Facebook provides a useful, and disturbing, insight into the Leftist world view

Thanks to my Facebook feed, I have a front row seat for the Leftist world view, which is occasionally amusing and invariably somewhat frightening.

Leftist world viewOne of the useful things about my Facebook feed is the plethora of posts educating me about the Leftist world view. My feed means that, unlike Lefties, my news comes from all sorts of ideologies, with all sorts of factual underpinnings (as well as non-factual underpinnings). Read this requires that I think about and defend my position, if only to myself. I thought I’d share with you a few of the Progressive posts, replete with their Leftist world view, that have crawled across my feed in the last two days, along with my comments.

How the Left views Trump’s approach to North Korea. My view about North Korea is that, beginning with Clinton, and then continuing through Bush and Obama, the standard approach to North Korea has been to settle its periodic temper tantrums with bribes. However, after a few decades of appeasement, you suddenly find yourself facing off with a madman who is clutching nuclear weapons to his chubby chest while he makes apocalyptic threats.

Worse, given Kim Jong-un’s erratic behavior with his own people, it’s clear that his hold on power is tenuous. From his point of view, there may be nothing like a little war to unite his fractious underlings and help the people forget their misery. He’s pretty certain that a few huffings, and puffings, and the downing of a few houses in South Korea or Japan will unlock the West’s treasure chest for him.

With Trump, though, there’s a new sheriff in town, and he’s thrown the old game board off the table. Instead of rolling over and playing dead or begging China for help, Trump has a new approach: Let Kim Jong-un know that Trump will have no compunction about bringing the might of the American military to bear against him. Moreover, through his instantaneous and overwhelming show of force against a single Syrian airport, he’s put China on notice that he’s not making empty threats. (I think that, for China, it was the balance of the great chocolate cake and a massive strike that was so impressive.) As a result, I see China playing nice — and using its influence against the Norks:

China issued a blunt warning to North Korea on Wednesday — telling its belligerent ally to not conduct nuclear weapons or missile tests, or it was likely to face military action by the US.

“Not only [is] Washington brimming with confidence and arrogance following the missile attacks on Syria, but Trump is also willing to be regarded as a man who honors his promises,” said the People’s Daily, the ruling Communist Party’s official paper.

North Korea should halt any plans for nuclear and missile tests “for its own security,” the newspaper said, making it clear that the US would not “co-exist” with a nuclear-armed Pyongyang.

Add to that the 150,000 troops the Chinese have massed along the North Korean border and one would hope that Kim Jong-un gets the message that the big powers are allied against him and they’re serious.

All of these facts lead me to believe that Kim Jong-un is less likely, not more likely, to go nuclear (literally). I believe and hope that Trump’s show of force has convinced a would-be, very dangerous, regional bully that inaction is the better course.

Those locked in a Leftist world view see something different:

Apparently, the strike on the Syrian airbase was just the beginning of this tyrant’s mission to start World War III. Some say that the strike on Syria was too rash and that there are reasons why former President Obama avoided it.

However, Twitter may be the worst thing anyone could have ever given Trump. Trump seems to nonchalantly attack global leaders daily. But maybe this very thing that could lead to his and Americas downfall.

[snip]

What kind of president uses social media to make these kinds of threats? Furthermore, does Donald Trump actually think these types of insults and this level of disrespect is a setting a good example for our youth? Shame on you, Donald Trump. There are children watching, and you are telling them it is okay to be a bully.

Certainly, being a mindless bully is bad. What the Lefties always miss is that it’s just as bad to teach children that it’s okay to be weak and let the bullies run amok when a decent person should and would take a principled stand. I’ll let Kenny Rogers speak for me:

Certainly true peace is optimal but sometimes, when the bad guys are ascendant, peace is not an option.

The Left cannot break out of Obama’s binary view about Syria. Obama had a binary view about Syria: ground war or boring platitudes. That’s why, when Assad crossed his little red line, Obama instantly crumbled and then turned to Russia for help. Obama was incapable of imagining a form of retaliation that didn’t involve a ground war and, quite rightly, he didn’t want to go there.

Obama’s fanatic fans are caught in the same Obama temporal loop: Ground war or no war. That’s how you end up with slobbering encomiums to Obama, such as this one:

In addition to thinking that the only responses are the responses they would make if they had the power (grumble or shoot), the Lefties also have problems with the notion that one should keep military plans quiet until executed. Obama, of course, always spelled out precisely what he intended to do, including time tables.

No wonder, then, that those marinated in a Leftist world view immediate, incisive action according to secret military plans as something dangerous. So it is that the caption for the following (boring) video is “Compare President Obama’s measured approach on Syria to President Trump’s frantic, chaotic one”

While they’re debating the two presidents on style points, Leftists have yet to grapple with a stark reality: Obama’s “measured” passivity, lack of imagination, inability to project strength as part of the Pax Americana, and his complete lack of negotiating skills can easily be blamed for 500,000 Syrian dead, millions displaced, and a refugee crisis that threatens to destroy Europe.

The Left views the Bible as a Democrat party political document. I’m proud of myself for never once having using the phrase “undocumented immigrant,” which implies that a person has the right to be here, but simply left those inconsequential papers on the bathroom counter when he left the house. I’m embarrassed that I used the phrase “illegal immigrant,” insofar as the “immigrant” half of that phrase still implies some right to be here. People who illegally enter the United States are now what they always were: “Illegal Aliens.”

In contrast to illegal aliens, I strongly support legal immigration. How could I not, given that my parents, after patiently waiting for many years, came to this country as legal immigrants. I am so grateful that they did.

I never confuse legal immigration with illegal invasions. The Left, of course, chronically conflates the two. They do the same thing with refugees, all of which are Anne Franks — educated, imbued with an Enlightenment world view, and loving mankind — and must therefore be invited in.

Since we’re in the midst of Passover, the latest trope is that the Jews who left slavery in Egypt to return to Canaan / Israel were “refugees” and “immigrants”:

My take: No. Nope. Not. The Jews were returning to their homeland. Also, although I hate to speak ill of the Jews, it’s worth pointing out that, when their reintegration into their former home met opposition, they got violent. That’s not something I wish to encourage from people who have no right to be here in the first place.

The Left hates white men. It really hates them. I don’t need to offer any commentary to this post from South Africa’s version of HuffPo. You already know what I’m thinking:

Some of the biggest blows to the progressive cause in the past year have often been due to the votes of white men. If white men were not allowed to vote, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would be leaving the European Union, it is unlikely that Donald Trump would now be the President of the United States, and it is unlikely that the Democratic Alliance would now be governing four of South Africa’s biggest cities.

If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened. It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world. The influence of reckless white males were one of the primary reasons that led to the Great Recession which began in 2008. This would also strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed.

At the same time, a denial of the franchise to white men, could see a redistribution of global assets to their rightful owners. After all, white men have used the imposition of Western legal systems around the world to reinforce modern capitalism. A period of twenty years without white men in the world’s parliaments and voting booths will allow legislation to be passed which could see the world’s wealth far more equitably shared. The violence of white male wealth and income inequality will be a thing of the past.

There are more and more and more paragraphs just like the three above, but I think you get the gist.

The Navy’s changed a lot since we were young. Although this is billed as a “Navy graduation ceremony,” it’s actually an SWO ship selection night, which is when officers get assigned to their ships. Regardless of the context, I find it somewhat disturbing and I don’t think the context changes the tenor of the comments:

Judging by many of the comments, I’m not the only one. The person who posted the video has this to say, about unfair standards:

As an 0311 who served with 3/7 Personally I don’t care if gays serve in our military, every Company had at least one that we know off when I was in. I had one in our platoon who was a hardcharger but never flamboyant. We all respected him as a brother and Marine and what he did in his own time was none of our business. Now my question is why are enlisted held to higher standards and how come this is alright but having tattoos is not. That’s my issue is there is some bias. If enlisted are expected to act in a certain professional demeanor than I would expect our higher ups will show us by their own merit and leadership. But if you are gay and you want to pick up a rifle to fight amongst warriors than so be it. Let’s just try to keep whatever is left of our heritage and our dignity while we are all at it. With the new technology we easily carry in our pockets we can do enough PR damage to ourselves in the process. Is not just us watching but the world and our enemies. Let’s keep our baring in our distinguished ceremonies. Semper Fidelis!

Others, both male and female, chimed in, mostly in terms of dignity, not homophobia. Here are several examples (language warning):

“I’m not against gay men, I’m against feminine men like this, gay or straight. It’s old, tired, and just plain fucking annoying. Forget fluoride, we need to start putting testosterone in the drinking water.”

“I don’t give a single fuck what 2 adults do in their own bedroom. But what I do care about is not acting like a professional in uniform. You can be a flamboyant fruit cake all you want out of uniform. When that uniform goes on act accordingly.”

“Disgraceful show of non respect for the uniform he is wearing! It’s not a strip show. I don’t care about his preferences but the tearing down of this tradition really pissed me off !!!”

“That guy just made a mockery of everything the Navy stands for. No pride or proffesionalism there. I did seven years in the Navy, If I had for one minute thought that was going to be acceptable in the Navy, I never would have joined. The rest of the graduates should have been ashamed of themselves also, They never should have acted like that. Absolutely shameful! What a disgrace! Wheres the leadership? The senior officers there should have been seriously reprimaanded for letting that happen.”

“I don’t get it.. if you’re gay whatever..but why do they act flamboyant like this? This was unprofessional and unneeded. The women screaming and cheering…why do women think gay men are so extra special?”

“I’m sure the flamboyant fuckery will save us from the enemy…by all means, be you, enjoy life, live for yourself, but dont make a mockery of our armed forces. Maybe it’s just me and im being naive but ive always found beauty and seen honor in our military from graduation thru how they respect and pay tribute to their fallen. Be you, on your time- im sure ill catch backlash but this was disrespectful”

“So let me get this straight. While in uniform, military members are to refrain from PDA–my husband can only hold our children’s hands but not mine, hug and kiss them goodbye after meeting up for lunch but not me, yet THIS is cheered and applauded for? Respect the uniform and all it represents. You can let your freak flag fly as high as you want when not wearing it.”

“Where the hell is the respect for the uniform, tradition and ones self. This is unacceptable. No fucking discipline at all. Of course this is not a Marine! I don’t get pissed of that often about stupid shit but I’m just sick that this is accepted in the military. I can only imagine this fucker with a spider. There goes the whole platoons location. He’s a fucking liability!”

“WTF??? This is dishonoring the uniform. It’s not something to be made fun of and to act like an idiots. Discipline is the heart and soul of our military. Thanks obama for bring this shit into our honored service. No wonder why I’m running into puzzy on FB from the military.”

“As a retired veteran, I am offended by this. This display of “gayness” is exactly what most military members find offensive. If you are gay and want to serve your country, act professionally, particularly if you are in a leadership position. As a naval officer, this individual will not have the respect of his unit and will be ineffective as a leader.”

I would add that shenanigans such as that seen in the video inevitably raise a question: Did the LGBT crowds insist on military service in order to serve their country through the military or did they insist to make a point?

If you wish to defeat your enemy, you must know your enemy. My Facebook feed is a rigorous classroom teaching me a great deal about the Leftist world view. I hate what I see. I’m working on simple arguments to explain why the view is wrong. And I count my lucky stars every single day that I live in an America that has, as its White House occupant, President Donald J. Trump.

Photo credit: Women’s March on Washington 1/21/17, by Molly Adams. Creative Commons License.

  • podrazik

    I think Trump is taking the advice from the “Journal of American Greatness” (I think that was the name of the blog, apparently out of Claremont that was closed several months later). One of the articles described a foreign policy along the lines of ‘whack a mole’. Which this cruise missile strike seems to be. No, its not total annihilation. But, its an attrition against war-making capability that is not readily replaced. Got new jet fighters?

    Or the MOAB strike today.

    Or a cruise missile crashing into someone’s royal palace. Terrorism can run both ways, especially if it isn’t random and targets the real culprits. Kinda like the final punishment God inflicted on the Egyptian Pharaoh on the night of the Passover.

  • G6loq
  • MacG

    Let that guy dance onto the battlefield like that to lull the enemy into thinking how how easy this will be and be very mistaken about who will be backing him up.

  • David Foster

    Regarding the Trump actions on Syria and N Korea, I think I’ve seen more right-leaning people and libertarians highly upset about it than I’ve seen leftists.

    • UCSPanther

      I have seen far right antisemites on Western Rifle Shooters chimping out about the airstrikes, claiming, as usual, that it is a symptom of the US “being in the pockets of the Zionists”.

      • ymarsakar

        Tel Aviv is the capital of the US, they often tell me.

        Although they don’t accuse Trum of that, because they are scared of breaking ranks with the circle dance. The Demoncrats snookered them into fighting against Lincoln using similar bullsh tactics. Guess where all the land owning slave lords got to? They didn’t serve, except by volunteers like Bedford.

  • G6loq

    Personalize it, polarize it ….

    This is Shelley Garland:
    https://s.blogcdn.com/www.huffingtonpost.co.za/media/2017/04/shelley.jpg

    • Libby_CO

      Uh, is Shelley Garland a man/transwoman? Seems like Garland is taking (white, male) self-hatred to quite an extreme level.
      In addition to the blatant racism/misandry, I would ask if Garland would be OK with a 20 year break from any white male inventions, the products of any white male founded companies, use of any white male created institutions (universities, libraries, art museums, etc.), the protection of all white male military and police members, etc. Oh, and that would mean no HuffPost, since that site was co-created by a white male Andrew Breitbart.

  • Bob

    God help us.

  • ymarsakar

    If you wish to defeat your enemy, you must know your enemy. My Facebook feed is a rigorous classroom teaching me a great deal about the Leftist world view. I hate what I see. I’m working on simple arguments to explain why the view is wrong.

    I don’t need FB to know my enemy.

    I got all kinds of alternatives.