The Wikipedia entry for apophasis, the rhetorical technique of raising an issue while claiming not to mention it, says,
As a rhetorical device, apophasis can serve several purposes. For example, It can be employed to raise an ad hominem or otherwise controversial attack while disclaiming responsibility for it, as in, “I refuse to discuss the rumor that my opponent is a drunk.” This can make it a favored tactic in politics.
Apophasis can be used passive-aggressively, as in, “I forgive you for your jealousy, so I won’t even mention what a betrayal it was.”
From an article by Oliver Wright in yesterday’s Times called “Louis Mosley: Our critics are putting ideology over patient safety”:
It was, by any standards, a very personal attack.
“No-one should be judged by who their parents or grandparents are,” Zack Polanski, the Green Party leader pronounced at a recent campaign event — before proceeding to do just that.
“But this is a man who is the grandson of Oswald Mosley and still insists on wearing a black shirt every single time he is on TV.” The subject of Polanski’s vitriol was Louis Mosley who, by dint of genealogy, is the grandson of the 1930s British fascist leader.
I do not wish to divert attention from the many legitimate concerns about the use of Palantir’s data-gathering software – originally developed for police and military use – during the Covid pandemic and in other civilian contexts, so I won’t even mention what a hypocritical rabble-rouser Zack Polanski is.
This sort of thing brings me back to one topic that I have always been curious about which is how a convincing argument is often different than a correct argument. People are emotional and complex and so what convinces someone is a mess of different things that play on those personal realities rather than a logical set of data and those data’s consequences. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is that it is easy to convince someone of something they want to believe is true, much harder to convince them if they don’t want it to be true.
I was also thinking about this in regards to the big brouhaha surrounding our former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, and specifically her husband’s, what shall we say, peculiarities? FWIW, I was never a fan of Noem’s appointment, I think she was better off sticking to regional politics. But it did strike me how dishonest that random house member questioning her was. She dressed her questions up in all sorts of “national security risk” and “shows good judgement”, but it was all an excuse to reveal she was boinking one of her staff members. She is a good looking lady, so good for him, good for her. But it is all just playing dress up to put out a salacious piece of gossip, especially one that’ll last for a long time in the social media space.
As to her husband, the hypocrisy of the whole thing I just find silly. I mean so the guy has some weird fetishes, I doubt most of us would want our kinky preferences to be revealed out in public. But he was doing no harm to anyone, it seems his wife knew all about it (and he seems to have known about her extra curricular activities too), so really who cares what gets his motor running. Nobody got hurt, everybody had a good time, nobody’s consent was violated. It is particularly galling coming from the left who have a view, one of the few I agree with, which is “what people do in the bedroom is nobody else’s business.”
But it is just salacious gossip to dirty up people and presumably hope that the dirt spreads a bit wider, rather than actually engage in serious discussion of substantive issues. Which I suppose is a good choice because if your “serious substantive issue” is cutting of the penis of young boys and the breasts of young girls, or defunding the police, or letting hordes of foreigners enter the country unvetted and untracked, then I’d probably want to talk about anything distracting too.
Fascism is Collectivism (look at the symbol of the bound rods and the axe) – it is economically socialist, either by direct state ownership (Fascist Italy had the second largest state owed sector in the world – 1st was the Soviet Union), or by what called “German Socialism”, of General Ludendorff in the First World War (far more extreme state control than France had in the First World War – as shown by Ludwig Von Mises in his “Nation, State and Economy” which condemned German War Socialism) – but dating right back to Fichte and other philosophers, of nominal private ownership – at the service of the state.
How this was indeed socialism was explained by Ludwig Von Mises in his “Omnipotent Government”, and by F.A. Hayek in his “Road to Serfdom”.
This economic policy of Fascism and National Socialism is endorsed by “Zack Polanski” and his “Green” Party.
The above is fairly well known – but Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn made a lesser known, but vitally important, point.
It was not just economically that the Nazis were leftists – it was socially (culturally) as well. The Nazi movement, especially the SS, rejected the cultural traditions of Germany and of Western civilization in general – for example traditional Christianity, and the traditional family. Humans, even of the “master race”, were, basically, cattle (livestock) to the Nazis – with there being nothing above the state about the family, no connection to the Christian God via Holy Matrimony (a union of souls – not just bodies).
In this also the Greens agree with the Nazis – the rejection of social and cultural traditions shaped by Christian (traditional Christian) principles.
That the Greens also agree with Nazi environmentalism is obvious.
Lastly hatred of Jews.
“Zack” (David) would say “how can you accuse me of hating Jews – I am a Jew!”
But the Jew who hates other Jews is a well known historical type, and it is clear that “Zack” wants the seven million Jews of Israel to be wiped off the map – plus “capitalist” Jews, who (in his mind) “exploit and oppress” in other lands.
The Nazis also used this argument to justify their final solution of the Jewish question – they did NOT justify their mass murder by saying that Jews were “different” (the claptrap that is trotted out today to explain the mass murder) – NO the National Socialists were specificthe Jews had to go because they were “exploiters and oppressors” – exactly the anti capitalist “Social Justice” argument of “Zack” and his fellow Greens.
“Social Justice” is a fancy term for stealing – and it ends in mass murder.
See also:
“Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?” / “When did you stop beating your wife?”
Most people on this planet do NOT live under “Justice Systems”.
They live under the yoke of LEGAL Systems. HUGE difference.
But as one “legal” acquaintance put it:
“Only a child expects the world to be just”.
And when the “enforcement agencies” draft the laws for the pollie-muppets to “enact”, you have a “police state”.
Javert ROOLS!
“People are emotional and complex and so what convinces someone is a mess of different things that play on those personal realities rather than a logical set of data and those data’s consequences.”
I thought that this was demonstrated by the response to video of a turtle with a drinking straw stuck up its nose. Banning plastic drinking straws was the most ridiculous emotion driven response imaginable. No actual thinking involved at all.
“Only a child expects the world to be just”.
Is this why socialists want the state to act as a surrogate parent from the cradle to the grave?