HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » ck4829 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »

ck4829

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Mar 20, 2004, 11:37 AM
Number of posts: 28,986

About Me

The Burn Notice - http://burnoatus.freeforums.net Right Wing Infopedia - http://rw-infopedia.pbworks.com LIVKI Ops - https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/livkiops/info

Journal Archives

I don't think I'm alone here when I say this, the GOP/right wing must now be destroyed

No longer just put down to minority status.

Defanged, discredited, debunked, defunded, disorganized, lose their mailing lists, kicked out of office space, made fun of on the street, banned from social media, can't call a cab, and so on. Destroyed.

Even when they got Trump in as President, I thought they were still a legitimate 'other side of the aisle', I continued thinking this when they started calling things like not wanting to get shot in school or wanting to get vaccinated as "socialism" saying to myself "It's just a crazy fringe", but when they looked at Christchurch and started saying "It happened to make us look bad! We're the real victims here!", I can't do that anymore.

If it's my country's legitimacy or the GOP/right wing's legitimacy and right to power, the choice is clear.

I am withdrawing my consent to the Republican Party governance of the federal government.

Isn't it interesting that Trump DIDN'T say his roving biker gangs would stop white nationalists?

Anyone else find it odd that Trump threatens to deploy tough military, police, and biker gangs against Democrats but not against white nationalist terrorists?

What's the matter? Are his tough guys too chicken to go against guys who are certain to shoot back? Or is it because they have the same skin color and similar politics? Or maybe a little bit of both?

Sorry, but only a fool or a tool would respect the office of President at this point

Between Trump's tepid and meaningless non-statements after what happened in Christchurch following his threat of roving biker gangs and Kellyanne Conway pretty much saying "NO U" to the media, I'm sorry but the last credibility of the executive branch has flickered out... Everything from George Washington, to FDR, and Barack Obama has done to set the Oval Office up as some sort of symbol ALL Americans can get behind and people around the world can see as a beacon is in irreparable tatters because of this one man-child.

It's time for us to start publicly saying the President is just someone who signs legislation and someone to blame when the economy goes south, that he doesn't speak for us or for our country, and let's find some other symbol to get behind, some other 'face' for our country. Someone else in another branch of the government, a scientist, an ideal, a religious leader, a group, a celebrity... anyone or anything would be better now.

I'm sorry, but this White House is tainted and no amount of reform will make it better. So I'm done with it.

Can politicians and pundits at least get a thesaurus or is wanting that going to be "socialism" too?

I think we all get it; not wanting to get shot in school is "socialism", valuing human lives over profit margins or confederate statues is "socialism", caring about the environment is "socialism", not seeing billionaires as man-angel hybrids is "socialism", getting vaccinated is "socialism", and having the toilet paper over the roll instead of under is definitely "socialism"...

But are there other words they can use for things they don't like?

Center for Security Policy front group temporarily had article which suggested Bush "cleanse" Iraq

of Arabs with nuclear weapons and then he become "President for life" of the United States.

I also remembered THAT when the Center for Security Policy became connected to the push to smear and attack Rep. Ilhan Omar.

But wait, there's more!

Remember Elliott Abrams? The man that Rep. Ilhan Omar had a come to Jesus meeting with over El Mozote on the House floor? (Oh wait, can't say that either because talking about Muslims and Jesus is also a horrible thing I bet... even though Muslims... also... believe in Jesus)

Turns out, he himself was on the advisory council for the group at one point (And this connection was even pointed out in the post I wrote back in 2007). He gave Gaffney's insane group an air of legitimacy, and they're repaying the favor. Interesting how nobody's decided to disclose that little gem when we heard about this bunch of groups sending a letter about her, and it seems like, I don't know, a conflict of interest.

Time to call it out.

Center for Security Policy one of the groups behind the anti-Ilhan Omar push

President Donald Trump pushed for congressional leaders to unseat Rep. Ilhan Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee this week by citing a letter signed by organizations he described as “Jewish groups” calling for her removal.

But the coalition behind the letter — described by conservative media to be “leading Jewish organizations” — includes groups that maintain no relationship to the American Jewish community and peddle anti-Muslim conspiracy theories.

Signatories include two organizations classified as anti-Muslim hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Both have ties to the Trump administration: ACT for America and the Center for Security Policy.

Critics say the president’s promotion of fringe anti-Muslim groups with hawkish foreign policy views raises wider questions about the Republican push to unseat Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/trump-anti-muslim-groups-letter

Important thing to note, this is the same exact Center for Security Policy that pushed the claim that Obama redesigned the Missile Defense Agency logo to look like an Islamic crescent... when the logo change was in the works for years before Obama became President.

I didn't trust Frank Gaffney's sense of judgment on Barack Obama, no reason for me to start trusting it on Ilhan Omar.

"... because I believe in Progressive Capitalism"

Here are some examples:

"A fine for one class of people shouldn't be 'just the cost of doing business' or having a privileged and 'highly charged lifestyle' but mean no groceries or even jail if you can't pay be facts of life for another class of people. Opposing that is Progressive Capitalism."

"If the US truly does have the greatest healthcare system in the world, then it should come with freedom from disease, I believe that because I believe in Progressive Capitalism."

"No, you morons, not wanting to get shot in school is not 'socialism'. It has nothing to do with central command of the economy, but if Karl Marx was alive today, he would have wanted youth who are indeed marginalized and disaffected to own weapons and be ready to use them. Let's un-marginalize those youth, I believe that because I believe in Progressive Capitalism."

It's nice to see people start to say it, but let's weaponize this against the worst and most disgusting things the right wing has called "socialism" in the past two years alone.

If it takes off, I will get behind it, and I think other people will too.

So how do we stop "socialism"?

So I hear we shouldn't even talk about "socialism", we shouldn't call ourselves "socialist", etc.

But at the same time that won't stop the airwaves and the internet from being filled with "Democrats are socialist" from the other side. A lie repeated often enough becomes seen as the truth, right?

Look at the White House, look at Fox News, look at Breitbart, at InfoWars, etc. On and on.

We're going to be hit with the label of "socialism", of "socialist", every candidate will be labeled a "socialist", every policy Democrats put out there will be called "socialism"...

No matter how non-socialist, how un-socialist, or even how anti-socialist it is.

That's going to be a given.

Now going forward and the way I see it, there are several options we can all choose and participate in, and I think I've got it down to three general ones:

1. Say we're not socialist and let that be the end of it. Hope that us saying "we're not socialist" is enough to stand up to Republican-friendly media soundbites of "SOCIALIST!", of sensationalist conspiracy theories involving Je-globalists, of shadowy figures like Bill Ayers and George Soros that just screams movie deal, hope and pray that despite being washed in an ocean of propaganda that says Democrats are socialists that people will see through it, of hoping the quick "YOU ARE ALL GAY SOCIALIST COMMUNISTS" is not enough to sway voters and we can tell people to check our empirical data and mountains of evidence that proves we are not socialist. People will go for all the technical book data and facts, not the quick and LOUD soundbites, right? Sure.

2. Defang the label of "SOCIALISM". Take the air out of it. Don't let it become something that elicits a Pavlovian boo and hiss from people. Run socialists. Run as socialists. Have positions and call them socialist. AOC could very well be the future of the party. Accept it. Embrace it. "Socialism" doesn't have to mean bread lines or repression. This one is going to be very involved and very hard to do, if someone were to ruin it, it could cause ruin for the whole Democratic Party. But at the same time, a less demanding one here would be pointing at Republicans and talking about all the crazy things they've called "socialism" over the past couple years... like not wanting to get shot in school, saying black lives matter, getting vaccinated, tax cuts for the middle class, the metric system, having health insurance without the chance of getting hit with pre-existing conditions, etc., but it will end up legitimizing socialism or at least the idea of it.

3. No platform. The right wing is at war with the left, they see themselves in a culture war with us. It very well might be time to fight fire with fire. Don't let Republicans call Democrats "socialist". Destroy the propaganda. Destroy the sources of propaganda. Ban them, report then, and more. Call them "conspiracy theorists" and insane kooks, let it be known that's what they are. A lot of these "socialist" tropes do have roots in antisemitic and other forms of racist nonsense, let it be known, magnify it. Speak louder than them and over them. They say "Sociali--", you raise a finger, put it over their lips, and go "shhhh". Anything that can be done legally to get them to be quiet, go for it.

There could be other options and we could have a mixture of all three, but at the end of the day and going into 2020, we will see at least of a part of one these three in play in response to "socialism" from the GOP, but several questions remain, which one will help us win in 2020, and which one are we willing to use? And which one will we end up using?

I am for all intents and purposes... one of those "globalists"

It's my personal philosophy, my politics, something that has been formulated since I was about 20 years old.

It's my belief that race, ethnicity, borders, nations, and more are all social constructs, inventions of man, not of nature or divinity.

This also comes with the belief that everyone, regardless of what nation they are in or how wealthy they are or the wealth of their nation, should have a guarantee of certain minimum rights and protections. Just one of the applications of that being is that I support the eradication of infectious diseases left and right anywhere it can be done, drive as many as possible to extinction.

Something like that though would require internationalism, multinationalism, and transnationalism... things not possible in the wave of nationalism sweeping the world today.

And for what? What's the benefit of this nationalism?

It feels like this is gaslighting and it almost feels personal since this is my philosophy and something I've personally, physically, and financially supported. And then to see it described as some vague conspiracy with racial undertones right under the surface (And sometimes right out in the open), like not only what I support without any direct benefit to myself personally as immoral and wrong, but not my own beliefs which are created by people like George Soros. It's heartbreaking.

I'm not going to let nationalism be "business as usual", the opposite of this nationalism today is as much my identity as my religious beliefs, the color of my eyes, or my very name. That's just the way it is.

Myth: Nationalism is just the idea that a nation is and should be a nation

Fact: There are many extreme concepts that easily pop up within nationalism, no matter the country, almost like a convergent evolution of sorts.

Just some of these concepts are:

Blood and Soil: This is where the idea that a "racial blood" is tied to land and that "racial blood" is superior to migrant, nomadic, or "stateless" groups.

"Cleansing": Identity, political, religious, social, and of course... ethnic. This all refers to getting rid of some "undesirable" group from the nation.

Conspiracy theories: Nationalism often runs on bizarre and unfounded conspiracy theories that are often enshrined in state policy which in turn leads to atrocities and other tragedies. These conspiracy theories include "Cultural Marxism", "globalism", a "new world order", an idea that some group has stabbed the nation in the back, white genocide, a Zionist occupation government, and conspiracy theories involving George Soros.

Cults of personality: This is where the leader is elevated to godhood in the eyes of the media, party events, supporters, etc. who does all the thinking for the people, the first worker, the eternal leader, all that crazy stuff.

Eliminationism: This is where a group is referred to as a tumor, a cancer, a parasite, etc. in the nation, and this 'thing' must be excised to protect the purity of the nation.

Enemy of the people/state: This is where a group of people, often dissidents, personal enemies of the leader, or opponents of the party just happen to also be enemies of the whole nation. What a coincidence! Emmanuel Goldstein is a great fictional example of what happens when a regime declares someone to be an enemy of the state.

Ethnic hatred: This is where there are feelings of hatred and prejudice towards an ethnic group and this is often enhanced by nationalism.

Historical negationism: This is where pseudoscience and pseudohistory are used to forge new accounts of a nation's history so the party or ideologues can look awesome.

Palingenesis: This is where the nation can be reborn into some mythic/romanticized era. So when nationalists say they want to return to the 1950's (Or in the case of Roy Moore voters... before the Civil War), this is actually palingenesis. Too bad this often involves overthrowing/getting rid of all the "decadent" people and groups so we can return to the mythic era. May involve making a nation great again.

Welfare chauvinism: This is where welfare and jobs should not go to immigrants, well, it starts with immigrants, when there are no more immigrants to deny welfare and jobs to, it becomes the homeless, undesirable types, academics, intellectuals, and other 'useless' people.

So any time you see something reading as "Nationalism is just...", refer them to this post, thanks.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »