The election of Donald Trump brought light upon a phenomenon that has been growing for as long as I’ve been alive. Americans are split, and the rift between them continues to widen. With Trump, however, it has become impossible to hide this fact.
During the Bush years, we still pretended that Liberals and Conservatives shared similar values. Sure, they disagreed on many issues, but both loved America and wanted to see it prosper. But even then, Bush Derangement Syndrome was a thing, and protesters carted “Bush = Hitler” signs everywhere. The Left was beginning to regard the Right not as a friend who happened to disagree on some things, but as an enemy to be defeated, subjugated, or even killed.
After all, if you seriously refer to someone as a Nazi, and paint them as such, then you are countenancing violence against them. We see this phenomenon growing with this “punch Nazis” rhetoric flooding social media. Only the term Nazi is left deliberately vague, subject to whatever definition the Left wants to give it. Shaving your head can make you a Nazi, for example. So is it permissible to punch people who have shaved heads?
If you refer to a President as Adolf Hitler, you are tacitly saying it is okay to attack the person. And certainly the many threats issued publicly against Donald Trump provide evidence of this. Does anyone believe that such threats would have been permitted against Barack Obama? Madonna got up on stage, in front of hundreds of thousands of protesters, with some of the protests going violent already, and said she wanted to blow up the White House.
That is beyond the pale. She should be in jail for this, and if you and I, dear reader, had done such a thing, we would be in jail. That was a palpable, credible threat.
But Madonna aside, you can see how this is deemed okay, because the Left thinks the Right are Nazis. Remember Tad Williams telling us that Republicans were all Nazis? Put two and two together here.
However, we’ve one good thing going for us. Some among the Left would kills us all if they thought they could get away with it. But they can’t. The military is mostly staffed by our people, except for some of the brass. The armed civilians are, again, mostly us. Even a good share of the police is us.
If we really were Nazis, there would be none of them left alive. They’d have been exterminated decades ago. Joseph McCarthy would have been canonized by now.
But if they want to go with this superficial argument, wherein anything they don’t like is literally Hitler, let’s play.
Who looks more like a bunch of brownshirt Nazis? Antifa or the Tea Party?
People crowd around the historic Putnam County Courthouse in Carmel for a tax revolt tea party rally April 15, 2010. ( Frank Becerra Jr. / The Journal News )
Imagine that you knew nothing about the political situation. Which crowd would… concern you more? The one dressed in black, with their faces covered, holding various weapons in threatening poses… or a bunch of old people holding up signs?
Tom Kratman describes in detail the steps that will probably have to be taken, sooner or later (probably sooner) to deal with the rise in violent rioting. It’s not pretty. But take note specifically one of the items he advises:
Special Tip #4: Drive finishing nails into the ends of your batons and snip them off to leave about an inch sticking out. No need to sharpen the part sticking out; it’s sharp enough to penetrate and leave a painful puncture wound, whether directed at arms or torsos or thighs or groins (ouch!).
Now, you might say this sounds pretty harsh, but look at the picture of the Antifa thugs above, and note the arrow pointing to the 2×4. The rioters are already doing this.
They have rationalized violence against you. Prepare yourself accordingly.
And even on the more peaceful side of things, I’ve found it difficult to communicate with Leftists anymore. Some time ago, I was visiting some very old friends, a few of whom were liberal, and I realized that there is almost no common ground anymore. One friend explained in detail that healthcare, food, shelter, energy, transportation, and a host of other such things were basic human rights, and these things should be guaranteed freely to every human being on the planet, regardless of cost. Not providing them to every human on Earth, he explained, was immoral. Thus regardless of any success Capitalism might have, it was fundamentally evil.
Only Marxism enshrined these as human rights. Only Marxism was moral. How could anyone be so immoral as to not see these things as fundamental? And this was a liberal who regarded himself as relatively moderate. He trumpeted his willingness to compromise with Conservatives by saying that he was okay with some guns. Single shot black powder muskets, he said, were okay with him. He regarded this as a great concession on his part. Similarly, he explained, he didn’t mind some Capitalism as long as it was for non-essentials. Video games were okay to be treated as Capitalist products, so long as they didn’t contain hate speech violations.
That’s what passes for a self-described moderate Democrat, these days.
I didn’t even bother arguing with him. There was no point. Where do you go from that? The difference was so fundamental, so basic, that there was no middle ground, no place where compromise could happen.
And so the divide grows even in the non-violent space.
I wondered in that moment, if this friend of mine would kill me, should the revolution ever come, and should I stand in the way of it coming to pass. Perhaps he would. Maybe there would be regret, a sense that it was a shame I couldn’t be made to understand the need for Marxism… Or perhaps, as the old cliche goes, he’d say “I can’t kill my friend,” and then assign someone else the task of getting rid of me.
It was a chilling thought. I didn’t tell him my views. I didn’t want to deal with the resulting emotional storm I could sense waiting for me if I did. I’m down to a very small handful of liberal friends who truly know my views. And it is they who have broken the friendship with me, and not vice versa. I was willing to be tolerant of their views. They were not willing to extend tolerance to mine.
And so even friends have drifted apart over the years. Trump’s election has split families, and friendships, and split America down along fault lines that have existed for a long time, but which we pretended didn’t exist.
I even know a great many who are Conservative and couldn’t vote for Trump for various reasons, who are nonetheless cast out from family and friendships because they didn’t denounce Trump adequately and they were, in any event, still Republicans.
Still Nazis.
I don’t know what it’s like to regard half the country, and indeed your own relatives, as the epitome of all evil, as the pinnacle of human depravity, as an eternal boogeyman under the bed. But it has happened.
I’ve long said that I really don’t want the future to go down the path I’ve been seeing. If anything, I’ve been in denial about it. A commenter here, Michael Maiorana, explained to me that I knew very well the implications of what I was saying — and he’s right. I do know them. But they are harsh truths, and they are extremely unpleasant, and I must ask your pardon that I don’t like facing them.
If this divide doesn’t stop widening very soon, then we all know where this is headed.
So keep your ammo dry, folks.
Can’t “Like” this but sadly agree with this.
I commented earlier on an article about how the deep state in the intel sector had sabotaged Flynn.
What I posted was, we have young Progressives in the street rioting and protesting. We have manipulator Progressives working to destabilize using money, think Soros. Now the Deep State Progressives have shown their hand trying to destabilize using real and made up leaks. When the Civil War starts the young Progressives and the Deep State Progressives will find themselves swinging from lamp posts and trees while the manipulators try to hide from the new Nazi hunters.
I write about cars and was at the media preview to the Chicago Auto Show. I was talking to an older middle aged woman with a European accent about America and I happened to say that I’d rather not think that half of my fellow Americans are monsters, no matter how they vote. She looked at me and seriously said, “That’s because you’re a privileged white male!” I replied, “I’m Jewish. One of my grandfathers was a junkman. The other was a mailman. Some privilege, eh? Oh, and the junkman’s entire extended family was exterminated by people from your culture,” and I walked away.
Do we really have an obligation to act civilly to uncivil people?
No, we have no such obligation. And I think that’s where conservatives went wrong all this time. We remained civil when they did not. We let them grow to be too big for their britches.
We must remain civil. The notion that we need to “punch back twice as hard” seems reasonable to an angry person, and conservatives have every right to be angry, but with every obligation to remain calm and sane, much in the way of a parent of a spoiled child.
When the political left and political right agree that that the only option remaining is total war, the deep state, intelligence community and civil servants move in and take power. They will have the provocation, and those who choose to fight will have provided the means. And then, America is gone. Forever. All the ammo in the world can’t hurt a faceless bureaucracy.
Don’t let the political left’s tantrum destroy what is, and always has been the best hope for a world filled with oppression and tyranny.
“Who looks more like a bunch of brownshirt Nazis? Antifa or the Tea Party?”
I’m assuming Antifa is a leftish organization, because I’ve not heard of them before. Honestly, the people in black with wood look like ISIS or something.
“I’m down to a very small handful of liberal friends who truly know my views. And it is they who have broken the friendship with me, and not vice versa. I was willing to be tolerant of their views. They were not willing to extend tolerance to mine.”
I have seen plenty of people who would either be profoundly disappointed by a Trump supporter (even a reluctant one) or outright jump on them. One woman on Facebook tags many of her rants with #AssholesVotedForTrump, so that shows basically where she stands on things. One of my wiser friends reluctantly voted for Hillary (for reasons related to fiscal and foreign policy), and said that he respects the vote of both Hillary and Trump supporters; areas like these are my safe space because at least they can understand a vote opposite their own, without going ape shit about it and screaming Nazi/traitor/racist, etc. etc.
I don’t think Trump is racist by the way, and I don’t think a vote for him was a vote for racism. I didn’t think he was a stellar candidate, but now that he’s in I wish him and his family only the best. Why would anyone with sincere sociological intentions wish the POTUS anything but the best? We are all in this together, and wishing the office of the presidency would fail is cutting off one’s nose to spite their face.
“I’m assuming Antifa is a leftish organization, because I’ve not heard of them before. Honestly, the people in black with wood look like ISIS or something.”
Antifa is short for Anti-Fascist League or Anti-Fascist Action. They are self-described anti-fascists who act like… you guessed it… fascists.
“…areas like these are my safe space because at least they can understand a vote opposite their own, without going ape shit about it and screaming Nazi/traitor/racist, etc. etc.”
Such people have grown very few in recent years. Cherish the few that remain.
“I don’t think Trump is racist by the way, and I don’t think a vote for him was a vote for racism. I didn’t think he was a stellar candidate, but now that he’s in I wish him and his family only the best.”
He is a sign of the times. A quote from the movie Chronicles of Riddick sums up my feelings on Trump: “In normal times, evil would be fought by good. But in times like these, evil must be fought by another kind of evil.” If things were normal, Trump wouldn’t have been allowed anywhere near the levers of power. But times are not normal, and perhaps an asshole and an ideological wrecking ball is precisely what the doctor ordered in our present circumstances.
I come from before the complete breakdown of American education and I learned something today they completely forgot to mention in history class. Antfa is not fascist. They however are Communist not anarchists. In the 1930s the people fighting the brown shirted Nazis were Black wearing Communists. The Italian Fascists did wear black shirts but I’ll bet good money these Black Bloc types are the commie version of socialists and they know who they are emulating.
Personally I think the difference between Communists and Fascists is slight. As best as I can tell, the only difference is this:
Fascists will suborn the ‘means of production’ by co-opting industry, awarding chronies generous contracts in return for their submission, obedience and loyalty.
Communists simply kill the industrialists and confiscate the ‘means of production.’
Other than that: I see no substantive difference. They both institute Industrial Slave States – an Industrial Feudalism, if you will, with a 90% serf class, a 9% ‘operator’ class (like the knights, generals, clerks and scribes who did the actual ‘scut work’ of keeping a castle and associated dominion running), and a 1% ‘Aristocrat’ class.
There is one other difference. Fascists also incorporate nationalism. This is why it’s often mistaken for a right wing phenomenon. Communism is globalist. It’s always about international communism, and the workers around the world unite shit. Fascists tend to restrict themselves to a particular country and/or people.
Unfortunately, while there’s nothing wrong with nationalism by itself… when it’s combined with socialism it becomes a destructive, genocidal ideology. It shares this somewhat with the globalist communists, but it’s expressed differently.
For instance, a fascist may tolerate you having a dissenting opinion, provided you are otherwise useful, and of the proper race/nationality (see: Rommel in WW2). But if you’re the wrong race/nationality, you are purged.
The communist, on the other hand, may tolerate you being useless, and of a different race/nationality. If you’ve a dissenting opinion (see: Trotsky), however, you are purged.
Both share state management of the economy (though fascists are a little less restrictive), and top-down authoritarian, statist, socialist thinking. So, in short, the primary difference is that fascism is an explicitly nation-oriented, genocidal, tyrannical socialism (with some market elements). And communism is a one-world, global-oriented, genocidal, tyrannical socialism (with no market elements).
And in this way, China has moved away from the communist model, and is probably the most fascist-like state in the world, presently. Think about it. It is a nation-oriented, genocidal tyrannical socialism (with some market elements).
The common thread is always socialism, though. Wherever it has been tried… always a disaster.
Good way to look at it, Dys. 🙂
No, the difference is massive. The difference and tactics and techniques, however, is slight.
All forms of leftism, to a great or lesser extent, subscribe to and derive from their penultimate article of faith, that man is malleable/perfectible by nurture: training, education, social engineering, relentless bloody nagging with a little terror for spice. There is a corollary to this, or maybe better said a kind of camouflage they use, to the effect that man would already be perfect except that he’s been perverted by our doubleplusungood rotten, unfair, unjust society.
All forms of rightism subscribe to and derive from a similar faith, except it’s in genetics, bloodlines, and suchlike.
If you can’t see the difference, look up Lysenkoism and imagine Nazi Germany subscribing to that nonsense or trying to build a society and an economy around it. No, it could never happen. But the Soviets more or less had to, until it failed so miserably they had to try to forget about it.
Do they act similarly, as a tactical or technical matter? Sure, they often do. And both malaria and pneumonia can give you alternating bouts of chills and fever: very different diseases can have very similar symptoms.
Fascism is neither right nor left, even if it can sometimes display behaviors of both or either. Rather, it’s based in the very reasonable view of man as primarily an emotional and instinctive creature, rather than a rational and thinking one. It attempts to create greater security, greater domestic harmony, and greater productivity, by harnessing the emotions. The parades, speeches, songs, and even the wars? They’re all about tapping into the emotions for those purposes. In a serious way, fascism is government by theater. Umberto Eco got this completely wrong, seeing only symptoms and, frankly, lacking the brain power to see past those.
And it fails, always fails, because you can’t keep up the show indefinitely and, worse, every day requires more show, a bigger parade, a more moving song, a more fiery speech, and another expensive war. You simply can’t keep it up.
In short, Jonah Goldsberg got it wrong, as did Eco; fascism is not leftism, it is fascism. And the antifa are fascists not because of the symptoms, but because they are emotionally driven start to finish and, at core, captives of the plays they write in their own heads for themselves to star in,
Fascism can be tricky to define, in large part because it’s original meaning has been hijacked and distorted over the years by those looking to manipulate the masses for their own political gain.
For those interested in exploring it’s origins, definition, and meaning, I cannot recommend Jonah Goldberg’s excellent book, “Liberal Fascism” enough.
“He is a sign of the times. A quote from the movie Chronicles of Riddick sums up my feelings on Trump: ‘In normal times, evil would be fought by good. But in times like these, evil must be fought by another kind of evil.’ If things were normal, Trump wouldn’t have been allowed anywhere near the levers of power. But times are not normal, and perhaps an asshole and an ideological wrecking ball is precisely what the doctor ordered in our present circumstances.”
This more or less sums up my feelings about Trump. Although I like to use another movie as an analogy to capture the essence that is Trump: The Dark Knight (or the entire Dark Knight trilogy, really). Much like Batman (as played by Christian Bale), Trump may not be the savior or leader we wanted, but given the times, perhaps he is the leader we need right now. What I mean is that he seems to be the only one willing to address the major problems and issues facing this country head-on, in a direct way, despite and in the face of tremendous opposition, push-back, and demonization. Nevertheless, these problems need to be addressed at some point, and sooner rather than later, lest we allow this country to continue it’s decline unabated. Only he seems willing– and able, hopefully– to do it, all while suffering the many slings and arrows that come with it and without the benefit of hiding behind a mask.
If I may, I would like to challenge the label of Trump as an “ideological” wrecking ball. He is definitely a wrecking ball, and that is a big part of his appeal amongst his supporters. As far as being ideological, I’m not convinced. To paraphrase/quote Victor Davis Hanson:
Trump’s often unorthodox style shouldn’t be confused with his otherwise practical and mostly centrist agenda, as the U.S. goes from hard left back to the populist center, which marks a return to what used to be seen as fairly normal.
It’s important to recall that in 2008, Obama mostly ran on pretty normal Democratic policies rather than a hard-left agenda. His platform included opposition to gay marriage, promises to balance the budget, and a bipartisan foreign policy.
Instead, what followed was a veritable “hope and change” revolution not seen since the 1930s. Obama pursued a staunchly progressive agenda — one that went well beyond the relatively centrist policies upon which he had campaigned. The media cheered and signed on.
Soon, the border effectively was left open. Pen-and-phone executive orders offered immigrant amnesties. The Senate was bypassed on a treaty with Iran and an intervention in Libya.
Political correctness under the Obama administration led to euphemisms that no longer reflected reality.
A poorly conceived reset policy with Russia and a pivot to Asia both failed. The Middle East was aflame.
The Iran deal was sold through an echo chamber of deliberate misrepresentations and secret back-room deals with little to no transparency in the process.
The national debt nearly doubled during Obama’s two terms. Overregulation, higher taxes, near-zero interest rates, and the scapegoating of big businesses slowed economic recovery. Economic growth never reached 3 percent in any year of the Obama presidency — the first time that had happened since Herbert Hoover’s presidency.
A revolutionary federal absorption of health care failed to fulfill Obama’s promises and soon proved unviable.
Culturally, the iconic symbols of the Obama revolution were the “you didn’t build that” approach to businesses, the “hands up, don’t shoot” meme that launched a distinctly anti-law and order BLM movement before it was exposed as a lie by Obama’s own Attorney General, and an assumption that race/class/gender would forever drive American politics, favorably so for the Democrats.
Then, Hillary Clinton’s unexpected defeat and the election of outsider Donald Trump sealed the fate of the Obama Revolution.
Trump promises not just to reverse almost immediately all of Obama’s policies, but to do so in a pragmatic fashion that does not seem to be guided by any orthodox or consistently conservative ideology.
Trade deals and jobs are Trump’s obsessions — mostly for the benefit of blue-collar America.
He calls for full-bore gas and oil development, a common culture in lieu of identity politics, secure borders, deregulation, tax reform, a Jacksonian foreign policy, nationalist trade deals in places of globalization, and traditionalist values.
In normal times, Trumpism — again, the agenda as opposed to Trump the person — might be old hat. But after the last eight years, his correction has enraged millions.
Yet securing national borders seems pretty orthodox, and standard practice for virtually every other nation of the world. In an age of anti-Western terrorism, placing temporary holds on would-be immigrants from war-torn zones until they can be vetted is hardly radical. Expecting “sanctuary cities” to follow federal laws rather than embrace the nullification strategies of the secessionist Old Confederacy is a return to the laws of the Constitution.
Using the term “radical Islamic terror” in place of “workplace violence” or “man-caused disasters” is sensible, not subversive.
Insisting that NATO members meet their long-ignored defense-spending obligations is not provocative but overdue.
Assuming that both the European Union and the United Nations are imploding is empirical, not unhinged.
Questioning the secret side agreements of the Iran deal or the failed Russian reset is facing reality.
Making the Environmental Protection Agency follow laws rather than make laws is the way it always was supposed to be.
Unapologetically siding with Israel, the only free and democratic country in the Middle East, used to be standard U.S. policy until Obama was elected.
Issuing executive orders has not been seen as revolutionary for the past few years — until now.
Expecting the media to report the news rather than massage it to fit progressive agendas makes sense. In the past, proclaiming Obama a “sort of god” or the smartest man ever to enter the presidency was not normal journalistic practice.
Freezing federal hiring, clamping down on lobbyists, and auditing big bureaucracies — after the Obama-era IRS, VA, GSA, EPA, State Department, and Secret Service scandals — are overdue.
In sum, Trump seems a revolutionary to many, but that is only because he is loudly undoing a revolution.
“Yet securing national borders seems pretty orthodox, and standard practice for virtually every other nation of the world. In an age of anti-Western terrorism, placing temporary holds on would-be immigrants from war-torn zones until they can be vetted is hardly radical.”
I can’t believe we’ve actually gotten to the point where people have to defend the merits of immigration laws/policy (and the immigrant advocacy groups calling them “undocumented” rather than illegal is a none too subtle action to further that agenda).
Rather than treat it like the crime it is–which is not exactly a “victimless” crime as it steals vast amounts of public taxpayer resources–public and often federally funded institutions are standing up for these groups, forming support alliances like a “Dreamer Resource Center”:
http://www.csus.edu/sernacenter/dreamer%20resource%20center/welcome.html
And holding events where the students and administration come out–with no legal repercussions whatsoever–saying they are not going to abide with immigration law:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article131139874.html
http://fox40.com/2016/11/17/sac-state-president-says-campus-is-a-safe-place-for-undocumented-students/
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article116345168.html
It would cause quite a little uproar, but I think Trump should assess this and threaten their federal funding (any organizations who try to defy law).
I’m to the point where Lefties just give me a headache with their excessive moralizing. They believe the America’s chief calling is to give up everything, including the very country itself, as a sort of international charity service. Every time somebody has a shitty day, or something goes badly in their home country, suddenly he has an inalienable human right to immigrate to America, legally or illegally.
Immigration should be considered on one basis, and one basis only: how it benefits the United States of America. If an immigrant obeys our laws, and applies legally, we may consider his application, and judge whether or not we believe America would gain from his presence, whether our country would be improved by his admission.
If he does not obey our laws, and tries to sneak in, he has shown contempt for us, and should not be admitted. If he obeys the law, and applies legally, but we see him as a terror risk, or a welfare risk, or we don’t think he’ll assimilate, or a thousand other such reasons… too bad, too sad. We are not the world’s charity service.
Where prospective immigrants are seen as a net gain for us, when we think they want to become like us in language, mannerisms, and culture… when they will contribute to us, then I welcome them and wish them best.
And it amazes me that this line of thinking is so rare, these days. The story is always about how Syria sucks, or Romania isn’t very economically productive, or Nigeria has a food shortage. Whatever. Sob story after sob story. It’s always about the immigrant, never about America.
But if America is subsumed and destroyed by this stupidity, where will future freedom-seeking individuals immigrate to? At this rate they’ll kill the golden goose.