With young useful idiots marching against the Second Amendment (complete with armed guards protecting them), you know what that means: Posters! Lots of ’em.
With young useful idiots marching against the Second Amendment (complete with armed guards protecting them), you know what that means: Posters! Lots of ’em.
For decades, American Leftists have hidden their close ties to fascism. Dinesh D’Souza’s PragerU video reveals those ties. His book lays them wide open.
Knowing that it was unlikely ever to show up at my local library, I treated myself to a new book this weekend: Dinesh D’Souza’s The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left. I’m familiar with the larger outline — namely that fascism was and is a Leftist phenomenon — but the book is a delight in that it fleshes out that outline. It also exposes one of the American Left’s deepest secrets, which was the fact that Hitler drew some of his strongest inspiration from Democrat principles and policies regarding race.
If you want a preview of what D’Souza offers in his book, I recommend spending five minutes watching the latest PragerU video:
As I understand it, fascists envision America as a vast beehive, with every bee laboring unstintingly and unceasingly for the good of the hive. That each worker bee leads a miserable, constrained life is irrelevant. American Leftists all imagine themselves as Queen Bees, so each is able to avoid the disheartening thought that he or she is nothing more than a drone, destined to labor and die, without choice as to labor, without joy, without individual liberty. [Read more…]
Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” A brave journalist reporting on Antifa proves Orwell was right.
If you ever question whether the American media has morphed into Pravda — a tightly controlled outlet for socialist propaganda — you need to check out a Facebook post from Frank Somerville (which I’ve embedded below). Somerville, if you’re wondering, is a very well-respected San Francisco Bay Area TV journalist.
Somerville’s post is an interesting one at two levels. First, it’s interesting because he reports honestly about the hatred and violence that characterized Antifa’s latest riot in Berkeley.
Second — and this is the important part — it’s interesting because he feels compelled to explain the pressure he felt not to do this accurate, honest reporting, including pressure from his wife, who fears for his safety (whether professional or personal is not clear).
As you read the following words, keep in mind that Somerville is not a journalist in Putin’s Russia or in Iran or in the Gaza strip. He is a journalist in the San Francisco Bay Area who has to screw up his courage and take a stand to report . . . the facts:
M wife told me I’m going to get crucified by posting this. I told her I didn’t care. This is what happened. This is what I saw. This is what I experienced. This is the truth. Period. If people dont want to heat the truth thats not my problem. I have No agenda. Im just saying that this is what happened to me today, think about it. And make your own decision.
Here’s Somerville’s entire post: [Read more…]
Google’s promise was that it would allow an unfettered platform for free speech and thought. Its college-grad employees, though, made it a fascism farm.
I stopped using Google’s search engine years ago, although I’m still chained to Gmail. I was one of the first Gmail users back when it was in beta and it would upset my life a great deal if I had to switch email addresses. Still, depending on how Google comports itself in the next couple of months, Gmail may have to go too. There’s no reason for my email use to advance its fascist agenda.
Did I say “fascist agenda”? Why, yes, I think I did. That’s because Google’s decision to fire an employee who dared to speak out against the Leftist lockstep that governs everything from its workplace to its search algorithm manipulations is entirely fascist. Google is its own little state, one governed by hardcore Leftist ideology, and anyone who speaks out against that must be purged.
I actually don’t have anything original to say on the subject, but there’s so much smart stuff out there, I thought I’d share it with you. Let me begin with a collection of employee self-written bios that Paul Joseph Watson found (click on image to enlarge):
With staff like this, I’m sure tolerance of conservative opinions is paramount at Google. pic.twitter.com/FqawBCilva
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) August 9, 2017
Robert Avrech takes a much-deserved swipe at the Stalinists on the Fainting Couch:
James Damore was fired for expressing his opinions. Google his name and you will find that the left-wing press is demonizing him relentlessly.
Ironically, the entire affair proves his conclusions. By firing him, Google has proven that it is an intolerant ideological echo chamber.
Several fragile female engineers stayed home from their jobs at Google because the memo made them feel uncomfortable, or unsafe, or whatever parlance these overgrown babies default to in order to impose their cultural fascism on the rest of us. Presumably, these female engineers took to their fainting couches for a few hours in order to get over the shock of a non-leftist opinion.
In Stalin’s Soviet Union, the gulags and graveyards were filled with people who expressed opinions that the leadership considered incorrect.
In America, the left does not build gulags… not yet, anyway. Instead, it resorts to shame and creates unemployment.
Read more here.
Daniel Greenfield points out that the problem isn’t limited to Google. As long as Google controls much of the internet, it’s a problem for all of us:
James Damore is an FIDE chess master who studied at Princeton, MIT and Harvard. He had been working as a software engineer at Google for four years.
Danielle Brown is the new Vice President of Diversity at Google. She has an MBA from the University of Michigan and campaigned for Hillary.
She had been working at Google for a few weeks.
Google is a search engine monopoly that makes its money from search ads. It began with a revolutionary idea from young engineers much like Damore. Then the engineers became billionaires. And the company that began in a garage hired a Vice President of Diversity to get rid of the brilliant young engineers.
Google has embedded partisan attacks on conservatives into its search and news territories under the guise of “fact checks”. It has fundamentally shifted results for terms such as “Jihad” to reflect Islamist propaganda rather than the work of counterterrorism researchers such as Robert Spencer. And it wasn’t the first time. Google had been previously accused of manipulating search results during Brexit.
Censorship has long been a problem on YouTube. And it will now officially be caging “controversial” videos using a method developed by Jigsaw. Formerly Google Ideas, Jigsaw is Google’s left-wing incubator developing social justice tech.
Damore, like so many of us, wasn’t thinking the way that Google thought he should be thinking. And so it dealt with the problem by getting rid of him. When users search for results that Google doesn’t like, it guides them to what it thinks they should be looking for. If they persist, then the results vanish. If they upload videos it doesn’t like, they get censored. That’s the totalitarian left-wing Google model in action.
Google is approaching the ecological dead end of its technological niche. There’s not much else to do except make fringe investments that are little more than disguised advertising and build more free apps to feed into its own ad business while driving traffic to them through its search and Android leverage.
If the business model ever fails or the government takes a closer look at its abuses, then it’s all over.
America’s current ideological civil war replays two core ideas from the late 18th century: America’s Enlightenment liberty vs. France’s socialist tyranny.
I am sure most readers of this blog are aware of the incident that occurred several weeks ago at Claremont MacKenna college, when progressive students — aided and abetted by the school administration and local police who merely stood by — succeeded in shutting down a speech by the scholar and prolific author, Heather MacDonald. Ms. MacDonald has been researching and speaking on law enforcement issues for three decades and has proven an erudite critic of the Black Lives Matter crowd and their progressive enablers in the past administration.
In the wake of the incident, Pomona College President David Oxtoby penned an open letter critical of the rioters who shut down Ms. MacDonald’s speech. I recently chanced upon a letter by three black students at Pomona College responding to Mr. Oxtoby. It is a horrific diatribe that gives some insights into the progressive Left’s most detestable aspects all of which are aimed squarely at undoing the Enlightenment. I’ll quote selectively from the letter, which you can read in its entirety here.
. . . Though this institution as well as many others including this entire country, have been founded upon the oppression and degradation of marginalized bodies, it has a liability [sic] to protect the students that it serves. The paradox is that Pomona’s past is rooted in domination of marginalized peoples and communities and the student body has a significant population of students from these backgrounds.
Given the substantive lack of racism in the American mainstream and the complete lack of institutionalized racism, the victim’s studies programs apparently teach that all governing systems in this country are irredeemably tarred with racism and, by their mere continued existence, somehow de facto function as racist institutions to the detriment of ____________ [fill in your “marginalized peoples” identity here]. The authors obviously see progressive paradigm as giving them absolute moral authority and the right to demand special treatment, not merely for past sins that occurred long before they were ever born, but for a dark fantasy of ongoing sins. [Read more…]
Despite a small spark of rationality, Macalester College’s weekly paper displays the Progressive hate, ignorance, and nonsense at an American college.
Knowing my passion for free speech, someone sent me a small sign of hope: a link to a student-written opinion piece from the weekly student newspaper at Macalester University in Minnesota. To give a little context, in 2014 College Magazine ranked Macalester as the “Most Progressive Campus” in America. It’s also No. 10 on the Best Colleges’ “Most Liberal Colleges” list. In other words, it’s your average American college, right up there with some of the most prestigious, such as Yale, Harvard, or MIT, or some of the most embarrassing, such as Missouri or Pomona.
Unlike those other American colleges, however, Macalester is never in the news. I suspect this is because no student or faculty member would ever dream of inviting to the campus someone who doesn’t meet the Progressive purity scale. Without any opposing views, there is no call for violence.
It was therefore a great and pleasant surprise to discover that one young man is defending the free exchange of ideas. What moved Jacob Hill to write was the fact that the staff of the college radio station, perfectly emulating a Maoist re-education camp, grouped together to castigate a fellow employee for having dared to place on the college Facebook page a meme that “satirized the prevalence of white Adidas sneakers among women who claim not to conform to societal norms.” I’m having trouble envisioning how offensive such a meme could be but for the student’s cohorts at the radio station, it was a bridge too far. It was Mao time:
Less than 24 hours after the meme was posted, the original poster (a Mac Radio staff member) went to his WMCN staff meeting as usual. One of the commenters on the meme decided to make a speech calling him misogynistic, racist and homophobic. The speech was met with applause, and much of the WMCN staff agreed that his offensive behavior did not represent the culture of WMCN. He was not offered a chance to respond but rather asked to think about his actions for a week.
Showing a grasp of logic denied to most young Progressives, Hill points out that advancing feelings as the alpha and omega of all disputes ends rational discussion:
A later comment on the original post read: “you don’t get to decide what’s offensive to other people—if it’s offensive to them, that’s it. You don’t get to critique that fact.” This ‘fact’ is particularly what makes offense so messy. No one knows exactly what will offend others. It’s an ongoing dialogue. Macalester students, in their haste to eliminate every suggestion that may be perceived as offensive, missed the opportunity for this dialogue. I don’t personally believe that the poster had malintent, but even if he did, is calling him a racist/misogynist/homophobe really the best way to make your point? Too often, liberal Millennials believe they can end a conversation by calling out someone’s “isms.” Yes, these claims are powerful, but that is precisely why they must be backed by context, logic, and most of all, truth.
There’s more and Hill deserves kudos for every word he writes. This is a young man who, somehow, somewhere, was exposed to an intellectual world that transcends navel-gazing emotionalism that’s par for the course at an American college.
As of this writing, Hill’s short article had garnered three comments: The first agrees with and encourages respectful dialog; the third agrees with Hill and expresses surprise that The Weekly Mac published Hill’s piece; and the second . . . well, the second comment shows that the writer has embraced an authoritarian worldview that brooks no criticism:
I question the decision of the Mac Weekly to publish such a targeted opinion piece, especially as the author writes of the pitfalls of “isolating and humiliating” specific people in the name of a greater conversation. [The author did not name anybody, although it’s reasonable to assume that in a small community, most students could identify not only the daring Facebook transgressor but also his Maoist accusers.] Also: this idea of “listening politely” looks to be teetering quite close to the edge of a compulsory silence.
Hill, as I said, gave me hope. Scanning the rest of The Mac Weekly’s offerings depressed me. In just one week’s worth of writing, there are so many bad ideas. These are bad ideas arising from a solid basis of factual ignorance, unexamined bias, Marxism, Alinsky-esque thinking, self-loathing, third-wave feminism, misandry, and anti-Semitism. Here are just a couple of examples:
The new phrase is “fourth branch of government,” referring to the Progressive bureaucracy fighting exile. It’s time to fight back.
The administrative state is not the fourth branch of government. When I said “interesting times,” I meant it. We all knew that our government had gotten too big and we voted for Trump believing that he would make good on his promise to shrink it.
Trump certainly has been trying to fulfill that promise, but the administrative state has been fighting back in ways we never imagined. Rather than recognizing that our Constitution makes it subordinate to the president, so that it must take its marching orders from him, the administrative state is setting itself up as a permanent government in opposition, determined to continue the policies that put Obama into office and kept Hillary out of office.
The Washington Examiner has written an excellent editorial that warns of the dangers in a self-styled fourth branch of government:
As we once noted in a different context, “civil disobedience is properly the tool of the citizenry, not of those entrusted by it to execute the law faithfully.” We also wrote that America “cannot survive every minor public official becoming a law unto himself.” This is just as true of unconstitutional actions by EPA employees as it was for the official about whom we wrote it — Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples even after the Supreme Court‘s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.
The Examiner is not the only one sounding this warning. Bryan Dean Wright, a former CIA employee and a Democrat is sounding the same warning with special emphasis on people in the intelligence community. Noting the extraordinary power they hold, he says that the only way to keep a free state is for them to keep out of politics — especially since there are constitutional actions they can take if they’re genuinely concerned about a president’s loyalty to the state. (Me, personally, I would have been concerned about Obama’s secret deals with Iran. . . .)
When you’re trained as a spy, you’re taught how to handle these kinds of situations. Upon learning the information, it gets tightly compartmented (restricted) and sent to the Department of Justice or Congress for investigation. If the evidence is found to be credible, the constitution makes clear what happens next: impeachment.
That’s how American democracy should work.
However, some of America’s spies are deciding that that’s not enough. For reasons of misguided righteousness or partisan hatred, they’ve taken it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner. They have prosecuted their case in the court of public opinion, with likeminded media outlets such as CNN, The New York Times, and the Washington Post serving as court stenographers.
Elected by no one, responsible only to each other, these spies have determined that Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Will we slip so quickly into a banana republic, not because of anything Trump has done (his actions to date have been not only constitutional but consistent with prior presidents, including Obama), but because the Progressives will not give up power?
Lastly, if you want a superbly written article about the risks America faces at the hands of an unelected bureaucracy that refuses to hand over the power it accrued during the Obama era, read Matthew Continetti’s deservedly lauded essay asking who controls America.
Legislative roadblocks, adversarial journalists, and public marches are typical of a constitutional democracy. They are spelled out in our founding documents: the Senate and its rules, and the rights to speech, a free press, and assembly. Where in those documents is it written that regulators have the right not to be questioned, opposed, overturned, or indeed fired, that intelligence analysts can just call up David Ignatius and spill the beans whenever they feel like it?
The last few weeks have confirmed that there are two systems of government in the United States. The first is the system of government outlined in the U.S. Constitution—its checks, its balances, its dispersion of power, its protection of individual rights. Donald Trump was elected to serve four years as the chief executive of this system. Whether you like it or not.
The second system is comprised of those elements not expressly addressed by the Founders. This is the permanent government, the so-called administrative state of bureaucracies, agencies, quasi-public organizations, and regulatory bodies and commissions, of rule-writers and the byzantine network of administrative law courts. This is the government of unelected judges with lifetime appointments who, far from comprising the “least dangerous branch,” now presume to think they know more about America’s national security interests than the man elected as commander in chief.
For some time, especially during Democratic presidencies, the second system of government was able to live with the first one. But that time has ended. The two systems are now in competition. And the contest is all the more vicious and frightening because more than offices are at stake. This fight is not about policy. It is about wealth, status, the privileges of an exclusive class.
The great thing about the Leftists’ continuing mental breakdown well into the third week of President Trump’s administration is that they contribute endless material to great political posters. Looking at these posters, no wonder I’m viewing every day of the Trump presidency as better than any birthday. He’s imperfect, of course, but he’s so much better than I expected and living so deeply inside the Progressive psyche that I can only think that America may indeed have a good angel watching over her.
And yes, I know that the increasingly frenzied calls to have President Trump impeached, institutionalized, or — God forbid — assassinated are very disturbing and should make every American vigilant. However, the short-term offsetting benefit of this mental breakdown is that ordinary people are growing disgusted with the Democrat party and its shoddy, divisive principles. So, while the good times are rolling, sit back and enjoy some funny, insightful, and possibly disturbing political posters:
It’s serious business when Google — with its unimaginable reach and control over people’s understanding of their world — does what every single Leftie since WWII has done: conflate “fascism” with “right-wing.” I’ve been banging this gong for years. Rather than do yet another lengthy post, I’ll confine myself to a few brief remarks and then provide links to just a few in the laundry-list of posts I have on the subject.
A few words from fascism’s creator, Benito Mussolini:
The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative.
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
Fascism is a religion. The twentieth century will be known in history as the century of Fascism.
Both fascism and communism are subsets of socialism. Fascism allows ostensibly private ownership, provided that this ownership, like everything else within the fascist state, is subject to state control. Communism simply does away entirely with the illusion of private ownership.
The fascist fight against communism in the 1930s (which led many British and American people who were scared of communism to embrace fascism) was not, as people then thought, a fight between communism and its opposite. It was an internecine battle between two closely related authoritarian ideologies.
With the Left’s mental breakdown escalating, and the fearful cries about fascism getting louder daily, I put together a rather crudely composed poster aimed at addressing what I see as a core problem with the constant claim that Trump represents a rebirth of 1950s fascism:
I keep thinking that, if people understood what fascism really is, they wouldn’t make this kind of stupid mistake. Of course, after watching the pink-hatted harridans, I’m probably expecting too much from my fellow Americans.
In several posts, I’ve hammered away at the Progressive canard that Donald Trump is a fascist and that conservatives generally are fascists. My central point — always — is that American conservatives, including Donald Trump, are the antithesis of fascists because they want less government control, while a defining feature of fascism is total government control (kind of along the lines of what Obama pushed and Hillary would have pushed further).
I finally got all my disparate thoughts consolidated into a single essay that Thomas Lifson was kind enough to publish at American Thinker:
For months now, the Democrat-Progressive fever swamps have been using the word “fascist” in connection with Donald Trump and those who voted for him. It took Michael Kinsley to elevate this shoddy claim onto pages of the Washington Post: Trump, he asserts, is a fascist.
Sadly, Kinsley reveals, as so many before him have, that academic degrees are no substitute for intelligence, knowledge, critical analysis, and basic logic. The term “fascist” is a very distinct one and Kinsley can apply it to Trump only by redefining it entirely. His is a deconstructionist effort that leeches all meaning from the word.
Because Kinsley’s essay is currently behind a paywall, let me summarize briefly what his argument is before I demonstrate what a shoddy piece of disinformation it is.
Kinsley opens in a defensive posture, absolving himself of proving Godwin’s Law, which holds that internet discussions always end with Hitler analogies. Instead, Kinsley boasts, “I mean ‘fascist’ in the more clinical sense.”
What is this clinical sense? If you plow through an endless cascade of words, Kinsley accuses Trump of being a crony capitalist, not to enrich himself and his friends, but to claim boasting rights about his skills conferring material benefits on the American people. Kinsley calls this “corporate statism,” which he says is the same as “fascism,” although he considers himself too classy to call Trump a fascist (except when he calls Trump a fascist).
As is the case with so many Leftist arguments grounded in history, Kinsley could not be more wrong. “Corporate statism” is certainly a feature of Hitler’s fascism, but it’s also been a feature of Obama’s administration. Standing alone, corporate statism, while corrupt and unfair, is not fascism. It’s just garden-variety corruption. Actual “fascism” is not just about the state’s relationship to corporations; it’s also about the state’s relationship to the luckless individuals under its control.
If you like what you’ve read so far, please read the rest here.
UPDATE: Someone much more graphically gifted than I am created this spectacular poster about political ideologies and players from Left to Right (click on image to enlarge):
Hat tip: G. Howell
I have a new battle cry: #BoycottTheBoycotters! Thanks to Breitbart, Trump voters are well aware that Kellogg, rather than marketing its product to all consumers, has declared that roughly half of America’s consumers are “deplorable” and has declared a boycott against them.
I know that sounds rather strong, but that’s exactly what’s going on when a corporation publicly announces that it will take an affirmative stand against that portion of its customers who dared to vote for a candidate that the corporation does not support. What’s worse is that, as of today, another
150 193 American companies have joined in Kellogg’s decision to boycott American consumers. (Scroll down to see a list of those companies.)
These boycotting corporations feel justified in doing what they’re doing because they’ve bought into the “Trump = Hitler” hype, with the subtext that Trump supporters are a nascent Wehrmacht or Gestapo. My guess is that the corporations succumbed to this primitive, ignorant argument because they’re headed by people who went to American colleges, which have become places that preach totalitarian propaganda, rather than knowledge.
Don’t be one of those ill-informed people who can’t distinguish people who seek totalitarian control from those who crave individual liberty. Here’s the quick down and dirty on fascism — who is and who isn’t. (Hint: Trump and his supporters are not; Progressives are working hard to travel down that road.)
There’s only one thing you need to remember about political systems, which is that there are only two kinds: Those that vest more power in the state (statists) and those that vest less power in the state (individualists). Every political system, no matter the name given, falls along that continuum:
One of the categories I long ago set up for articles I’m saving to include in a round-up was called “politics as usual.” I’ve since changed it to “there’s nothing usual about politics.” The fusion of the Trump presidency, the collective Progressive mental breakdown, and the culture wars means that just about everything I read lately comes as a surprise. I’m pretty sure I’ve gotten no Christmas cards yet this year (a variation from the norm) because my Progressive friends are too depressed. They’re feeling like that gay couple in LA that canceled their celebratory Christmas party.
I am feeling celebratory — for the first time in eight years. I feel like the Americans at Yorktown when the British surrendered in 1781, as their band played The World Turned Upside Down. There’s still a lot of fighting to be done, as the links below show, but we’re gaining traction.
No, you don’t get to change the rules after you lose the game. The Lefties are desperately trying to undo the Electoral College (or, indeed, to do anything else they can think of to undermine a fair election the outcome of which they dislike). What Lefties don’t understand is that, had there been no Electoral College, Trump would simply have run a different campaign, getting more votes out in red states. What Lefties do understand is that the Electoral College stands in the way of the entire United States becoming a colony of California, which Michael Barone explains marches to the beat of a different drummer:
[F]or the first time in the nation’s history the most populous state was a political outlier, voting at one extreme in the national political spectrum.
The trend is recent — and clear. California was 14 points more Democratic than the nation this year, versus 10 points in 2012, 9 points in 2008, 6 points in 2004 and 2000. In the nine elections before that and after California passed New York to become the most populous state in 1963, the average of California’s Democratic and Republican percentages was never more than 5 points off the national figures. In four of the five elections between 1964 and 1980 (the exception was the McGovern year, 1972) it actually voted more Republican than the nation as a whole.
The case against abolition is one suggested by the Framers’ fears that voters in one large but highly atypical state could impose their will on a contrary-minded nation. That largest state in 1787 was Virginia, home of four of the first five presidents. New York and California, by remaining closely in line with national opinion up through 1996, made the issue moot.
California’s 21st century veer to the left makes it a live issue again. In a popular vote system, the voters of this geographically distant and culturally distinct state, whose contempt for heartland Christians resembles imperial London’s disdain for the “lesser breeds” it governed, could impose something like colonial rule over the rest of the nation. Sounds exactly like what the Framers strove to prevent.
Barone’s is an interesting, but somewhat abstract, analysis. A look at how the votes played out in real time in New York helps explain in concrete terms how doing away with the Electoral College means that the United States will be governed by the hard-Left coastal cities, plus Chicago:
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.
And California’s arrogance to the contrary, while it would probably be fine for America if California left (as many are now threatening to do), it’s doubtful whether it would be good for California.
Slate Magazine is at it again, likening Trump to Hitler. This is a ridiculously stupid argument but to be expected given that the people who write for Slate are ignorant about history and think in cartoonish terms. (And no, I’m not going to dignify the latest Slate article with a link.) Whether looking at personal beliefs, friends and supporters, or politic ideology, the fact is that neither Trump nor Hillary is Hitler — but it so happens that Hillary is a lot further down that road.
Beginning at least with Reagan, the Left has loved to say that it’s irrelevant that the Republican candidate of the day has never, ever been heard saying something antisemitic or demanding violence or discrimination against American citizens on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion. FDR was the last president to attack an entire class of people on race, as he did when he imprisoned Americans of Japanese descent. Instead, says the Left, Republican candidates are using secret “dog whistle” code that can be heard only by people of ill will.
In fact, Hitler never used dog whistles. He was anything but shy about stating his beliefs. He trumpeted them from every rooftop, beginning with Mein Kampf and continuing with his, and his cohorts’, every utterance about Jews.
To my knowledge, Trump has never said anything antisemitic in his life. When he was still a registered Democrat, he was honored by the black community for his services to and good relationship with that community — something unlikely to have happened had he been going about whistling for racist dogs.
Moreover, contrary to the “Big Lie” Leftist accusation, Trump did not smear Latin Americans qua Latin Americans. What he did say was that illegal immigration — which the Mexican government encourages — is sending a disproportionate number of Mexican criminals to America. Mexico would say the same were we to encourage those Americans who’ve spent time, or who ought to spend time, in San Quentin to head down to Mexico.
Nor did Trump savage all Muslims (a group the Left relentlessly, and wrongly, classifies as a race in order to increase their victim status). Instead, he said what every honest American thinks: When you have a religion that has terrorism as a central doctrine, and your government plans to bring in hundreds of thousands of refugees from a region torn by Islamic religious wars, a sane country puts screening systems in place before admitting those inclined to practice the more violent fundamental tenets of their faith.
Nobody on the Left was bothered in 1980 when Carter imposed a stringent religious test on Iranians trying to enter the U.S. and sought to deport 50,000 Iranian students already in the U.S. And the racist, unconstitutional FDR is still a bright light in the Democrat pantheon.
Things are a bit different when it comes to Hillary. For years, people have come forward with stories of her vicious attacks on Jews, blacks, and the mentally handicapped. Bill’s former girlfriend, Dolly Howe, wrote a book in which she alleged that:
Hillary was heard calling mentally challenged children ‘f*****g ree-tards’ and caught on record blurting out the terms ‘stupid k**e and ‘f***ing Jew b*****d’, while Bill called the Reverend Jesse Jackson a ‘G**damned n****r’.
If that were just one source, it could be discounted, but it’s not. Other sources have reported on Hillary calling Paul Fray a “f***ing Jew bastard,” an accusation Hillary has never challenged or denied.
Politically, despite lip service, Hillary has never been a friend to Israel. Animus to Israel is so often a proxy for anti-Semitism. Beating down on a Jewish state facing genocide reeks of anti-Semitism, after all.
Hillary supporters, while denying that she ever said “f***ing retards” might come back by saying Trump is worse because he mocked a handicapped reporter. The problem with their argument is that Trump did not do that and the video proves it.
If there’s a candidate in this campaign who seems to have a problem with Jews, minorities, and the disabled . . . well, it’s not Trump.
The other day, I wrote a post entitled “Dear Elites — no, Trump is not a fascist, but Hillary probably is.” I illustrated it with a picture I found on the internet of Hillary giving her famous “what difference does it make [that four men died on my watch]” testimony, with the slight addition of a toothbrush mustache (yes, of the type Hitler wore) and a raised middle finger.
Putting aside the picture, the entirety of the post is given over to explaining what fascism is (statism with cronyism is a good shorthand); explaining why Trump, whatever else he is, is not a fascist (primarily because he promises to keep guns in citizens’ hands, but also because the core of what he’s saying is that his administration will obey laws already on the books and because he promises to shrink our bureaucracy); and why Hillary does fall into the fascist mode (everything within the all-powerful state, a disarmed citizenry, government-controlled rights to speech, and solid cronyism with Wall Street).
I thought it was a good post, making a point that is too frequently overlooked by Trump critics on both the Left and the Right, as well as by Hillary’s fans on the Right. It’s a small antidote to the fact that, in the decades since WWII, American Leftists have done a superb job of destroying fascism’s completely statist (i.e., Leftist) roots and attaching this negative label to conservatives. Conservatives, of course, are the antithesis of fascism, in that they stand for small government, the free market, and individual liberties, including the right to bear arms, a freedom that’s anathema to despots.
Others seem to have thought it was a good post too because I got what is, for me, a nice number of views when I posted it on my blog’s Facebook page (see above): 448 as of this writing. Indeed, up until an hour or two ago, what existed in the place where you now see that “Not Boosted” notice was a message from Facebook telling me that the post was doing better than 95% of my other posts on that same page and suggesting that I “boost” it — meaning that I turn it into one of those irritating “sponsored posts” that periodically show up on your Facebook feed.
Since I’ve been working hard lately, I admit to wanting to live a little large. Couple that “rich” feeling with the fact that I felt (and still feel) that the post says something important, I decided to blow $3 and promote the post for three days. Sometimes you just have to go for it!
Sadly, five minutes after mentally kissing the $3 goodbye and hitting “go” on the boosting, I got this message:
Curious as to what policies I violated, I followed the link. Here, in its entirety (along with my interlineations), is that portion of the advertising policies regarding “prohibited content”: