nikolai_42
Well-known member
No. Seriously. I know I'm not a big Political poster (haven't posted anything at all in a while) but the insanity just seems to be compounding itself out there on a daily basis. And somehow I stumbled upon an article that turned on a lightbulb for me (thus, the icon associated with the title). The article is in the link below. It was written by Adele M Stan - who is apparently a left wing journalist and activist associated with (among other things) Right Wing Watch and the Huffington Post. In it, she rants about the authoritarianism of Putin and compares it directly to Trump. One quote comes directly from a report on freedom that makes that direct connection for the author of the article:
Though not my point, it seems a little telling that she would quote this in a day where the majority of news outlets (on a national scale) - and even social media outlets - are biased against anyone on the right. Political pluralism can hardly be maintained in a society where all major media institutions parrot the same line. And while one may well question the proximity of any President to any specific media outlet, the argument here seems self-serving at best. Earlier in the article, she quoted a Seattle outlet that was doing their own paraphrase of the Trump rationale behind his association with Sinclair :
Going on to point out that Sinclair holds a large stake in the local tv markets, Ms. Stan attempts to chill the reader by warning of onset authoritarianism. Basically, she's worried about the government telling you how to think via the media. She wants political pluralism (or so she implies). But the big danger, is authoritarianism - being told what to do AND what to think.
Again, forget (for the moment) that the news media has been (by enlarge) left of center for decades - and that social media has carried water for those same outlets. Ms. Stan is worried that authoritarianism is coming (indeed, almost here)....yet what does she say near the end of the article :
ICE raids - are they inherently evil? Who said? And why? She expects the reader to tow the line that immigration enforcement is assumed bad. The woman given 5 years was a convicted felon and was on parole when she signed a document saying she wasn't a convicted felon (before voting). Was 5 years harsh? Possibly. But this woman was also guilty of filing nearly 800 knowingly fraudulent tax returns and obtaining tax ID's to defraud the government of over $4M. History and credibility suggest she knew what she was doing. The Informant? He was an MS-13 member and was a party to murders himself. Now...could a case be made that he shouldn't be deported? Possibly. But this is hardly an egregious outrage of justice. And ending the right to take the life of the unborn? How dare you!
But what really tells on the left and has the seeds of the authoritarianism they hate so much is in the next two statements (primarily the first) : "rise in hate crimes" and "demonization of Muslims". These (along with efforts such as "Equal Opportunity Employment") are forays into the realm of thought. They cross over from the concreteness of actions and evidence to the ethereal and ephemeral domain where thoughts, intents and other personal qualities roam. Crime is crime - and while violent crimes are awful, the idea that they should be made worse if race or sexual orientation is a motivating factor is repugnant to the concept of justice. Not only that, but it requires MORE legislation to define those thoughts themselves as criminal (not just distinguishing between intentional or accidental murder, for example). And while racism is not to be applauded, it should come as no surprise to Ms. Stan and her ilk that making crimes out of thoughts should require more infringement of government upon individual liberty. That is the seed of her hated authoritarianism - more government control. Quotas and not allowing offensive ideas to be voiced ("safe spaces"!!) are more of the same. Quotas imply that without a fixed percentage of some race being hired that you are being racist. Actually, the very idea of quotes is implied racism itself. The idea that some race isn't good enough to get hired so government has to make a place for you (where you are only there because of the color of your skin!!). That should be offensive to anyone who is hired under those pretenses. Demonization of Muslims is a loaded way of saying we can't think or say anything negative about anyone who is Muslim because there are exceptions - to the point now that the violent Muslim is supposed to be the exception. And since we are erasing and rewriting history, we can't point out that Islam is intermittently very violent because (in part) at its heart is the worship of a capricious God who (eventually) demands the blood of the infidel. Ms Stan wouldn't want you to think (much less say) that and very much would like the law to go after you for it....but she hates authoritarianism.
Clearly, this is less about Trump personally than it is about control. Control over the populace to achieve the agenda. And the left's agenda is allied with the power bases that are on the rise - Socialist thought (entitlement etc...), Globalism and Islamic Supremacy. Socialism/Marxism has been a friend of Islamic supremacy (by way of mutual benefit only) in academic and political circles for decades now. It isn't just post-9/11 but established itself in the fertile ground of revolutionary reactionaries found in universities in the 60's and 70's. Rebellion and hatred for authority were the big thing - and all that went with it swept away most of a generation. That generation is now in its 60's and 70's and is frustrated by its inability to overthrow authority in all its forms. And one day soon, there may be a moment where they will get their wish : "We will not have this Man to rule over us" and the darkness and chaos that covers the earth will be absolutely terrifying. The utter anarchy that they sought for will be granted them - and they will be prey for the demonic allies they made. And then something even more terrifying will come to pass when He who they all sought to overthrow comes to judge the earth - the living and the dead. There will be no hiding then. There will be no salvation since they did not want anything but self-rule. Authoritarianism will look good to them then.
Though not my point, it seems a little telling that she would quote this in a day where the majority of news outlets (on a national scale) - and even social media outlets - are biased against anyone on the right. Political pluralism can hardly be maintained in a society where all major media institutions parrot the same line. And while one may well question the proximity of any President to any specific media outlet, the argument here seems self-serving at best. Earlier in the article, she quoted a Seattle outlet that was doing their own paraphrase of the Trump rationale behind his association with Sinclair :
Going on to point out that Sinclair holds a large stake in the local tv markets, Ms. Stan attempts to chill the reader by warning of onset authoritarianism. Basically, she's worried about the government telling you how to think via the media. She wants political pluralism (or so she implies). But the big danger, is authoritarianism - being told what to do AND what to think.
Again, forget (for the moment) that the news media has been (by enlarge) left of center for decades - and that social media has carried water for those same outlets. Ms. Stan is worried that authoritarianism is coming (indeed, almost here)....yet what does she say near the end of the article :
ICE raids - are they inherently evil? Who said? And why? She expects the reader to tow the line that immigration enforcement is assumed bad. The woman given 5 years was a convicted felon and was on parole when she signed a document saying she wasn't a convicted felon (before voting). Was 5 years harsh? Possibly. But this woman was also guilty of filing nearly 800 knowingly fraudulent tax returns and obtaining tax ID's to defraud the government of over $4M. History and credibility suggest she knew what she was doing. The Informant? He was an MS-13 member and was a party to murders himself. Now...could a case be made that he shouldn't be deported? Possibly. But this is hardly an egregious outrage of justice. And ending the right to take the life of the unborn? How dare you!
But what really tells on the left and has the seeds of the authoritarianism they hate so much is in the next two statements (primarily the first) : "rise in hate crimes" and "demonization of Muslims". These (along with efforts such as "Equal Opportunity Employment") are forays into the realm of thought. They cross over from the concreteness of actions and evidence to the ethereal and ephemeral domain where thoughts, intents and other personal qualities roam. Crime is crime - and while violent crimes are awful, the idea that they should be made worse if race or sexual orientation is a motivating factor is repugnant to the concept of justice. Not only that, but it requires MORE legislation to define those thoughts themselves as criminal (not just distinguishing between intentional or accidental murder, for example). And while racism is not to be applauded, it should come as no surprise to Ms. Stan and her ilk that making crimes out of thoughts should require more infringement of government upon individual liberty. That is the seed of her hated authoritarianism - more government control. Quotas and not allowing offensive ideas to be voiced ("safe spaces"!!) are more of the same. Quotas imply that without a fixed percentage of some race being hired that you are being racist. Actually, the very idea of quotes is implied racism itself. The idea that some race isn't good enough to get hired so government has to make a place for you (where you are only there because of the color of your skin!!). That should be offensive to anyone who is hired under those pretenses. Demonization of Muslims is a loaded way of saying we can't think or say anything negative about anyone who is Muslim because there are exceptions - to the point now that the violent Muslim is supposed to be the exception. And since we are erasing and rewriting history, we can't point out that Islam is intermittently very violent because (in part) at its heart is the worship of a capricious God who (eventually) demands the blood of the infidel. Ms Stan wouldn't want you to think (much less say) that and very much would like the law to go after you for it....but she hates authoritarianism.
Clearly, this is less about Trump personally than it is about control. Control over the populace to achieve the agenda. And the left's agenda is allied with the power bases that are on the rise - Socialist thought (entitlement etc...), Globalism and Islamic Supremacy. Socialism/Marxism has been a friend of Islamic supremacy (by way of mutual benefit only) in academic and political circles for decades now. It isn't just post-9/11 but established itself in the fertile ground of revolutionary reactionaries found in universities in the 60's and 70's. Rebellion and hatred for authority were the big thing - and all that went with it swept away most of a generation. That generation is now in its 60's and 70's and is frustrated by its inability to overthrow authority in all its forms. And one day soon, there may be a moment where they will get their wish : "We will not have this Man to rule over us" and the darkness and chaos that covers the earth will be absolutely terrifying. The utter anarchy that they sought for will be granted them - and they will be prey for the demonic allies they made. And then something even more terrifying will come to pass when He who they all sought to overthrow comes to judge the earth - the living and the dead. There will be no hiding then. There will be no salvation since they did not want anything but self-rule. Authoritarianism will look good to them then.
