Hermit is attempting to enforce a Stalinistic stranglehold on exposure to news here, by endeavoring to coerce people not to even view news posted by a source - me - who has a bad habit of dropping inconvenient facts in his little lockstep cyberswimmingpool.  He actually seems to believe that perception equals reality, and if you don't hear about it, it never really happened - all in the service of proselytizing - and mandating, where people will allow him too - his dogmatic-faith-based perspective on events.  As Nietszche once said about the Christians of his day, faith is not wanting to know.  But Hermit is much worse than that; he actively wants NOT to know anything that upsets his delusional little applecart, and furthermore, doesn't want anyone ELSE to know, either - kinda like homeschooling Biblical creationists are about evolution.

He loves to do what any extremist does: since there is no one to one side of them, he slanders all those to the other side as either ignorant, malevolent, or dense; for him, it is a matter of total, anything-goes memetic war, which is why he once logged on under a fake nick (calling himself my dead mom) and accused me of fucking her rotting corpse.  No means is beneath him, so long as it serves his ends, and he has consistently employed Alinskyite means

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'..."

    "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'

    "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."

in order to achieve Gramskian ends

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci

that is, the suborning of popular opinion to facilitate a democratic nation being rendered communist from within, by incremental means, and eventually surrendering its sovereignty to a United Nations comprised of a minority of constitutional democratic republics and a majority of theocracies and totalitarianisms.

What is hilarious about it all is that I am a social liberal.  I am for equal rights and opportunities for all regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, and belief system, and opposed to intolerance on the basis of these issues.  I am pro-choice on abortion, and as long as we are speaking of consenting adults, I am pro-pot-legalization, pro-legalized-gambling, pro-gay-marriage, pro-legal-prostitution, pro-legal-pornography, and pro-assisted-suicide, because in free societies there must exist a panoply of legal choices to decide between, including some which we would not personally choose for ourselves; only in totalitarianisms, theocratic or otherwise, are all life decisions either mandated or forbidden.  In other words, I'm all for maximizing individual freedom as far as we can while still maintaining a modicum of common sociocultural cooperation, cohesion, sense of identity, and sense of trust.  I think that basically all people should have all freedoms that do not contradict with the same freedoms held by others, and where conflicts between competing freedoms inevitably arise, they should be resolved via equal and proportional compromise.  But of course he misrepresents me as some sort of regressive knuckle-dragging neanderthal simply because I am, quite consistently, for all of these things not just within the US, but around the globe - and for constitutional democratic republics with guaranteed civil and economic rights and political participation, too, and am willing for my nation to help oppressed citizenries topple their totalitarians and theocrats and then facilitate the incubation of participatory democracy so that the people ground since living memory under bibles and bootheels in such nations can learn ways in which they can arrange matters so that they become able to make their own personal, political, and economic life choices, and vote for their own leaders and thus be able to sway the future courses of their own nations.  It would seem that Hermit self-contradictorally plays lip service to such ideals at home, but embraces their enemies abroad.  Or maybe he just believes that only certain kinds of people possess the genetic or conceptual wherewithal to succeed at democratic self-government.  Maybe he believes in maintaining such freedoms at home, while not concerning ourselves when they are viciously abrogated abroad.  But we are all one single human family, and as such, existentially speaking, the freedom of each is the business of all.  Nevertheless, our US foreign policy differences are stark.

I see Republicans, especially the Socon types, as pushing to expand civil rights and personal freedoms abroad while striving to diminish them at home, while I see Democrats, like Hermit, apparently, doing just the opposite; pushing for the expansion of domestic rights and freedoms while not caring a fig about anyone else's.  Both of these are, of course, self-contradictory in complementary, correlatively opposite ways; to be logically consistent, one has to desire for rights and freedoms to either be expanded or diminished BOTH domestically and internationally - not expand one and diminish the other.  Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Christian Dominionists and Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church clearly have the universal diminishment base pretty much covered, and since I have a sneaking suspician that whatever they desire for their fellow human beings must be ipso facto brutal, cruel, evil and/or wrong, I have consistently embraced the opposite stance of vocally desiring expanded rights and freedoms for all homo sapiens, both domestic and foreign.

It is surpassingly obvious what Hermit is against; he is against the US and any country that befriends it.  What is far less clear is what it is exactly that he is for (he has never, as far as I know, laid it out as I just did, and I, for one, would like to see him try).  Is he for constitutional democratic republics?  Apparently not, as he excoriates nations founded on the popular election of their governments, while lauding those with nonexistent or sham elections.  Is he for personal freedom?  That can't be the case, since he makes common cause with the most totalitarian of nations, as long as they are anti-American.  Is he a militant secularist?  That also cannot be, since he sides with the most cruel, brutal and religiously intolerant theocratic regimes against a nation that has enshrined the separation of church and state in its constitution.  Is he against discrimination?  Impossible; he embraces the most anti-Jewish, anti-woman and anti-gay nations on the planet - nations that legislate Jew-hatred into their polity, legally reduce women to chattel, and routinely execute homosexuals - while sliming those who stand against such heinous practices.  Is he an anarchist?  It's hard to see an anarchism siding with instances of its correlative opposite, totalitarianism.  In fact, although there can be many flavors of collectivist totalitarianism, each proffering their own unique reasons why their forced subsumption of individual freedoms under group exigencies is necessary, there can only be one pure anarchism, as it permits of no government whatsoever to which various and sundry justifications might apply.  Constitutional democratic republics, otoh, occupy the sweet spot sensible center moderate mean between the two extremes of Scylla anarchism and Charybdis totalitarianism; they recognize the necessity of reaching and acting upon common consensus in order to accomplish for the common good things, essential things, that individuals cannot, and have entrusted the citizenry at large to elect representatives to carry out majority will or else be defeated for re-election, so long as the minority still retains guaranteed fundamental rights that are constitutionally enshrined and cannot be electorally abrogated.

So, is Hermit indeed communist, as Gramsci was, or is he instead fascist?  This is no idle question, but his raging antisemitism reveals no clue, as there are plenty of both left and right antisemites.  But the difference between them is, of course, in what is the primary governmental rationale for their seizure of power and control from the individual citizen and their imposition of coercive collectivist mandates.  His neo-isolationism most certainly echoes that of the fascist-friendly Charles Lindbergh and his America First! political movement prior to WW II.

The sine qua non of communism is a classless society, so communists endeavor to justify their oppression of individual liberty by claiming that it is necessary in order to erase class distinctions.  The justification that the various and sundry theocracies employ is a divine mandate for religious rule revealed in ancient texts. This is why communists and theocrats can aspire to global rule through coerced conversion, but fascists don't have such an option available, for fascism's excuse for totalitarianism is grounded in the purity and supremacy of a particular tribe or race.  They cannot convert other races; they can only subjugate and ultimately exterminate them, and replace them with members of their own race.  This is why communists and theocrats are internationalist from the get-go, while fascism is, initially, a nationalism, anchored to blood and soil, before the carnage commences and populations are replaced.

However, since all of these systems are variations of totalitarian collectivism, differing only in their excuses for abrogating individual rights and liberties, nothing prevents individuals from harboring sympathies for more than one of these rationales simultaneously, and this is where I think that Hermit resides.  I think he truly is a totalitarian class utopian (as practically impossible as such an ideal might in reality be, for reasons of individual disincentive) - it's just that he appears to think that certain pesky people who are members of particularly troublesome groups - Jews, for instance - need to be cleansed first.  This aspiration appears to be much dearer to his heart than disabusing fundamentalists of all religious stripes of their injurious delusions.  It cannot be that he despises their religion but not their ethnicity, for such a claim would not explain or excuse his priorities; he certainly cannot credibly claim that Jewish fundamentalists are either as numerous or as extreme as the Muslim variety, or even the Christian kind, and yet he embraces ayatollahs who anathematize Jews with eliminationist religious rhetoric and homicide bombers who love to kill even women and children so long as they are Jews so much that they are willing to die in order to do it and think that such murder is a ticket to a hedonistic Heaven, while condemning a nation - the only constitutional democratic republic in the area, surrounded by theocracies and totalitarianisms - that so much as exercises the right to self defence against jihadis specifically.  No wonder he loves to post columns from antiwar.com - a Jew-Hate Junction where far left antisemites such as John Pilger and Justin Raimondo and far right antisemites such as Charley Reese, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul converge - and from the notoriously antisemitic Ron Paul sycophant site lewrockwell.com, where John Pilger, Justin Raimondo, Pat Buchanan and Charley Reese also post.  Left and right birds of an antisemitic feather flock together.

So my considered opinion of Hermit is that he is a collectivist totalitarian antisemite, of either the communist or the fascist variety or both, who cozies up to brutal theocracies and totalitarianisms because they hate the Jews he also despises, and also hate the democracy that the US embodies.  If this is not the case, his stances on the various foreign policy issues that divide us are rendered quite incomprehensible.