet dry. Greedy vampires are speeding us towards a deadly convergence of WW3, climate crisis, economic collapse, social collapse, AI, etc.
The masses, certainly those of us less educated cannot be expected to see clearly or think critically or compassionately in the current environment. We are being methodically driven insane according to plan. I think things are exactly the way our leaders want it otherwise it would not be so. They have all the wealth, power and influence. It is clear our leaders value power, not people. We know the system was created for the opulent minority to exploit the masses. This is fact based history.
The two party system is a farce. One party represents business, the other party represents the people. However, business owns and makes the rules of government and then says government is for the people by the people. That is gaslighting. The system is rigged and that is the core issue. But we are too afraid to destroy the system because it is all we have ever known.
The less extreme and legal proposal is to expand the court to 13. At least it has precedent, as the court was expanded to 9 to match the circuits at the time and we now have 13 circuits.
Moxon's neurotic fear of losing any part of the status quo (this is why gun grabbing fascists always talk about "muh kids in schools" or whatever, or during Covid, "muh deaths"), of the administered society, drives him to hysterics because Trump represents the possibility of change in the status quo, he represents the crisis of neoliberalism.
It is this clinging to "life", a shitty unfree life, is what makes an actual fascist.
An actual "extreme" solution to the problems we are living through would be to abolish welfare, abolish all guns laws, and abolish all market regulations. This is of course not extreme but simply the path to socialism, which is not extreme but a logical conclusion of capitalism (truly, just a higher form of capitalism).
More Hitlerite nonsense. To be clear, the support of any law controlling firearms is Hitlerism, you are a Hitler worshipper, a reactionary, an esoteric fascist who wants to return to feudal Europe. 500 years of bourgeois philosophy, from Rousseau to Lenin, prove what I just said correct.
The question of authoritarianism is of course absurd. Trump was no more an authoritarian than Obama, Bush, or Clinton. Perhaps even less so. Authoritarianism is how the security state has responded to normal civic social struggle (Jan 6th) and the bio-security fascism of the pandemic measures (do you ever wonder what happened to Foucault citations?) These things are actual fascism, or at least authoritarianism, which are not the same thing, and we know they are not because Adorno did not write about "fascism" but about authoritarianism.
Moxon's call to essentially abolish the Supreme Court is quite literally no different from Jan 6th (which was also not a big deal, is my point) or Trump/Caesar wanting to "abolish the senate". Ultimately the entire piece is devoted to trying to manufacture consent for the state to kill Republicans, which is explicitly what Moxon wants to happen. (You'll notice that his biggest issue with the South is apparently that they were "traitors", as though if the North had wanted to preserve slavery it would've been fine. It is all trying to generate "Republicans are traitors so you can kill them" propaganda).
The reference to Lincoln as some ideal figure is strange, considering Lincoln did not want to abolish slavery and did not think black people were human (and in fact was more interested in preserving the Union than slavery). There is a reason natsocs (actual Nazis, not le bad orange or whatever) praise Lincoln, they believe he had a more "race realist" view of how to "deal with" the "Black Question".
Finally, we see the decrepit "ideal" all of this is leading to, what all of this advocation of mass slaughter (despite his claims to the contrary) is for. Nothing so high an ideal as ending slavery. Rather....welfare liberalism? Moxon's "radical" new ideas are about 200 years old, and should be opposed by all freedom loving people, socialists, libertarians, Marxists, etc. Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Lenin, all opposed welfare. "Not a single farthing for this government!" Moxon would like to continue the status quo because he is comfortable in it, and the status quo might even give him an opportunity to see that Trump voting family next door driven from their homes and beaten to death, something he would love to see (again, this is provable via searching his Twitter)
I've followed you on The Twitters™ for a few years now, but have really appreciated reading your writing here the last two weeks. While the two pieces I consumed here do not need any more "punch"--they hit me like a car filled with arguing cribbage players slamming into a pile of flaming tractor trailers and toxic chemicals--reading them in long form rather than a Twitter thread somehow more powerful.
And I agree with you: time to try, very loudly and often, to make the extreme choices clearer to those who do not see the danger while there is still time.
While I am in total agreement with you, I think that sadly we are in an era where the opponents of extremists--let’s call them the Left, generally--simply cannot recognize the threat before them and construct workable if radical solutions. So few pundits, politicians, people on the street are ready for this oncoming crisis. It’s almost as if they want to get to a point where they can just shrug and say they gave it their best shot, which will never be true. We need myrmidons for democracy now, not flailing, civil Democrats who are trying to play by the rules of the game while their opponents cheat and upend the board because why not? It’s THEIRS.
I'm dumbfounded. I have no idea how you manage to convince me that you're the best writer today with everything you post. Even better that the guy who wrote your last article. Like, how? How are you getting better and better? How does it happen every time?
Goddamn that was a good read, but *man* do I hate that it's so on point ...
Well said. It’s terrible that we had to come to a point where something so radical is called for, and I agree; it may not be this particular solution. But at the LEAST, we need to expand the Court.
I'll quibble about terminology, because it is, depending on one's perspective, one of my true talents, or an annoying personality trait (feel free not to take a poll among my immediate family members which they consider it to be).
I think that the term extreme is frequently misapplied in politcal discussions. Here's why.
Let's start with a little math, from reference.com:
"When solving proportions in math, the outer terms in the calculation are the extremes, and the middle terms are called the means."
More from mathisfun.com:
"The smallest and largest values:
• The plural of Minimum is Minima
• The plural of Maximum is Maxima
• Together they are called Extrema"
In statistics (no reference, you'll just have to take my word for it), the extreme values are considered *outliers* of the data set. The outliers are (sometimes wrongly, by the way) deemed suspect, as they are so much less frequently occuring than data that hover around the mean. The outlier might be viewed as spurious, a mismeasurement, or simply not deserving of consideration because in most instances under study, we will not encounter the outlier, and the outlier is deemed (pro forma, or by fiat) to have little usable significance for the group the hovers around the mean.
I'm hoping you might be starting to catch the drift of how this applies to our current sociopolitcal reality, but I'll elaborate.
First, we need to introduce the notion of false equivalency, set it aside, but come back to it in a moment.
Whether an idea, or proposal, is extreme, depends entirely on the set of individuals under consideration.
So, let's start with team genocide (aka the GOP, aka the American fascist movement).
There are many on team genocide who insist that the actual mass murderers among them (those distinguished by pulling the trigger of an AR-15, or driving their motor vehicle into a crowd with the intent of owning some libs) are not represenatve of the whole. Therefore, the whole of team genocide is, according to this, um, logic, is not to be characterized by the actions of a few outliers that nobody knows where they came from, and wouldn't be invited to parties anyway (nevermind the video evidence of the actual mass murderers hanging around casually with the other members of team genocide, and being invited as welcome guests to all sorts of team genocide parties). The old saw 'don't paint them all with that awfully broad brush', and some such. (It's amazing how many individuals who describe themselves as 'on the left' engage in just this sort of finger-wagging, not uncommonly followed with the claim that such broad brush flapping entirely discredits any other observation or contention made by the broad brush flapper, and makes the broad brush flapper no different from the likes of Tucker or Rush. Apparently, some contingent on the left struggles with the whole forest and trees situation. And manifest empirical reality. And the meaning of words. But I digress.)
Anywho, the members of team genocide who do not wish to be judged by their association with the actual mass murderers would have us accept their disavowal of any connection to such extreme views.
These (by self-ascription) not actual mass murderers are, of course, lying.
It takes a fair amount of community support and encouragement to prep and outfit the actual mass murderers to commit actual mass murder. Among other things, it takes some real doing to ensure the sociopolitical environment is one in which actual mass murder is made more likely, and condoned.
Back to the math bit.
Ensuring the sociopolitical environment is one in which actual mass murder is condoned is certainly not the extreme of this cohort, it is more like the mean, but even that is not quite the case.
Rather, ensuring the sociopolitical environment is one in which actual mass murder is condoned is a basic feature of team genocide. One cannot be included in the reference set, or invited to team genocide parties, without this basic feature. It is a defining characteristic of every member of that particular class of objects (mathy allusion there, because that's the kick I'm on).
Now, those of us not on team genocide might consider a sociopolitical environment in which actual mass murder is condoned to be extreme, but only because we (wrongly) might assume there's some amount of overlap between the circles on the Venn diagram (more math) between those who enlist with team genocide and, well, literally every other human being, with regard to such traits as grounding in reality and possessing a moral conscience. That is, within OUR sociopolitcal cohort, condoning mass murder would be extreme. For team genocide, for every single participant, every rank and file voting member and every elected official under the GOP banner, the fascist crowd in its entirety, it is neither the extreme nor the mean, but rather it is the normative standard, and ritual token of allegiance, to condone mass murder.
It's also the normative standard to lie about all this, partly to sucker a few lefty's into finger wagging at broad brush flappers, but mostly to own some libs, without personally risking criminal charges in a polity that is not yet fully captured by fascism.
Which brings us back to false equivalency. 'Each side has it's extremes and extremists' relies on the notion that all progressives worship Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. I mean, the 'thought leaders' and prominent media figureheads of team genocide say shit like this all the time. Because (cognitively stunted as they are), they struggle with idea that I might oppose all mass murderers, and I might oppose the capture of governments by sociopaths and psychopaths generally. (For reasons that don't require any further analysis, members of team genocide are unable to grok that other people are not like them. Progressives, in the fullest, original and most accurate use of the label, on the other hand both recognize and value diversity amongst Homo Sapeins, as one defining feature of this cohort.)
This stuff is not reducible to a political stance, it's a moral philosophy, one that team genocide does not partake of.
As a cohort, team genocide is what emerges from the congregation of individuals who harbor just enough of the features of sociopathy and psychopathy, with a dash of social dominance orientation (that's a social psychology term of art, look it up, but it's pretty self-explanatory) thrown in.
Which is why I say fascism is not a political arrangement, it is a worldview. This worldview guides the members of team genocide in all interpersonal situations, and so shapes their engagement in the polity (any polity) in their specific manner, with a singular purpose- impunity.
The impunity to brutalize, deprive and murder anyone and everyone not of the preferred demograhic to be invited to join team genocide. To be in charge, no constraints. To impose the social environent that tickles their nether regions onto everyone else.
Make no mistake, every assault and mass murder tickles their nether regions, and that is what all of the grotesque posturing and obscence displays by team genocide are all about.
What's my point with all this quibbling?
The use of the terms extreme and extremist in discussions of what to do about team genocide can obscure a different aspect of dealing with fascism (wasn't there a hit Broadway number 'A Problem Called Team Genocide'?)-- the grotesque posturing and obscene displays by team genocide are not relegated to the extremes among their ranks, and in fact we're simply describing what is manifest, what is abundantly clear. Every member of team genocide is complicit, and knowingly so. They vote, and use positions of authority, with the express aim of constructing a sociopolitical environment in which actual mass murder is condoned.
I don't use the words extreme or extemist in these conversations. Instead, I just say clear and obvious.
Sign on to team genocide, in any capacity, and you show yourself for who you are, and what you want the world to be.
Plain and simple.
As always, thanks for the engaging writing Mr. Moxon.
Best regards,
IDR
I see the plutocratic ruling class ceaselessly gaslighting the masses into an exhausting, soul-destroying, culture war. All of your points are valid but they address the distraction being used to draw attention away from the wholesale strip-mining of planetary resources and human labor. The goal of the ruling class is economic exploitation of the masses and if you have seen the wealth gap lately you can see they are sucking us and the planet dry. Greedy vampires are speeding us towards a deadly convergence of WW3, climate crisis, economic collapse, social collapse, AI, etc.
The masses, certainly those of us less educated cannot be expected to see clearly or think critically or compassionately in the current environment. We are being methodically driven insane according to plan. I think things are exactly the way our leaders want it otherwise it would not be so. They have all the wealth, power and influence. It is clear our leaders value power, not people. We know the system was created for the opulent minority to exploit the masses. This is fact based history.
The two party system is a farce. One party represents business, the other party represents the people. However, business owns and makes the rules of government and then says government is for the people by the people. That is gaslighting. The system is rigged and that is the core issue. But we are too afraid to destroy the system because it is all we have ever known.
My daily cry for help.
I love you so much!!
(1) Thank you for sliding open the Overton window to give us all a little fresh air.
(2) You know who else was extreme? John Brown was extreme.
The less extreme and legal proposal is to expand the court to 13. At least it has precedent, as the court was expanded to 9 to match the circuits at the time and we now have 13 circuits.
Well said!!! I'm happy to be a new suscriber.