Month: November 2018

Posted on

Common Characteristics of Totalitarian States (all shared with socialism, BTW)

While not an exhaustive list, these characteristics are generally considered typical of totalitarian rule:

• Rule by a single party
• Total control of the military (sometimes meaning control of the party by a military junta)
• Total control over means of communication (such as newspapers, propaganda, etc. . .)
• Police intimidation and control of subjects with even the use of terrorism as a control tactic common
• Control of the economy

Given these characteristics, it is easy to see why Mussolini’s Fascism (socialist1) and Hitler’s Nazism (also socialist2) are usually (and rightly, IMO) put forth as examples of totalitarian states, but almost any absolute monarchy and every historical example of communist and socialist states qualify as well.

“Ah!” but some say, “What about European socialist states like Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, et al?” Yeh, no. Socialist states all exercise either de facto or de jure control of the economy, and none of those do. They depend upon government-muzzled and milked capitalism for the implementation of some socialist policies (bread and circuses), but lack the defining qualities of socialism that Ludwig von Mises correctly identified and applied to both Mussolini’s Fascism and Hitler’s Nazism in his trenchant analysis of both. Those who try to hand wave away the essentially totalitarian nature of socialism are either ignorant or disingenuous.

Socialist states are simply a sub-class of totalitarian states, just as Nazism and Fascism are sub-classes of socialist states. Proponents of socialism do not like these simple facts, and so lie about them at every opportunity.

Do note that I only pointed to a TownHall article offering “proof” that Mussolini’s Fascism was socialist, and the article offers weak proof but refers to Human Action (NOTE: pdf file), by von Mises, where in chapter XXV, et al. von Mises identifies all that’s needed to make the connection solid. *shrugs* The book’s a decent read, anyway, and well worth one’s time, IMO.

Posted on

Had to *SMH* in Amazement

Saw a comment that was only moderately “gabberflastering” on a forum that shall go unnamed. Guy said he had to write in thew sharps and flats that were in the key sig to remind himself when he played through a piece.

Say what?!?

Whenever I taught music or directed volunteer music groups, I generally taught beginning music readers to use the “STARS” system or a variant that is even simpler, for those in volunteer choirs whose music reading chops were. . . only slowly emerging:

S – Sharps or flats in the key signature
T – Time signature and Tempo markings
A – Accidentals not found in the key signature
R – Rhythms ; silently count the more difficult notes and rests
S – Signs , including dynamics, articulations, repeats and endings

Every class session or rehearsal included using something likethe “STARS” system before reading every new piece. *shrugs* Regular exercise of “reading” through a new piece (or reviewing one not seen in a while) really aided in sight reading. Of course, “STARS” is just an extremely simplified version of score study any competent conductor does, but it seemed to be enough to alleviate the “write in the sharps/flats for reminder” issue. . . especially since each freakin’ line in a score begins with the key sig. . .

Posted on

Giving Thanks

Giving thanks in all things great and small, I am thankful that some small vestiges of the republic remain. . .

“The higher the pretensions of our rulers are, the more meddlesome and impertinent their rule is likely to be.” – C.S. Lewis

And while I am giving thanks for all things great and small, this, in Horsforth, West Yorkshire, England (Leeds Trinity University) leads me to express my gratitude for the Declaration of Independence, et seq. (Sidenote: were I a lecturer at this school I WOULD POST THE SYLLABUS IN ALL CAPS. Just sayin’.)

Lecturers Warned Not to Use Capital Letters to Avoid Scaring Students

(I would note that the National Review needs a literate headline writer who understands how syntax affects semantics. Should be, “Lecturers Warned to Not Use Capital Letters to Avoid Scaring Students.” I’m thankful I can skip the rest of the article and avoid other such crappy writing, since I have previously read the information elsewhere.)

I’m also thankful I am not disabled like those folks who can only put their pants on one leg at a time.

Posted on

I Blame Keto

An old box of my dad’s WWII memorabilia came my way, recently. One of the real keepers was his uniform web belt. The brass was in need of serious TLC, but the webbing was in great shape. Strangely, unlike his Boy Scout uniform belt, I can actually wear this one. Surprise: my waistline is a close approximation of my dad’s when he was in the best condition of his life. Oh, I’m not in a similar conditioning, but shape? Close. I’m a bit taller than he was (and still a wee bit “puffier” *heh*), but in the ballpark.

Interesting.

Posted on

Silly, Sad, or Disingenuous?

I have a dirty little pleasure. I lurk (and sometimes–rarely–participate) on Quora, mainly in order to keep track of just how low literacy and rhetoric can sink (is sinking, still) in these DisUnited States. Here:

In the wake of another mass shooting, do you support the NRA who is saying “anti gun doctors should stay in their lane,”or are you with the doctors who treat the victims?

Answering such a question is a waste of time, because the question is illegitimate on its face.

“. . .do you support the NRA who is saying ‘anti gun doctors should stay in their lane,’ or are you with the doctors who treat the victims?”

The questioner creates a class “anti-gun doctors” and sets the NRA against that class, but also, by asking if one—contra the NRA, in the questioner’s construction—is “with” (in support of) doctors who treat the victims, creating an equivalence between “anti-gun doctors” and “the doctors who treat the victims” implying that doctors who are NOT “anti-gun” don’t treat victims. . . or worse, implying there are not doctors who are not “anti-gun.”

All-in-all, it’s a question that was either formed poorly by someone who just cannot use English literately or it was formed by someone intending to semantically slant the question in an illegitimate manner. Either way, it’s a less than useful question from an arguably useless questioner.

But, frankly, on some issues, a question formed like this one would be better than most.

Posted on

Why Even Have a Constitution?

Yeh, random thought? No, Hollyweird program featuring “feddle gummint” law enFARCEment at its. . . contemporary norm spurred this.

“The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation.”

The US Constitution was intended and designed to circumscribe, restrain, LIMIT federal powers, to first prevent it from infringing on individuals’ rights while enabling it to have just enough power to protect individuals from those who would infringe on those rights, but only in areas where the states did not already have that responsibility.

Now, “feddle gummint” powers have been so illegitimately stretched, the Constitution seems to largely be a dead letter, trotted out to be disingenuously twisted into support for whatever “feddle gummint” overstep is the latest power grab, and “stare decisis” means whatever is convenient.

*shrugs*

What to do. You tell me.