Under normal circumstances, I would never tell people this story, but because I had so many people that worked for me over the years at Right Wing News, no one will know who I am referring to unless they publicly come forward and identify themselves.
It’s surprising the low level of basic media common sense those young republicans showed. Basic media 101 should have been taught to them.
Basics:
The mainstream media hates you, and is out to get you.
Alinsky Rules for Radicals needs to be hammered into their heads.
Anything you put into any type of electronic communication can be publicized. It’s not secure. Anything you say can be used against you. And can show up on the front page of The NY Times, and used out of context.
Everyone carrying a video and audio recorder, your so called private talk can be recorded.
All interviews with media should be recorded on your own devices.
The enemies on the Right are the ones that push some to the Democratic Party.
This was the case for me when I was growing up. My father was a dyed in the wool Nazi and antisemite. His ancestors came to the US in the mid to late 1800s from Germany to practice their religion without persecution. My father was 4 generations removed from the ancestors that came here yet he constantly pushed his view of his German heritage on his children. My mother divorced him when I was young because he was pushing his pro-nazi, antisemite views on us children.
Even after the divorce, he berated me for having a good friend who was Mexican (the family was so far removed from Mexico that no one in the family spoke Spanish)
His constant spewing of conspiracy theories and Nazi ideas cause me to rebel and when I turned 18, I registered as a democrat and voted for Carter. Not the best choice on my part. I eventually cut off contact for over 20 years.
The shenanigans by Bill Clinton when he was in office woke me up and I became a Republican. I could never tell my father that, even after we were able to be in contact with each other because he learned to stop bring up politics.
He passed away a few months ago. My brother, sister, and I have had to clean out his house. He was a hoarder of the first order. It has been difficult because we came across his Nazi flags, full SS uniform, all of the other Nazi memorabilia, and over 100 videos praising the Third Reich, and blaming Jews for its downfall.
I did not let my wife help me. Her mother was a small child in Germany during the Hitler years. She was Jewish by heritage. Her parents were not practicing Jews and they joined the Lutheran Church soon after Hitler came to power. They knew what was in store if they did not cover up their Jewish heritage. Her father was vital to the war effort (He was a professor of Veterinary Medicane and specialized in large animals. His job was to oversee the horse breeding program because horses were used to move supplies on the battlefield.
Had my father ever discovered I married a woman who was a German Jew by descent, he would have gone ballistic.
If we are to maintain the high ground, we need to call out those on the left and far right. We also need to be very careful of to not make stupid comments because we are just joking around with friends and family. Some one will eventually overhear you and will use it against you. It is better to not have said it in the first place than to say it and later apologize for the stupid remarks. The apology will always sound hollow and most will believe you are only apologizing because you were caught.
This is why I live by the rule to never say anything in private that I would not say publicly. Somebody is always listing in
Free speech is a right, but like all rights, it comes with responsibilities. Just because you use your right to free speech, does not mean you will be protected from the consequences. Look at all the progressives that celebrated Charlie Kirk's assassination on social media and lost their jobs.
I used to post regularly on Quora. I stopped because some students found me on Quora and reported me to my school district. I had stayed away from all the issues that are hot button issues. The district still had to investigate. They found I did not say anything that would interfere with school climate.
Nowhere did I say we should follow the same standards and rules of our enemies. If we did, we would be in a civil war right now. I want to preserve our Constitutional Republic. If a civil war breaks out, the American system of Governance will most likely be replaced with something else.
In a political science class I took way back when, the natural evolution of government systems was discussed. If our system breaks down, it most likely will be replaced with a true fascist regime or a communist regime. Then, there will be no free speech rights and speech against the Government can be punished by torture and death. Our economic prosperity will be lost.
It will be time to take up arms if the left crosses a red line. The question is, what is that red line? Even our Founding Fathers realized that the Tree of Liberty needs to be be maintained by blood at times or it will be lost.
Charlie Kirk was assassinated because the left was butt hurt over what he was saying. They called for his assassination and the assassination of those on the right. The right has not called for the assassination of those on the left. Reality is that the Right will not call for the assassination of those on the Left, they will just do when the red line is crossed. At that point, the rule of law will break down completely and life will become extremely difficult.
Maybe it’s time for that civil war; our current state is untenable. Or is any humiliation acceptable, as long as people don’t think that we’re “mean”? Why do you think that Trump has effectively destroyed the establishment Republican Party?
I understand the desire to start the civil war and just get it over with. If we continue going down the path that the democrats had put us on, we will be destroyed. Our Constitutional Republic will cease and most likely be replaced by a socialist/communist government or a Fascist one.
The problem with Civll wars is the outcome is not assured. Look at the history of civil wars. Countries rarely survive them and the system that replaces the previous one is usually very different. The one time it did not happen was our Civil War, and that was because the North was fighting to preserve our Union and they won. It was very costly in terms of lives lost and the destruction of our infrastructure. I put us back at least 10 years in technological developments that promote prosperity.
Even after the North won, they got tired of enforcing the laws of and left the South. The South then came up with Jim Crow laws to make sure blacks stayed second class citizens with few, if any, rights. It took the Civil Rights Movement nearly 100 years later to bring about real reform.
The main core of the Civil Rights Movement were peaceful, and yes, they allowed the opposition to beat them, jail them and worse. The few that fought back violently were marginalized and mostly hunted down and killed or prosecuted for their crimes.
Trump won because the majority believed his message. Trump is a rare politician, he is following through with what he said he would do. Of course the leftist are resisting and using every tool, legal and illegal to resist. There are indications that the average American is turning their backs on the leftist agenda.
Look at the No Kings! protest. The events do not draw a large crowd of protestors. The ones that show up are predominately wealth, white, middle aged women. This is the group that are mostly wealthy because they had very successful husbands and spend much of their free time with social events. They are far removed from reality.
We will see if this change is real at the next midterms. If the dems flip the house or senate, then we have started down the path to civil war. If they get back in power, we will see packing of the Supreme Court. more blatant moves to use law fare against conservatives. the only way to stop that is through taking up arms.
We need to let them make the first move. We can then respond through the legal system to stop them. If that does not work, then it is the time to take up arms or divide the country into two are more separate countries.
Yes, Trump has disrupted the Republican Party. The previous generation were mostly the Neo-cons and were not much different than the democrats. They could work together and still get things done.
The problem was those nice republicans did not do well in office because they played nice. The dems used that against them. Trump is a businessman. He knows how to get things done. He is a disrupter. He trolls the progressives because they take the bait and are angry that sends mean tweets. He gets those in the middle to see how unhinged the left is. This results in the left saying stupid things that expose them for what they are. This will alienate the mainstream from the Left. If that happens, we win without a civil war. If it does not, then I do not think a civil war can be avoided unless there is an agreement to just break apart and cease being the USA. The result will cause us to loose our prominence in the world. We will be second rate.
Following is a sobering –perhaps even scary-- quote from Henry Ibsen in "The Ghosts":
"It is not what we have inherited from our father and mother that 'walks' in us. It is all sorts of dead
ideas, and lifeless old beliefs, and so forth. They have no vitality, but they cling to us all the same, and we
cannot shake them off. Whenever I take up a newspaper, I seem to see the ghosts gliding between the
lines. There must be ghosts all the country over, as thick as the sands of the sea. And then we are, one
and all, so pitifully afraid of the light…"
Or, in more modern terms, here's a quote from former President Kennedy:
“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie –deliberate, contrived and dishonest– but the myth–
persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject
all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort
of thought.”
Folks, we have to be very careful about what we believe IN --politics, religions and people in particular. I'd love to read a take from you on this, John!
I get it. My late grandfather was a great person and a generally conservative guy, but he was also what they used to call a, "yellow dog Democrat." He absolutely, unconditionally would not vote for a Republican. He'd rather vote for a little yellow dog. Because a lot of southerners, quite correctly in many cases, thought Republicans treated the South badly during the reconstruction and that attitude was passed down from father-to-son.
You see a lot of the same kind of thing from black people who live in areas surrounded by black people, but they despise white Republicans. You could say the same about the vast majority of people who aren't Palestinian you see railing about Jews on social media. I don't agree with the Palestinians, but at least you can understand why they'd have beef with Jews. If you're some white guy in middle America, you have to reach so far you fall over to come up with a way, "the Jews" hurt you.
So, what Ibsen was saying there was brilliant. Maybe I will dig into it deeper and write a column on it one day.
The inability to hold two opposing views at one time and demonstrate the capability to discuss them objectively is a sign of either intellectual midgetry or intellectual dishonesty. There should be zero taboo topics.
Hitler was not all bad, and he certainly was not all good.
Talking about the high crime and high single-mother statistics relative to that of Asians and immigrant blacks and all the suspicions of racial difference, like the fact that blacks are over-represented in professional sports compared to Asians and Asians are over-represented in economic success than all other races (shooting a big hole in the US is still racist claim by the left)... while also conceding the theory that the history of slavery and black discrimination still has some lasting negative socioeconomic effects on some black families. THIS is the way.
There are always weirdos, hippies, quacks, cranks and mentally off people that clutch conspiracy theories. I don't think we have significantly more of them today, it is just that social media allows everyone to be a media personality now and they show themselves. But we always have, and always will, have a percentage of these people in our general population. How many people tune in to that late night Coast-to-Coast radio program talking about Bigfoot, UFO abductions, etc.?
Instead of focusing on these folk... the independent people with their God-given 1st Amendment rights to spout any and all nonsense as long as it is not promoting violence against others (and all people should face consequences for promoting, supporting, celebrating, condoning any type of political violence... or criminal violence in general,,, yes you rappers, you should be arrested, tried and convicted for promoting violence)... the target should be those using the media for pushing an emotional terrorism-backed agenda in a position of leadership... for money or political power.
I think Candice Owens should be ripped to shreds for her antisemitism as should every professor and school administrator.
I think the entire Democrat Party, having adopted a campaign strategy of 100% emotional terrorism, should be arrested and tried.
I so think that we should revoke the visas of visitors that participate in political protests (because it is stupid to invite people in to undermine your country... did we not learn anything during the Cold War?), but citizens should be 100% free to participate as long as there is no violence or call for violence.
And every single citizen that is just exercising their God-given rights to freedom of speech and expression and association, should be left the hell alone.
Go ahead and talk seriously and intelligently about why you think Hitler was a good actor for Germany. Make your case. I will most likely strongly disagree with you based on what I know about that time of history, but I am curious enough to hear new perspectives and possibly learn something.
So Candace should be ripped to shreds but everyone else can exercise their god given rights to freedom of speech and expression and association and should be left alone? This is ridiculous. 🤦♀️
Owens is making money, power, fame by promulgating antisemitism. I completely reject hate laws and the concept of hate speech... the lie that we can accurately claim what is in a person's heart or that even if hate exists, it justifies any type of punishment. However, people in leadership positions, privileged to be in those positions, if delivering any type of messaging or influencing that can be connected to fomenting or encouraging or inciting violence against someone else, then it should justify punishment.
Unfortunately it is the flaw in humanity, primarily owned by females and feminized males, that is their capacity to be emotionally terrorized and influenced outside of rational thought, that requires we treat the Jim Jones cult leaders differently than we do individuals spouting their beliefs however absurd.
This is similar to my view of addictive harmful drugs. I was a complete libertarian until my oldest son demonstrated an addictive personality disorder. He is good now but he is not someone that can self-regulate around free access to harmful mind-altering substances.
My political orientation is libertarian paternalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_paternalism It is the only way. Libertarianism at its extreme is stupid and seems to support a lot of human harm. Socialism at the other extreme is stupid because it supports an endless reduction in individual freedom to prevent human harm.
You think she has power? Is that why she lost her high powered job last year? You think she is in a leadership position? Is that why she had to start her own company to express her free speech? It's either free speech for ALL or none.
She has a big following. She is an influencer. She has a leadership responsibility. And her messaging contributes to hostility toward Jews.
I get your point. I am a near free speech absolutist, but two hard stops for me.
1. When non-citizens or non-LPRs participate in political protests, speech or writing they should be deported.
2. When people in positions of leadership having power and influence deliver speech in any format that encourages violence against others.
Now with respect to individuals not in a leadership position spouting vile opinions, I support their right to do so, but I also support the free speech right of their employer to fire them for it.
I agree with your last point on employers firing whomever they wish.
I also agree on your first point. Don't come here as a guest and act a fool.
I respectfully disagree with your second point however. If someone is an "influencer", they have worked hard to attain that. But that shouldn't negate their rights of free expression. I don't see her inciting violence. Just because someone questions the policies of a foreign government, Isreal or otherwise, does not mean hatred towards them. I find many things about some foreign governments questionable. I don't hate their citizens for it. And, the way Isreal wants to quash any questioning of them, by any and all means, seems suspect. I have always believed sunshine to be the best disinfectant. You can't find the truth of anything without questioning everything.
That is a reasonable position. I have heard Owens spout some stuff that would feed the violent Jew haters on the left and right.
I guess because I am a CEO I know that my words have amplified meaning to those that follow me. I have a level of responsibility to be more mindful and careful with what I say. That is a responsibility that comes with the privilege of being in a leadership position. I see the same for all media personalities. It is fine to have an opinion, but to deliver any messaging that contributes to a material risk of violence against others... I draw the line there. I think there needs to be a test for being tagged as working in a leadership role with mass influence. Teachers, professors, school administrators, media personalities, corporate leaders, ministers or other religious leaders... people in these positions are not just a singularity owning their own opinion, they are hubs of a network going to the brains of others that can be influenced. The cut-off for me is when they are influencing in a way that is a material call to violence against others.
Bad actors on the right don’t represent anyone but themselves. Easily ignored.
The bad actors on the left? They’re paid and supported by Democrats and need to be stopped before they start Civil War II. People think that’s not a real threat, but civil wars have happened through most of human history. We aren’t immune.
We let the jews run riot in this country for 60 years and our institutional leaders were just fine with the US becoming a puppet state of a devious minority in Jerusalem. I'm not a national socialist and I don't endorse everything Hitler said or did, but a cynical attitude toward jews is a healthy mechanism at this point.
A little follow-up on "Believing"... John, this is really information for your (upcoming?) article; not for posting. But I see no other way to get it to ya. This is a small part of an article I wrote some time ago. Will expand privately, if you want:
DEFINITION OF 'BELIEF'…
> Believe something is true because it can be analyzed, substantiated &/or replicated.
> Believe something is true because one feels, thinks or supposes it to be true.
So, there are at least TWO different definitions for the action of 'Believing'…
A more specific definition can be found in Skeptical Medicine, a primer for medical professionals and students. It provides a foundation for understanding science (and hence medical science) and evaluating medically related, empiric claims. Here is a distinction they make between 'Beliefs':
Beliefs-That are empirical. Let’s think of them as propositions we hold true because of empirical evidence. We are generally not as emotionally attached to our Beliefs-That, perhaps because they did not stem from emotions, but rather from observations.
Beliefs-In are not empirical. Beliefs-In are unfounded convictions and tend to come from within. Belief-ins are felt with our emotions. Once felt, they are accepted by the rational mind which, in turn, rationalizes them as if they were empirical.
When two people argue over conflicting Beliefs-in, no resolution will ever likely be found, for logical arguments depend on premises that have empirical truth.
Furthermore, when two people argue over conflicting Beliefs-in, and one kills the other, you have B.A.D. Beliefs. What are B.A.D. Beliefs?
"B.A.D" BELIEFS…
If and when the Believings-In are allowed to grow to a level where people are coerced into accepting unsubstantiated beliefs via threats of discrimination or death, we refer to these beliefs as Belligerent-Autocratic-Dogmatic –or "B.A.D." for short.
Whenever B.A.D. beliefs gain an upper hand, Humanity suffers. Especially in our day and time: these B.A.D. individuals and systems must be opposed if Liberty is going to be allowed continued growth; indeed, if the Human race is going to survive at all…
That’s the issue: Liberty & Safety. Prevention of global conflagration, mass enslavement and genocide on an unprecedented scale –more unprecedented than ever before. If we are to avoid these calamities (or at least lessen the probabilities), we must start by confronting the root of the danger: B.A.D. thinking.
But, in order to address the crucial question: where do the B.A.D. individuals come from, especially those who make up the B.A.D. systems?
Way back when when I took a PolySci class from a professor who was far from woke, he said it is difficult to tell the difference between the far left and the far right. You can go so far right you are now on the left and so far left that you end up on the right.
I have used the motive of the group to distinguish left from right. On the far right, they generally believe only the in group, their group, is worthy and should rule over all the other worthless people because they are not intelligent enough to take care of their needs. Only those in the in group are worthy enough to live. (edited because my fingers were on the wrong keys when I was typing)..
The left usually approaches their view on how to improve the lives of those in need.
The problem is at their extremes, both sides eventually conclude the only way to achieve their goals is to take over the government and force their will on everyone for their own good.
Richard Hanania argues that the mainstream left unambiguously condemned the Kirk assassination. Do we have any numbers on how many kooky lefties actually celebrated his death?
All intra-Right criticism must be private, not public. I don't care about group chats while the other side publicly plots to kill us. And I'm not sure what Hitler (a socialist) has to do with the Right?
There is a misconception that Hitler was a socialist. He joined the national socialist party and over remade it in his image. That of Fascism. If a company wanted to continue in business during that time, they had to play by his rules. He used the "private sector" to enforce his will on the German people.
Hitler used socialism to control the population. He did not care about the welfare of the average citizen. They were subservient to the state and existed to be used by the state, or more accurately, Hitler, to achieve his goals. He also wanted to keep the people in the dark about what was recalling happening and the best way to do that is to make their lives comfortable and bribe them with enough free stuff so they are appeased.
In socialism, the state is the benevolent entity to provide its citizens with their needs. In Fascism, the citizens are an ends to a means and have no value except for what they can do for the state.
It’s surprising the low level of basic media common sense those young republicans showed. Basic media 101 should have been taught to them.
Basics:
The mainstream media hates you, and is out to get you.
Alinsky Rules for Radicals needs to be hammered into their heads.
Anything you put into any type of electronic communication can be publicized. It’s not secure. Anything you say can be used against you. And can show up on the front page of The NY Times, and used out of context.
Everyone carrying a video and audio recorder, your so called private talk can be recorded.
All interviews with media should be recorded on your own devices.
The enemies on the Right are the ones that push some to the Democratic Party.
This was the case for me when I was growing up. My father was a dyed in the wool Nazi and antisemite. His ancestors came to the US in the mid to late 1800s from Germany to practice their religion without persecution. My father was 4 generations removed from the ancestors that came here yet he constantly pushed his view of his German heritage on his children. My mother divorced him when I was young because he was pushing his pro-nazi, antisemite views on us children.
Even after the divorce, he berated me for having a good friend who was Mexican (the family was so far removed from Mexico that no one in the family spoke Spanish)
His constant spewing of conspiracy theories and Nazi ideas cause me to rebel and when I turned 18, I registered as a democrat and voted for Carter. Not the best choice on my part. I eventually cut off contact for over 20 years.
The shenanigans by Bill Clinton when he was in office woke me up and I became a Republican. I could never tell my father that, even after we were able to be in contact with each other because he learned to stop bring up politics.
He passed away a few months ago. My brother, sister, and I have had to clean out his house. He was a hoarder of the first order. It has been difficult because we came across his Nazi flags, full SS uniform, all of the other Nazi memorabilia, and over 100 videos praising the Third Reich, and blaming Jews for its downfall.
I did not let my wife help me. Her mother was a small child in Germany during the Hitler years. She was Jewish by heritage. Her parents were not practicing Jews and they joined the Lutheran Church soon after Hitler came to power. They knew what was in store if they did not cover up their Jewish heritage. Her father was vital to the war effort (He was a professor of Veterinary Medicane and specialized in large animals. His job was to oversee the horse breeding program because horses were used to move supplies on the battlefield.
Had my father ever discovered I married a woman who was a German Jew by descent, he would have gone ballistic.
If we are to maintain the high ground, we need to call out those on the left and far right. We also need to be very careful of to not make stupid comments because we are just joking around with friends and family. Some one will eventually overhear you and will use it against you. It is better to not have said it in the first place than to say it and later apologize for the stupid remarks. The apology will always sound hollow and most will believe you are only apologizing because you were caught.
This is why I live by the rule to never say anything in private that I would not say publicly. Somebody is always listing in
So, free speech, to you, isn’t a right, and you should always follow the standards and rules of your enemies? That’ll be a success.
Free speech is a right, but like all rights, it comes with responsibilities. Just because you use your right to free speech, does not mean you will be protected from the consequences. Look at all the progressives that celebrated Charlie Kirk's assassination on social media and lost their jobs.
I used to post regularly on Quora. I stopped because some students found me on Quora and reported me to my school district. I had stayed away from all the issues that are hot button issues. The district still had to investigate. They found I did not say anything that would interfere with school climate.
Nowhere did I say we should follow the same standards and rules of our enemies. If we did, we would be in a civil war right now. I want to preserve our Constitutional Republic. If a civil war breaks out, the American system of Governance will most likely be replaced with something else.
In a political science class I took way back when, the natural evolution of government systems was discussed. If our system breaks down, it most likely will be replaced with a true fascist regime or a communist regime. Then, there will be no free speech rights and speech against the Government can be punished by torture and death. Our economic prosperity will be lost.
It will be time to take up arms if the left crosses a red line. The question is, what is that red line? Even our Founding Fathers realized that the Tree of Liberty needs to be be maintained by blood at times or it will be lost.
Charlie Kirk was assassinated because the left was butt hurt over what he was saying. They called for his assassination and the assassination of those on the right. The right has not called for the assassination of those on the left. Reality is that the Right will not call for the assassination of those on the Left, they will just do when the red line is crossed. At that point, the rule of law will break down completely and life will become extremely difficult.
Maybe it’s time for that civil war; our current state is untenable. Or is any humiliation acceptable, as long as people don’t think that we’re “mean”? Why do you think that Trump has effectively destroyed the establishment Republican Party?
I understand the desire to start the civil war and just get it over with. If we continue going down the path that the democrats had put us on, we will be destroyed. Our Constitutional Republic will cease and most likely be replaced by a socialist/communist government or a Fascist one.
The problem with Civll wars is the outcome is not assured. Look at the history of civil wars. Countries rarely survive them and the system that replaces the previous one is usually very different. The one time it did not happen was our Civil War, and that was because the North was fighting to preserve our Union and they won. It was very costly in terms of lives lost and the destruction of our infrastructure. I put us back at least 10 years in technological developments that promote prosperity.
Even after the North won, they got tired of enforcing the laws of and left the South. The South then came up with Jim Crow laws to make sure blacks stayed second class citizens with few, if any, rights. It took the Civil Rights Movement nearly 100 years later to bring about real reform.
The main core of the Civil Rights Movement were peaceful, and yes, they allowed the opposition to beat them, jail them and worse. The few that fought back violently were marginalized and mostly hunted down and killed or prosecuted for their crimes.
Trump won because the majority believed his message. Trump is a rare politician, he is following through with what he said he would do. Of course the leftist are resisting and using every tool, legal and illegal to resist. There are indications that the average American is turning their backs on the leftist agenda.
Look at the No Kings! protest. The events do not draw a large crowd of protestors. The ones that show up are predominately wealth, white, middle aged women. This is the group that are mostly wealthy because they had very successful husbands and spend much of their free time with social events. They are far removed from reality.
We will see if this change is real at the next midterms. If the dems flip the house or senate, then we have started down the path to civil war. If they get back in power, we will see packing of the Supreme Court. more blatant moves to use law fare against conservatives. the only way to stop that is through taking up arms.
We need to let them make the first move. We can then respond through the legal system to stop them. If that does not work, then it is the time to take up arms or divide the country into two are more separate countries.
Yes, Trump has disrupted the Republican Party. The previous generation were mostly the Neo-cons and were not much different than the democrats. They could work together and still get things done.
The problem was those nice republicans did not do well in office because they played nice. The dems used that against them. Trump is a businessman. He knows how to get things done. He is a disrupter. He trolls the progressives because they take the bait and are angry that sends mean tweets. He gets those in the middle to see how unhinged the left is. This results in the left saying stupid things that expose them for what they are. This will alienate the mainstream from the Left. If that happens, we win without a civil war. If it does not, then I do not think a civil war can be avoided unless there is an agreement to just break apart and cease being the USA. The result will cause us to loose our prominence in the world. We will be second rate.
Following is a sobering –perhaps even scary-- quote from Henry Ibsen in "The Ghosts":
"It is not what we have inherited from our father and mother that 'walks' in us. It is all sorts of dead
ideas, and lifeless old beliefs, and so forth. They have no vitality, but they cling to us all the same, and we
cannot shake them off. Whenever I take up a newspaper, I seem to see the ghosts gliding between the
lines. There must be ghosts all the country over, as thick as the sands of the sea. And then we are, one
and all, so pitifully afraid of the light…"
Or, in more modern terms, here's a quote from former President Kennedy:
“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie –deliberate, contrived and dishonest– but the myth–
persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject
all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort
of thought.”
Folks, we have to be very careful about what we believe IN --politics, religions and people in particular. I'd love to read a take from you on this, John!
I get it. My late grandfather was a great person and a generally conservative guy, but he was also what they used to call a, "yellow dog Democrat." He absolutely, unconditionally would not vote for a Republican. He'd rather vote for a little yellow dog. Because a lot of southerners, quite correctly in many cases, thought Republicans treated the South badly during the reconstruction and that attitude was passed down from father-to-son.
You see a lot of the same kind of thing from black people who live in areas surrounded by black people, but they despise white Republicans. You could say the same about the vast majority of people who aren't Palestinian you see railing about Jews on social media. I don't agree with the Palestinians, but at least you can understand why they'd have beef with Jews. If you're some white guy in middle America, you have to reach so far you fall over to come up with a way, "the Jews" hurt you.
So, what Ibsen was saying there was brilliant. Maybe I will dig into it deeper and write a column on it one day.
Indispensable. Best essay I’ve read in weeks. Restacking so more will see it.
The last thing any right thinking person should ever do is give ammunition to the crazies on the left.
The inability to hold two opposing views at one time and demonstrate the capability to discuss them objectively is a sign of either intellectual midgetry or intellectual dishonesty. There should be zero taboo topics.
Hitler was not all bad, and he certainly was not all good.
Talking about the high crime and high single-mother statistics relative to that of Asians and immigrant blacks and all the suspicions of racial difference, like the fact that blacks are over-represented in professional sports compared to Asians and Asians are over-represented in economic success than all other races (shooting a big hole in the US is still racist claim by the left)... while also conceding the theory that the history of slavery and black discrimination still has some lasting negative socioeconomic effects on some black families. THIS is the way.
There are always weirdos, hippies, quacks, cranks and mentally off people that clutch conspiracy theories. I don't think we have significantly more of them today, it is just that social media allows everyone to be a media personality now and they show themselves. But we always have, and always will, have a percentage of these people in our general population. How many people tune in to that late night Coast-to-Coast radio program talking about Bigfoot, UFO abductions, etc.?
Instead of focusing on these folk... the independent people with their God-given 1st Amendment rights to spout any and all nonsense as long as it is not promoting violence against others (and all people should face consequences for promoting, supporting, celebrating, condoning any type of political violence... or criminal violence in general,,, yes you rappers, you should be arrested, tried and convicted for promoting violence)... the target should be those using the media for pushing an emotional terrorism-backed agenda in a position of leadership... for money or political power.
I think Candice Owens should be ripped to shreds for her antisemitism as should every professor and school administrator.
I think the entire Democrat Party, having adopted a campaign strategy of 100% emotional terrorism, should be arrested and tried.
I so think that we should revoke the visas of visitors that participate in political protests (because it is stupid to invite people in to undermine your country... did we not learn anything during the Cold War?), but citizens should be 100% free to participate as long as there is no violence or call for violence.
And every single citizen that is just exercising their God-given rights to freedom of speech and expression and association, should be left the hell alone.
Go ahead and talk seriously and intelligently about why you think Hitler was a good actor for Germany. Make your case. I will most likely strongly disagree with you based on what I know about that time of history, but I am curious enough to hear new perspectives and possibly learn something.
So Candace should be ripped to shreds but everyone else can exercise their god given rights to freedom of speech and expression and association and should be left alone? This is ridiculous. 🤦♀️
Owens is making money, power, fame by promulgating antisemitism. I completely reject hate laws and the concept of hate speech... the lie that we can accurately claim what is in a person's heart or that even if hate exists, it justifies any type of punishment. However, people in leadership positions, privileged to be in those positions, if delivering any type of messaging or influencing that can be connected to fomenting or encouraging or inciting violence against someone else, then it should justify punishment.
So you support free speech, but not really.
Unfortunately it is the flaw in humanity, primarily owned by females and feminized males, that is their capacity to be emotionally terrorized and influenced outside of rational thought, that requires we treat the Jim Jones cult leaders differently than we do individuals spouting their beliefs however absurd.
This is similar to my view of addictive harmful drugs. I was a complete libertarian until my oldest son demonstrated an addictive personality disorder. He is good now but he is not someone that can self-regulate around free access to harmful mind-altering substances.
My political orientation is libertarian paternalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_paternalism It is the only way. Libertarianism at its extreme is stupid and seems to support a lot of human harm. Socialism at the other extreme is stupid because it supports an endless reduction in individual freedom to prevent human harm.
You think she has power? Is that why she lost her high powered job last year? You think she is in a leadership position? Is that why she had to start her own company to express her free speech? It's either free speech for ALL or none.
She has a big following. She is an influencer. She has a leadership responsibility. And her messaging contributes to hostility toward Jews.
I get your point. I am a near free speech absolutist, but two hard stops for me.
1. When non-citizens or non-LPRs participate in political protests, speech or writing they should be deported.
2. When people in positions of leadership having power and influence deliver speech in any format that encourages violence against others.
Now with respect to individuals not in a leadership position spouting vile opinions, I support their right to do so, but I also support the free speech right of their employer to fire them for it.
I agree with your last point on employers firing whomever they wish.
I also agree on your first point. Don't come here as a guest and act a fool.
I respectfully disagree with your second point however. If someone is an "influencer", they have worked hard to attain that. But that shouldn't negate their rights of free expression. I don't see her inciting violence. Just because someone questions the policies of a foreign government, Isreal or otherwise, does not mean hatred towards them. I find many things about some foreign governments questionable. I don't hate their citizens for it. And, the way Isreal wants to quash any questioning of them, by any and all means, seems suspect. I have always believed sunshine to be the best disinfectant. You can't find the truth of anything without questioning everything.
That is a reasonable position. I have heard Owens spout some stuff that would feed the violent Jew haters on the left and right.
I guess because I am a CEO I know that my words have amplified meaning to those that follow me. I have a level of responsibility to be more mindful and careful with what I say. That is a responsibility that comes with the privilege of being in a leadership position. I see the same for all media personalities. It is fine to have an opinion, but to deliver any messaging that contributes to a material risk of violence against others... I draw the line there. I think there needs to be a test for being tagged as working in a leadership role with mass influence. Teachers, professors, school administrators, media personalities, corporate leaders, ministers or other religious leaders... people in these positions are not just a singularity owning their own opinion, they are hubs of a network going to the brains of others that can be influenced. The cut-off for me is when they are influencing in a way that is a material call to violence against others.
So, the people who commit violence are mindless drones, with no responsibility for themselves? Seems like we can’t punish them, then.
Everyone should be held accountable for their actions.
Bad actors on the right don’t represent anyone but themselves. Easily ignored.
The bad actors on the left? They’re paid and supported by Democrats and need to be stopped before they start Civil War II. People think that’s not a real threat, but civil wars have happened through most of human history. We aren’t immune.
TLDR. Still focused on the real enemies of the right: the NeverTrumpers who preferred Hillary over Trump in '16.
We let the jews run riot in this country for 60 years and our institutional leaders were just fine with the US becoming a puppet state of a devious minority in Jerusalem. I'm not a national socialist and I don't endorse everything Hitler said or did, but a cynical attitude toward jews is a healthy mechanism at this point.
Nobody cares. Respectability politics is dead, it was shot in the throat.
A little follow-up on "Believing"... John, this is really information for your (upcoming?) article; not for posting. But I see no other way to get it to ya. This is a small part of an article I wrote some time ago. Will expand privately, if you want:
DEFINITION OF 'BELIEF'…
> Believe something is true because it can be analyzed, substantiated &/or replicated.
> Believe something is true because one feels, thinks or supposes it to be true.
So, there are at least TWO different definitions for the action of 'Believing'…
A more specific definition can be found in Skeptical Medicine, a primer for medical professionals and students. It provides a foundation for understanding science (and hence medical science) and evaluating medically related, empiric claims. Here is a distinction they make between 'Beliefs':
Beliefs-That are empirical. Let’s think of them as propositions we hold true because of empirical evidence. We are generally not as emotionally attached to our Beliefs-That, perhaps because they did not stem from emotions, but rather from observations.
Beliefs-In are not empirical. Beliefs-In are unfounded convictions and tend to come from within. Belief-ins are felt with our emotions. Once felt, they are accepted by the rational mind which, in turn, rationalizes them as if they were empirical.
When two people argue over conflicting Beliefs-in, no resolution will ever likely be found, for logical arguments depend on premises that have empirical truth.
Furthermore, when two people argue over conflicting Beliefs-in, and one kills the other, you have B.A.D. Beliefs. What are B.A.D. Beliefs?
"B.A.D" BELIEFS…
If and when the Believings-In are allowed to grow to a level where people are coerced into accepting unsubstantiated beliefs via threats of discrimination or death, we refer to these beliefs as Belligerent-Autocratic-Dogmatic –or "B.A.D." for short.
Whenever B.A.D. beliefs gain an upper hand, Humanity suffers. Especially in our day and time: these B.A.D. individuals and systems must be opposed if Liberty is going to be allowed continued growth; indeed, if the Human race is going to survive at all…
That’s the issue: Liberty & Safety. Prevention of global conflagration, mass enslavement and genocide on an unprecedented scale –more unprecedented than ever before. If we are to avoid these calamities (or at least lessen the probabilities), we must start by confronting the root of the danger: B.A.D. thinking.
But, in order to address the crucial question: where do the B.A.D. individuals come from, especially those who make up the B.A.D. systems?
…They come from us! We must confront ourselves!
What people say in private, the jokes and comments that pass as humor in their group, has never concerned me.
I give them the same pass I give to professional comedians.
That said, I would certainly hate for some of the jokes I’ve told, or comments I’ve made in private, to be made public.
I think context is key.
You hit on another issue that has always confused me.
Who says that “nutjobs, anti-Semites, white supremacists, conspiracy theorists, and generally sociopathic lunatics” are part of “the Right”?
Who has the authority to make such a determination?
Because I certainly disagree that the people in those categories are anything but those categories.
It bothers me when these terms are not challenged immediately when mentioned as part of “the Right”.
One current example is when I hear conservative news describing Charlie Kirk as a “far right activist”, instead of just an evangelizing Christian.
As you rightly said- words do matter.
Way back when when I took a PolySci class from a professor who was far from woke, he said it is difficult to tell the difference between the far left and the far right. You can go so far right you are now on the left and so far left that you end up on the right.
I have used the motive of the group to distinguish left from right. On the far right, they generally believe only the in group, their group, is worthy and should rule over all the other worthless people because they are not intelligent enough to take care of their needs. Only those in the in group are worthy enough to live. (edited because my fingers were on the wrong keys when I was typing)..
The left usually approaches their view on how to improve the lives of those in need.
The problem is at their extremes, both sides eventually conclude the only way to achieve their goals is to take over the government and force their will on everyone for their own good.
Far left has taken over the democrat party.
Easily identifiable.
What is “far right”?
Those that adhere to Nazi ideology or the white supremacists. My father was one
Richard Hanania argues that the mainstream left unambiguously condemned the Kirk assassination. Do we have any numbers on how many kooky lefties actually celebrated his death?
Indeed.
Absolutely not
All intra-Right criticism must be private, not public. I don't care about group chats while the other side publicly plots to kill us. And I'm not sure what Hitler (a socialist) has to do with the Right?
There is a misconception that Hitler was a socialist. He joined the national socialist party and over remade it in his image. That of Fascism. If a company wanted to continue in business during that time, they had to play by his rules. He used the "private sector" to enforce his will on the German people.
Hitler used socialism to control the population. He did not care about the welfare of the average citizen. They were subservient to the state and existed to be used by the state, or more accurately, Hitler, to achieve his goals. He also wanted to keep the people in the dark about what was recalling happening and the best way to do that is to make their lives comfortable and bribe them with enough free stuff so they are appeased.
In socialism, the state is the benevolent entity to provide its citizens with their needs. In Fascism, the citizens are an ends to a means and have no value except for what they can do for the state.