Sometimes – too often, really – the things that come out of conservative mouths just take your breath away. Take for example Ellis Washington, writing for World Net Daily, who after opening his post with a quote from Lenin, goes on to say:
“For the past month, the liberal fascist mobs have been protesting American exceptionalism, capitalism and its symbolic embodiment, Wall Street in Manhattan. These legions of largely white hippie-types, are unwashed, unshaved, unemployed, unemployable masses; prone to violence, conspicuous drug use, rantings, cursing, public defecation on police cars and promiscuous sex – yet are clueless as to what, why or who they are even protesting.”
First of all, more blacks have begun to change the face of Occupy Wall Street over the past few days, as BET.com points out, while arguing that black democrats should support Occupy Wall Street.
“Occupy Wall Street is saying, ‘We will not take it anymore,’” Rep. John Lewis, the civil rights icon, said in a statement. “When the people have taken all they can take, they have to use their marching feet to say to corporate American and to those in power we must humanize corporate and government policy.”
Rapper Talib Kweli joined a group of picketers in Manhattan’s Financial District Thursday and performed a new song about the media’s habit of distracting people from real problems at hand.
InvestmentNews offers some perspective:
Tea Party supporters are mainly white, male, married, older than 45, more conservative than the general population and likely to be wealthier and better educated than the general population.
While it’s still too early for a full demographic map of Occupy Wall Street protesters, the group appears to be more diverse in terms of race, education and socioeconomic status. For now, the protesters appear to be skewing on the younger side, but that is likely to change as they become more organized.
(For age demographics, look at some AP photos collected by Michael Shaw here)
Secondly, we’ve heard again and again that the protesters are a bunch of hippies, but they’re not. Look at them: they look like your neighbors, like the folks you’d see at the mall or anywhere, really. Unlike Christine O’Donnell, they really are us. Admittedly, as Michael Shaw comments in an article appearing in HuffPost, “‘Occupy demographics’ is tricky territory when it comes to visual media with too much opportunity to skew or reinforce misleading impressions”, but look at this photo from the Guardian (or any of a number of other photos):
Third, and perhaps most importantly, if you’re a liberal you can’t be a fascist – one is the antithesis of the other. Liberalism is about liberty; fascism is about restricting liberty for the good of the state. Because fascism is “a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology”, by definition, if you are a fascist you cannot also be protesting against national exceptionalism. And fascism supports economic and social regimentation, just as does conservatism – keeping people in their place (indeed, the idea that people have a place) and the suppression of opposition – including, significantly, Mr. Washington, the suppression of the Occupy Wall Street opposition.
Not that we’d expect a writer for WND to know that.
Nor, by definition, can a fascist be a Leninist, yet Washington titles his post “Lenin’s ‘useful idiots’ in Manhattan”. Shouldn’t it be “Mussolini’s ‘useful idiots’ in Manhattan”? And it was Mussolini himself (1932) who wrote that “above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society…” and that “Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism”.
Not that Mr. Washington cares particularly about facts. Facts always being so inconvenient to conservative talking points.
Mussolini went on to claim that the twentieth century would not be the century of “Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy” but “a century of Fascism.”
Mussolini may have been wrong about the twentieth century and a failed dictator but at least he knew the difference between liberalism and Fascism and liberalism and Marxism and Fascism and Marxism.
Of course, Mr. Washington then goes on to reiterate the old Beckian claim that Van Jones is “an open communist” before going back to his ramblings about Lenin and Bolsheviks and Trotsky, ad nauseum. Van Jones was an avowed communist. He made no secret of it. He is no longer, as Politifact.com demonstrates.
He so falls in love with Lenin quotes that he never manages to get back to fascism and how a movement can be at once Marxist and Fascist. Not that he cares, because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about in the first place, nor is he interesting in knowing (or you knowing) what he’s talking about.
It’s all about making people angry. Thus the endless spew of vitriol in his opening paragraph about unwashed, unemployable “icky” people (Rupert Murdoch is doing it; why shouldn’t WND?). As usual, World Net Daily has swung and missed and Mr. Washington has again demonstrated why he would be better suited to write for the National Enquirer inventing things that are not true about celebrities than trying to write about a subject he cannot begin to understand.
Top photo from Treehugger.com
Second photo from Guardian.co.uk