Anarcho-liberal-socialistic-fascialidocious!
Here's a pretty old post from the blog archives of Geekery Today; it was written about 15 years ago, in 2009, on the World Wide Web.
I’ve got to hand it to Charles Lawson at the Reno Gazette-Journal. This may be the single most ideologically confused — and confusing — pair of declarative sentences that I have read in my adult life.
Getting back to [filmmaker Michael] Moore, he’s nothing more than an anarchist in liberal clothes. As a socialist, he’s following the lead of Nazi Germany, which many don’t know started out as a socialist state.
You may simply take this as an object lesson in how low the intellectual standards for Op-Ed page political tirades are, or how carelessly many people throw around temrs without regard for their meanings (even when those meanings are not only different, but opposite from each other) once they start trying to make political digs. But for me, the remarkable thing about this passage is that it serves as a masterpiece of the efficient use of language: how many passages do you know where the author can utter only 2 sentences, asserting only 3 simple propositions between them, and yet manage to pack in at least 6 different errors about politics, history, and contemporary pop culture?
Follow
It reminds me of Slate’s dolt-in-chief Jacob Weisberg trying to pin the financial crisis on libertarianism.
I think I can one up that quote:
Getting back to [filmmaker Michael] Moore, he’s nothing more than a Marxist-anarchist in liberal clothes. As a socialist, he’s following the lead of Nazi Germany, which many don’t know started out as a communist state.
.I had no thoughts for this. Then I had 2:
The first was that I almost wanted to get Dondero to comment on this post for the lulz.
The second is that getting thrown into an absurdly confused bundle of political labels might be an indicator that anarchism’s visibility is growing.
This is even better than when Michael Medved started using the term “Islamo-Nazis.”