What Green MP Caroline Lucas should know about Liberal Fascism…

In today’s Guardian Britain’s first and (thank Gaia!) only Green MP Caroline Lucas tells us that climate change is “one of the greatest threats” to Britain since the Second World War. Her solution is for Britain to “mobilise as a nation in a way we haven’t seen since 1945″.

(to read more, click here)

18 thoughts on “What Green MP Caroline Lucas should know about Liberal Fascism…”

  1. Bit rich of you to describe everything not remotely extreme rightwing as fascism when liberatrian fascism would have gladly layed the red carpet out for the Schutzstaffel. Drink out of the piss pot of your grandmaster misinformer Goebbels. Heinrich’s rectum cleaner than the surface of a silicon wafer. In fact, you look so much like Himmler he would have graciously taken you on as his favourite grandson. Both of you spectacle chinless wonders could feed off each others’ hate agenda.

  2. “a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)” – definition.

    Delingpole – must be related to Ann Coulter. Is just as clueless and make stupid nasty remarks and gets paid for it.

    What skills do you have apart from writing drivel?

  3. Just trying to translate the previous comments, in the interests of civilised discourse, I presume that Groper and Chris P disagree with your definition of fascism. It’s a little hard to tell. Groper’s argument seems to be that libertarianism would have been as useless as the Weimar constitution was at preventing the rise of the Nazis, before wandering off in some comparison with Nazis, although if anyone can add a verb to the silicon wafer comment it might help.

    Chris P – having read quite a few in-depth studies of the phenomenon (may I rec ommend Roger Griffin’s “Modernism and Fascism”), yours is perhaps the worst definition I’ve seen as it only seems to refer to the structure of government rather than attempt to tackle anything about beliefs; fascism is hardly unique in advocating “authoritarian hierarchical government” now, is it?. I’d suggest that any definition must at least have a reference to the total state control, such as Mussolini’s “nothing outside the State” comment, as well as the notion of rebirth and attaining a break with the past, what Griffin calls a “palingenetic myth” or “Aufbruch”.

    I’d suggest that Delingpole getting paid for “making stupid nasty remarks” is more impressive than you two doing it for nothing.

  4. Lol. Just seen you on Horizon. Thank God youre as nutty as TV as you are in print. You came across as a total geek without the ability to process simple arguments. ‘I resent the fact that you know more about this than I do..’ *Loves it* Thank God we wont be seeing you on TV *Dances*

  5. Just witnessed Delingpole (degree in Eng Lit, not much else) telling Sir Paul Nurse (President of the Royal Society, Nobel Prize winner and a lot more) how science works, with a perfectly straight face. And some say he has lost his sense of humour.

  6. Groper

    I see you’ve taken up the socialists usual debating stance: throw emotional shit around because you’re all out of ammo on the actual facts.
    Just for your info fascism is the corrupt partnership of Govt and the big fat corporates. It’s actually what Nu Labour became under Nu Socialists like Blair when they worked out they were total shit at running anything and they needed private expertise.
    So you cannot be a “libitarian fascist” it’s an oxymoron which describes you pretty well too.
    No why don’t you f**k off and find an argument you arse wipe

  7. Chris P

    When it comes to writing drivel James has a lot to learn from you. That’s because from the day you were born your Union shop steward father (closet Marxist) has taught you not to think but to take up the mantra (bile) of Karl Marx.

    You’ve replaced thinking and listening and learning about how the world works with accepting a century old jealous retarded German twats thinking of how it works. He talked drivel, your father taught you drivel and you talk drivel.

    Zombies R Us (it runs in the retarded socialist family tree)

  8. James

    Caroline Lucas is a retard and fits in well at that toilet of the country, Westminster.

    I know Danny Boy is friends with this factually dysfunctional incognitively f**ked air headed leftie loon so I don’t want to say anything too harsh against the loony bitch you understand.

    But rarely have i watched a debate where at the start she cried about our melting world drowning in rising sea levels. And at the end said we needed to get the green message across in a less shrill and hysterical way, but more down to earth trying to get across the benefits of changing from private cars to public transport!

    I think she’d had way too many uppers before she got on stage and realising overdosed on downers near the end in the interim completely forgetting her words and that she was coming across as a schizo freak not quite of this planet.

    As i said, should fit in well at Westminster

  9. The problem is, I don’t think Velocity or Delingpole know exactly what libertarianism is about. Just their blind loyalty to it. But one thing for sure about libertarianism, is its loathsome attitute to anything left, centrist or mainstream; and its preaching of taking America back to its founding fathers. Just like the Nazi movement’s staunch anti-communist stance and the mission to take Germany back to its traditional roots.

    And funny, perhaps, not so, just so happens it was borne out of the knee jerk reaction to America’s first president of half black decent.

    Libertarianism is fascism… of the Nazi order…

  10. Manuel, I’m not here to impress you with anything. But the fact that you seem to admit to being impressed by Delingpole’s stupid remarks says a lot about you…

  11. In last nights Horizon programme Delingpole said he didn’t have time to read scientific papers on climate change. Why not? If he spent half the time learning enough basic science to understand the relevant papers and then reading them as he does slagging off the climate science community – on the basis of second-hand cherry picked and distorted information (and some downright lies) – he could actually end up knowing his bum from a bath towel on the subject. I am ashamed to have attended the same school as this shallow lightweight (though about 20 years earlier)- but then I did study science and not English literature!

  12. Velocity

    My father wasn’t the source of my knowledge or opinion. Seeing how clueless Republicans and libertarians are about science and the environment was the basis for my opinion on those clowns.

    “Fascism” is being used here totally out of context. Liberals are not Mussolini. You know it but want to emulate Limbaugh, Palin, Beck and Coulter. Throwing outrageous snarky remarks around rather than contributing to solutions for the future of the planet.

    It’s all you’ve got.

  13. On a couple of side notes:

    1: Your peformance on Horizon last night was less than extrordinary; understand the Peer-Review process and gain some sort of reasonable scientific understanding before you have the audacity to critisise any of it.

    2: Take into account all of the data when examining the issues concerning Global Warming and don’t just cherry-pick data to suite your own ends. A Rank Correlation Coefficient between the percentage of global CO2 levels and average yearly global temperatures will yeild some quite interesting results.

    3: Based on your “About Me” page, you write in meaningless generic buzz words, don’t you?

  14. Hi D Segal,

    The peer-review process is just just what it says on the label: an old boy’s mutual back-slapping, mutually citing, “I’ll pass your papers if you pass mine” piece of obsolete politics masquerading as science.

    Did you know that Newton’s Principia overthrew the groupthink peer-reviewed orthodoxy of Aristotle, that Darwin’s Origin of Species overthrew orthodox creationism, and that when Einstein first experienced peer-review by the editor of Physical Review in 1936, he immediately replied to the editor that he objected and would never publish there again?

    Do you seriously believe that relativity could ever have been published in a peer-review culture stuck in Maxwell’s mechanical aether?

    Really?

    I doubt it.

    Kind regards,
    Nige Cook

Comments are closed.