Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
|Register||FAQ||Pictures||Members List||Calendar||Search||Today's Posts||Mark Forums Read|
||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
Dear Progressives, Thank You for Reminding Us of the Real Reasons We Fight You
Thank You for Reminding Us of the Real Reasons We Fight You
Don’t let the therapy dogs, the crayons, or the cry-ins fool you.
By Jeffrey T. Brown
As if they see the world in only one or two dimensions, so-called “progressives” seem incapable of processing their overwhelming emotions outside a narrow framework of self-pity and raging narcissism. Because they appear to think about the world around them in ways guided entirely by emotion, unlike their foes who see emotion as a dangerous foundation for permanent change, they react to disappointment or loss as self-righteous victims, or antisocial thugs, rather than mentally sound individuals. It seems necessary to their fragile psyches to believe that any opposition to their obvious superiority is illegitimate, and therefore its proponents deserving of punishment. The irony of this fact will be utterly lost on any progressive reading this.
We have been subjected to their scorn and ridicule for years. You will find it in the comments section that follows this or any other article that identifies them. However, you can also find it in your pick of violent confrontations with people expressing a view they don’t like, or assaults on police, or riots over fake narratives, or obnoxious thugs who verbally and physically assault otherwise decent people who resist. It’s all of a kind, and a common thread in all of this seems to be their belief in a right to be as offensive and aggressive as one can be, as if this validates the illusion that they’re right, and so are entitled to correct the nonbeliever. There is also the implied premise that virtue is the sole property of these embittered, angry zealots, whose reflexive dehumanization of every person who disagrees animates so much of what they say or do.
Normal, well-adjusted, mature people do not function at this level of hatred and vitriol against total strangers, or especially friends. Mentally well people do not insist that their behavior, no matter how anti-social, is permissible because they have granted themselves a “right” to do it, on the basis of their own “moral” superiority. Certainly each person is entitled to his or her own sense of morality, and those who possess a real one recognize that it is motivated by something greater than service only to themselves and their political agenda. However, when one crosses the line from proclaiming his morality to deciding that open hatred and violence are permissible to compel others to adopt and practice his brand of self-serving morality, any claim to objective virtue vanishes. Read Facebook and you know what I mean. In their bigotry, leftist moralists angrily chided us before and after the election for not admitting to our own bigotry, which they have made the sole explanation for our not surrendering to their agenda.
These unwell agents of coercive change are putting on quite a show for us and the world since their hero, whose primary qualification for president was that she urinates while sitting (perhaps), lost an unlosable contest to Donald Trump. To hear the rioting leftists tell it, or even the non-rioting ones, racism, or sexism, or Islamophobia, or homophobia, or some other slur, shared by tens of millions of strangers, and many friends, is the only possible explanation for how they and their burgeoning message of intolerance and division could have failed to win the day, the century, and eternity. Needless to say, those tens of millions of people, most of whom don’t belong to a special interest group which has become accustomed to using government as a bludgeon to advance undemocratic “change” for the last eight years, bear no actual resemblance to the caricature the left needs them to be. Such is virtue on the left.
What is lost on these human fire hoses of vitriol and intolerance is that they, and their smears and violent behavior in a still-civilized society, were foremost among the reasons that people voted for an alternative that did not include their agenda, after years of having radical government officials force liberal “change” down our throats. That their goals or objectives might suffer troubled no one who voted against them, since anything considered desirable and worthy to so many unhinged and irrational people is obviously something to be wary of in a society of people who don’t blow the place up because they are angry. Calling for vindictive retaliation against political opponents, whites, the wealthy, religious, those who hold other beliefs, cops, or an ordered society in general, all after getting everything you’ve wanted and more for eight years, helpfully affirms for normal citizens that these folks are largely what’s wrong. No matter what they get, it is never enough, because it never will be.
In case you didn’t know who would rule society in a Clinton presidency, the radicals are rioting over the opportunity they lost. They fully intended to conquer us. Some have openly said that there will be bloodshed now, which they seem to desire as their own overt racism and bigotry, superimposed upon their enemies, is laid bare. What target of “progressive” hatred, being finally backed into a corner and forced to defend the right to think differently, and live free of the tyranny of frothing mental patients, would vote for that? It doesn’t matter whether the haters are black or white, female or male, gay or straight, Muslim or not, or any other self-appointed superior class. We are repulsed by the bigotry of their monolithic ideologies, not their identity.
As bad as the message is, many people have finally come to understand that the messengers are equally problematic, and that if they demand something, it’s quite probably bad for the rest of us. They have declared their goals and ours to be mutually exclusive. They serve only themselves, and their own subjective beliefs, while railing that all other beliefs must be punished and condemned. That they do this while simultaneously preaching to us about tolerance and unity is almost too ridiculous to describe. Delusionalism and progressivism apparently are twins.
These vengeful members of the Democrat party are doing us a favor. They are reminding us that there is no middle ground in their agenda, and they still intend to control us. They hate what they have decided we are, and are not remotely interested in hearing otherwise. They are showing us that if they don’t get their way, they will respond with violence, verbal and physical, because we do not agree or embrace an agenda which purposefully spits on our history, our beliefs, our rights, our faith and our patriotism. We cannot negotiate with that, which to them means the conflict is entirely our fault. If only we would stop resisting and allow them to enforce their agenda, or punish us terminally, it would all be better -- for them. Whenever they burn a flag, that is the America they demand. This is what radical extremism looks like.
Don’t let the therapy dogs, the crayons, or the cry-ins fool you. They are not asking how we can come together. They are not seeking dialogue. They discuss only how to defeat us and take what they want. We have no place in their thought-controlled utopian disaster. Winning this election only delayed the total victory they still pursue. The prize is everything we have, every freedom we treasure, and every right that protects us from them and from forced conversion to their conflicting and incoherent ideologies, each of which is long on victimhood, smug self-righteousness and anger, but short on wisdom. We will either win, or be conquered and ruled by emotional bigots and violent sociopaths, who thankfully remind us each day how far they have already descended, and why we cannot surrender and join them.
The War on...Words
The War on...Words
There is a full-blown war on the meaning and logic of words, and only the left is waging it.
By Steve Feinstein
We’re engaged in a destructive, debilitating war, a war that directly drains our resources and inhibits our ability to function as free-thinking, motivated, self-reliant individuals. It’s a conflict that pits arbitrarily-chosen demographic groups against each other, creating discord and tension where none existed, and indeed, none needs to exist.
Political advocacy groups, politicians, news people, and educators employ single words or short phrases that are euphemisms, with the intention of influencing voters’ perceptions or turning a given circumstance into personal financial advantage.
Some well-respected writers, such as Thomas Sowell, have touched on this subject (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/so...3#.WG5_jdIrK00). Much more can be said on the subject, however, including the very telling explanation of who benefits from such deception and why.
Here, then, follows a short list -- by no means complete -- of deceptive words and phrases in common use today:
Racist -- This one is perhaps the most explosive and controversial, so what better place to start? There are many reasons why this word is used, and is used inappropriately and applied inaccurately in the great majority of instances. The main reason is this: calling an individual or a group “racist” is an effective way to deflect legitimate criticism and turn it back on your accuser.
This obviously true of President Obama: criticize any of his policies and the charges of racism inevitably follow. This “playing the race card,” while transparent and predictable to seasoned political observers, is nonetheless quite effective with the casually-attentive voter, and the liberal media are only too happy to support its use.
Diversity -- This term has come to mean “a greater percentage of African-Americans than would otherwise be in this group without outside intervention.” It can be any group -- a student population, a workforce segment, residents in a given neighborhood, etc. -- but “diversity” does not mean more Jewish people in a non-Jewish population, it does not mean more Asians in a group, and it never means more whites in a predominantly black group. This is not to be construed as a value judgment of any kind regarding the benefit or appropriateness of increasing the number of African-Americans in a given population group. This is simply the observation that “diversity” has primarily come to mean more blacks. “We seek diversity in our student body; that is our goal.”
Choice, Women’s Health, Family Planning -- These are interesting terms, indeed. They are code-speak for “abortion.” However, since the 1970s the percentage of Americans who favor abortion-on-demand-for-any-reason has fallen precipitously, from the mid-60% range to under 40%. Therefore, liberals fear that “abortion” is now a bad word, so abortion advocates and providers couch the term in something less ominous. We’re Choosing to be Healthy, to Plan our Families.
No you’re not. You’re planning on having an abortion, but you’re afraid to be honest about it, lest, as the old saying goes, someone gets the right impression. Again, this is not an argument in support of or against the concept of abortion. That’s a debate for a different time. This is just the accurate observation that these words and phrases are used to obscure their real intent.
Profit -- This is the Left’s word to describe the evil of (Republican-run) business. Their implication is that profit is bad, and the existence of profit somehow prevents rank and file workers from earning a fair wage (which has lead to the amusing phrase Income Inequality). To the Left, companies should either make no profit (pay their workers everything they earn once the company covers its costs) or donate all their profits to causes like homeless shelters or the environmental lobby. The Left never does get around to explaining exactly where the profit-funded R&D should come from that is needed for the next generation of iPhones or the next blood-pressure medication that saves their mother’s life. No matter. To the Left, only Republicans seek profit, and profit is bad.
Climate Change -- Once upon a time, this was known as Global Warming. But then the highly-questionable, politically-driven hoped-for catastrophic results of “Warming” ran headlong into the immoveable bridge abutment of reality, taking a 20-year hiatus (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...=feeds-newsxml) beginning in the late-90s. The sea level rise failed to materialize. The Antarctic ice cap actually increased in size. The flooding over of Manhattan Island, famously predicted by the liberal media in 2008 to occur by 2015 (http://http//www.newsbusters.org/blo...te-change-june), never happened. Not even one parking space has been lost to the “rising sea.” It has also been conclusively demonstrated that the Arctic Circle was far warmer thousands of years ago and was a forest, not a frozen region like today (http://www.livescience.com/52868-fos...ts-norway.html). And the diminishing number of polar bears ( http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2392523/) -- their threatened existence ever the visible symbol of the destructive effects of man-caused Global Warming -- are in fact doing just fine.
In response to all this, the original term of “Global Warming” has now been amended to “Climate Change.” This enables the liberal media to cast a wider net, and claim that any unusual weather event is the fault of manmade emissions. If it’s too warm or too cold or there’s too much or too little precipitation -- anything -- it due to Climate Change.
Big -- Anything liberals don’t like is “big.” Big oil. Big insurance. Big pharmaceutical. Big business. The liberal media work this word into their reportage so smoothly and seamlessly that most people never even notice. Nor do people notice the absence of “Big” liberal causes: Big unions. Big trial lawyers. Big civil rights groups. Those, of course, aren’t “big.” They’re “good.”
The theme common to all of the preceding is that the use of these words/phrases redounds to the electoral and/or financial benefit of left-leaning or liberal politicians and causes. By far, the majority of “code-word”-speak in popular use these days is done either to hide a potentially negative word’s meaning from being too apparent to the public or at worst, to deceive the public into thinking that that word or phrase means something entirely different than what it actually does.
This is a full-blown war on the meaning and logic of words, but only the Left is waging it. Therefore, the Left is defining the rules under which the war is waged, the Left is creating the divisions caused by these euphemistic words. The Left may well be winning the contest of public perception that results from their use. However, our new president is a powerful antidote to the disease of euphemistic words and phrases. His communications style will no doubt circumvent much of this rhetorical nonsense, and the various policy arguments will be won or lost on the merits of the specific issue, not on the window-dressing of deceptive language.
Last edited by Paparock; 01-05-2017 at 05:25 PM..
Progressives Really Are Deranged
Progressives Really Are Deranged
And it's only getting worse with Donald Trump.
By Jeffrey Folks
In the wake of Donald Trump's election victory, progressives have doubled down with charges that he is "dangerous" and "extreme." Just this week, Rosie O'Donnell charged (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...ble-trump.html) that Trump is "mentally unstable" – that following her earlier vow to emigrate if Trump won. (No sign of emigration yet.) Sally Field finds (http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywo...llary-clinton/) "no evidence" that Trump "can do one single thing he said he could." (He's already done several, saving thousands of jobs.) An article (http://www.commondreams.org/news/201...s-union-leader) on commondreams.org, a progressive website, finds Trump "vindictive" for responding to a union official who questioned his Carrier jobs numbers. And Sen. Schumer now threatens to block any Supreme Court nominee Trump might pick, thus keeping the Scalia seat and any future vacancies permanently open.
In truth, it's Trump's critics who are the extremists. Their real problem isn't that Trump is dangerous or not mainstream. It's just that he's not one of them. So they're going to block anything that's not exactly what they want. That's not a political approach worthy of a democracy. It's what you would expect in Venezuela or Cuba.
Of course, Trump has stepped on their toes. He's had the audacity to nominate businessmen and women for cabinet posts, and he speaks of America as if he really loves the place. Why should that bother progressives? Because they detest capitalism, and they disagree with America First.
Nor is "rebuilding our military" a goal that endears a president-elect to the left. Like Obama, most progressives want to cut military budgets even more, cede control to a U.N. controlled by dictators, and permanently "lead from behind." That amounts to quietism on a grand scale, and its effect is to embolden our enemies.
For a great nation to withdraw from global politics is, by definition, extreme. It was tried before, with Bill Clinton's wrist-slap response to terrorist attacks of the 1990s and with Jimmy Carter's ineffectual response to the Iran hostage crisis. In both cases, our enemies gained strength from our weakness.
Not using the term "Islamic terrorism" for eight years is also pretty extreme. Obama called (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orl...-islam-n591196) the Orlando nightclub killing the result of "extremist ideology" but refused to call it either "Islamic" or "terrorism." Was it ideology, or was it hatred of the West motivated by Islamic extremism?
Likewise, the president has carefully danced around the term "ISIS," the label commonly associated with beheadings and other particularly brutal acts. He thought that by avoiding the emotion-laden term "ISIS," he could evade having to respond with force. He preferred "ISIL," a more neutral term designed to bury the subject. But the bombings and executions kept coming. An Islamic terrorist by any other name is just as deadly.
That degree of avoidance of reality – accompanied by Obama's plan (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...efugees-228134) to bring 110,000 Islamic "refugees" to America in just the current fiscal year – is nothing if not extreme. Actually, most progressives are even more radical – they've criticized Obama for not letting in unlimited numbers. A piece in the Huffington Post argues that (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5737722.html) the case for open borders is "not as radical as it may seem." One of the author's 16 reasons for open borders is that "Europe opened many of its borders and the sky didn't fall." That was written in September 2014, just ahead of the December attacks in Tours, Dijon, and Nantes, France, and with over 200 terrorist attacks occurring or plotted in 2015. Worse followed with massacres in Paris, Nice, Brussels, and Berlin. Yet progressives want to open our borders to everyone, and with their "sanctuary cities" to defend those here illegally.
When Rahm Emanuel proclaims (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...n-threats.html) that "Chicago will always be a sanctuary city," I have to respond, "You cannot be serious." But the left is serious. Emanuel has urged illegals (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...n-threats.html) to dial 311 to get legal representation and other forms of taxpayer-funded support. Is that not extreme?
There are over 200 sanctuary cities in the U.S., each of them threatening to ignore federal deportation orders for illegals. Nullification on this scale has not been attempted since before the Civil War, and it is unlikely to succeed, but it is important to recognize how radical the sanctuary city position actually is. According to the Supremacy Clause within Article VI of the Constitution, neither individual cities nor states can pre-empt federal law with regard to immigration and other matters clearly within federal jurisdiction.
But progressives want to open our borders to tens of millions of illegal immigrants from every land. Given the evidence of what is happening in Europe, that proposition is extreme.
Then there are the charges of racism and sexism. The mindset of progressives today is that anyone who does not embrace the whole radical program should expect to be charged with everything from fascism to sexism to classism, even if his only "crime" is philosophical disagreement. Ad hominem attack is the lowest form of rhetoric, but it is now the left's principal mode of argument.
That shift in progressive tactics is a departure from every recognizable form of civilized debate, but then the left is no longer interested in debate. While familiar in totalitarian systems, the left's slash-and-burn tactics are a departure from everything we've known in the past. Hillary Clinton's strategy of demonizing her opponent with no regard for the issues was of this sort, and it almost worked.
While progressives are extreme, it's Trump who comes across as grounded, even-tempered, and mainstream. Since the election, Trump has gained the trust of the people with his efforts to save jobs and his calm decision-making. His cabinet nominees are men and women of great experience and character. All of them have one thing in common: getting things done. Nothing extreme about that.
As hard as it is to comprehend, progressives really do believe that Trump – a man who wants to save jobs for ordinary Americans, protect us against terrorism and other threats, and restore prosperity – is extreme and dangerous. He is dangerous because he might just make America great again. Above all else, progressives do not want to see America mighty again. They seem to want a country that has the same influence on global affairs as the Principality of Monaco.
Whatever the reason, progressives are really upset this time around. They hated Reagan, and they despised George W. Bush, but their response to Trump is beyond hateful. It is deranged. Do we need to add that derangement is, by definition, extreme?
Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).
Last edited by Paparock; 01-06-2017 at 01:46 PM..
The Left Means to Break This President
The Left Means to Break This President
The American left is organized and determined to bring about a redo of 1974.
By James G. Wiles
Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign against Donald Trump largely amounted to a reprise of the left's attacks on Judges Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas in the 1980s. "Borking" -- nice slang for Hillary’s "politics of personal destruction" (which she decried when it was employed against her husband in 1998) -- succeeded against Judge Bork. It did not work against Justice Clarence Thomas. And it demonstrably didn't work against president-elect Trump.
So what is the left going to try next, now that Borking Mr. Trump has failed?
"Massive resistance." that's what.
I laughed when Slate's Michelle Goldberg used the term on NPR last week. Because the last time Democrats talked about "massive resistance," it was Southern Democrats in the 1950s and 60s. They were proclaiming undying resistance to an end to Jim Crow and forced desegregation.
You know -- Little Rock. Selma. Montgomery. Governor George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door
Well, that's not we're dealing with here. What I'm predicting is a return to the huge marches on Washington against the Vietnam War. To the 24-hour picketing of the White House. To teach-ins. Student strikes. Full-page ads and petitions. Leaks of classified information. An unceasing drumbeat of media and academic criticism. The Movement, as it came to be called, deployed a monthly "national mobilization," with a big march in DC and coordinated smaller demos around the country.
These tactics were deployed in the '60s and '70s, first against President Lyndon Johnson and then against Richard Nixon.
Get ready, because it's coming again. Whether, this time, the U.S. will confront -- as it did in the '70's -- violent actions by leftist radicals, such as bombings, bank robberies and other actions to fund domestic terrorism is anyone's guess. But we do know it did before. And we know that today #occupywallstreet and #blacklivesmatter are out there.
We also know, from the mass demonstrations two years ago against state labor legislation in Wisconsin and Ohio, that today's American left is perfectly willing to deploy those tactics to take over and occupy state capitols. Just ask Scott Walker and John Kasich. And in North Carolina, the Dems successfully held “Moral Monday” rallies at the state capitol for four years, resulting in the narrow defeat of the sitting Republican governor.
A friend involved in the inauguration next week reported that downtown DC is plastered with posters
calling for counter-demonstrations in DC on Inauguration Day. He Facebooked me pictures.
One poster was from a new group. “Join us for a bold mobilization against the inauguration of Donald Trump,” it proclaims. An examination of the website suggests an affiliation with the “occupy” movement.
The other subway poster, quite striking, reminded me of CPUSA posters from my college years in DC in the early '70's. All the colors and the design were there. Even the dark yellow paper.
All of these calls for “direct action” center on January 20th. But there's more. On January 21, a "million-woman march" is called for.
Meanwhile, new Democratic Facebook groups targeting Mr. Trump and the Trump agenda pop up on my Facebook feed every day, asking me to "Like" them. Last week, a full-page ad by a new group, called refusefascism (https://refusefascism.org/) appeared on page 7 of the New York Times.
All in all, its reminds me of the anti-Nixon "Inhoguration" on the Mall on January 20th, 1973, which I covered as a college journalist.
Of course, branding its opponents as "fascists" has been a standard tactic of the global left since the 1980s. In Europe, Mr. Putin & Co. still use it today against free Western governments and institutions which he would like to subvert.
So, on one level, there's nothing new here.
And yet, all of this is sobering – if you remember your history.
That's because there is a trap here. An American president named Richard Nixon fell into it.
While the anti-war left of the 1970s failed to prevent Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger from successfully bringing "peace with honor" in Vietnam, they did succeed in provoking Watergate. That scandal -- which covered a multitude of White House sins, all directed at the anti-war left -- undid all that the Nixon administration had accomplished in Southeast Asia. It drove an American president from office. It also led to the disasters of the Carter administration.
Nixon's resignation happened within 21 months of the greatest presidential landslide in American history. As with Hillary Clinton in 2016, George McGovern lost the presidential election of 1972. But the Nixon administration's overreaction from 1969-1972 to the left's unending assault on the presidency, our national security, and our institutions ultimately succeeded in handing the American left its goal. America and the world paid for it for years.
Therefore, in closing, I want to recall two voices from the past. First, the late Washington Post columnist David Broder. Second, the words of Richard M. Nixon as he left office in August, 1974.
Broder was the dean of DC political reporters. When Nixon took office in January 1969, the leaders of the Antiwar Movement announced that, having broken one president, they proposed to break the new one too.
Broder, a Democrat, dissented. In what became a highly controversial column.entitled "The Breaking of a President: A Risky New American Sport." Broder wrote: "It is becoming more and more obvious with every passing day that the men and the movement who broke Lyndon B. Johnson's authority in 1968 are out to break Richard Nixon in 1969." He continued: "When you have broken the President you have broken the one man who can make peace."
That was in 1969. The same, of course, applies to president-elect Trump today.
The antiwar left rejected David Broder's advice. And, with Watergate, they and the Democrats in Congress succeeded in breaking another president, driving him from office. The consequences we know.
What we also need to remember, however, is Richard Nixon's warning on the day he was forced out. Speaking to friends, supporters, and the White House staff, the president said: "Always remember others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself."
Does anyone reading this doubt that the American left is organized and determined to bring about a redo of 1974?
I suggest, therefore, that we all remember Nixon's words as we prepare for the Trump Administration. Our opponents on the left are not, most of them, America's enemies. So we should use laughter rather than vitriol to defeat them.
But defeat them we must.
The one thing the Devil cannot stand is laughter.
Last edited by Paparock; 01-10-2017 at 03:24 PM..