Essay talk:Conservapedia and Fascism

Speaking of Conservapedia and fascism, I was just looking at CP's Wernher von Braun page (which is linked from their main page at the moment). There is no reference to von Braun being at all controversial. Those of us who recall the Tom Lehrer song might find that odd. I am a naturally suspicious person so I immediately assumed that AssHat (who wrote the article) made no mention of it because he admired von Braun's God quotes (which he uses at the end of the article) and didn't want to detract from the Goddy Godliness of those inspired thoughts. --Horace 19:06, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Im surprised Nobs didn't find the real conspiracy to bring known Nazis here to help with our ballistic missile and nuke programs.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 19:11, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

AND to work at the CIA. [1] --75.71.78.212 21:53, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

There's also a cp:Werner Von Braun page there, which calls him a Nazi. --jtl^talk 19:39, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Two WvB pages? Go figure. Anyway, for those who don't know the Lehrer song I have reproduced it below just because I like it.

Gather 'round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun,

A man whose allegiance

Is ruled by expedience.

Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown,

"Ha, Nazi, Schmazi," says Wernher von Braun.

Don't say that he's hypocritical,

Say rather that he's apolitical.

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?

That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.

Some have harsh words for this man of renown,

But some think our attitude

Should be one of gratitude,

Like the widows and cripples in old London town,

Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun.

You too may be a big hero,

Once you've learned to count backwards to zero.

"In German or English I know how to count down,

Und I'm learning Chinese!" says Wernher von Braun.

--Horace 19:51, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

PalMD, read this Essay with much interest, and please don't take this personal, but what a bunch of crap. RobS 19:46, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I disagree Bobby. In fact the essay makes a number of excellent points about the silly siege mentality of the core users of CP. The place is an absolute haven for stupidity, largely as a result of the issues identified by PalMD. I guess that as a (relatively small) cog in the ignorance machine that is CP, you probably have a hard time seeing it though. --Horace 19:57, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I note you didn't actually try to refute any of it. --Gulik 22:42, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Rob, I don't expect you to agree, and with no sarcasm at all, I am honored you read it. Thank you.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 21:14, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Sap. --Horace 21:18, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I can't help it.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 22:47, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, well, you're still a sap, but isn't it interesting that the sentiment that you expressed really does separate us (or, more accurately, you guys) from them? They would never give a shit about whether you read their (stupid) postings and articles. They are not interested in open debate at all. I recently read some remarks of RobS (a particularly loathsome CP editor in my opinion) which suggested that CP was all about open debate. Laugh, Lord laugh. I almost choked on my breakfast kipper. CP is all about the protection of idiotic and anti-intellectual ideas. People like me, who attempted to point out the stupidities, were perma-blocked. In stark contrast we are happy for them to come here where open debate can occur. What do they do? They block all reference to this site at CP and snipe from the shadows. If they weren't so pathetic they would be funny. --Horace 06:25, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

I almost choked on my breakfast kipper That's what you Brits get for eating such dreck.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 06:32, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

premise & ambiguity

The author states,

• Conservapedia may be small, but it continues the strain of religious fundamentalism in the United States.

• The “movement’s” children are reared and schooled separated from society

• They avoid the socialization into American democracy that public school provides.

• They are taught separate values

• They are then reintroduced to American society as adults with a fundamental misunderstanding of American society.

So we have a premise that the home school movement, and for that matter, "Christian fundamentalists", are a separated minority from the mainstream of secular society; then the author contradicts himself with this leap

• since they are already the majority.

Earlier we have the introduction of completely unrelated material on a secular fascism; then the author introduces a psychic prediction,

• This gives them the moral justification to fight oppression by any means necessary.

I haven't read any farther than this, so please just address these issues first. Thank you. RobS 15:14, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Much better. Thank you. That is one of the problems with fascism...it uses contradictory reasoning to enhance its goals. Self-identified christians are a majority. The far right wing of christians think of themselves simultaneously as a majority (America is a christian nation), and a besieged minority. Obviously, not all members of said groups think this way, but certain elements do, e.g. Pat Robertson, James Dobson, ASchlafly. So you are right to point out the contradiction...that is the point. Germans during Naziism knew they were the majority, but also felt that "hordes" were overtaking them (no, I'm not comparing them to Nazi's...here, or yet.) Fascism portrays itself as rational, but it is actually irrational.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 15:28, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

So, (A) Christian homeschoolers are not a majority then, correct? and (B) you have twice now introduced the term "fascism." This appears rather extreme and unwarranted. Are you attempting to make that claim the fascism is Christian; and let's even be more specific about that, that fascism is "fundamentalist," or for that matter, even arose among mainstream Protestants? Thank you. RobS 20:56, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Good question: fascism and some sects of Christianity can be compatible...fascism has a tendency to co-opt any belief system. That is why vigilance is essential. Any charasmatic leader can turn something potentially beautiful, like Christianity, and turn it toward fascism. It is not the home-schooling per se, but the separation from the larger society...homeschooling, anti-vaccine, demonization of liberals and other "heretics", etc. I'm not saying that they are fascists yet, but they are in danger. If the new movement gains more political power, that is a huge red flag.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 21:39, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

That's just a huge leap in logic without any foundation. You introduce the term and concept of facism as a given, without any connection whatsoever to the subject. Further, you lay a questionable assertion, "They avoid the socialization into American democracy that public school provides," by this logic Yeshiva's and inner city private school vouchers are proto-fascistic. And you do not even attempt to examine the course study of so-called "fundamentalist Christianity," and contrast it with fascistic doctrine.

Reading CP's entry's on Marxism & Darwinism, a solid case can be made they are rather un-fascisitc, if not anti-fascistic.

So, what are we talking about here? To Jews, 97% of Western civilization is "Christian civilization," and this is where I am assuming the bias krept in with the statement, "since they are already the majority."

Yes, there is a valid concern on the part of a minority which historically has suffered so much at the hands of its supposedly civilized hosts. Perhaps this is where we are talking past each other.

"Since they are already the majority" makes no disctinction between secular and the faithful, between Protestant and Catholic, and a host of other subgroupings and divisions. Not only does it ignore the division, it ignores presicely the objections a Christian minority has that causes it to wall itself off from the big bad world outside.

By the same token, many non-Marxists engage in the same stereotypes, lumping all ideological subgroups, Leninism-Trotskyism-Stalinism-Maoism-Communism-Socialism-Progressivism-"Liberlaism"- etc., into one common class, and defend this bias with the same argument you appear to do -- 'don't bore with the details of an ideological fever swamp'.

I hope we've laid out some of the particulars, and problem areas, and can continue a consturctive dialogue. Thank you. RobS 09:05, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Totalitarian

I think it would be useful to discuss the totalitarian aspects of CP as well. Here's what I (mostly) wrote over there - taking it point by point:

• supremacy of the state (site) over the individual freedoms of its citizens (editors) - check

• defining ideology - the Bible, every last literal fucking word of it, unless it's inconveniently humane and clearly inserted by some deceitful liberal monk.

• subversion of the rule of law (commandments), with the police (sysops) and judiciary (CP panel?) acting as direct instruments of control and providing no meaningful check or balance upon the ruling elite (Assfly) - check

• Dissent is often brutally repressed and extra-judicial killings are common - bit dramatic, but the infinite blocks and making non-persons of former editors (deleting user & talk pages, contributions, etc.) correlate in the wiki world.

• fostering of a personality cult around the head of state - I support St. Assfly of New Jersey as the rightful leader of Conservapedia.

• rampant corruption due to the arbitrary enforcement of laws and statutes - intellectual corruption, certainly, the type of which allows RobS to write shite like New Ordeal.

• coordinated programmes of indoctrination - CP & homeschooling in a nutshell.

--Robledo 18:37, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, totalitarianism is very similar to fascism, except that fascism usually has the consent of a good number of the people, whereas totalitarianism is less specific and can refer to other types of tyranny. --DoxXox^-DawkT0wk 18:46, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Um, isn't fascism simply one of several flavours of totalitarianism? --Robledo 19:02, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

That could be argued. Fascism is nearly always totalitarian, but not all totalitarianism is fascist, so, yeah.--DoxXox^-DawkT0wk 19:41, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Sweet. Goats all round, then :) --Robledo 19:53, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

I would be interested to see development of the leadership theme. Whereas one of the underlying ideas of wikis is decentralization, CP has a clear leader whose authority is based on his identity as the site's creator rather than any democratic or meritocratic standard. Furthermore, the leader has an inner circle granted power in return for loyalty (the sysops), but who frequently contest with each other for power and the leader's favor (the well documented revert wars). These features are characteristic of fascism and other forms of arbitrary government as well as CP. The prevalence and seemingly unquestioning acceptance of this arrangement could provide an explanation for Herr Schafly's and Co.'s attacks on Wikipedia as possessing an active ideology and attempting to impose it: die Konservapediane cannot comprehend a truly decentralized group structure. --MountainTiger 22:43, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Amusingly, the Conervapedia Crew keep insisting they're a "Meritocracy". This bizarre claim makes a certain sort of sense, if you assume "Merit" is based on fanaticism, rather than factuality. --Gulik 23:31, 15 July 2007 (CDT)