Category Archives: Politics on the left

This should be absolutely illegal

Posted on by
Reply

This previous post of mine was not a bit of whimsy but ought to be taken up as a serious proposition before it is too late: It must be made illegal on “social media” to deny service to people who say things that are not illegal to say. This is from Gateway Pundit and via srr: Joy Villa Given 48 Hours to Delete Her Incredible MAGA Song From YouTube. Someone needs to legislate to make this illegal. It is merely a fetish to say that a private firm can do anything it likes, when no private firm can do anything it likes. If someone puts up a platform for general use, only illegal activity can permit that platform from being withdrawn. Here is the story.

Singer Joy Villa shocked Hollywood after she burst onto the red carpet in February wearing a MAGA dress and a big beautiful smile to the Grammys. She became a star overnight with skyrocketing album sales as Trump supporters raced to purchase her music.

‘Tolerant’ and ‘loving’ liberals on the other hand, called for Joy Villa’s death–over her support for President Trump.

Villa claimed she had written consent from everyone in the video, however; YouTube claimed “we cannot accept or review agreements granting consent before the video was uploaded.”

YouTube is cracking down on conservatives, Christians and Trump supporters by demonetizing videos, deleting videos and suspending accounts altogether.

As TGP previously reported, pro-Trump personalities Diamond and Silk accused Google-owned YouTube of demonetizing 95 percent of their videos. The pair believes YouTube’s decision was driven by their support for President Trump.

YouTube isn’t the only platform targeting conservatives. Twitter and Facebook routinely censor and suspend pro-Trump accounts without any real explanation. Many conservatives receive vague emails claiming ‘terms of service’ was violated for benign posts while liberals and terrorists run wild on the platforms posting gruesome beheading videos, using profanity and calling for the assassination of president Trump without consequences.

The definition of “Antifa” is psychotic nutter

Posted on by
Reply

This is a story that I am reprinting as it was published but with a bit of editorial adjustment so that what actually took place is clarified: Masked anarchists nutters violently rout right-wing peaceful and law abiding demonstrators in Berkeley

An army of anarchists violent criminal psychopaths in black clothing and masks routed a small group of right-wing extremely brave demonstrators who had gathered in a Berkeley park Sunday to rail against the city’s famed progressive politics, driving them out — sometimes violently — while overwhelming a huge contingent of police officers.

Hundreds of officers tried to maintain calm in and around Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park before the 1 p.m. “No to Marxism in Berkeley” rally, putting up barricades, searching bags and confiscating sticks, masks, pepper spray and even water bottles. The goal was to head off the type of clashes that sprang from similar rallies in the city earlier this year.

But once again, counterdemonstrators a bunch of genuine fascists pretending they are actually against fascism frustrated efforts by police, who numbered about 400. As the crowd swelled to several times that size, officers stepped aside stopped doing their jobs and allowed hundreds of people violent thugs angered by the presence of the right-wing peaceful rally to climb over the barriers into the park, said Officer Jennifer Coats, a spokeswoman for Berkeley police.

The masked counterprotesters violent criminal gangs of hoodlums, often referred to as antifa or antifascists, significantly outnumbered the people who had come for the rally, many of whom wore red clothing indicating support for President Trump. The anarchists criminally insane thugs chased away the right-wingers law-abiding members of the public, and in one case four or five [cowardly actually fascist nutcases] pummeled a man with fists and sticks before a radio host for Reveal, Al Letson, [that is, not the police!] jumped in to shield the victim. Anarchists Violent psychopaths also attacked reporters who documented their actions.

By the time the confrontations violent criminal attacks wound down in midafternoon, police had arrested 13 people, including one for assault with a deadly weapon, Coats said. Most were accused of bringing banned items into the park. Six people reported non-life-threatening injuries, Coats said, including two taken to hospitals.

Every society has its psychotics who are usually kept chained up and sedated but sometimes it is seen as useful by political groups to allow them to run free. Using the right words to describe what is happening is essential if the underlying dynamic is to be more clearly understood.

No idea who their enemies are

Posted on by
Reply

These are comments found on a thread at Catallaxy following this post titled, Strange days indeed which is itself linked to an article titled, My great uncle was alienated in postwar France. Now Americans know how he felt. The writer is Hadley Freeman implying there is some great irony in Jews having fled European fascism in the 1930s only to find their descendants – her, for example – caught up today in the rebirth of fascism in America. A complete fool, consorting with her deepest enemies and giving them cover, her shameful ignorance identified in the Catallaxy comments thread.

Surprisingly, many Jews have a poor grasp of history and an even poorer grasp of reality. They consistently line up behind those who threaten Israels existence and who would be dispose of them in a heartbeat. Antifa should be all to familiar to them and completely alarming.

The problem with a lot of leftist Jews (and I have some in my family) is that they are leftists first and Jews second – well, quite often Jews in name only. They embrace every liberal cause that comes along, they work against the interests of Israel and their people, they work in favour of violent and antisemitic Palestinian causes, they deny the reality of Islamic violence and Jew hatred and they hate people like Trump simply because he is not one of them (that is, they don’t hate him because he is not a Jew – rather they hate him because he is not a liberal). In fact to them, anyone not to the left of Marx is a Nazi so I would not necessarily place too much faith in their judgment of who is and who is not a Nazi (leftists in general are seldom interested in evidence or facts where these conflict with their narrative). Of course some of the people at Charlottesville were neo-Nazis who do in fact hate Jews, but many were just conservatives. And Trump was right – much of the rise of the extreme right wing is a backlash brought about by the violence and intolerance of the extreme Left which is being supported and protected by many who should know better – including many so called Jews (who incidentally by their own actions are working against the Jewish people – Israel in particular). In this respect, Trump is more of a Jew than many of the lefty, so called “Jews”are). Denis Prager (himself a practicing conservative Jew) hits the nail on the head when he points out the danger this creates not just for Jews but for western civilization as a whole. And in point of fact I see as much if not more anti Jewish behaviour on the Left than the anti Jewish behaviour on the right which is being perpetrated by a vanishingly small number of neo Nazis. The fact that this Leftist anti Jewish behaviour is often disguised as criticism of Israel does not change the fact that it is actually Jew hatred. Though they like to think of it as some kind of superior morality. I also find it passing strange to see this writer doing what the Left so often does – projecting onto the other side their own bad behaviour such as accusing Trump of being anti Israel or of being appeasers (apparently appeasing extremist Islam, which is a far greater threat than a tiny number of neo Nazis is OK however). Sickening.

Objectively, having an ancestor who survived the Holocaust is irrelevant, it doesn’t give her opinions any special authority; that’s the genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue — Wiki). Conversely descendants of nazis, or descendants of our pioneers for that matter, carry no special guilt. She, they all, use faulty reasoning as in: Trump is supported by neo-nazis (allegedly) therefore he must support neo-nazis or guilt by association in this case ‘reductio ad Hitlerum’.

What part of Islamo-Fascist does she not understand? What part of “some good people” does she not understand? What part of “Antifa” brutal street fascism does she not understand? This blinkered woman does not understand very much.

Liberal???… She’s not a liberal, she’s a Socialist and Fascistic one at that….. But like most fascists she excuses her violence of thought and deed by blaming the victims of her political passions. She exaggerates and lies….. and she does it deliberately for political effect.

Trump supports Israel and went to the wailing wall in a very respectful manner. Obama undermined Israel and sympathises with its enemies. He would never have gone there in the same fashion Trump did. These leftist commentators like her are always off the mark, but this statement is deranged.

The typical modern guardianista liberal with an empty head and an empty life. If Trump is Hitler, then she can pretend to be Ann Frank – it gives her life a tiny bit of meaning.

Tunisia, Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen… just a few of the places where J__s are no longer being born. Don’t think it has anything to do with Nazis though.

It is the left that is anti-semitic and pro-muslin. Trump’s own family is part Jewish. The Gramsci-ites know, a la Goebbels, that the propaganda lie, once out there gets disseminated by a fellow-traveller medja, and absorbed by those who fail to reason why and by youth made compliant via leftist k-12 transformational “education”.

Desecrates her uncle’s grave with cheap anti Trump addendum to a story about a man of greatness. But that is so typical of the “cultural left”.

I wish I had any idea of what she means. Can someone explain it. I’ll give it a shot, friend of Israel = nazi, Muslims who want to wipe Israel and every Jew off the face of the Earth = not nazi. And just like in 1930s the beautiful people side with the nazis. It’s instinctive to them as they find ugly art beautiful, ugly literature worthy and ugly movies as entertainment.

You better put some ice on that

Posted on by
Reply

Went to the ballet last night and at half time went out for a coffee to make sure I could keep awake for the second half. And there I chanced upon the daughter of an old old friend who I had known since she was an infant, an extremely bright young woman who had even been dux of her school. And we chatted as we always do as I searched around for the milk, and in the midst of it all she asked me how I thought Donald Trump was going as president. And since we had quite frequently met on the train during the election last year and had chatted amicably about the election, I said what I thought, which was that I found he was going even better than I had expected he would, especially given the opposition he was facing. So I will now relate how the last conversation we will ever have from that moment continued.

Well, she said, he gives me the creeps. This may be a mis-remembrance since this is what Hillary has been quoted as saying in recent days as excerpts from her new book are being released. But if those weren’t her exact words, they were certainly her sentiments. Why, I said? Because he is not respectful of women.

So I said, but we elect presidents to deal with policy. Don’t you care about North Korea, Islamic terrorism, open borders, our economic future and the preservation of Western Civilisation? Don’t you think these are also important and should be put into the balance as well. No, she didn’t think that at all. Walking home at night safely without worrying about molestation is what’s important.

But, I said, if that was the major issue, what about Bill Clinton, and his enabling wife Hillary? With Monica it was consensual. But she was an intern and he was her boss, didn’t that matter [and I forgot to mention Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey if consensual was so important]? No, not in the least. You know, I said, as we stood in the lobby of the Arts Centre at half time at the ballet, you are living in a bubble surrounded by a normality that might come crashing down if we do not get our political environment properly set. You – she said to me – think like that because you are a male. You cannot understand things from the perspective of a woman.

Well, I said, lots of women voted for Trump. Yes, but they were white women. That is not a worthy argument I replied since it basically forecloses on all possibility that we can discuss anything. Once you say that, there is no possibility of coming to any kind of mutual understanding since nothing I can ever possibly say has any possible ability to get past that defence. (And funny enough, a black cab driver in Washington had made the same point when we had had a similar conversation in July, that I could not understand what he was saying because I was not black myself.)

And then we went back to our seats, where I was able to stay awake for the second half without the least bit of trouble. But what annoys me almost as much as anything is her breach of friendship. She knew my attitude to Trump pre-election but assumed, like every other political fool, that I must have seen the light once he became president. So far past her widest intellectual compass was the possibility that having backed him for the eighteen months that led up to his election that I might still find myself very content to see what he has done since he is doing what he said he would, or at least trying. Dragging policy into the conversation was merely trying to sidetrack the only thing that mattered so far as she was concerned, his wrongthought on how to treat women.

But as it happens, every Democrat president, aside from Jimmy Carter, since I became conscious of politics at all – Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton – has been a serial adulterer. Clinton was even worse, an accused rapist, and we have it on good authority that Hillary ‘put up with’ Bill Clinton’s sexual ‘grabbing, groping women’. Trump did not lie about it or deny this incident, but said what I say, that it was highly unacceptable, but that there are bigger issues that matter much more. If you can ignore the Clintons’ far far worse behaviour, and make this one story about Trump your single reason for not supporting Trump as president, then so be it. But if you also think you have any political judgement whatsoever, then you are an even bigger fool than I might ever have thought. Rotherham and Cologne have become one-word reminders of how bad things have become even if we restrict ourselves to sexual assault. If this one story about Trump is all she can think of as the reason not to vote for him, she really is stupid in spite of her undoubtedly high IQ.

AND FOR THE RECORD: And I do think of policy as what matters. Aside from not being Hillary or a Democrat, there is this as well on Trump’s side of the ledger. From Cohenite who has taken the list from somewhere else:

WHAT HAS PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP DONE SINCE HE HAS BEEN IN OFFICE ……

1. Supreme Court Judge Gorsuch
2. 59 missiles dropped in Syria
3. He took us out of TPP
4. Illegal immigration is now down 70%( the lowest in 17 years)
5. Consumer confidence highest since 2000 at index 125.6
6. Mortgage applications for new homes rise to a seven year high
7. Arranged from 7% to 24% Tariff on lumber from Canada
8. Bids for border wall are well underway
9. Pulled out of the lopsided Paris accord
10. Keystone pipeline approved
11. NATO allies boost spending by 4.3%
12. Allowing VA to terminate bad employees
13. Allowing private healthcare choices for veterans
14. More than 600,000. Jobs created
15. Median household income at a 7 year high
16. The Stock Market is at the highest ever in its history
17. China agreed to American import of beef
18. $89 Billion saved in regulation rollbacks
19. Rollback of A Regulation to boost coal mining
20. MOAB for ISIS
21. Travel ban reinstated
22. Executive order for religious freedom
23. Jump started NASA
24. $600 million cut from UN peacekeeping budget
25. Targeting of MS13 gangs
26. Deporting violent illegal immigrants
27. Signed 41 bills to date
28. Created a commission on child trafficking
29. Created a commission on voter fraud
30. Created a commission for opioids addiction
31. Giving power to states to drug test unemployment recipients
32. Unemployment lowest since May 2007
33. Historic Black College University initiative
34. Women In Entrepreneurship Act
35. Created an office for illegal immigrant crime victims
36. Reversed Dodd-Frank
37. Repealed DOT ruling which would have taken power away from local governments for infrastructure planning
38. Order to stop crime against law enforcement
39. End of DAPA program
40. Stopped companies from moving out of America
41. Promoted businesses to create American Jobs
42. Encouraged country to once again – ‘Buy American and hire American’
43. Cutting regulations – 2 for every one created
45. Review of all trade agreements to make sure they areAmerica first
46. Apprentice program
47. Highest manufacturing surge in 3 years
48. $78 Billion promised reinvestment from major businesses like Exxon, Bayer, Apple, SoftBank, Toyota
49. Denied FBI a new building
50. $700 million saved with F-35 renegotiation
51. Saves $22 million by reducing white house payroll
52. Dept of Treasury reports a $182 billion surplus for April 2017 (2nd largest in history)
53. Negotiated the release of 6 US humanitarian workers held captive in Egypt
54. Gas prices lowest in more than 12 years
55. Signed An Executive Order To Promote Energy Independence and Economic Growth
56. Has already accomplished more to stop government interference into people’s lives than any President in the history of America
57. President Trump has worked with Congress to pass more legislation in his first 100 days than any President since Truman
58. Has given head executive of each branches 6 month time frame, dated March 15, 2017, to trim the fat, restructure and improve efficiency of their branch. (Observe the push-back the leaks the lies as entrenched POWER refuses to go silently into that good night!)
59. Last, refused his Presidential pay check. Donated it to Veterans issues

I hope each and every one of you copy and paste this every where, every time you hear some dimwit say Trump hadn’t done a thing! Bob Sr.

Ray Schneider, PhD
Associate Professor Emeritus
Bridgewater College

********

It took 32 years for the 3 prior administrations to totally destroy this nation and her people, and Trump’s first 6 months to begin a major unwind of all the prior traitorous issues.

“The left knows no bounds for its hatred of others”

Posted on by
Reply

A comment at Instapundit in response to this article: The obscene effort to shame ‘Trump’s Jews’.

The left knows no bounds for its hatred of others. None.

What we are seeing is the historical and slow-motion collapse of an American political party – the Democrat Party.

In the past decade they have lost 1,000 elective seats in federal and state governments. They have lost much of the working middle class, and the labor union members. They have called a vast swath of voters “deplorable and irredeemable”. They have happily told formerly reliable Democrat voters that thy are going to end their jobs and raise prices.

They have lied about health insurance, and those lies have cost millions of voters a LOT of money, and the Democrats are utterly dismissive about helping fix the problem they created. They support anarchists who riot in the streets. The support and enforce social justice warriors. They demand that grown perverts use the same bathrooms as voters’ children. They protect criminals and despise the police. The cities they govern have become horrible and expensive places to live. The schools they run are failing.

The newly-elected party leaders hate American history, love Islam, hate democracy.

And now they are attacking their own, and for no good reason, but simply to further the hatred of a properly elected President.

They have no economic policy, no foreign policy, no great dream for America. All they have is hatred, hatred, and more hatred.

They pretend to be nice people but there is no evidence other than what they say about themselves.

The common sense of fifty years ago has evaporated

Posted on by
Reply

Here is a post picked up at a site where I think of myself among friends that continues my sense that near enough nobody gets it at this “elite” level. Nazi-Hunting Fantasies Have Unhinged The Left. So this is what he says about the reactions the left make about PDT:

As applied to Trump, they are a bit exaggerated, but close enough to be plausible.

And what are the causes of these plausible but exaggerated reactions?

The problem with their reaction to Donald Trump is that he seems to so totally vindicate all of their political prejudices that he justifies an even more vicious vilification of anyone who opposes their agenda. Everyone who supports free market capitalism is a rich jerk who looks down on poor people? Check. Anyone who complains about political correctness just wants to be a sexist boor? Check. Anyone who talks hawkishly about Islamic terrorism must be driven by a neurotic need to prove his masculinity? Check. Anyone who doesn’t sign up for the latest iteration of the “diversity” agenda must harbor some kind of implicit sympathy for white nationalists? Yeah, well, check.

His problem is that it is because Trump is like the left’s fantasy view of the right that we are being discredited and will be unable to open a dialogue with the left. But if he actually thinks he has properly characterised the beliefs and attitudes of Donald Trump, then he is as bad as the rest. The common sense of fifty years ago must now have evaporated. So far as Trump’s belief system goes, it looks very similar to the value system of JFK which is, to me all these years later, pretty well where I am still at. Democrats were once sane. Now, even among the supposed right side of politics, insanity at the elite level is common.

It must be made illegal on “social media” to deny service to people who say things that are not illegal to say

Posted on by
Reply

I have been meaning to get into this for a while because I keep hearing the same mantra that since these social media platforms are privately owned they can do as they like. Well speaking for myself, I don’t think that at all. People don’t sign up for Facebook or Twitter, or open a blog post on some commercial website, building up their own profile based on knowing the political ideology of the people who set the platform up. They are therefore in danger of having quite a bit of the value they have created stolen from them because of some political preference harboured by the people who run the platform. Once these forms of social communication are established and individuals are asked to join and build their own online presence on these platforms, the law must do as I say in the title, it must make it illegal to suspend or deny service to people because they say things the proprietors of such platforms disagree with but which are not in themselves illegal to say.

So let me choose a couple of recent examples of how things are working out. The Rebel is a Canadian online broadcasting website that entirely devotes its resources to defending conservative positions in the media. Quite large in Canada, and now with a presence in Australia, but hardly at the level of the government-funded CBC. But this was in the news just this week: The Rebel disrupted as it loses its domain provider. The story is from The National Post:

The ultra-conservative online Canadian media outlet The Rebel reportedly went dark in some parts of the world Monday after a technology company stopped directing traffic to its site.

Rebel proprietor Ezra Levant told Reuters he was given 24 hours notice of — but no explanation for — the move.

“If this was a political censorship decision, it is terrifying — like a phone company telling you it is cancelling your phone number on 24 hours notice because it doesn’t like your conversations,” Levant told Reuters. He did not identify the company.

It is terrifying, and if and when they come back online, you may be sure they will be more circumspect thereafter. The voices on our side are being thinned down while those on the other are amplified at every turn.

Then there’s Facebook. People go onto Facebook to keep up with family and friends, and some of those people think and say things that your standard issue modern lefty doesn’t like to hear said. Things that are perfectly legal and legitimate to say, but which many of those on the left do not approve of. Here is the principle that needs to apply: If you can say it on a published printed page you must be able to say it on Facebook, and if others don’t like it, they don’t have to read it. Meanwhile Zuckerberg is angling to run for president in 2020 as a Democrat.

This is from Facebook’s Community Standard on Hate Speech:

Facebook removes hate speech, which includes content that directly attacks people based on their:

race,
ethnicity,
national origin,
religious affiliation,
sexual orientation,
sex, gender or gender identity, or
serious disabilities or diseases.

Organisations and people dedicated to promoting hatred against these protected groups are not allowed a presence on Facebook. As with all of our standards, we rely on our community to report this content to us.

What is an “attack”? And who judges? Each and every time, the adjudicators are from a left, if not a far-left perspective. Two things should therefore happen. First, these tech providers must be open to being sued for suspending and forcibly closing accounts unless the company can prove in court that what was being said could not be legally said in public. Second, these are now part of modern social infrastructure in the same way as banks and hospitals. They must be compelled by law to accept and maintain on an equal basis anyone who wishes to participate in their services. This is not something the market can or will fix. There can be only one Facebook. It only works if everyone can join. If the proprietors of Facebook don’t want to work within the new rules, then they can sell up to someone else who does.

So let’s see how this sort of thing works at the moment. This is from Instapundit today. And note the author of the post self-describes himself in this way:

#Republican candidate for US Senate. Radical philosopher & social critic. Captain, lawyer, agitator, rebel. The most dangerous #Libertarian in America.

That is, a prime candidate to end up banned at Facebook. This is what did it.

More

Just got banned from for posting this to my campaign page. Not politically motivated at all …

Do you not see a problem that needs to be fixed? Then keep your head in the sand. I’m not sure it can be fixed, but to think the market will self-correct is just a form of self-delusion.

And then there was this: After Charlottesville, Even Dating Apps Are Cracking Down on Hate. From which:

The Silicon Valley companies that make money off social media and online services have started to enact strong measures against extremism, barring white nationalists, white supremacists, neo-Nazis and others who follow creeds they deem racist and hateful.

Facebook and Twitter have developed tools to allow users to report hate speech and harassment. PayPal has blocked hate groups from using its financial services, and the ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft have urged drivers to report unacceptable customers. Airbnb took steps to stop white nationalists from renting rooms through its app before their gathering in Charlottesville, Va.

Most remarkably, perhaps, the efforts have even spread to the free-wheeling world of dating apps, where users have for years been welcome to screen potential lovers based on everything from height to religious beliefs.

And to be more specific OkCupid Banned Me for Supporting Our President by Cassandra Fairbanks.

While on vacation in Florida, I was informed by other Twitter users that my OkCupid account — which is largely inactive — has been suspended. This was presumably due to my open support for President Donald Trump.

On the weekend following the disastrous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, I had been scheduled to speak at a rally in support of free speech in Boston. Despite many of the speakers being people of color, and the most exciting speaker of the day being Va Shiva from India who addressed the crowd while standing in front of signs that read “Black Lives Do Matter,” the rally was falsely labeled a “white supremacist” rally by the liberal media and the city’s joke of a mayor, Marty Walsh.

Threats and accusations immediately rolled in, from hundreds of people who just blindly follow whatever the mainstream media tells them — and suddenly I was branded a “Nazi” for daring to agree to speak at a rally supporting our most important right. It was exactly what Trump supporters had worried would happen following the “punch a Nazi” meme. All it takes to now be tarred as “literally Hitler,” no matter the color of your skin or actual political beliefs, is support for our president. . . .

I have reached out to OkCupid to confirm that my ban was due to supporting the president — as obviously they will be unable to provide a shred of evidence that I am racist or belong to a “hate group.” The company had not responded by press time.

She then adds at the end what I think is the biggest mistake we make: “I personally believe that companies have a right to deny service to anyone they want.”

Well I do not. Is it illegal to say what these people say? Then you just have to put up with the possibility that if you go on a dating site, you might end up paired with a Democrat. After the interview date you can work out whether you are compatible or not. This categorisation of others by people who are politically and morally clueless in every way is a serious problem and should not be permitted. If you open this kind of service, open to any and all, no discrimination should be permitted by law based on race, religion, creed etc etc or on one’s personal beliefs however repellent they may be to you or to the proprietors of these “social” media platforms.

The laws should be just like the laws that apply to renting out your house.

The “far right” is actually just the far left

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s an article you would think is on our side, even coming with the cartoon you see above: The First Step in Fighting Barbarity is to Speak Out. But there, right near the end, we find this:

Well, I oppose the far right in whatever form they take, be it that of extreme ethnic nationalism or Islamo-fascism.

Militant Islam is on the right! Left-right has in many ways lost its meaning but that is ridiculous. The “far right” are invariably socialist and collectivist – see National Socialist Workers Party as just one example of many – and are thus part of the left in every way that counts. The difference between the National Socialists and the communists was in the word “national”. The communist version is characterised by the phrase, “workers of the world unite”, a presumption that was shattered for all time in 1914 when the workers in every country of Europe lined up with their own national governments as they marched off to war. The only difference between these ideological soul mates is whether they pretend they are seizing power for the good of the people of the world or only for the people of their own nation state. All the rest – in fact even that, especially that – are just lies and deceit. Radical Islamic Terrorists exactly fit the mould.

So let me assert one very simple way to tell left from right which is the John Stuart Mill On Liberty test. This is Mill’s own test and if you accept his “very simple principle” then we are comrades in arms on the right side of the political divide. If you do not, then you are part of the left, and the farther from this very simple principle your beliefs happen to be, then you are to that extent a member of the far left, which naturally includes communists, Nazis, Antifa and most of the media.

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

I gave a copy to each of the children of my cousins back home, with no real hope that any of them will read the book but just so they will actually have heard the name. Meantime, almost everyone I know, if it came to the crunch, is more like to line up with Antifa than the Mises Institute. This is the great danger of our age, that ignorance not only of what is needed to preserve our freedoms but what these freedoms even are. And if you haven’t read On Liberty, or haven’t read it recently, you really do owe it to yourself to at least go through Chapter One.

AND NOW ALSO THIS TODAY: From J.J. Sefton at Ace of Spades with the same message: How Can There Be “Right Wing Extremists” If the Right Believes in Individual Liberty and Freedom, OR Why the Left-Center-Right Paradigm Is a Myth. Read the lot, but here is a sample:

THERE IS NO LEFT/RIGHT PARADIGM. There are only those who believe in freedom and liberty and those who do not; or more precisely, those who are willing to take advantage of the good nature and gullibility of all too many to seize control and to tear down America as founded, Judeo-Christianity, the Scottish Enlightenment, free market capitalism and every other aspect of real human progress the aforementioned have fostered over the past 2,000 years of history.

We cannot allow the left to get away with its moral equivalency argument, which is one of their techniques for hiding their own hideous past, and the first place to start is to recognise no such equivalency exists. Keeping the blood soaked history of the left in constant view – which includes National Socialism – must become an absolute standard part of the political debate from our side of the divide.

The left are ignorant, hate-filled and destructive

Posted on by
Reply

The modern left have nothing positive to contribute. It is completely wrong to say they are well-meaning but mis-informed. They are savages who have nothing to teach us other than to inform us of who the enemies of civilisation are. They have a right to free speech as do we all. They have no right to riotous assembly. They are what our police forces are there to protect us from.

Is anyone even aware that the Lincoln Memorial was vandalized with explicit, as in vulgar, graffiti just this week.

This is as repulsive as it is possible to be, and the news has been all but obliterated by a media that is as repulsive as the people on whom they do not report.

The Taliban of the modern American left

Posted on by
Reply

The American Civil War ended a long long time ago, but the American left has now decided to refight the war when slavery has vanished and racist attitudes in the US are at an all-time low, of course absolutely forgetting that it was only Democrats who were members of the KKK when the KKK was a force to be reckoned with. World War II ended in 1945, but the American left seeks to refight this war as well in its march against fascism which disappeared seventy years ago only to re-emerge during the 1960s among the New Left. The Cold War against Russian communism ended at the end of the 1980s, but the American left has decided to refight the war against Russia now that it is no longer a communist state. And, not to be forgotten is that the slave states were all Democrat, that the left was utterly opposed to entering the second World War until communist Russia itself was attacked by the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, and that during the Cold War the greatest defenders of mutual coexistence with Russia – that is, appeasement – were Democrats. Now they are revisiting these ancient long-settled issues in the midst of our present battles conveniently forgetting which side they were on when these issues were actually current. And what is the big issue of our time right now? Radical Islam. And who are its friends. Why, once again, it is the self-same Democrats who have been the perennial enemies of freedom, as they most certainly are again.

In the whole of the United States at the present time, there would hardly be as many as 100,000 “Nazis” or members of the Klan, who would have about as much political clout as a modern prohibitionist. Their sole value in today’s world are as background props for Democrats to parade themselves as soldiers of virtue, when they are actually America’s greatest danger. Here is an interesting take on it all, from a source who knows, truly knows, where the enemies of today really are. From Criticism grows over Netanyahu’s response to US neo-Nazism.

Criticism grew Thursday over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s limited response to a US white supremacist rally and President Donald Trump’s controversial remarks about it, with calls for him to speak out against anti-Semitism. . . .

So far, Netanyahu’s only response to the weekend white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia that ended in bloodshed was a tweet on Tuesday that many saw as vague.

“Outraged by expressions of anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism and racism. Everyone should oppose this hatred,” Netanyahu posted in English.

A Facebook post by Netanyahu’s son Yair further raised eyebrows.

He denounced “neo-Nazi scum,” but added that they were “dying out” and seemed to suggest left-wing counter-protesters “who hate my country” were a growing threat.

So where are we now? To show how anti-whatever they are, Next on Liberal’s List for Destruction- Confederate Carvings at Stone Mountain Memorial. Which reminds me of the same deranged mentality displayed by the Taliban in destroying the Buddhist statues of Bamiyan. Sickening vandalism but ruthless displays of an arrogant disregard for anything other than their own will to power.

Who are the actual fascists, the actual brown shirts, the actual Nazis of the moment? They are by close analogy the Democrats and their violent “Antifa” allies. And there are millions who will take their path as they are guided on their stupefied way by our ignorant and historically illiterate modern journalists whose vacuous writings are little different in their truth content and direction than the average weekly postings of Der Stürmer had been in the 1920s.