You might recall I mentioned I am part of a Facebook group which discusses race, religion and politics and that I had kind of pulled away from it – partially because I’m writing the novel and have less time, but also because I felt there was not much to actually discuss: I was one guy of the off opinion and everyone else was pretty much on the other side. In the aftermath of Charlottesville, I was tagged in a post and so I kind of had to respond – I did, and I gained a great deal of insight, I think, into Progressive thinking on this matter.
When you see Progressives talk about the violence, always remember that in their view the “first punch” was thrown a long time ago – by the KKK, by the Confederacy, by Jim Crow, by the United States of America. In their mind, they are simply defending themselves against people who want them exterminated and they think that everyone who disagrees with their views are in the enemy camp. That is a very key point to remember: if you in any way, shape or form dissent from their Narrative, you are either an open or closet supporter of White Supremacy and thus are the enemy and a legitimate target for violence and intimidation. This is why Trump’s “all sides” comments enraged them so much – as well as his “there were fine people on both sides” comment. To the Progressives, their side was acting in self defense and all on their side are good, all on the other side are evil. To say otherwise means you are of the other side and thus are evil.
This makes it rather pointless to argue further with them. Any attempt to argue them out of their view just makes you, in their mind, a part of the enemy coalition out to destroy them. This is why – though I suspect they don’t fully realize it – people like Mitt Romney and Arnold Schwarzenegger are engaged in a suicidal action. They are glorying in the plaudits of the left at the moment because they have attacked the prime target of leftwing ire: Donald Trump. But the bottom line is that once Trump is gone – removed or completes 8 years, makes no matter – then these people of the non-left who “stood up” to Trump will find themselves once again cast in the role of enemy unless they completely subscribe to the Progressive viewpoint.
We’re dealing in the Progressives with people who simply do not live in a mental world created by the facts of what has happened – either today, recently or in the distant past. They have created a world view which is a compendium of a few facts out of context and fleshed out with a series of completely false assertions. They can’t surrender even one part of it or the entire edifice will collapse and one thing I know from studying history is that the most difficult thing in the world is to convince a person they are wrong. Most people will simply dig in their heels and get ever more agitated in their defense of falsehood rather than simply admit they got it wrong. A very few can switch over, but even then it usually happens not as a result of argument, but because they, themselves, found out that the world view they held was false. It comes down to what Solzhenitsyn said – “you won’t believe it until they hiss at you, ‘you’re under arrest!'”. In other words, only events happening to a person will really change their minds (it is also that old joke: a Conservative is a Liberal who got mugged).
What our Progressive friends don’t know – but all of them other than those who climb to the top of the heap will eventually know – is that everyone is an enemy. This is because Progressives require an enemy – an enemy to shriek at and get agitated about and fight: there has to be, because if there isn’t, then calm reflection starts to kick in and the Progressive world view dissipates like a sour fog. I saw a comment a couple days ago where some parts of the Progressive movement were wondering if light skinned people of color should defer to dark skinned people of color. This is the logical progression…of course the mixed-race will eventually become the enemy, just as gay people who just want to be gay and mind their own business are now turning into Progressive enemies because they refuse to join in the “bake the cake, bigot” ideology.
The fate of our nation now turns on whether or not the Progressive ideology prevails or is pushed back to the margins. If the people in their majority are stampeded into agreeing with the Progressive world view, then our nation is done. It will turn into a Progressive tyranny where one enemy after another will be pitched on to the bonfire until all is ruined. If the people see through the Progressive con, then they will stand firm and slowly remove Progressives from their positions of power. Time will tell. I don’t know how it will go.
Blogs For Victory 
I believe you meant: “A Conservative is Liberal is a who got mugged.” (Ed. Note: fixed) Regardless, you are being more generous to the opposition than I believe it deserves. The “liberals” against Trump break into two roughly two camps. The useful dupes who genuinely believe he is a threat to their values (and who believe in various liberal values) and the corrupt establishment and their minions that simply want power and will say anything to get it (and don’t believe most of what they say). The Democratic party has gotten so relentlessly corrupt that I don’t think the debate anymore is between different world views. It’s simply a debate against whether we want America run by a terribly corrupt organization or not. Sadly, much of the same could be said for the Republican establishment, but Trump at least as proven that there is some hope there. Whether you believe Confederate statues should or shouldn’t be removed, the bigger issue is whether you will support a group (Democrats) who are willing to use violence and lies to shut down debate and are happy to encourage destruction if they think it will help their cause. It’s really about the “rule of law,” corrupt groups don’t want laws to get in their way. The statue issue makes this perfectly clear, since Obama had eight years to try to promote removing them, but didn’t as long as he was in power.
Exactly: if the sight of a Confederate statue is that much of an offense, then we would have seen a lot more about this over the previous 8 years. As I’ve said, I’ve long felt that the statues honoring Confederates like Jefferson Davis and Lee should be moved – to a more museum-like setting (and, of course, anyone who wants to can make any statue honoring anyone they like on private property). But this is clearly a cooked-up issue – just like I’m more and more convinced that the fracas in Charlottesville was cooked up (and I wouldn’t be the least surprised if the leaders on both sides of the fight cooked it up, together: the leaders of groups like that thrive on that sort of thing…it allows them to rake money in from suckers). Now, as to why the Democrats would want this – because I think:
1. They really don’t have any other ideas: they can’t come up with a policy which might dislodge Trump, so they are hoping continual political agitation will.
2. The leaders of the Democrat party are afraid of their own base – back in September of 2007, when Obama was polling about 5% and Hillary was the all-but-certain nominee, I wrote a piece saying that Obama would be the nominee…because the Dem base wanted the Un-Bush…and of all the candidates running, Obama was the most distinctly non-Bush person there was. Once Obama started to surge a bit, rank fear brought the leadership of the Democrat party into line behind him…not that they wanted him (they wanted Hillary; they knew how lavish the gravy train would be with her), but that they were fearful to cross their own base. So it is, now: the bast wants shrieking hatred of Trump to be the order of the day, and so it is.
3. Some of them appear to think that by keeping things a 11 it’ll work to their electoral advantage in 2018 and 2020. It might, but I suspect it won’t: it is just firing up people concentrated in the same areas Trump didn’t need.
As for the GOPe – they really don’t like Trump. They would prefer Kasich or Jeb to be President so they could throw out a couple supposedly Conservative laws while just keeping things going. Absent that, they’d prefer Hillary…she’s an excellent fund-raising tool for them and they would always say, “hey, we’d like to do it, but we don’t have the White House”. The last thing they want is Trump…who is actually insisting upon carrying out his campaign promises.
The good news for Trump is that about 95% of the House GOP stands or falls with him, and they know it. They don’t dare move too far away…and probably 75% of the caucus is, at all events, actually on his side. In the Senate, the news is less good…overall, there are 5-6 GOP Senators who would love to burnish their credentials with their Democrat friends by bringing Trump down. But most of them still have to look over their shoulder, knowing that a good part of their own base is with Trump.
The key, right now, is for Trump to get as much as he can, and then fight like mad in the 2018 mid-terms. Make it a referendum on the Establishment…”Hey, I’m here fighting for you, but too many of these guys in Congress are undercutting me…elect more Republicans, and scratch a couple RINOs, and we’ll MAGA”. I do believe it would work – and I can see signs that he’s shaping it up that way. If the GOP gains House seats (they might) and, especially, if they can gain a net of 6 Senate seats, then the GOPe is entirely neutralized…we’ll have enough non-GOPe votes to simply roll over them, they’ll know it and so they’ll at last get on board.
We’ll see how it comes out.
I understand how hard it must be for a Republican who has been ardently anti-Trump to support the president, but I am sick and tired of these people being so short-sighted and self-involved. No, it is not a “matter of principle” to continue to attack Trump now what he is the president. These people are, as you point out, trying to “burnish their credentials with their Democrat friends by bringing Trump down” but they are also showing a reckless disregard for the big picture.
I believe Trump’s excesses could be controlled, if he could see himself as the CEO of a united coalition of people focused on solving problems. I can’t help but wonder how different his public persona would be if he knew he had the Republican Congress behind him, which was publicly supporting him and discussing differences in private. No one can stand up against opposition, especially such concentrated and fanatical opposition from so many directions, without confidence in those who are supposed to be on his side, and this is the position his own party has created for Trump.
There is a list of principles known as “the code of the West”:
1. Live each day with courage.
2. Take pride in your work.
3. Always finish what you start
4. Do what has to be done.
5. Be tough, but fair.
6. When you make a promise, keep it.
7. Ride for the brand.
8. Talk less and say more.
9. Remember that some things aren’t for sale.
10. Know where to draw the line.
I bolded # 7 because I think we need to keep this in mind. Trump is savaged for wanting loyalty from those around him, as if this is a bad thing, but it really comes down to two things—–being able to trust and count on those who are on your team, and knowing they are going to “ride for the brand”. That is, while they may have differences about various ideas and decisions, they deal with them within the organization, and present a united front. They ride for the brand. It’s a basic concept of principle and loyalty, and it seems to be in short supply.
Spot on. With one addition: the Democrats still hope they can impeach Trump and know they have enough votes on the Republican establishment side to do it, if they can find a compelling excuse to give GOPe cover. (Legally, they can impeach Trump for anything, he doesn’t have to have broken the law.) The fake Russian thing hasn’t panned out as they hoped (backfired mostly) and the sick thing is that I am sure there are some who are hoping that major race riots and death might give GOPe the excuse they need to impeach him. It’s really sick that that is even a possibility, but I’m afraid that is one of their strategies. (Let’s pray this strategy fails.) Charlottesville apparently was a set up.
Meanwhile, I believe the larger electorate is rapidly turning on Democrats, despite the MSM spin. I think you’re right that 2018 could be a disaster for them.
The second part of your joke is that a “Liberal is a conservative that has been jailed.” That is, that overzealous government authority can move people to embrace liberalism (at least classical liberalism). The problem is, for the last eight years it was the Obama administration that used the club of government to unfairly oppress (and even jail) people. Moreover, the new corporate SWJ movement effectively “jails” people (see Google) by forcing them to be silent about their opinions and accept opinions they don’t believe. (Most disgusting thing about the Google scandal was SWJ’s bragging they could blacklist troublesome people at other employers even if they quit the company.) So today, the Democrats represent the worse of both worlds, encouraging crime and disrespect from laws, while using powerful bureaucracies (the IRS and DOJ when Obama was in power, Google/Facebook when they are out) to oppress and force conformity on the law abiding. The “race riots” provide cover for these corporations to oppress free speech even more to supposedly fight against “hate.” (IE, ideas they don’t like.)
So again, this isn’t even about ideology anymore. Are we going to let America (and the world) be run by a corrupt underground who will stop at nothing or will we fight for liberty. (We can figure out the best ideology later.)
Re: Amazona’s code of the west which was well stated – nothing should ever replace the wisdom passed down through time, much of which has become just common sense. Items #2 thru #6 are fundamental lessons that should be taught from birth and that every kid should know – sadly that’s not the case. And #8 reminds me of my grandfather and the way in which he ran his life and business. He was like the old EF Hutton commercial – “when he spoke, people listened” and he never said a whole lot but everyone always knew exactly what he meant.
I was listening to some black Twinkie going on about wanting statues of Washington and Jefferson removed because they owned slaves, and wanting parks and buildings named after them to be renamed. It was typical Leftist hysteria. based on ignorance and shrouded in blind hatred of the United States and its “violent, bloody past”.
But then she got to the really bizarre part of her rant. She thinks these parks, for example, should be renamed for black heroes. She named three possibilities. I didn’t catch the name of the first “hero” she wanted to replace Washington and Jefferson, but she went on to name Jesse Jackson and Michael Jackson.
Yep, she wanted to disown the men who made this country possible, because she doesn’t like one aspect of their inherited status, and replace them with statues and public places honoring a vile and disgusting race pimp who has sold out his own race for fame and fortune, and a sad pathetic drug-addled pedophile.
These are the standards, as well as the ignorance, of the surly sheeple Left, as they offer themselves up to their masters and their goals of destroying the country.
Well, if we are going to officially make this a nation of mob rule, in which anyone who is offended by anything is entitled to pitch a fit, create a riot and squeal in outrage while imposing his or her personal sense of violation on the rest of the country, then we should just not have anything named for anyone, and get rid of all statues, period. Streets will be named by numbers, buildings and parks and so on will be as well, and there will be no public art of any kind anywhere in the nation. Because I can guarantee right this minute that I would be offended by a statue of Jesse Jackson represented as an American hero, and I would demand that it be removed to respect my feelings.
Gut the nation. Strip the nation of its character. Make it flat and featureless, held hostage to the delicate sensibilities of this mob or that mob. Because if one mob can tear down a statue of Washington, another can rise to tear down a statue of anyone else. That is, after all, what the Left is trying to create—-a nation of warring mobs.
I have said this before and Rush articulated it well yesterday.
“For 30 years, the Democrats have been able to call Republicans anything with impunity — racist, bigot, sexist, homophobe, and add on to that — and there’s been never any pushback,” Limbaugh said. “All there is, is Republicans trying to kiss up to the media so that they individually are not included in the smear. Well, this is what pushing back looks like, just like this is what trying to strip power away from the establishment looks like.”
He added, “This is what it looks like when you push back. It was never gonna be easy, and it was never gonna be pretty. Somebody is trying to save the Republican brand by defending it against all of these smears: Racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia. Too many Republicans have been conditioned to go along with the allegation and to ask for exemption from it.”
The rancor and tumult we are all witnessing is the apocalyptic establishment reacting to actual push back from every day Americans, specifically Trump. They are not use to being called out, being challenged, and being exposed for the frauds they are. Their entire lives and ideology are based on lies and falsehoods and if that fact ever reaches the mainstream, they are done. The media and the political elite are fighting for their lives right now and we need to keep the pressure on. Expose them at every angle, challenge them on every assertion, and ridicule them at every opportunity.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/08/17/rush-limbaugh-has-an-interesting-theory-on-why-the-gop-allows-leftists-to-tear-america-apart/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dailywire-reciprocity
Most people will simply dig in their heels and get ever more agitated in their defense of falsehood rather than simply admit they got it wrong. A very few can switch over, but even then it usually happens not as a result of argument, but because they, themselves, found out that the world view they held was false.
I can attest to this. As a converted Liberal, who refers to her old self as an “unexamined Liberal” because my putative political position was based on simple acceptance of rhetoric without any effort to look at it objectively or to examine my belief system, I know how hard it was for me to accept the fact that my entire concept of the politics of this nation was based on lies and effective manipulation of my emotions.
Even after I moved away from the Left, did my research and opened my mind and saw it for the ugly sham it is as it works to achieve its vile ends, I balked at actually voting (gasp!) REPUBLICAN. Even then the ingrained revulsion toward the word and all I had thought it meant was hard to overcome. Been there, done that, and know how hard it can be.
And it is this experience that forms my contempt for those who refuse to even try to analyze the foundations of their allegiance to the Left. Yes, I know it can be scary to face the fact that you have been wrong, but I also think it is cowardly to refuse to try.
As I have related, my turning point was when the women of the Left turned their backs on one of the most important tenets of their philosophy that of defending women who claim they have been sexually assaulted. I had been very sympathetic toward women whose histories had been dragged out and used against them, to shame and intimidate them, when they tried to get justice for sexual assault. I was apolitical, unknowing and uncaring about political nuance. I knew everything I needed to know, which boiled down to knowing Reagan was a moron and Republicans were awful, but I considered myself a Liberal because I admired the stance of standing up for and defending women. I wasn’t a Clinton fan——I had worked as a cocktail waitress when I was in college, and the first time I saw him and heard him speak, on the campaign trail, I pegged him as just another example of the sleazy lounge lizards who used to try to run their hands up my leg when I was working—so I was not surprised to hear of the allegations of rape and other sexual harassment. I wondered how this would affect NOW and the whole “women’s movement” as they were so smitten with him. When they lined up to not only support him but to viciously attack the women he had victimized, that was what slapped me upside the head and made me take another look at what I had simply, mindlessly, accepted.
When women didn’t even try to cling to what they had piously proclaimed as their high principles, and instead continued to fawn over Bill Clinton even when his spokespeople said things like “Paula Jones is too ugly to rape” I realized there was something profoundly rotten and corrupt at the core of this movement, and that is what nudged me toward taking a hard look at it and what it really stood for.
I don’t know what it would take for someone else. I just know (at the risk of sounding too self-serving) that while I was misled, I still at heart had respect for truth and wanted to know and do the right thing. And as more and more facts come out about the American Left in the 21st Century, and its leaders and heroes, I can’t help but feel that its followers do not have any regard whatsoever for truth, because there is no excuse for remaining faithful to a movement so repeatedly and thoroughly discredited.
Things that are turning liberals into conservatives:
1. Ghettos run by Democrats for 50-100 years that just get worse and worse. (And attacking people who work to improve ghettos as racist “gentrifying.”)
2. Sexual liberation getting turned on it’s head. (Now popular to attack people for their sexual preferences. If you don’t find someone attractive, you’re a homophobe/racist/oppressor. Criminalization of heterosexuality.)
3. Shutting down open debate about ideas. Destroying art you don’t approve of.
4. Favoring the rich over the poor. (Let’s put coal miners out of work and check out that new $200 a plate sushi restaurant.)
5. Favoring some religions over others. (Acceptance of Muslim extremism while attacking Christianity.)
6. One sided use of hate speech. (Notice all the homophobic references used to attack Trump, the sexist attacks on women who support Trump and the racist attacks on minorities who support Trump.)
7. Claiming electing old corrupt white liberals is somehow better than electing minority conservatives.
8. Promoting wars and bombing in foreign lands. Telling people to trust the CIA and shadowy government workers over Trump.
9. Encouraging a illegal system of effective slavery (illegal immigrants who must hide in a criminal underground and work for cheap) so rich people can have lots of low paid servants and farmers don’t have to modernize.
And yes, as you point out, an insane double standard about sexual harassment.
If anyone ever questioned the dishonesty of the leftist, agenda driven media, this account by Ann Coulter answers those questions. Behold:
……….protestor James Fields sped his car into a crowd of the counter-protesters, then immediately hit reverse, injuring dozens of people, and killing one woman, Heather Heyer.
This has been universally labeled “terrorism,” but we still don’t know whether Fields hit the gas accidentally, was in fear for his life or if he rammed the group intentionally and maliciously.
But so far, all we know is that Fields said he was “upset about black people” and wanted to kill as many as possible. On his Facebook page, he displayed a “White Power” poster and “liked” three organizations deemed “white separatist hate groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. A subsequent search of his home turned up bomb-making materials, ballistic vests, rifles, ammunition and a personal journal of combat tactics.
This is what we all learned in the media right? Now for the truth:
Actually, none of that is true. The paragraph above describes, down to the letter, what was known about Micah Xavier Johnson, the black man who murdered five Dallas cops a year ago during a Black Lives Matter demonstration. My sole alteration to the facts is reversing the words “black” and “white.”
Any questions? Oh and what happened to the Russia story?
And now a quick note from Jason Kessler, the guy who organized the rally in Charlottesville:
“Heather Heyer was a fat, disgusting Communist. Communists have killed 94 million. Looks like it was payback.”
And now a quick note ABOUT Jason Kessler, the guy who organized the rally in Charlottesville: emphasis mine
Jason Kessler was reportedly once a supporter of Obama
There is something fishy going on. A bit of interesting information is coming out about ‘Unite the Right’ Organizer Jason Kessler. After doing some digging, it has been discovered that the man who organized Saturday’s protests was once a leftist operative. More specifically Kessler worked with the infamous Occupy movement and was a major supporter of former President Barack Obama.
Mr. Kessler’s arrival on the “alt right” scene didn’t occur until November 2016. Interesting how that date coincides with President Trump’s election, wouldn’t you say? Prior to that, he participated in the Occupy Wall Street movement. This information was noted by the far-left, George Soros-funded Southern Poverty Law Center.
http://www.cscmediagroupus.com/matthew-deperi/jason-kessler-obama-supporter-occupy
That is why his vile hateful rhetoric sounds so familiar—it is what we have come to expect from the Left. I guess they have gotten away with so much, given all the cover they get from the Complicit Agenda Media, that they don’t even need to bring in an unknown to pose as a right-winger. They are so smug and confident, they just use a known radical Leftist, knowing the CAM will obediently identify him and his group as “the right”.
The only problem is that almost none of that is true.
Here’s the SPLC article being referenced (you’lll notice your “source” doesn’t actually give you a link to it, because they are hoping you don’t bother to actually read it):
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/jason-kessler
The specific passage:
“Rumors abound on white nationalist forums that Kessler’s ideological pedigree before 2016 was less than pure and seem to point to involvement in the Occupy movement and past support for President Obama.
At one recent speech in favor of Charlottesville’s status as a sanctuary city, Kessler live-streamed himself as an attendee questioned him and apologized for an undisclosed spat during Kessler’s apparent involvement with Occupy. Kessler appeared visibly perturbed by the woman’s presence and reminders of their past association.”
That’s right, your “sources” are citing a mention of their own accusations on SLPC as proof of those accusations.
The only bit that has any factual basis at all is that Kessler says himself that he was once an Obama supported. But the November 2016 timeline of him changing sides is also garbage. It’s a little harder to track down sources now that he’s deleted everything in his twitter feed and his blog, but here’s an archive.org capture of one of his blog posts from before the election:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170613033144/http://www.jasonkessler.net/blog/archives/10-2016
If I’m not mistaken, there are some regular commenters on this blog that say they used to vote Democrat, and let’s not forget that as recently as 2015, Trump said he liked President Clinton more than either of the two Presidents Bush (to his good friend Joe Scarborough no less). So you’re going to have to be careful with any purity tests you want to come up with.
Wait a minute. Are you using a citation in which a man (Kessler) is defending a program beloved by the Left and despised by white supremacists—sanctuary cities—- and also “… appeared visibly perturbed by (a) woman’s presence and reminders of (a) past association…” after she “…questioned him and apologized for an undisclosed spat during Kessler’s apparent involvement with Occupy.” ?
And you present THIS as a debunker of the assertion that Kessler was, in fact, involved with Occupy? AND that as one who did defend sanctuary cities he was also a white supremacist?
Catch up a little, Pajama Boy. One thing real white supremacists hate is illegal immigration. Duh.
What you just quoted was a paragraph in which Kessler’s affiliation with the Left is confirmed by his support of a Leftist agenda, one which by the way is antithetical to white supremacists, and a vague account in which it appears that he was “visibly perturbed” by the presence of a woman with whom he had had a “spat” which may have happened during an “apparent” involvement with the Occupy movement. You zero in on the one word “apparent” and hang your hat on that as some kind of dismissal of the claim that Kessler was, in fact, involved with the movement?
If, for example, the “spat” took place as a confrontation between someone objecting to the Occupy movement (in other words, probably not a Lefty) and someone mistakenly identified as someone with that movement (Kessler) a subsequent apology from the woman and her presence at a Leftist kind of meeting would hardly prompt a sense of perturbation so obvious as to be described as “visible”. In that scenario, he would have just said “No problem, people make mistakes” and not found it so upsetting. In other words, if the “spat” was due to a misunderstanding, a perception that Kessler had been part of something that was later found to be inaccurate, an apology for the misunderstanding would hardly make him visibly upset. Therefore, one can extrapolate that the woman’s association of Kessler with the Occupy movement was not the source of his visible discomfort, but that it had a different and possibly personal context.
Clearly, something in her comments made it obvious that she was referring to something that happened during a time that implied an association with Occupy as well as with her. And she apologized for the “spat” and he was, to quote the source as accurately as you did, “…visibly perturbed by the woman’s presence and reminders of their past association…”
There is nothing here that indicates that Kessler disputed the appearance or implication that he had been part of the Occupy movement. Therefore,your pathetic effort to use this to debunk the claim that he had been is, simply, pathetic.
Your guy may have been a thug, a Leftist thug flying a false flag to try to smear the Right, who got caught, and you don’t like it. Get used to it. It will probably happen again, as this is such a staple of Leftist deception.
Try, be careful of what you wish for, because it might not end up being what you want.
Kessler has been portrayed by the radical Left as a vicious right-wing extremist white supremacist bigot. That narrative has been challenged by people who say he was a plant, flying a false flag, who was really a Leftist activist and agitator and Occupy movement participant. As you seem dedicated to debunking the latter perception, you would seem to be supporting the first, and for some reason you linked to a blog post of his.
I went to your link, and then I went back into some of his archived blog posts. While I didn’t see the wild-eyed radical violent Leftist one would expect from an Occupy supporter, I did also reflect on President Trump’s efforts to point out that good and reasonable people can end up appearing to support bad causes. That is, that a serious person might find at least SOMETHING of value or at least importance in Occupy and want to check it out.
So, back to the assertion that the rally was organized by neo-Nazi white supremacists, specifically by Jason Kessler, I offer this early blog post of his from 2015.
The way I see it Americans are all too busy conforming to ever-more rigid, dogmatic & divisive agendas. Where is the party for free thinkers? I consider myself a free speech, pro-abortion, anti-affirmative action, environmentalist, non-interventionist, anti-Cultural Marxist, vegetarian, pro-equality atheist who has close Muslim friends but also recognizes the existential threat of Radical Islam & who recognizes the value immigrants bring to the United States but also recognizes the importance of entering the country legally. I know that’s a mouthful & what’s more, a narrow niche but certainly there are many of us who prefer our individual philosophies served a la carte.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170613031721/http://www.jasonkessler.net/blog/archives/12-2015
So maybe the question should be “who the hell is Jason Kessler and why do his statements sound like they come from so many people?” You sure seem to love your quote, and seem eager to use it to smear “the Right”.
What it shows is what I suspect among a lot of antifa and white supremacist people – mental mush by people who don’t really know anything but what was spoon fed to them in school supplemented by what they pick up on the internet. Any of these people would be instantly cured if they just read one book written, say, prior to 1980.
Jesus Christ, you are functionally illiterate. The link to Southern Poverty Law Center wasn’t to support my point, it was to give you the article your terrible source was citing in a duplicitous manner. The link to Jason Kessler’s blog was to give a specific, verifiable example of why the assertion that he suddenly became a white surpremacist exactly in November 2016 was garbage.
If you’re going to live in this country, you should learn to speak the language.
My goodness, Try, you are a pissy little thing, aren’t you?
Let’s take a look at what YOU posted: “And now a quick note from Jason Kessler, the guy who organized the rally in Charlottesville:
“Heather Heyer was a fat, disgusting Communist. Communists have killed 94 million. Looks like it was payback.””
Let’s take a look at what else YOU posted, a whine asserting that the SPLC quote did not mean Kessler was part of the Occupy movement, with a quote and a link.
All I did was use your own words, presumably words that describe your thoughts and beliefs, and show that the conclusions you assert were not supported by your quote or your link.
You made two assertions. One was that Kessler had not been moved to convert to white supremacism by the election of Trump, that “… the November 2016 timeline of him changing sides is also garbage.” But your link didn’t address that.
My comment merely pointed out the contradictions between identifying Kessler as a “white supremacist” (which YOU did) who organized the event (which YOU acknowledged) and his own self-identification as a Left-leaning supporter of, presumably, illegal immigration, given his support of the status of at least one sanctuary city.
This is associated, naturally, with the perception that the rally was not organized by Nazis or white supremacists, if Kessler was in fact the organizer of the rally. Because, I am typing slowly here to help you follow along, Kessler was never a Right-wing ANYTHING. Was never a white supremacist. But, as you yourself admit, he organized the rally. Kessler, if not a wild-eyed Leftist radical (by the tone of his blog posts, which BTW are still available through your own link) at least leans strongly to the Left and has an immigration belief wholly at odds with nationalists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Kessler’s own words support the perception that claims of a rally being organized by far-Right neo-Nazi white supremacists were really a false flag operation.
Sorry if you couldn’t follow that.
That is one of the points I made. Now I understand why this would upset you so—-and your little tirade certainly shows a strong emotional reaction to what I wrote. It must suck to be a Lefty who has to see lies from his side collide headlong with the truth and be shattered.
Get used to it.
As for the other claim of yours, that the SPLC article did not link Kessler to the Occupy movement, I addressed that pretty carefully as well.
There is absolutely NOTHING to prove, or even indicate, that Kesser was “visibly pertrubed” by being publicly linked to the Occupy movement. The paragraph references two things: One is that someone, possibly this woman, seemed to allege that Kessler had been part of the Occupy movement though the author could not or would not confirm that, and another was that he was “…“…visibly perturbed by the woman’s presence and reminders of their past association…” It does not say that this “past association” meant a reference to his involvement with the Occupy movement. As she was referring to a “spat” it is far more likely that she was referring to something personal that had occurred between them, resulting in a “spat”, that may or may not have been related in any way to their both being at an Occupy event or to a reference to him being associated with that movement. Two separate things. Possibly related, but not necessarily.
I understand the need/desire to try to to move Kessler away from the radical Left so you can tie him to a movement that is really also part of the radical Left but portrayed as being part of a claimed radical Right.
Here’s an example of what MIGHT have happened in the event cited by the SPLC article: (From the woman:) “Yes, I have a question about how to keep Charlottesville a sanctuary city, but first, Jason, I want to apologize for what I said at that last Occupy rally. I was way out of line to tell you that if you were more of a man you would be out throwing rocks at police instead of sulking in your tent writing bad poetry and trying to sort out your sexuality. You were right to get angry at me, and I was wrong. I’m sorry. Now, about sanctuary cities…”
That would qualify as a spat, an apology for the spat, and an explanation for why the woman’s very presence at the sanctuary cities event was uncomfortable for Kessler, and why that presence and her “… reminders of their past association..” caused him to be “visibly perturbed”. It would also explain why the author felt it appropriate to mention that Kessler had an “apparent” involvement with the Occupy movement.
I’m not saying this is what happened. I am only pointing out yet again, in yet another way, that there is no way the SPLC article can be spun to deny that Kessler was ever part of the Occupy movement.
Now, go take a pill and try to calm down, because your knee-jerk default reaction to being challenged, that of resorting to name calling and insults, is likely to get you deleted here. As it has so often in the past.
If you’re going to live in this country, you should learn to speak the language.
Oh, is that a Leftist policy now? Gee, just last week that was considered racist, elitist, nationalistic and totally unacceptable…
As it is, it appears that we are finally in agreement on something.
“Oh, is that a Leftist policy now? Gee, just last week that was considered racist, elitist, nationalistic and totally unacceptable…
As it is, it appears that we are finally in agreement on something.”
Oh come on. Is that what you took away from that?
All of my conversations with you devolve into this sort of nonsense. Somebody else asks a question, I answer it, and then you start screaming at me for broaching the subject. Or I post a link and describe the context of why I think it is important, and then you put on your detective hat and ramble through a bunch of guesses about my rationale, even though it is sitting right there in front of you. Or, like this, I make a single statement with the slightest bit of nuance, and you miss the point completely.
I’m not entirely sure whether it really is because you lack the ability to follow a conversation or if you just get so excited about the sound of your own voice that you have to skim so you can get to the part where you start talking as quickly as possible, but either way, it’s a bad look for somebody who tries so hard to wrap their faith-based political views in faux-intellectual cant.
The most ludicrous part is that this is all despite the fact that I try desperately to keep my interactions with you as simple as possible. There’s an obvious point to be made that actually doesn’t matter in the least whether Kessler is a “plant”, but I didn’t bother making it. I instead honed in on specific, factual claims and provided specific, verifiable evidence that they were false.
But I keep making the mistake of thinking you are capable of the basic process of making a statement, seeing contravening evidence presented, and then reflecting on said statement.
I assume this is the part where you delete my comments and then pretend you don’t have mod powers because I hurt your precious snowflake feelings (just in case you missed it, that was me repurposing another turn of phrase commonly used by a bunch of racists. I don’t literally think you’re a snowflake). That’s okay, though. The fact that you still can’t figure out what context the Southern Poverty Law Center link provided confirms what I should have figured out a long time ago: you are incapable of having a conversation, at the very least with me, and I should stop wasting my time.
Understanding progressivism is a lot more difficult than anyone believes. It requires a “willing suspension of disbelief” – case in point:
To be fair, us light-skinned and white-passing people cannot just snap our fingers and nullify colorism. We cannot return our privilege to the Privilege Store.
https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/08/light-skinned-poc-spaces/
Yeah, but just look at the title of the website. “Feminism” is now just another word for insanity.
As I said in my post about moving from the Left to the Right, I liked the idea of a political movement that supported the right of women to be respected. I grew up on a farm. A very poor farm. Actually, my father moved into town and started a business when I was young, but I spent my summers on my cousins’ farm working with them. Their family were tenant farmers, not even owning their own land.
So I grew up in an environment where women worked alongside men, where gender roles in the field didn’t really exist aside from those imposed by greater physical strength, for example. My aunt cooked and had babies, but also drove a tractor. I learned to drive in a 2.5 ton farm truck, as my cousins and I physically harvested the sugar beets my uncle’s poor old equipment missed. The girls and the boys stacked hay, milked cows, herded cattle, drove tractors and farm equipment, etc. So when I got older and wanted a good-paying job driving a water truck on a construction site, and was told no because I was a “girl”, I resented that. I was more qualified than many if not most of the men doing that same work.
To me, “feminism” meant only equal opportunity for women, and being treated with the same respect given to men.
Now the term is just a catch-all for a bizarre, insane conglomeration of various grievances, victimhood whines, hatreds, resentments and personality disorders, given a thin veneer of legitimacy by attaching a once-significant term to them.
But you know what I never see? Regarding “privilege” I never see a demand to nullify privilege that can’t be linked to the currently fashionable characteristics of skin color or wealth.
How about nullifying the “privilege” of athletic skill? Why should a man who is, through no effort on his part, 7 feet tall, who just happened to inherit some degree of athletic talent, be given any preferential treatment when it comes to playing a sport such as basketball? Shouldn’t we, as a nation devoted to “FAIRNESS” and “EQUALITY” do something to nullify that privilege? What about all the other people who love basketball and really want to play? Shouldn’t we find a way to “level the playing field” so all can play? Just letting overweight short people with no talent play alongside those with “privilege” wouldn’t be enough—we should nullify that privilege.
Then there is the “privilege” of beauty. Why should people who have the “privilege” of physical characteristics deemed most attractive by society have any advantage at all? Shouldn’t we, after we demonize beauty, work to nullify it, to “level the playing field” so there is no advantage? This is an area where yes, one CAN “return (that) privilege to the Privilege Store”.
There is a huge “privilege” in inheriting intelligence—though I have to admit, this is one privilege that is being actively nullified even as we speak, though the efforts of the Left to undermine education combined with their addiction to stupidity. Case in point: The whine of the quoted author, who snivels “To be fair, us light-skinned and white-passing people…” No, little chickadee, it is “WE light-skinned, etc.” This is another person actively working to nullify whatever intellectual advantage she may have been given, through her bad choices and poor education. But still, shouldn’t we have some kind of national, federal, agency to make sure that no one’s IQ provides any kind of “privilege”?
So I have noticed that there is ZERO coverage of the Boston Free Speech rally this morning that the media was breathlessly waiting for. Why you ask?
Well unfortunately there was no Nazi symbolism, no white supremacists, and the only violence was perpetrated by Antifa towards the police and one elderly woman holding an American flag, so obviously not news worthy.
I think maybe it is time to move on past the idea that marching, protesting and rallying achieve some purpose. I think it has become, for the good guys, just virtue signaling on steroids (“Look at MEEEE! See how much I CARE!!!!!) and for the bad guys it’s just an opportunity to have temper tantrums and an excuse for violence.
Remember that whiny old Lefty bumper sticker—“What If They Gave A War And Nobody Came?” In the context of a war, that was just stupid, but in the context of meaningless parades, marches, rallied and protests I think its time has come.
What was accomplished by the Boston Free Speech Rally? A bunch of nice people got to make a statement, gave some thugs a chance to break some heads, and aside from that—-meh.
I don’t mean that good people should be silent, or intimidated into staying in their own homes with their ideas. I am just saying maybe we should try to come up with other ways to express ourselves and leave the streets—-and the gutters—to those for whom this is a natural habitat.
There was a time when the sight of thousands of people marching for a cause had great symbolism and sent a message. Now, however, the only message sent is one of violence. So if Nazis want to march, let them—and ignore them and stay away. There isn’t much drama in seeing a few remarkably ugly people strutting down a street with vile signs. The drama comes from the conflict with opposing marchers. Take that away. What kind of media coverage would such a march generate? I’d say little to none—-but the real story would be in interviewing those who declined to play the game. This is where the spokesman for the Right would say that good people, honest people, people who want the best for the nation, don’t believe in mob rule and don’t want
to give mobs of anarchist thugs the attention they are seeking.
It would not be capitulation. It would be refusing to be pawns in a sick and ugly game.
Offhand I can’t think of ways for good people to express themselves as a group, but I’m sure there are some. But what we are doing now is providing the Left with the very things they crave—-lots of publicity, lots of opportunity for violence, and lots of air time to let them try to convince the country that it is the Right that is the problem.
Look at where we are now. The Left has intimidated whole police departments, those they don’t control politically, to be afraid to act to protect the public. Between lawsuits and assassinations, they have defanged our police so much that law-abiding marchers are at the mercy of the Leftist mobs. So putting oneself in the proximity of a mob protected by the police, without such protection for yourself, is just plain dumb. Not to mention counterproductive.
One idea: We are a mobile society, mobile in the sense of spending a lot of time in our cars. I think a billboard campaign might be effective——ANTIFA: FASCIST THUGS PRETENDING TO OPPOSE FASCISM. Or: NOTHING IS MORE FASCIST THAN TRYING TO SILENCE FREE SPEECH. Bumper stickers—I REFUSE TO BOW TO THE RULE OF THE MOB. MOB RULE IS UNAMERICAN. Maybe run lots of ten-second TV ads with just those messages in white text on solid backgrounds, with a voice reading it. Whatever. Messages that, if often seen, may start to percolate through the defenses of the Dem apologists and get it through to them that these mob tactics are despicable.
Those of us who have studied the Left in its many worldwide incarnations, and realize that what we are seeing now is the takeover of the Democrat Party by the international Left, know the pattern of them invading peaceful gatherings with mobs of violent thugs, It is their history, it is in their DNA. It is what they do. I saw it starting to gain a foothold here in a big way when they started to infiltrate TEA Party rallies, and use False Flag tactics such as carrying racist signs to create the false impression that the TEA Party people were really white supremacists. They got away with it. Then they moved to infiltrating Trump rallies, using the same general tactics. They weren’t wholly successful there because Trump called them out on it, but they did score some points. Now they basically OWN the territory of street rallies.
The OCCUPY movement got a black eye when it was obvious that they were the only ones rioting, committing vandalism, destroying property and being violent. There were no opponents so there was no conflict, and it was obvious that they were just anarchist thugs. Ditto for the black riots that destroyed neighborhoods and property, resulting in looting and general thuggism. No, they NEED someone on the other side, to let them create a narrative of legitimacy or to create a false impression of malignance on the Right. I think we need to stop giving them what they want and need.
I think we need to stop giving them what they want and need.
I am on board with this. In fact, let’s take a step further and deny them respect and even an audience. When Schumer speaks on the Senate floor I would like to see every Republican just walk out. When a progressive democrat opines on the assorted tv talk shows, let him speak but just ignore what he says, refuse to answer any of the absurd assertions and simply move on to the next guest. In other words, treat them as non humans. They are well deserving of that treatment.
“When a progressive democrat opines on the assorted tv talk shows, let him speak but just ignore what he says, refuse to answer any of the absurd assertions and simply move on to the next guest.”
I like this. The host could acknowledge the statement, say “Now we know what _______ thinks about this” and then move on to the next topic. If the Lefty howls and screeches, demanding a rejoinder, the response would just be “This is a place to exchange ideas, which doesn’t happen when people just yell over each other. You presented your ideas. Next…”
Personally, I think we need a show where there are no Progressive guests. I think Rush is so successful because he can present ideas without interruption, doesn’t have to get sidetracked into pointless and counterproductive arguments, and can appeal to the intellect rather than to the cage-fighting mentality of the Left. Hannity is the closest we have to this on TV right now, but I don’t think he is very articulate, and he tends to wander off into his own mental scripts. The Five is closer, as while it has a Progressive on the show he isn’t a temper tantrum type who just tries to outshout everyone else.
We learned here on this blog that a Lefty seldom, if ever, brings anything of value to the blog. They just want to do the blog equivalent of pooping on a police car, dropping a load to stink up the place and then hoping they won’t be cut off.
BTW, have you ever seen anything funnier, or more illustrative of Leftist mentality, than people giving the finger to a toppled statue? Proudly, repeatedly, on video, guys rushing in to take their turn at flipping off a piece of bronze. It cracked me up.
I’d also like to see a conservative TV host, or all of them, listen to a Lefty tirade (if there is insistence on giving them air time) then comment that this has been just another example of how the Right is FOR things that are productive and useful, while the Left just howls AGAINST ideas and people.
I’d love to see a TV host calmly note “Well, Mr. ___________, I listened to what you had to say and didn’t find one single thing in it that was positive or helpful. As long as all you have to offer is negativity and attacks, I don’t think we’ll need to have you back again. I’m sure there is room for you on CNN. ” And then stick to it.
“Well, Ms. __________, as you don’t have any respect for what anyone else has to say and seem to think you are entitled to just screech over everyone else to drown them out, I don’t think we’ll be wanting to invite you back here again. I’m sure anyone who cares what you have to say will look for you on CNN.”
A consistent rejection of Leftst tactics and a consistent message that Leftists will only be allowed on conservative stations if they allow dialogue might go a long way toward weeding out the screamers. I would start each show with a disclaimer announcing this rule, and that anyone who just tries to drown out others will have his or her mic turned off and will not be shown onscreen while others continue the discussion. Disruptions will be met with a program going to a pre-recorded segment if it is necessary to remove someone from the set—and then I would show video of the screaming, fighting Lib being hauled off by security. Better yet, have everyone else just move to another set in another room and leave the Lib there my himself, and call it Time Out For Tantrums.
An idea has been percolating in my brain for a while, developing a little at a time till the recent efforts of the Left to go all-out in branding the Right as racist led to the False Flag efforts in Charlottesville. And that is the careful development of racial distrust in people who have no inherent racism in their makeup.
For many years, this country had been moving toward and to a great extent had arrived at acceptance by white people of black people as people, just plain people, who happened to have dark skin. That is, at the goal of Dr. King, who dreamed of a time when people would be judged by their character and not by the color of their skin. While there were certainly some holdovers from the Bad Old Days of some whites feeling that black people were inherently inferior, these codgers were dying out, and there were fewer and fewer to replace them. In the meantime, mixed-race couples no longer drew even a curious glance, black and mixed-race families were prominent in advertising (which to me was proof of declining racism, as corporations were no longer afraid of alienating customers by showing black and mixed-race families in an arena ruled by the dollar) and black actors were getting parts not traditionally written specifically for black actors. Forget about polls and politics—–we were becoming, at least to most whites, a color-blind society. The vast majority of white Americans, and a lot of black Americans, just didn’t care any more.
Then along came Barack Obama. For me, the turning point was not Obama, but the Reverend Wright. No, that is not true. It was the beautifully dressed, affluent and articulate middle-aged black woman who proudly and somewhat smugly said, in a TV interview, that the vile, vicious and totally racist teachings in Wright’s church were not new, and that while “white folks” were surprised to hear how “black folks” really felt, these teachings and attitudes had been mainstream in the black communities all along. My response to her was visceral, and angry. It was “Well, what the hell. Why have I been arguing for, supporting and even fighting for racial equality when the people I have been supporting have, behind my back, amongst themselves, hated me and what I stand for, and been actively rejecting it?”
That was almost ten years ago, and that whole Obama/Wright/racial hatred justified by hateful invented “theology” thing was the beginning, I think, of the focused movement on the Left to undo what had been done, to push the races apart, and to generate as much mutual distrust and dislike between them as possible.
I know that for me, it marked a change in how I saw black people. For decades, because I have never for even a moment in my life even entertained the possibility that the color of one’s skin had anything to do with intelligence, honor, or anything at all good or bad. It was just pigment. As a melanin-challenged super-white woman, I have never seen pigment as a negative., I have always been very casual in my relationships with black people. And I felt the same in return. To me, it was always just that this person is tall, that person is blonde, these people have dark skin, so what? And suddenly, being told that so many black people had been making nice with white people to their faces while secretly hating them behind our backs, while participating in hateful anti-white rituals, I lost that cheerful assumption that while some other people saw color first I and the black people with whom I was associating didn’t.
Then anti-white sentiments became openly evident, part of the daily narrative of life in the United States. We had an Attorney General who told his staff that his office would no longer prosecute black-on-white crime, who looked the other way when a black supremacist group openly advertised a bounty for the death of a white man who had shot a black man in self defense—who actually overrode the local investigation and made it federal, thereby feeding the lie that the killing was racially motivated. We had blatantly justified police killings of a few black miscreants blown up into allegedly racist incidents, and a president and administration at least tacitly supporting the meme and the subsequent riots.
In a decade, all the progress made in race relations was blown up in an explosion of federally supported anti-white violence and hatred. In a decade, even people like me started to develop a sense of distrust of many black people, as they showed such glee in their denouncement of us—BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF OUR SKIN. We became the objects of hatred and violence BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF OUR SKIN. Every single tenet of the decades of fighting for civil rights and all of the progress made were wiped out. The original goal of all races living together in peace and harmony, accepting each other for who we are instead of what we look like, was ridiculed and stomped on and tossed into the gutter.
So when I look at what may be a rise in white supremacist groups (and I don’t necessarily believe there has been such a rise, after seeing the many False Flag tactics of the Left) I think that it can be put firmly at the feet of the focused intensity of the Left in actively fomenting black hatred of whites. The Left is brilliant at manipulating the emotions of people, and it is entirely predictable that if one race can be manipulated into expressing both hatred of and violence toward another there will be a predictable backlash of reciprocal racial animosity.
Just stop and think about where we were, as a nation, racially, in 2000. Before the callous and despicable fanning of racial hatred by the Left in its James Byrd anti-Bush ad, before Al Gore announced that the goal of the Republicans was to put black people back in chains, before Barack Obama and the Reverend Wright and Eric Holder, before the tacit and sometimes blatant fanning of racial distrust if not hatred by statements from the president, before the Complicit Agenda Media (AKA Official Tool Of The Left) media in developing the Trayvon Martin narrative. We weren’t perfect, but we were pretty darned good. We were getting there.
The Left has pushed, pulled and dragged this country as far back as it could, and it has no intention of stopping now. As far as race relations go, IF there is a surge in white supremacy movements, IF this is not just another page in the Left’s playbook of lies and tricks, it is a natural outcome of the Left’s callous (and, sadly, successful) campaign to get black Americans to express hatred toward white people and to accept violence as a natural expression of that hate.
“We are a nation of cowards” – Eric Holder
“A white mans greed runs a world in need” – Barack Hussein Obama
“I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution” – SC Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Then there is the racist element, in which a belief that white people are better than black people is somehow automatically related to politics, and not personality disorders. That’s convenient.
So let’s start with my observation that the allegation of white supremacy being related to the Right is arbitrary and serves only a very callous political purpose, without any serious context of actual political ideology driving these groups.
Now, on to the media. Here is a typically toxic and vicious article on HuffPo. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/charlottesville-right-wing-extremism_us_5994c097e4b06ef724d629ad
It starts out, with typical Leftist hyperbole and spin, ” WASHINGTON ― The death of 32-year-old anti-racist protester Heather Heyer at the hands of a white supremacist on Saturday was the most recent of at least 65 fatal incidents perpetrated by right-wing extremists in the United States since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The incident in Charlottesville is indicative of how far-right extremist violence has surged in the intervening years, as federal law enforcement efforts have shifted attention toward the threat posed by jihadist terrorism, former counter-terrorism officials and experts say.
Conservative media and Republican politicians who oppose federal crackdowns on far-right extremist ideologues encouraged this shift, and presidents from both parties have acquiesced to the pressure. This process has only accelerated since the inauguration of President Donald Trump, who defended the white nationalist and white supremacist protesters who marched in Virginia, by saying there were some good people among them and equating them with anti-racist counter-protesters.
The president and his aides support gutting efforts to counter violent extremism stemming from white supremacy and other racist ideologies in order to divert funding to anti-jihadist measures. The administration has already cut funding to the group Life After Hate, which works to rehabilitate white supremacists.
It’s clever, I will say that for it. Full of innuendo and outright lies, but clever.
at the hands of a white supremacist Hmmm. And this is related to Republican ideology—how?
Let’s look at an article about the killer, James Fields.
http://time.com/4900814/charlottesville-driver-accused-beating-mother/
Samantha Bloom, Fields’ mother, who is disabled and uses a wheelchair, repeatedly called police about her son, James Alex Fields Jr., in 2010 and 2011, telling officers he was on medication to control his temper, transcripts from 911 calls show.
………………….
Records show that Fields was arrested and put in juvenile detention after his mother reported in 2011 that he stood behind her wielding a 12-inch knife.
……………………………..
In another incident in 2010, she said her son smacked her in the head and locked her in the bathroom after she told him to stop playing video games.
…………………………….
He just really laid on about the French being lower than us and inferior to us,” said Keegan McGrath.
………………………………..
Fields also confided that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was younger and had been prescribed an anti-psychotic medication, according to the teacher, Derek Weimer.
So here we have a young man with a history of mental illness, a diagnosis of schizophrenia, who had been prescribed an anti-psychotic medication, who had been arrested for one incident in which he beat his wheelchair-bound mother, who had attacked her on at least one other occasion, who had repeatedly been reported to the police, who had been in juvenile detention for threatening his mother with a large knife, who thought “the French” were inferior to “us” (whoever that “us” might have been) and who was attracted to a group known for its violence and depravity as well as its racial intolerance, and who had been prescribed medication to “control his temper”. And, naturally, to the Left this translates into an affiliation with 21st Century American Right, which is based on a coherent political philosophy which in no way relates to a single thing in his history.
The narrative of the Left, repeated so gleefully by the Huffington Post, is not that he was a seriously disturbed person with a history of diagnosed mental illness, inability to control his temper and episodes of violence, who was attracted to symbols of hate and violence. No, he was, according to Huff Po, merely a “white supremacist”. None of the other markers of his mental illness were considered. Just this one aspect. And, of course, in the same sentence this is linked to the Right when it continues ”…. the most recent of at least 65 fatal incidents perpetrated by right-wing extremists”
So now, in one sentence, his entire history of uncontrolled rage and severe mental illness and his history of violence completely unrelated to race is converted into an ideology of right-wing extremism exemplified by a commitment to white surpremacy. Is there anything on the American Right even vaguely related to race? Aside from a commitment to equal rights, no. But this fact is irrelevant to the toxic agenda of such as the HuffPo.
Then the article doubles down on the “right-wing extremist” meme with ”… The incident in Charlottesville is indicative of how far-right extremist violence has surged in the intervening years,… with its predictable seque into an indictment of the federal government (as in, Trump administration…) with ”…. as federal law enforcement efforts have shifted attention toward the threat posed by jihadist terrorism…”
Aha. Now they have the federal government, as in the Trump administration, as part of this whole invented “right-wing extremist white supremacist” bogey-man.
” Conservative media and Republican politicians who oppose federal crackdowns on far-right extremist ideologues encouraged this shift…” and then, of course, this “shift” ”… only accelerated since the inauguration of President Donald Trump..”
But wait—it gets even more vicious and even more dishonest, first lying by claiming that President Trump ”… defended the white nationalist and white supremacist protesters.. and claiming that he ”… equat(ed) them with anti-racist counter-protesters.”
No, to paraphrase the President, even well-meaning people who are not motivated by hate or violence can be caught up in events.
Not content with this libel, the author continues: The president and his aides support gutting efforts to counter violent extremism stemming from white supremacy and other racist ideologies….” How open-minded of the author to acknowledge there are other racist ideologies, though of course this is in the context of implying that conservatism IS a “racist ideology”.
The article implies that a racist Trump administration singled out the grout “Life After Hate” for defunding, implying nefarious racist motives, of course. Yet it was part of a program that was defunded. It was not selected for defunding.
The Obama DHS was using its tax dollars to fund a number of Islamic groups and much of that money will now go back to law enforcement according to DHS Secretary John Kelly.
DHS has also dis-invited those same groups from a 2017 Islamic ‘Iftar’ dinner where they were able to show their political influence to the ambassadors of wealthy Islamic countries. Obama had invited them at the last minute before he left the White House.
The Department of Homeland Security has announced a revised list of the organizations which will get DHS funds. The purpose is to help prevent young Muslims from becoming jihadis. The new list replaced an Obama list announced January 13, 2017 that included an $800,000 grant for an Islamic seminary in Los Angeles, and a $393,000 grant for a linked organization, the Muslim Public Affairs Council Foundation.
The DHS new funding list eliminated grants to several additional organizations. They included $400,000 for Life After Hate Inc., $499,998 for the Somali-focused Ka Joog organization in Minneapolis, $40,000 for the Muslim American Leadership Alliance, and $396,585 for Unity Productions Foundation.
http://americantoday.news/breaking-homeland-security-just-defunded-millions-from-obamas-funding-of-islamic-groups
If Life After Hate can prove that it has been effective, they can apply for a grant. It looks like the group’s name, which is not very descriptive of its agenda, just appeared in a list of other groups not deemed necessary by the DHS. Instead of trying to spin this as a support for white supremacist groups and neo-Nazis, what would be productive would be to try to get it reinstated, if it can be proved to have been effective.
Of course, HuffPo don’t do productive. HuffPo does hate. But they not only create a false and destructive narrative, they continually promote it, and influence the beliefs of millions.
An article about Tony McAleer, who founded Life After Hate. Reading it, you don’t find a single reference to any true Right ideology. But he has some interesting observations about hate groups. (emphasis mine)
By 2009, he had connected with the other members of his group, and they began producing Life After Hate as an online journal. In 2011, he and the other members were invited to Dublin to participate in a Google Ideas summit with others who had left violent extremism behind.
“It was surreal. You had guys from the IRA, guys who had been in for murder. Guys from the Ulster Volunteer Force. You had the former president of Colombia and Farc there at the same time. Red Brigades, Baader Meinhof, mujahideen, six skinheads, the Bloods, the Crips, MS13.”
When the Life After Hate crew talked to people in and around the conference, they discovered that many people had stories similar to their own, irrespective of the details of the organisations they had become involved in.
“Look at the histories of the young men who were arrested for the attacks in Brussels and Paris. They are not scholars of the Qur’an who found Isis through their interpretations. They’re street kids. They’re troubled youth. The need to be involved in something meaningful comes before the ideology.
After that conference, the Life After Hate network firmed up their mission. They now collaborate on research into hate groups. More importantly, they provide a support network for “about 40” people throughout North America who are in various stages of the journey away from violent extremism.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/life-after-hate-groups-neo-fascism-racism
So no, Life After Hate was not just about white supremacists. Too bad it hadn’t reached the worst hate groups in the U.S., such as BLM.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/08/21/exasperated-woman-fed-up-with-blm-and-the-media-spare-me-your-white-guilt-and-your-black-pride/
I think the Antifa movement has gone so far that it is getting backlash from the demographic is is supposed to impress–that is, moderate Democrats and Independents.
Why do I get this impression? From the first hint of Leftist revisionism about it and what it represents. I saw this in a “Comments” section following a Jonah Goldberg article on NR.
Antifa isn’t real, it’s a figment of right wing fear.
I might be reading too much into this, but I expect a withdrawal of support for Antifa, accompanied by claims like this one—-that it is really just “a figment of right wing fear:. As in, it doesn’t even exist, outside the fever dreams of right-wingers terrified of—–whatever. That “fear” may have to be pinned down later. But for now, the opening salvo may have been fired, in the latest attempt to rewrite history.