Stu Burguiere discusses Italy’s new Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, and the American Left’s misunderstanding of “What Fascism Is” — “Italians have voted for a new prime minister, and the American Left can’t stop calling her a ‘fascist’.” THIS WAS EXCELLENT!I had to clip “Stu Does America’s” episode #579 titled: “The Left Is Obsessed with Fascism, But Has NO IDEA What It Is” — see my POST TITLED SIMILARLY.
I thought this was funny and have to kick off this long post with a hat-tip to LIBS OF TIC-TOC FANS for it:
I was elated when the Supreme Court overturned Roe and Casey. I first heard it was a 6-3 decision, but Clay and Buck dissect that a bit on their show. So it was really a 5-4 split. What a Justice Warrior that wimp is. The first thing I thought of however… was my use of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1996) case to make a larger point — which now has to be amended a bit to say this is the goal of the progressive Left, rather than law… law. Here is an excerpt from my post WHAT “IS” FASCISM?
(Originally posted in August 2007 on my old blog; brought here originally in May, 2010; Updated April, 2015)
Agree or Not?
This is a combination of two posts, the first was a question I posed to someone in a forum. Below you see what that question was and where I led that person. The second is a bit of political science. Both repeat some of the same idea, but both are different.
So let’s highlight the first question by a court case that has, well, institutionalized the “post-modern” society. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1996), the 9th District Appeals Court wrote:
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”
In other words, whatever you believe is your origin, and thus your designating meaning on both your life and body is your business, no one else’s. If you believe that the child growing in you – no matter at what stage (Doe v. Bolton) – isn’t a child unless you designate it so. You alone can choose to or not choose to designate life to that “fetus”. It isn’t a “potential person” until you say it is first a person. Understand? That being clarified, do you agree with this general statement:
“If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own reality…”
Sounds really close to the 9th Courts majority view doesn’t it. The above is basically saying that your opinion is just as valid as another persons opinion because both are yours and the other persons perspective on something is formed from influences from your culture and experiences. So someone from New Guiney may have a differing view or opinion on eating dogs than an American.
Let’s compare a portion from both statements:
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life…”
“…the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own reality…”
Whether you’re an atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian or Muslim, it doesn’t matter. Your reality is just that… your reality, or opinion, or personal dogma. I want to now complete one of the quotes that I left somewhat edited, not only that, but I want to ask you if you still agree with it after you find out who wrote it.
Ready?
“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”
Mussolini, Diuturna pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.
Here are some highlights to a conversation I had with an 18-year old.
Another response I followed up on the heels of this is that Democrats now believe men can give birth as well as menstruate. They couple this idea with men cannot “tell” a woman what ta do with their body regarding abortion… why?
Dem Witness Tells House Committee Men Can Get Pregnant, Have Abortions
The White House’s 2022 fiscal year budget replaced the word mothers with birthing people in a section about public health funding, prompting ridicule Monday from President Joe Biden’s conservative critics…. The pro-choice nonprofit NARAL defended use of the term, tweeting, “When we talk about birthing people, we’re being inclusive. It’s that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it’s not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body.” (NEWSWEEK)
This young man mentioned the it (the baby) is not it’s own person, to which I noted: different blood type, different DNA, brain waves, heart beat, fingerprints, and the like. Conversation turned to how the law should equally be applied to all people. I steered it to the idea that if a pregnant woman is violently attacked and her baby is killed, the perpetrator can be charged with murder. Life is precious if she was planning to have a baby. Or, an hour earlier the same woman could walk into a clinic and agree to have a doctor kill her baby. This is the only case I know of where the woman can decide “what life ‘is’ and if a criminal act has taken place.”
Then I brought up the racial aspect of abortion, via the founder of Planned Parenthood, and my recent response [that day] to the SCV NAACP’s post about Roe being overturned:
The linked video in my post is this one:
This youngster had some misunderstandings of babies being adopted versus put into orphanages.
Larry recalls a conversation with Gloria Allred where she mentioned that abortion is supported by the “penumbra” of the Constitution: “the partially shaded outer region of the shadow cast by an opaque object.” Lol.
RPTs ANSWER RESOURCE
IT IS A HUMAN LIFE ~ THE ONLY QUESTION IN THIS DEBATE
➡ Again, aside from religious arguments – biology and medical expertise put the conception of human life at conception (WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN)
NOT A RELIGIOUS CAUSE
➡ I showed some well-known atheists who get the importance of this idea as well (they are students of history… and one of these people in the video is my favorite atheist polemicist ~ Christopher Hitchens):
BIBLE
➡ The Bible clearly view the baby in the womb as human:
WOMEN’S RIGHT
➡ I posted a video of one of a few women who are survivors of abortion:
…it should be noted when Obama was Senator he voted to pass legislation that would allow doctors to take such babies and place them on a table to die from lack of care and food…
DEVALUED LIFE
➡ …In 1997, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate against SB 230, a bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions. In the US Senate, Obama has consistently voted to expand embryonic stem cell research. He has voted against requiring minors who get out-of-state abortions to notify their parents. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007. (for more info see: THIS DAY CHOOSE LIFE <<< CAUTION-GRAPHIC)
➡ A 2008 study by National Center for Health Statistics found that 33.1% of women have at some point considered adoption. Of that number 4.9% were currently seeking adoptions. That’s 901,000 women looking for babies. By most recent statistics, there are approximately 129,000 children seeking adoption. Now I’m no mathematician, but that’s 772,000 women who want to adopt a child, but will not. It seems that if we killed less of our children, this would not be a problem. Shoot, even if we take the women who were currently seeking adoptions AND had already begun taking steps – 560,000 – there aren’t enough children to go around.
(An aside: someone does not have to adopt in order to speak to all these issues)
RAPE
➡ In a very powerful DVD 22 people are interviewed that either were given birth to by a mother who was raped and chose life over the horrible crime as well as some in the presentation who are mothers talking about why they chose life (here are descriptions of a couple DVDs. I noted on my site as well Rebecca Kiessling’s story of being conceived from a rape:
PUSHING MORALITY
➡ “Do you believe the government should be able to force someone to become a parent?” Well? This is precisely what is being done by the government à as I speak! You would argue that the government should stay out of your affairs when choosing whether to become a parent (i.e., to abort or not), however, you wish the government to be involved in telling the father that he has to become a parent and supply all the necessary needs for that child. Thus, you are forcing your morality on me Susan (as a defined group) and using the power of the Federal Government to boot!!! You cannot say any differently with what I just have shown above. This belief is self-refuting and shows youto-be-the hypocrite, and not me. You see… I am for equal rights under the Constitution. A “right” has no “moderation (see below). You, on the other-hand, are for special rights inferred upon groups of people. ~ See the rest of this conversationHERE.
Discussions and Afterthoughts
I wish to start the conversation off with a quote from our Founding Documents:
The Declaration of Independence: The Declaration of Independence states that our unalienable rights are, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of our magnificent nation, reinforces this American creed by the fourteenth amendment; “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
The first unalienable right is life. As a result, the unborn have the right to life. To deny it to them is not only morally wrong, but also anti-American. It is anti-American in the sense that by supporting abortion, one is also going against the Declaration of Independence. Prenatal humans are still human beings since the moment of conception, and so they have the same right to life as the humans that are already born. It is hypocritical that human beings after birth deny the right to prenatal human beings, since the humans after birth get to exercise their right to life. The prenatal human beings have the same right, and so, they should be allowed to exercise their right to life.
The second unalienable right is liberty. Many people that are pro-choice states that it is the freedom of the woman that is pregnant to decide whether to abort the child or not. They arguethat since it is her body, she should have the right to choose. It is contradictory to this idea of liberty, for the unborn child does not have a say in the matter, and as a result, it is against the liberty of the unborn child. The moment a woman becomes pregnant is the moment that the body of the woman is no longer only hers, for there is life in her womb. Another aspect of abortion as a threat to liberty is that the government classifies prenatal humans as not human, just like in the case of slavery, in which slaves were not considered humans, and so the slaver masters that were considered humans were given the right by the government to treat the slaves however they wished. To permit abortion is equivalent to permit slavery, for prenatal humans are still humans. If one understands that slavery was wrong, one must also understand that abortion is wrong.
The third unalienable right is the Pursuit of Happiness. Abortion is against this right as well, for the unborn child was denied the right to pursue his or her happiness. How will he or she be able to pursue happiness if he or she was already murdered by the process of abortion? Prenatal human beings have the right to happiness, just as human beings that are already born do.Another aspect of abortion that threatens this right is that many of women that chose abortion start regretting their decision and as a result, start feeling depressed. These women thought that abortion would help them solve their problem, but instead, it hurts them internally in the long run. In short, abortion is a threat to happiness, and if Americans want to pursue happiness, they must abolish abortion.
The purpose of our government is to secure these three unalienable rights. However, when the government allows for abortion, they are not securing these rights. Roe v. Wade, which was a 1973 Supreme Decision holding that that a state ban on all abortions was unconstitutional, is a decision that is going against these three rights. If one truly understands the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of this country, one will be against abortion, for it threatens the country’s basis. Therefore, the Declaration of Independence is a pro-life document since the moment it became ratified.
This leads into a conversation with someone from Australia that apparently does not get the idea that the only reason the law need step in in this issue is to protect life… and this is the main point of the above points in the post. Our Constitution says we cannot own another person. So the topic is is the baby in the mother’s womb, human. This is what was said immediately after the post:
“is it a human life” is absolutely NOT the only question in this debate- and this is what I mean about people wanting to make this a black and white issue when it clearly isn’t.
I responded:
(Question after explaining Being)
Besides all the well argued points in the links about medical textbooks, biology, atheists, etc. ….
Another argument I personally like is the argument from “being.” This is a complex issue and is intimately tied up in some forms of the cosmological argument (example: Kalam Cosmological Argument ~ History and Argument).
Being. Traditionally the most important philosophical category, the term is derived from the Greek ontos; hence the area of philosophy that deals with it is called ontology. In ancient and medieval thought it was a fundamental category. In Hegel it is the starting point of all the categories. Recognition of the importance of the term as pivotal to all serious philosophical discussion continues today and has been developed by Heidegger and many others. ~ (Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy, by Geddes MacGregor)
Being is a subject-matter of ontology. According to a long tradition, there are kinds of being and modes of being. The kinds of being may be subdivided in various ways: for instance, into universals and particulars and into concrete beings and abstract beings. Another term for “being” in this sense is “entity” or “thing.” in a second sense, being is what all real entities possess – in other words, existence. Being in this second sense has various modes. Thus the being of concrete physical objects is spatio-temporal while that of abstract mathematical entities like numbers is eternal and non-spatial. Again, the being of some entities (for instance, qualities) is logically dependent upon that of others, whereas the being of substances is logically dependent.
Connected with some of these traditional categorical distinctions are certain grammatical distinctions concerning the verb “to be.” the use of “is” as a copula may be interpreted in a variety of ways. “This ring is yellow” features the “is” of attribution, since it ascribes a quality to a substantial particular. “This ring is golden” involves the “is” of constitution, as it states what kind of material that particular is made of. “The ring is my grandmother’s wedding-ring” features the is of identity. Finally, “This object is a ring” involves the “is” of instantiation, since it states what kind of thing the object in question is an instance of. Thus, although being yellow, being golden, being my grandmother’s wedding-ring, and being a ring are all properties of this ring, they are properties of very different natures. Moreover, none of these properties constitutes the being of this ring, in the sense of constitution its existence. “This ring is (exists)” apparently involves a sense of “is” distinct from any which in which “is” functions merely as a copula.
What is it to be a being or entity? Here we must distinguish between the question what it is for an entity of any given kind to exist and the question what is the distinguishing feature of entityhood…. In a special, restricted sense the term “being” is commonly used to denote a subject of consciousness (or self), and thus a kind of entity to be contrasted with mere “objects.” Such entities are often supposed to enjoy a special mode of being inasmuch as they are conscious of their own existence and posses a capacity freely to determine its course – a vie elaborated in the existentialist doctrine that, for such entities, “existence precedes essence” (Sartre). ~ (The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, edited by Ted Honderich)
Three features of the argument are central. First, proponents must spell out what it is to be a dependent being; this is done by appealing to what is called the essence/existence distinction. A beings essence is its whatness or nature and its existence is its thatness (that it is). Proponents argue that one cannot move from a finite thing’s essence to its existence. By contemplating Fido’s dogness it does not follow that Fido really exists. If he does exist, being must be given to his essence. ~ (Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity, by J. P. Moreland)
Can you refer to yourself in your mother’s womb without using personal pronouns? Were you less of a person (having “being”) in the
Right out of the box I get this:
So are you also anti-war and anti-death penalty Sean?
The death penalty and war are based on persons who are not innocent. The baby in the womb has not killed anyone.
Clear enough… a thinking person would have connected the idea that the analogy breaks down, and maybe they would get into another topic? Nope.
You don’t think innocent people ever die in wars? You don’t believe innocent people have ever been put to death for crimes they didn’t commit?
I’ll take that as a “no, I am not anti those things”. Ok. So the issue is not whether or not it is a “person” then, you can NOT say that is the only issue.
There were over 20,000 innocent people that were said to die in the days and weeks of D-Day. Are these deaths due to the allies, or Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, and the like?
My point has been made.
Someone else chimes in:
No it has not
You can NOT say the issue is ONLY if they are people or not because you are ok with SOME people dying, even some innocent people. You just said it!
The person is missing the idea that the only time our founding documents would [read here, should] kill the innocent fetus is if the mother is going to die, like in a tubal pregnancy where in which the fetus develops in a fallopian tube. LIFE is the only issue in this… in this case the life of the mother is more important than the life of the baby in the womb… LIKE collateral damage in war. Wanting to pursue educational goals without the encumbrance of pregnancy is NOT a LIFE question. Continuing to comment on the previous response: “My point has been made.”
You haven’t made one… if you think you have — well — I don’t know whether to laugh or wag-my-head.
REMEMBER THIS NEXT SENTENCE!
Perhaps I should find more intelligent people to discuss this with.
I am willing to have an open discussion- you just want to declare you are always right and proselytize. Pointless.
Going to continue on the point the person thought they made and was done with…
So the allies are to blame for innocent deaths stemming from D-Day?
The person notes they are from Australia:
I don’t know. I have not studies American history, I am not American.
Dodge One
Are you claiming innocent people NEVER die in wars at the hands of the “good guys” (who ever they may be)?
Are you denying that innocent men and women have been put to death for crimes they did not commit?
Please answer these 2 questions directly.
The normal person would know that I already have, but I will try and re-word it, re-explain it for her:
Australia was an Allie. Do you think the innocent people Aussies killed in WWII were their fault or Germany’s, Italy’s, and Japan’s?
Probably Australians, if they fired the guns.
Now please answer my questions.
Sorry, The onus is on the evil guys.
By “onus” I mean the loss of innocent life in a war is the blame of the tyrants, dictators, and persons who think themselves deity.
Should we stop all court proceedings because once-in-a-while cases are decided wrong?
I am just following your logic to its conclusion.
I did not claim that did I? Why can you not answer a direct question? It’s so bloody annoying.
I have.
ALL babies are innocent,
ALL people killed in wars are not innocent [if they are they arecollateral damage, and the blame is on the tyrants, dictators, and persons who think themselves deity.],
nor are ALL the people on death row innocent.
The analogies you are attempting is a non-sequitur.
Keep in mind as the conversation progresses there are multiple points being responded to. So I talked about following ideas to their logical conclusions, which is the first response. The second was my repeating the same thing in a different way which finally clicked as a response to her question.
So we should just lock up all women who try to have abortions, I’m just following your logic to its conclusions” See how that shit gets us nowhere? Do you want a discussion or do you just want to be able to prance around in front of your son and tell him how right you always are?
No, you had not answered it, thank you for finally doing so.
I make the point that her contention about jailing mothers is not the position of ANY pro-lifer:
No, if abortion is made illegal (which will not happen), doctors would lose their license and/or be fined.
I did not deal with this myth, or, how abortion clinics are not run safely “above ground.” Women die in these clinics all the time because of lack of regulation. But the “coat hanger/back-alley” abortion thing is a myth. But here I will post a quick response:
…While preparing the League’s handbook, Sharing the Pro-Life Message, my staff and I searched high and low for evidence of an abortion ever having been performed with a coat hanger. We found none.
That isn’t to say it never happened. We know that women did attempt to do abortions on themselves, using all manner of objects. But I never found any specific evidence of a coat hanger abortion—until now.
Who Gave Her the Idea of Aborting Herself with an Coat Hanger? What’s unusual about this case of a confirmed coat hanger abortion is that it isn’t one from the archives. It happened in 2009.
I came across the story in an article in Slate on women who decide to perform their own (illegal) abortions, despite the ready availability of legal abortion.
An account of the case says a 19-year-old woman pregnant with twins attempted to abort herself with a coat hanger and ended up in the emergency room. The babies died and the woman required a hysterectomy; she will never bear children….
“If abortion is made illegal, tens of thousands of women will again die from back-alley and clothes-hanger abortions.”
For decades prior to its legalization, 90 percent of abortions were done by physicians in their offices, not in back alleys.
It is not true that tens of thousands of women were dying from illegal abortions before abortion was legalized.
The history of abortion in Poland invalidates claims that making abortion illegal would bring harm to women.
Women still die from legal abortions in America.
If abortion became illegal, abortions would be done with medical equipment, not clothes hangers.
We must not legalize procedures that kill the innocent just to make the killing process less hazardous.
The central horror of illegal abortion remains the central horror of legal abortion.
“Abortion is a safe medical procedure—safer than full-term pregnancy and childbirth.”
Abortion is not safer than full-term pregnancy and childbirth.
Though the chances of a woman’s safe abortion are now greater, the number of suffering women is also greater because of the huge increase in abortions.
Even if abortion were safer for the mother than childbirth, it would still remain fatal for the innocent child.
Abortion can produce many serious medical problems.
Abortion significantly raises the rate of breast cancer.
The statistics on abortion complications and risks are often understated due to the inadequate means of gathering data.
The true risks of abortion are rarely explained to women by those who perform abortions.
What the left here in the states want to do is not allow the states (per the Constitutional rights states have) to put limits on abortions. For instance:
Seriously, my ONLY point was that you need to stop claiming that the only issue in the debate is “are they human”, because that’s a bullshit argument and it is patently false. There are multiple other issues at hand.
No, are we taking an innocent person’s life, that is the only question.
You have — really — no idea of our political process, the Constitutional protections on life, the debate between left and right, etc… How confident are you in debating these issues?
I don’t need to know your countries specific political process to know my own opinions on the matter, How fucking arrogant are you?!
…Um, yes, our Constitution protects life…
There was some cross-talk, I again get back to the starting exchange:
Can you refer to yourself in your mothers womb without using personal pronouns?
Dodge Two
No. Because like I have already stated I accept that a fetus us a human life. Why can’t you get that?
Is the reader getting that? I am not.
(Oh boy) Can someone who doesn’t accept it as life refer to themselves in their mother’s womb without using personal pronouns?
Dodge Three
I don’t know, you’d have to ask them. Why would I care?
Perhaps I should find more intelligent people to discuss this with.
BAM!
The conversation continues. What amazes me is this statement later in the convo, in part. To my son this was said:
…if you would like to pull back the ego for just a moment and go back to re-read our conversations you would see that it not facts and references I am interested in, because I am not trying to convince you of anything…
Later she said this to me:
Once again Sean, you are arguing against a position you assume I hold rather than one I actually hold- because you have placed all atheists and skeptics in a box and can’t fathom any of them being anywhere outside of that box. Bravo. Try listening to people for a change, it could really take you places in future conversations. Not with me though, I’m done….
To which I responded:
You are arguing -as if- you hold the position you don’t hold… bravo. You brought up positions that mirror the pro-choice challenges. You brought up the death penalty, war… not me. You used bad analogies to try and make a point — I was just fleshing that out.
if you would like to pull back the ego for just a moment and go back to re-read our conversations you would see that it not facts and references I am interested in, because I am not trying to convince you of anything. I was trying to have a conversation and get YOUR opinions and see where we could (if at all) come to a mutual agreement with our beliefs.
So why discuss a topic (see the original post) you say you ALREADY hold in order to not convince someone of anything by making arguments that mirror the position you do not hold to find mutual beliefs on something you say we have mutual beliefs on? The post at the top of this strain is the issue, as your death penalty and war analogies made clear.
A buddy sent this to me. We are both on the same page but it brought a rant bubbling up to the surface:
CUE RANT:
What they do not realize is they have always been the machine. The main founder is a self admitted Marxist and they have supported Communist movements. Big Government control of the peoples lives. What the gov says is true, by edict. A co-worker asked me Monday, saying “didn’t you say a long time ago Rage is a Communist based band? But this song [playing in the shop at work] is about anarchy, why is that?” I explained these people want to seed anarchy/chaos as a tool to create a situation where the government has to swoop in with heavier control. They want to overturn the existing order to replace it.
Since the 60’s generation of progressives, they have adopted the CLOWARD-PIVEN STRATEGY.
First and Foremost, all the videos I add are to lead up to — or compliment — Bull Brand’s excellent video via his channel. All videos used I stamp the time they start and the date they were uploaded by said YouTube Channel or site.
A video of some of the first individuals into the Capitol Building was uncovered that shows what appear to be the first individuals into the Capitol. These individuals appear to be from Antifa or BLM. These were not Trump supporters (GATEWAY PUNDIT). When they open the center door, that is when “horn boy” (Jacob Chansley) enters. Remember, just because I point out the first group of people into the Capitol were Antifa/Black Bloc, or that they were a heavy part of the violence, does not mean I deny Trump supporters were just as unlawful. I believe anarchists (right side of the political spectrum), like the pagan anarchist believer [Jacob Chansley — horn guy for example] who supported Trump – and – entered the Capitol building illegally.
And?
But then, you would have to admit Neo-Nazi Ukrainians (Sergai Dybynyn), i.e., “socialists” were in the violent mix as well…
left-hand side of the political spectrum [anti-Israel/anti-Semitic; BIG Government/Universal Healthcare; etc.] — anti-Trump policies in other words:
(The grey area are differing forms of Democracy)
…Right?
Here is video of the initial break-in at this part of the Capitol:
The lessons from Portland are simple—if destructive protests aren’t stopped and if career protestors aren’t leveled with serious charges and bails, those that participate in these attacks can easily move on to the next city and take their tactics and practices with them. This means that the violence occurring in one city can be quickly duplicated across the country.
Bottom line: don’t go to an Antifa protest where you can put yourself in that situation. And if you find yourself in that situation, expect them to employ tactics that take away your situational awareness, and complicate the use of force continuum.
Left/right, Progressive/Conservative, Democrat/Republican… The names change and evolve but the core difference remains constant: The Collectivists vs. The Individualists. In his latest FIREWALL, but shows how violence, disruption and intimidation have always been the tools of the Collectivists. This is not about Donald Trump, no matter how much they want you to believe it.
I have always said that the Left are “totalitarians,” and that is because they want “total thought” — in other words, homogenized thinking through the filter of Leftism (race, class, sex: the “unholy trinitarian” goal of the Left). Here is the latest on this fight for societal freedom.
This is the excuse the totalitarians are looking for, PJ-MEDIA has a must read:
….While conservatives rightly denounced the violence this week, this response bodes ill for conservative speech not just on social media, but in the public square and even in private organizations.
In the aftermath of the Capitol riots, Twitter suspended President Donald Trump’s account for the first time and Facebook permanently banned the president. After Trump deleted the tweets Twitter had flagged and had his account restored, Twitter proceeded to ban him entirely on Friday, and then it banned the official President of the United States (POTUS) account.
Facebook throttled the great Rush Limbaugh, notifying him that his “Page has reduced distribution and other restrictions because of repeated sharing of false news.” Limbaugh left Twitter in protest after the platform banned Trump. Apple and Google attacked Parler, claiming that the new haven for conservatives had allowed people to plan the violence of the Capitol riots on its platform.
House Democrats filed articles of impeachment that explicitly blame President Trump for the Capitol riots, even though he never told his supporters to invade the Capitol. While the president’s exaggerated rhetoric inflamed the rioters, Democrats repeatedly did the same thing this summer. Before and after Black Lives Matter protests devolved into destructive and deadly riots, Democratic officials repeatedly claimed America suffers from “systemic racism” and institutionalized “white supremacy.”
Big Tech did not remove House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s accounts when she called for “uprisings” against the Trump administration. Facebook and Twitter did not target Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez when she claimed that allegedly marginalized groups have “no choice but to riot.” These platforms did not act against Kamala Harris when she said the riots “should not” stop.
This week, Joe Biden condemned the Capitol rioters, saying, “What we witnessed yesterday was not dissent, it was not disorder, it was not protest. It was chaos. They weren’t protesters, don’t dare call them protesters. They were a riotous mob, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists. It’s that basic, it’s that simple.”
Yet he refused to speak in those terms when Black Lives Matter and antifa militants were throwing Molotov cocktails at federal buildings, setting up “autonomous zones,” and burning down cities. Instead, he condemned Trump for holding up a Bible at a church — without mentioning the fact that that very church had been set on fire the night before.
Despite this hypocrisy, Biden’s speech on Thursday proved instructive. Biden used the Capitol riots to condemn Trump’s entire presidency, accusing Trump of having “unleashed an all-out assault on our institutions of our democracy from the outset.” Biden twisted Trump’s actions into an attack on “democracy.” He claimed Trump’s originalist judges were a ploy to undermine impartial justice — when they were truly the exact opposite. Biden claimed Trump’s complaints about the Obama administration spying on his campaign were merely an “attack” on America’s “intelligence services.” Biden said Trump’s complaints about media bias constituted an attack on the “free press,” when the Obama administration actually attacked the free press.….
UPDATED post via PJ-MEDIA… who points out that these social media tech giants think they are the arbiter of speech as well as the type of information you consume. What is the free market solution? To start your own “companies,” or outlets of free speech. However, as PARLER is succeeding against Twitter and Facebook as a place to speak freely, Big Tech is going after those, too. More via PJ in a minute.
Many #NeverTrumpers love David French’s views — as he is the intellectual leader of the rational side of the movement. This article by THE FEDERALIST needs to be gone through, here is the portion I think is most relevant, but the entire thing should be read (I linked to it in a conversation I just had with a #NeverTrumper):
….National Review writer David French has criticized the bill for attempting to regulate free speech. He argues that this invites a dangerous level of government involvement in public discourse. Subjecting social media companies to government scrutiny may sound appealing with a Republican president in power and a predominantly Republican Senate, but this could backfire if Democrats take control: “Will a Kamala Harris administration decide that disproportionate conservative success violates political neutrality?”
Bad Examples Abound
Besides taking a rather Pollyannaish view on conservative success on social media—never bothering to mention the blatant partisan censorship of conservative voices like Steven Crowder, Prager University, or Live Action—this argument from French and those of other like-minded critics rests on two counterexamples where government cannot regulate speech without violating the First Amendment: a controlled forum like a college classroom, and a public utility like a telephone service.
However, these two examples do not have any bearing on what is meant by free speech. In the case of regulating a public utility, this does not involve actual speech. Speech, in the First Amendment sense, consists of arguments made to a public audience. A telephone service is a means of communication, not a platform for facilitating speech. Therefore, the federal government cannot demand a company like AT&T refuse service to pathological liars or criminals because they perpetuate harmful speech.
Furthermore, if AT&T executives did start to do this, on the grounds that they work for a private company and can do what they want, customers could rightly charge them with discrimination (violating the 14th Amendment). They must provide phone service to all who agree to pay them, not just those who meet their speech guidelines—again, because their service does not pertain to speech, but basic communication, a utility.
In the case of a college lecture hall, the speech in question is not actually free. The professor can make his arguments and say whatever the school permits him to say. He also sets the rules for what students can say. If Dr. Kevin Sorbo tells his students that God doesn’t exist, as he does in the Pure Flix movie “God’s Not Dead,” his students are not free to debate him unless he allows it—which he foolishly does, much to his demise. Nevertheless, they do have the right to free speech outside his class (unless they attend Harvard University) and can complain about their atheist professor all they like.
This is different from students who request government action when they feel their free speech rights are somehow violated because a professor has an opinion that they dislike. Hawley’s bill would not require the fictional Dr. Kevin Sorbo or the real Dr. Fang Zhou to change their views or speech policies to uphold political neutrality in their classroom. It only applies to large social media companies and is meant to prevent silencing any particular view, conservative or progressive.
It’s Naive to Think Big Tech Companies Will Die Out
Given that these social media platforms have billions of users altogether, and will simply buy up any worthy competitor if it stumbles on a new idea (which is the ongoing plotline of the television series “Silicon Valley”), it is misguided to assume that they will pass away like the social media companies of yesteryear (Myspace, Friendster, etc.). The Big Tech platforms are less like a few popular channels on television and more like the whole cable and basic television package. The truth is that they won’t need to change; conservatives who try to create content on their sites will.
Without any laws to check them, Big Tech companies are removing conservative voices and clearing the way for the Democratic narrative that Trump is terrible and more government can save America. Heard often enough, this narrative will convince Americans who have no way of knowing better to vote for Democrats. And it is not a stretch to assume that the first order of business for any Democratic president will be to impose speech laws that suppress conservative ideas or grant greater authority to the Big Tech thought police.
In this, French is right to ask what a Harris administration would do to free speech if given the chance, but wrong to conclude that she would exploit Hawley’s law to do it. She doesn’t need to. Speaking for most Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes taking away social media’s legal protection (Section 230), considering it a “gift.” She recognizes that Democrat politicians will continue to benefit from the bias dominating all media and only stand to lose if conservatives compete on a level playing field.
It is nonetheless worth noting that even with numerous obstacles put in place, conservatives still dominate the internet because most Americans recognize that they have the better argument and discuss more relevant issues. By contrast, leftist publications depend on skewed narratives and bad arguments and tend to focus on tired topics like the Mueller report, Trump’s tax returns, and Joe Biden.
When given the chance, viewers will watch the watch Crowder over Vox’s Carlos Maza because Crowder is funnier, smarter, and doesn’t rely on people’s sympathy for his success. Of course, if Crowder stops producing his show because YouTube demonetizes his videos, viewers will not have a choice anymore.
In light of this fact, it is probably more accurate to frame the issue of regulating social media as more a matter of a free market than one of free speech, although one depends on the other. Many people on the left want to eliminate competition online and stop losing to conservative content creators. Allegations of hate and radicalization are merely a pretext to this.…
….After the social media platforms nixed Trump, people appeared to leave platforms in droves.
Nancy Pelosi, Ayanna Presley, and other Democrats have egged on rioters in the streets. Their social media accounts are still intact.
Conservative Americans have left the platforms in the understandable belief that if they could cut off the most powerful man in what used to be known as the free world, then they stood no chance.
They’re right.
To avoid the speech police, Americans have been leaving those platforms for Rumble and Parler, social media sites that promise to have few filters on speech. Parler does not allow illegal activity on its site under its terms of service.
But even as conservatives fled Facebook and Twitter for Parler, Big Tech decided to censor the site.
As I reported at PJ Media, Google Play cut off the Parler app from its app store and Apple followed suit in short order.
On Friday, a group called the “Amazon Employees for Climate Justice” wrote a screed to management demanding the tech behemoth boot the Parler app from its servers.
[….]
On Saturday, Amazon capitulated to the leftist rage mob and informed Parler it was getting rid of the social site from its servers.
Parler CEO John Matze announced that at midnight Sunday, Amazon would expunge the app content from its servers. Furthermore, he alleged that the tech giants conspired to orchestrate their moves to make it harder for Parler to stay afloat.
Sunday (tomorrow) at midnight Amazon will be shutting off all of our servers in an attempt to completely remove free speech off the internet. There is the possibility Parler will be unavailable on the internet for up to a week as we rebuild from scratch. We prepared for events like this by never relying on amazons [sic] proprietary infrastructure and building bare metal products.
We will try our best to move to a new provider right now as we have many competing for our business, however Amazon, Google and Apple purposefully did this as a coordinated effort knowing our options would be limited and knowing this would inflict the most damage right as President Trump was banned from the tech companies.
This was a coordinated attack by the tech giants to kill competition in the market place. We were too successful too fast. You can expect the war on competition and free speech to continue, but don’t count us out.
#speakfreely
This is tyranny. This is groupthink.
To sum up:
Big Tech censored you and the president on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter
You left to go to other social media sites such as Parler, MeWe, Minds
Big Tech didn’t want you to leave for more freedom
Big Tech refused to let another social media platform, Parler, use their app stores
Big Tech then booted the social media site Parler from their servers
Double standards abound. No one on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram was tossed off those platforms for protesting, rioting, looting, and vandalizing on behalf of Black Lives Matter and antifa. Lobbing Molotov cocktails wouldn’t get a group booted off a platform.
Ayatollahs and the Chinese death camp operators are held in higher regard than the president of the United States of America – and his supporters – because of Wednesday’s siege on the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.
The line is drawn.
UPDATE!
RED STATE and WEASEL ZIPPERS notes the latest attack on free-markets and free speech by the Tech Giants:
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Mocks Parler after Coordinated Big Tech to Take Down His Competition
…So with this coordination to take down the right and any other alternative to Twitter, you would think that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey would be standing up for free speech, right? Just kidding.
Not only are they cool with booting off folks on the right from their site and removing the followers from virtually every right leaning account on Twitter, they’re also cool with their competition being stomped on. Indeed, if we were looking into antitrust questions in the coordination of all this, what Jack just posted would be Exhibit #1 in that action.
Here’s Jack celebrating that instead of Parler being the number 1 App on the App Store, his Signal App private messenger is instead. With a little help from his friends.
WEASEL ZIPPERS continues:
Amazon Kills Parler Server
You are not allowed an alternative either. They’re pulling them down tonight at 11:59 p.m. so Parler is looking for a new server.
Calling it a “coordinated attack,” Parler CEO John Matze informed the social media platform’s users Saturday that Amazon kicked Parler off their web hosting service, which will wipe them off the internet until they find a new host.
This devastating blow coming after Parler was removed from Google Play Store and Apple’s App Store.
The narrative employed to justify the Big Tech attack on Twitter’s biggest competitor is to link Parler, a free speech site being billed by the corrupt media as a “pro-Trump” site, to last week’s U.S. Capitol protest, claiming they allowed “calls for violence.”
Violence cannot be the answer. Anti-fascist must also mean anti-violence. History has proven that anti-fascists like Stalin and Chairman Mao have led to obsessive violence and caused huge losses of life against their own people. Is this what Marxists inspired Antifa aspires to be?
“It appears the real assault on ‘history’ can be found at CNN, where pundits compare a presidential administration they simply don’t like to one of the evilest and most violent regimes in human history” (LEGAL INSURRECTION)
More can be found at THE DAILY WIRE. Christiane Amanpour compared the Trump administration to Kristallnacht, a horrifying event that took place in November 1938 when Nazis “torched synagogues, vandalized Jewish homes, schools and businesses and killed close to 100 Jews,” according to History .com.
So, the only people “burning books” today (besides Muslims in Arab countries) is the Left. Here is a excerpt from a previous post:
🆀🆄🅾🆃🅴
Dennis Prager discusses Amazons attempt to silence freedom in banning Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s books. The son of the author in question calls into the show. Maybe the updated edition to the book, “120 Banned Books,” can have a “Jeff Bezos” chapter. In fact, If Barnes and Noble were smart, they would have a “Jeff Bezos Box-Set” of banned books during “Banned Books Week.” At any rate, I find it fascinating that Freud was a book burned by Nazis in Germany, and now we have another psychologist’s work being burned. The attack on free speech by the Egalitarian Left since the New Left’s birth is now being “fast tracked” via the WWW. These groups of activists are essentially no different than the jack-boot brown shirts of pre-war Germany: shouting down those who they disagree with, violently attacking those who merely hold another opinion, banning books, and the like…..
….Here are some stories detailing the above:
Amazon Bans Books on Conversion Therapy for Homosexuals Who Want to Change Their Lives (RED STATE);
Amazon Bans Books on Gay ‘Conversion Therapy’ – Is the Bible Next? (LIFESITE);
Amazon Bans Books On Gay ‘Conversion Therapy’ (DAILY WIRE);
Amazon Stops Selling Books by Catholic Psychologist Amid LGBT Activist Pressure (CHRISTIAN POST);
Amazon Bans Books On “Conversion Therapy” (DENNY BURK).
I just wish to note that I am as conservative of an Evangelical as can be. I am a young-earth creationist, believe the Biblical when it self-ascribes literalness, etc., etc. In my extensive library is the Satanic Bible (LaVey), the Book of Laws (Crowley), most anti-creationist books, most books by atheists, the Communist Manifesto, Mao’s Red Book, Margaret Sanger’s “Pivot of Civilization,” etc., etc…..
🆄🅽🆀🆄🅾🆃🅴
I would like to note as well the only people tearing down history are Leftists:
Are conservative ideas allowed at American colleges? Protestors routinely try to shut down speeches by conservatives, like Heather Mac Donald, a Contributing Editor of the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. She also wrote the book “The War on Cops,” which argues that Americans are less safe because police, for fear of being called racist, back off.
Dennis Prager sheds some thinking and light on the recent issue of the fascist left shutting down free speech. While I may parse a little of his position – for instance Cruz should have come out and have been clear on the main issue that this is a tactic of the left, to shut down freedom of speech while at the same time noting just how un-presidential Trump has been – Dennis Prager is still correct in his overall premise.
AND REPUBLICAN missed an opportunity to separate what conservatism “is” – the protection of all sides being heard; versus only one side using brown shirt type tactics:
Free Speech loses to Rollkommandos again:
JIHAD WATCH chimes in with the example from Richard Evans:
…Although this violence and brutalization of political opponents is a new phenomenon in American politics, it has a historical antecedent: the Nazi Brownshirts. In The Coming of the Third Reich, historian Richard J. Evans explains how, in the early days of National Socialist Germany, Stormtroopers (Brownshirts) “organized campaigns against unwanted professors in the local newspapers [and] staged mass disruptions of their lectures.”
To express dissent from Nazi positions became a matter of taking one’s life into one’s hands. The idea of people of opposing viewpoints airing their disagreements in a civil and mutually respectful manner was gone. One was a Nazi, or one was silent (and fearful). That is just the kind of public arena that the Left has been trying to bring to the United States for years, and is bringing to us now….
You can see a recent upload in this regards HERE. Free Speech is not a value of the Democrats…
(A&G end at the 2:20 mark, and the bonus material runs to the 8:36 mark where A&G pick back up) (The thumbnail is of Aaron Danielson [left], the murdered Trump supporter) Armstrong and Getty discuss a recent NPR news story that was quite biased (no surprise there). I added some bonus video detailing the Leftist proclivity towards violence.
Yuri Bezmenov (1939 – 1993), known by the alias Tomas David Schuman, was a Soviet journalist for RIA Novosti and a former PGU KGB informant who defected to Canada. After being assigned to a station in India, Bezmenov eventually grew to love the people and the culture of India, but at the same time, he began to resent the KGB-sanctioned repression of intellectuals who dissented from Moscow’s policies. He decided to defect to the West. Bezmenov is best remembered for his anticommunist lectures and books from the 1980s:
(An Aside: I will highlight the reason for the posts name below. There will be many links included to fill in the history of ar for further knowledge about an issue discussed)
Armstrong and Getty discuss the toppling of statues… the rioters do not care a wit about the history of slavery, real change to better trained officers, etc. And the proof of this is their tearing down of heroes of abolition and people who fought and died to free the slaves.
“So this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?” President Trump asked on August 15, 2017.
I would submit that these people don’t really care about the history of slavery, they are just using this opportunity to further aims they are (a) either aware of, or,(b)merely acting out on misperceived injustices (ignorance), or, (c) filling a void‡ only God can fill (boredom [see #9] and no “Biblical Rest” [See more in the Appendix]), acting emotionally and without thought on the encouragement or behest of others to feel a sense of accomplishment.*
‡ VOID
What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words, by God himself.
Blaise Pascal, Pensees 10.148
*One might say that the politician, the doctor, and the dramatist make their living from human misery; the doctor in attempting to alleviate it, the politician to capitalize on it, and the dramatist, to describe it.
But perhaps that is too epigrammatic.
When I was young, there was a period in American drama in which the writers strove to free themselves of the question of character.
Protagonists of their worthy plays had made no choices, but were afflicted by a condition not of their making; and this condition, homosexuality, illness, being a woman, etc., was the center of the play. As these protagonists had made no choices, they were in a state of innocence. They had not acted, so they could not have sinned.
A play is basically an exercise in the raising, lowering, and altering of expectations (such known, collectively, as the Plot); but these plays dealt not with expectations (how could they, for the state of the protagonist was not going to change?) but with sympathy.
What these audiences were witnessing was not a drama, but a troublesome human condition displayed as an attraction. This was, formerly, known as a freak show.
The subjects of these dramas were bearing burdens not of their choosing, as do we all. But misfortune, in life, we know, deserves forbearance on the part of the unafflicted. For though the display of courage in the face of adversity is worthy of all respect, the display of that respect by the unaffected is presumptuous and patronizing.
One does not gain merit from congratulating an afflicted person for his courage. One only gains entertainment.
Further, endorsement of the courage of the affliction play’s hero was not merely impertinent, but, more basically, spurious, as applause was vouchsafed not to a worthy stoic, but to an actor portraying him.
These plays were an (unfortunate) by-product of the contemporary love-of-the-victim. For a victim, as above, is pure, and cannot have sinned; and one, by endorsing him, may perhaps gain, by magic, part of his incontrovertible status.
David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (New York, NY: Sentinel Publishing, 2011), 134-135.
The people in category “c”are what Stalin understood as “useful idiots,” defined well by the OXFORD DICTIONARY (UK):
(Originally) a citizen of a non-communist country sympathetic to communism who is regarded (by communists) as naive and susceptible to manipulation for propaganda or other purposes; (more widely) any person similarly manipulable for political purposes.
…More on this in a sec…
You know they do not care about past injustices because they have vandalized black military monuments (examples: Robert Gould Shaw and the 54th Regiment; the Clayton Jackson McGhie Memorial; etc) or have toppled or defaced abolitionists who fought and died for the freedom of black slaves:
HANS CHRISTIAN HEG — “Heg, an immigrant, early prison reformer, and leader of the abolition movement. At the start of the Civil War, Heg swiftly volunteered to fight for his adopted country. Heg led his men, all made up of volunteer immigrants, to numerous victories before he was killed by a Confederate snipers bullet. To remember his sacrifice, a statue of him was built by a fellow immigrant, overseeing his home state of Wisconsin’s capital.” (THE FEDERALIST) [….]He formed a secret society that acted as bodyguards for Republican (read that anti-slavery) politicians and combatted slave catchers called the Wide Awakes. When the Civil War broke out, he was commissioned by the Governor to raise the 15th Wisconsin Volunteer Regiment. Because of his prominence in the Scandinavian community, he raised a regiment that was almost entirely Norwegian. (RED STATE)
Protesters in San Francisco defaced and toppled the statue of former President Grant, who led the Union Army during the Civil War. In attacking Grant, those desecrating our cities in the supposed name of racial justice besmirched the memory of one of the figures who was most important for pushing the nation forward on civil rights.(USA TODAY)
Matthias William Baldwin (December 10, 1795 – September 7, 1866) was an American inventor and machinery manufacturer, specializing in the production of steam locomotives. Baldwin’s small machine shop, established in 1825, grew to become Baldwin Locomotive Works, one of the largest and most successful locomotive manufacturing firms in the United States. The most famous of the early locomotives was Old Ironsides, built by Matthias Baldwin in 1832. Baldwin was also a strong advocate of abolitionism. (WIKI)[….] In Philadelphia, the statute of abolitionist Matthias Baldwin was attacked, despite his fight for black voting rights and his financial support for the education of black children. (JONATHAN TURLEY)
I was listening to David Horowitz the other morning being interviewed on the Glenn Beck Program, and he had a good insight to what the Marxists of his day were saying. They were saying then that the police are an occupying force [essentially standing in the way of toppling the capitalist system]. David was raised in a Marxist home and was a radical Marxist for years, editing a radical publication of his day (“…Root and Branch, which published essays embodying the political vision of the New Left.” – NATIONAL REVIEW) …here is more about David Horowitz from National Review:
…After publishing “Student”, Horowitz left California, taking his young family to Sweden. During the year he spent there, he wrote “The Free World Colossus”, a revisionist history of the Cold War. It was one of the first expressions of the New Left’s fixation with the repressive workings of an American “empire,” and was ultimately translated into several languages. In the U.S., The Free World Colossus became a handbook for the growing anti–Vietnam War movement, providing a litany of America’s “misdeeds” abroad — the coups in Iran and Guatemala, the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam — that became a staple of left-wing indictments of America.
Earlier, when he was seeking a publisher for his manuscript, Horowitz wrote to the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation and was somewhat surprised to receive a job offer. Horowitz had only a casual relationship with Russell, but while in London he became close to and profoundly influenced by two European Marxists: Ralph Miliband, whose two sons eventually became leaders of the British Labour Party, and the Polish Trotskyist Isaac Deutscher, the famed biographer of Stalin and Trotsky. Under the tutelage of Deutscher, Horowitz’s career as a New Left intellectual flourished. He wrote Empire & Revolution: A Radical Interpretation of Contemporary History, which offered a New Left perspective on imperialism, Communism, and the Cold War. Horowitz returned to the U.S. in 1968 to become an editor at Ramparts magazine, the New Left’s largest and most successful publication, with a circulation of a quarter-million readers….
He is now – of course – a long time outspoken anti-Marxist, anti-Leftist.
This brings us back to the idea that many of these brainwashed youngins may not realize what they are doing with all the information they get from elementary on up through university. They are useful idiots who are yelling at (or what I have seen termed as “whitesplaining” black cops calling them racist [and they need to be killed].
(See this humorous look at this via MTV [I am not agreeing with their purported reason for the video, all I am saying is that it is funny]) Or tearing down history.
And we have others, for instance, Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors who said in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists” – making clear their movement’s ideological foundation.
They are pushing or guiding the “manipulable for political purposes,” or, useful idiots.
What has perpetuated this movement of ideologues and morons in part is the labeling that has occurred since the New Left has gotten into education after the Vietnam War. Today this labeling is on steroids, and easily remembered as S.I.X.H.I.R.B.
sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted | HILLARY’S version: “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”
What this does is allow a person to disregard any information that would usually happen during normal dialogue. (It creates a self-imposed “safe-space” for the individual, a “cone of silence” so-to-speak – Get Smart TV series… before your time.) If you label someone “racist” you do not have to listen to them any longer.
I mean, who would want to dialogue with a racist?
My two favorite examples of this is a very short excerpt from a documentary I love called Indoctrinate U. It is a Leftist professor saying that there is no push back on Left leaning students because countering ideas are censored… making for an incomplete person/education (I adapted that a bit). Here is that video:
And this is still one of my FAVORITE clips I uploaded to my YouTube via Dennis Prager:
In an article I just read from THE FEDERALIST, they make note through history that when this starts happening, bloodshed typically follows. Here is there title: “Everywhere Statues Are Torn Down By The Mob, History Promises People Are Next: The promise of bloodshed coming alongside or following shortly after is an historic certainty. The symbols of a people never satisfy: People themselves must always come next.”
Here is a small excerpt:
…In 1790, mobs looted and pillaged Paris’s treasured Notre Dame. To the revolutionaries, the cathedral symbolized everything that was wrong with France’s history and society — a history of kings, tradition and religion, and a society beset by royal injustice and systemic inequality.
Over the next three years, the 12th-century church’s riches and artifacts were stripped, stolen, and destroyed, their remnants hidden by the faithful and sold off by the faithless. Statues of the Virgin Mary were removed and statues to the Goddess of Liberty took their place on desecrated altars.
At nearby Sainte-Chapelle, the revolution pulled the apostles from the pedestals where they had stood watch over Christ’s Crown of Thorns. The 12 statues were vandalized and buried — half so badly they are still undergoing attempts at restoration. As the destruction of religious art unfurled, priests who did not swear allegiance to the new order and those who aided them were sentenced to death.
Back at the cathedral, the revolutionary government mistook the 28 statues of the kings of ancient Judah for French kings (rich old men and all), dragging them into the public square for decapitation. Their buried heads were not rediscovered for nearly 200 years.
In the Place de Louis XV, the large statue of the square’s namesake was torn down and the plaza renamed Place de la Revolution. A guillotine was raised, and the “liberated” space would see the execution of more than 1,200 prisoners, from King Louis XVI and his wife to the executions’ ringleader himself, Maximilien Robespierre….
We may be seeing this violence against person in an increased way if this movement is not rebutted and refuted. Either by force, but preferably by true dialogue and Godly renewal or Salvation. In compiling this post I spoke to one of my mentors in the faith. He mentioned a podcast that I am a good way through. The name of the YouTube podcast is “Conversations That Matter.” The title of the episode is, “Why are All My Friends Marxists?.” Here is the video as well as the description of it:
While friends and family are lamenting their “white privilege” and vowing to own their complicity in “systemic oppression,” Jon explains how a Marxist revolution is actually taking place, and it’s not just a political movement—it’s a new religion.
The video is wonderful, I had figured out the title of my post before watching it and it lined up quite well. Also, earlier posts and uploads of mine coordinate well with the topic dealt with, for instance:
Here was an upload of radio talk show host Larry O’Connor discussion the “Collective Guilt”
Larry O’Connar references two excellent articles. One is from SPIKED ONLINE: “I Did Not Kill George Floyd: The Attempt To Hold All Whites Responsible For The Death Of Floyd Shows What A Dead-End Woke Politics Is:
And a FEDERALIST article, again, both articles are top notch: “The Left’s Normalization Of Collective Guilt Is Ripping America Apart: All Decent Americans Stand Against Racism. But If We’re To Live As Brothers, We Must Stop Indicting All Those Who Share A Skin Tone For The Sins Of Others”
I will also post this video elsewhere, But I am always a fan of Dr. Voddie Baucham’s work. Here is one of his videos: Cultural Marxism | Dr. Voddie Baucham
And the appendix are some excerpts from a friend and mentor. I post these in relation to finding fulfillment in God. Enjoy
An entranced vision of God begins with seeing God as He is revealed in His Word and seeing ourselves in light of His sef-revelation (Ps 139). By ‘entranced’ we mean much more than entertaining or holding to a ‘god concept’. No, an entranced vision of God takes possession of the whole man. It generates an experience of both delight and trauma, of both wonder and repentance, and of both affection and reverential awe. This sets up a line of sight in which our utter dependency upon the Lord begins to stagger us and knock us off balance. When the sinner is first confronted with the gospel in the hands of the Spirit it creates a kind of crisis. Self is dethroned, our imagined sovereignty is demolished and we are cast down as ruined wretches.
[….]
Do not settle for anything less than an entranced vision of God. For, nothing less than beholding the glory of the Lord has the power to transform you and transport you. Refuse to settle for spiritual stagnancy and unfruitfulness.
[….]
In this experience of beholding God’s sublime glory is beauty, pleasure, purpose, sweetness, and relational love. Edwards called it ‘sweet entertainment’. This enjoyment of God in the soul is essential to our Christian walk.
[….]
Jonathan Edwards got is right; true religion resides primarily in the affections. It has everything to do with what you love. The great blessing of receiving spiritual eyes and ears is not merely to feed off spiritual principles but to behold the glory of the Lord as His unveiled ones (Mt 13: 16ff.; 2 Cor 3: 18). The spiritual sight and savor for the glory of the Lord is the key to consecrated living. For, God’s glory story in Christ is a plot so compelling, the cosmos was created to be its stage. Beholding glory fits us for glory. The reverse is also true; for where there is no awe of God, there will be no lasting pursuit of holiness. Let us remember that beholding His glory for the first time is how the Lord saved us (2 Cor 4:6). Continuing to behold His glory is essential to our ongoing transformation (2 Cor 3:18), and seeing His glory face to face will someday glorify us in an instant (1 Jn 3:2).
…The effect of His mediatoral glory is salvfc (He secures our salvation, “He obtained eternal redemption;” Hebrews 9: 12). For the sinner who believes and repents, the sight of God’s glory in the face of Christ evicts from the soul the darkness and the hostility that is inherent in original sin (Col 1:21-23)
[….]
You don’t have to climb up to heaven to see that the sun is there-you are bathed in its warmth and brightness. You do not need to go into heaven to see f Christ is interceding for us. For, we behold Him in the Word interceding, and we can look into our own hearts. Are they quickened and inflamed in prayer? Can we cry “Abba, Father? By this interceding of the Spirit who dwells within us, we may know Christ is interceding above for us. Faith is an act of recumbency, of reclining upon Christ, our ‘new and living way’ of access…
[….]
It is the experimental knowledge of Christ’s love and glory that gives us the disposition to love one another, and to bear one another’s burdens (Phil 3:7-11). His love gives us the disposition to please and obey our Heavenly Father. His precepts give us the specifics of how to please God; He directs our love by His precepts. We must understand that our being “in Christ” is our strength. Our union with Christ is vital, living, transformative, and organic; it is not merely federal representation (Rom 5: 17-19). The mind of Christ is available, the might of Christ is available-we don’t have to fulfill a single command by ourselves, in our own strength. We operate in the realm of His grace full and free (Rom 5: 1-2)
[….]
…Those who make it their full purpose of heart to behold His glory will be changed into His image (2 Cor 3: 18). What is this transformation? Answer: when our trust in Christ is constantly exercised, virtue proceeds from Christ to purify our hearts, increase our holiness, strengthen our graces, and fill us with joy-at times, “joy inexpressible filled with glory” (1 Pet 1 :8). Christ’s glory beheld quickens the understanding at the same time as His love is communicated to the heart…
[….]
…Our sin, guilt, lust, cravings, insecurities, and desire for happiness-all combine to make the soul restless. Christ has everything the sinner needs. In all things, He is perfectly suited to all the needs and cravings of the immortal soul. “All my springs are in Thee” (Ps 87:7)…
[….]
We have seen that feeding on the glory of Christ fits us for prayer, communion, worship, hope, and service. Just as the Israelites in the wilderness did not grow their own food, but merely gathered the manna, so also, it the privilege and duty of the saint to gather his soul’s daily food that his spirit might be fully nourished on the glory of the Lord.
…Christ fulfilling the terms of the covenant is responsible for every dimension and facet of grace: “… blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ” (Eph 1 :3). The covenant purpose of God, to bruise His Son at Calvary is the greatest reality in the history of humanity (it is why there is a human history; this reality must fill our consciousness) …
The establishment of CHAZ in Seattle is an interesting and zany story to follow, but it’s not like Seattle has only recently been heading towards a socialist meltdown. Stu looks at the disturbing road leading up to our insane current climate in the city.
Welcome to CHAZ, short for the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. This exclusive look inside Seattle’s “no-cop co-op” — set up by anti-racism protestors after days of clashing with police in Washington’s capital — shows how people are holding up beyond the barricades as “gate guards” keep watch. “From what I understand, the police de-occupied this station,” Alex, a musician, told the Post, referring to the deserted East Precinct. It has been painted over to say “Seattle People Department.” In these blocked-off streets, people hand out free food, play music and hold vigils. “There’s no looting, there’s no violence here, this is really a peaceful zone.” <<< as an aside, the police beg to differ (increase in rapes and other crimes, businesses being shook down [extorted], etc.)
(Just a side note, they are not “anarchists,” as they would want a government large enough to implement universal healthcare… lets be realistic here.)
Seattle protesters take over neighborhood and declare ‘autonomous zone’ with no police; The Post Millennial editor-at-large Andy Ngo weighs in.
Seattle radio show host Jason Rantz reports from America’s new neighbor: CHAZ. UPDATED
I believe “Chaz” may be ready for a rude awakening from persons who enjoy this country — hahaha:
Some more on CHAZ (Rape? Crime? Fugetaboutit)
Martha MacCallum challenges [far Left] Rep. Denny Heck, R-WA, over the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone accusing him of ‘minimizing the issue’.
Townhall.com senior reporter Julio Rosas has been on the ground for days covering the chaos in Seattle.
