Every totalitarian system has used the tactic of coercing people to affirm the regime’s agenda, even when they disagree. Forcing people to mouth politically correct dogmas that they know are false is designed to break their spirit and their resistance. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said the worst aspect of Communist totalitarianism was not the economic poverty or the lack of political rights; it was being forced to repeat the regime’s lies: “The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie.”
There is no evil that Democrats won’t support and force upon us.
The Covington confrontation points to an ironclad historical pattern. Every previous genocide in modern times was preceded by a similar pattern of public demonization of state-designated scapegoats. But is correlation causation? Does the American Left intend to eventually commit genocide against white heritage American males? In my opinion, yes. Scapegoating is part of a clear pattern of conduct seen during every socialist power grab from the French Revolution until now. In the case of German national socialists, European Jews were the scapegoats of the Nazis during their climb to power. In the case of international socialists, AKA Communists, class enemies were usually but not always the designated scapegoats. Examples of class enemies would include the Kulaks in the Soviet Union, “landlords” in China, and “intellectuals” in Cambodia. But in other cases ethnic groups were targeted as scapegoats by Communists, to include the Ukrainians, Crimeans, Latvians and others.
So, are today’s Democrats already planning to load their white heritage American enemies into boxcars for trips to a new Gulag? Probably not many at this time, but Barack Obama’s political mentor Bill Ayers certainly considered it. Ayers believed that so many Americans would bitterly resist Communism that 25 million would have to be “eliminated.”
Invest in precious metals like lead, copper, and brass. Might also want to stock up on food and other necessities.
Governments are enthusiastically weaponizing the Leftist trend of sexualizing children, because doing so dramatically increases government power.
What’s terrifying about the child transgender movement is that it’s moved beyond the moral degenerates of the entertainment and media worlds. We’ve now reached the point at which governments are rapidly internalizing it and using it to sever the parent-child bond. Last year in Ohio, parents actually lost custody for not being sufficiently supportive of their daughter’s claimed transgenderism. Currently, in Texas, a father is being told that, if he doesn’t get with his ex-wife’s program of insisting that their six-year-old son wants to be a girl, he will lose any access to his son.
We’ve been having this fight for a while. But this century things have escalated.
They escalated a whole lot after Trump’s win because the network isn’t pretending anymore. It sees the opportunity to delegitimize the whole idea of elections.
Now the network isn’t running the country from cover. It’s actually out here trying to overturn the results of an election and remove the president from office.
It’s rejected the victories of two Republican presidents this century.
There’s only been two, and they’ve rejected both.
This is a civil war between volunteer governments elected by the people and professional governments elected by… well… uh… themselves.
Of the establishment, by the establishment and for the establishment.
Yep.
We’re in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and leftist professional government.
The pros have made it clear that they’re not going to accept election results anymore. They’re just going to make us do whatever they want. They’re in charge and we better do what they say.
That’s the war we’re in. And it’s important that we understand that.
Because this isn’t a shooting war yet. And I don’t want to see it become one.
Personally I’m preparing for one.
Both sides talk about taking back the country. But who are they taking it back for?
The left uses identity politics. It puts supposed representatives of entire identity groups up front. We’re taking the country back for women and for black people, and so on and so forth…
But nobody elected their representatives.
Identity groups don’t vote for leaders. All the black people in the country never voted to make Shaun King al Al Sharpton their representative. And women sure as hell didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton.
What we have in America is a representative government. A representative government makes freedom possible because it actually represents people, instead of representing ideas.
The left’s identity politics only represents ideas. Nobody gets to vote on them.
That’s because their ideas are so good they have to be forced down our throats.
Well, then: shared commerce and finance keeps America knitted together in peace too, right?
But what happens when major corporations, especially those involved in finance and the free exchange of ideas in order to further the aims of participatory democracy, decide they’re going to effectively exile half the country out of the normal systems of the country?
What happens when half of America won’t buy bread from the other half of America, and half of America won’t issue a mortgage to half of America based on their failing a Political Test and Corporate Loyalty Oath?
What happens to the idea that peoples that trade together can’t go to war with each other then?
Invest in precious metals like lead, brass, and copper.
“Report anti Islamic and anti Muslim content on the internet to appropriate authorities to take action to remove it and go after those who post it online and prosecute and take actions according to the Shariah ruling.”
Go for it you goat-f*cking, pedophile-worshipping, murderous @sshole.
The phrase “white heterosexual male” has become a popular term of demonization in the rhetoric of the Left, and you cannot expect white men to enjoy being assigned the role of Emmanuel Goldstein in this 21st-century version of Orwell’s dystopia. If the reaction of white men to being scapegoated is sometimes irrational and violent, this is to be lamented, but the irrationality of their reaction doesn’t mean that they are incorrect in their perception, or that they are wrong to be angry about being unfairly demonized as “privileged” by the college-educated Left.
How is the ordinary working-class white man, toiling in a low-status job to support himself and his family, “privileged” in any meaningful way? And how is it that the people accusing him of “privilege” are almost exclusively members of the college-educated elite? The average salary of a law professor at the University of California is over $270,000, whereas the median household income in Wisconsin is $66,432. Is the working man in Sheboygan more “privileged” than you, Professor Williams?
The word “liberal” implies a live-and-let-live attitude. The truth is that liberals (leftists) are laser-focused on using Big Brother government to force their far-out minority ideas on mainstream Americans. The leftist media mafia publicly shames mainstream Americans into silence, banning publicly speaking the truth about leftists’ sacred-cow issues. Homosexuals are 1-2% of the population. Transgenders are 0.3%. It is un-American to allow a handful of LGBT activists to bully us into silence and submission.
So, to recap: These are people who accost other humans in restaurants and hallways, attack restaurants for the political ideas of the customers who eat in them, claw at the doors of the Supreme Court when they don’t get their way, threaten to release medical information about senators’ children in retaliation for facing the consequences of losing a free and fair election, face polls turning upside down on them by doubling down on these kinds of tactics — oh, yes, and send shock squads to assassinate the character and terrorize the family of anyone who thinks differently as racists, murderers, and rapists. All this while insisting through clenched teeth that they are the party of tolerance, love, and empathy.
An important rule in ritual defamation is to avoid engaging in any kind of debate over the truthfulness or reasonableness of what has been expressed, only condemn it. To debate opens the issue up for examination and discussion of its merits, and to consider the evidence that may support it, which is just what the ritual defamer is trying to avoid. The primary goal of a ritual defamation is censorship and repression.
