Chris Cuomo is spewing anti-democractic, anti-free speech, pro-violence garbage on CNN, and none of his colleagues, assuredly not CNN’s fake media watch-dog Brian Stelter or even its once fair and balanced Jake Tapper have shown the integrity to call him on it. Thus, despite my post on the matter, many more voices need to be raised elsewhere lest this irresponsible media demagogue make millions of trusting American almost as dumb as he is.
Here is Glenn Logan’s Comment of the Day on today post, Unethical Quote Of The Month: CNN’s Chris Cuomo:
Re: Cuomo
Cuomo is confusing self-defense and lawlessness. By definition, self-defense is a response to a direct threat or attack. Attacking someone with whom you disagree is never, ever self-defense and cannot be the moral equivalent of it.“But in the eyes of good and evil, here’s the argument: if you’re a punk that comes to start trouble in a mask and hurt people, you’re not about any virtuous cause. You’re just somebody who’s going to be held to the standard of doing something wrong. But when someone comes to call out bigots and it gets hot, even physical, are they equally wrong as the bigot they are fighting? I argue, no.”
Two questions for Chris: Who gets to define good, and evil? Is he saying the totality of the AntiFa position is good, or just that their hatred of racism is good? We don’t know, because Chris doesn’t tell us. AntiFa stands for many things I think are not good, among them are commitment to violence against those with whom they disagree philosophically, an embrace of destructive leftist anarchy, and a rejection of authority. Is Cuomo willing to pronounce all that good? Or is it just “better than the opposition,” who as it turns out, are on the right side of two of those three things?
Second, who throws the first punch? That’s how you figure out who’s wrong and who’s right. Because instantly, the punchee becomes the defender and the puncher becomes the aggressor and lawbreaker. No matter where you assign moral turpitude, it doesn’t and cannot justify violence in response.
“Fighting against hate matters…Now, how you fight matters too. There’s no question about that. But drawing a moral equivalency between those espousing hate and those fighting it because they both resort to violence emboldens hate, legitimizes hateful belief and elevates what should be stamped out….But fighting hate is right.”
Fighting what hate is right? I hate communism and socialism. Is it okay if I locate me some socialists and bash their brains out on the sidewalk? I hate anti-Semites, and I’m not even a Jew. Does that mean I can crack me a few Skinhead skulls and be on the moral side of good?
Of course, no, because lawlessness is worse than “hate” (whatever that is, I assume racism). Hate doesn’t leave bodies in its wake, but lawlessness does. Some would argue that the KKK lynched blacks because of hate, but truthfully, it was just lawlessness that did the killing, not the hate.
Cuomo is justifying lawlessness because he finds the victims of the lawlessness of AntiFa worthy of their fate, but c’mon, that’s just vigilantism writ small. Is he okay with me knocking off terrorists in subways like a latter-day Charles Bronson?
And in a clash between hate and those who oppose it, those who oppose it are on the side of right.
Look out, Louis Farrakhan, me and my blackjack are on the side of right — Chris Cuomo says so!
Ethics Alarms 
It would be interesting to find out what percentage of faculty, students and administrators in America’s colleges and universities agree whole-heartedly with Cuomo’s statement. I suspect it’s not original thinking on his part. Just trendy, standard issue, lefty cant.
Even law schools.
The problem is Glenn’s wonderfully logical retort to Cuomo and his ilk takes time and an equal of greater platform to truly defeat Cuomo’s patent incitement and “moral” excuse making for his foot soldiers.
Thanks. Yes, well Cuomo surely has demonstrated he’s out of his depth many times, including this one. But he’d be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle.
Cuomo is confusing self-defense and lawlessness. By definition, self-defense is a response to a direct threat or attack. Attacking someone with whom you disagree is never, ever self-defense and cannot be the moral equivalent of it.
And yet assassinating the leadership of an evil fascist party, or the leader of a ‘rogue nation’, or scientists developing weapons you expect may be used against your State and any number of different justifications, are completely and absolutely accepted within Americathink. It pains me, it really does, to have to point out hypocrisy! But someone has to do it. It is imperative to bring intelligent conversation onto a platform of truth.
My God! It amazes me that someone can write this paragraph and yet remain immune to clearly seeing the enacted policies of their own country. If what I suggest here is true, then the gloom of Great Crime hangs like a foul miasma over America.
It has been established that *defensive attack* (as it might be called) is normal, necessary and good — if it is carried out by one’s own side. It is an evil at which one shudders when one notices the slithering enemy doing it.
Two questions for Chris: Who gets to define good, and evil?
You do, that is if your opinion agrees with those who frame the issue at hand. Or, put another way, the ideas about who and what is evil are *organized* by certain entities and players and they are ‘sent up’ for ratification, one might say, within a largely controlled media-mediated cultural sphere. The notions of what and who are ‘evil’ are very very clearly framed *for consumption*. And generally speaking the mass follows the established lead. They do so because of a terror of going against the grain.
Those who militated in the Civil Rights Movement or against South Africa did so in response to ‘social pressure’ of the sort that is easily noticed in certain films. Say Mississippi Burning. You know who is good and who is evil when you watch the enactment. And you would have a very difficult time seeing it differently. To see it differently would be, in a certain sense, an act of the will. But that wilfulness would be seen and described as *evil* by a great majority of persons. That is how *social engineering* works. It is the science and psychology of public relations and cultural management functioning in an applied anthropology.
Second, who throws the first punch? That’s how you figure out who’s wrong and who’s right.
This does not work if the question is framed, for example, in a Marxian social struggle or revolution. The process is to work, subtly, to undermine the authority of the social structures. To critique them down into pieces. To bring doubt into people’s minds by ‘critical analysis’ of the foundations on which their social system and culture are built. In that scenario there is no ‘punch’ that is thrown and so the question arises: how to defend against it?
Fighting what hate is right? I hate communism and socialism. Is it okay if I locate me some socialists and bash their brains out on the sidewalk? I hate anti-Semites, and I’m not even a Jew. Does that mean I can crack me a few Skinhead skulls and be on the moral side of good?
Fighting the hate that has been defined as necessary to hate, but I mean this in respect to establishing State policies (and this is what we are talking about here). It is a complex issue yet your naïveté is surprising. You hate socialism and communism? Yet the US sided with the most dangerous socialist communist power, the most murderous and the most easily described as ‘deeply wrong’ (of ‘evil’) in order to defeat Germany. It is a very complex issue, I will grant, and yet *some say* that it tells an important story. Now, as history has progressed and the work of Marxist infiltration and ‘cultural critique’ has deeply penetrated, now you say you are anti-socialist and anti-communist? OK, but some analysis of causation has to be undertaken. The present situation (which no one seems to be able to label properly because of the fogs of confusion) is deeply tied to historical realities, and these historical realities are processes which have their origins in Marxian praxis. And these are now coming to fruition in our present. And *they* and *it* are rampaging.
You have to be able to locate an enemy in order to be able to ‘bash his head in’, as you say. You have to have the capability to discriminate, and you will have to have some base on which and out of which to make those assessments. But if one cannot discriminate, how can one make value-assessments?
According to the Standard Narrative it is quite right and proper to ‘bash the heads of Nazis’ and also ‘bigots’. Didn’t you watch the whole of Mississippi Burning? You have the moral right to use any and all means at your disposal (including a razor-blade) and you get to terrorize ‘Lester’ to your heart’s content in enacted catharsis when you have located ‘the enemy’.
Hate doesn’t leave bodies in its wake, but lawlessness does. Some would argue that the KKK lynched blacks because of hate, but truthfully, it was just lawlessness that did the killing, not the hate.
My Lord! It was lawlessness that invaded the South and occupied it. It was the use of absolute power, expressed in absolute terms, that brought the South to its knees. And it was the submerged will-to-power that *caused* (if you will permit that word) the Southerner to react against the control-policies enacted on him and against him. The KKK began as a sort of joke (this is true) and quickly evolved into a resistance force. Similar to what happened in Iraq after the overpowering American invasion.
People do veeeeeeery strange things when they are attacked and when their power to act in their own world is undermined. The modern Klan (which I studied to a degree) attracts the same sort of disempowered person. Your analysis is shallow, in my excessively humble opinion.
Cuomo is justifying lawlessness because he finds the victims of the lawlessness of AntiFa worthy of their fate, but c’mon, that’s just vigilantism writ small.
I rather think that Cuomo is responding as has been framed by the New York Intellectual Establishment. And that establishment, as well as a great part of The Academy, has been and is severely infected by the social doctrines of Cultural Marxism. Though that is a truth, I admit that it is hard indeed to sort through it. Yet it must be done.
Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, I’m forced to file it under TL;DR due to its utterly opaque and indecipherable nature.
Perhaps someone else can figure it out. My mind is too small.
What is the cause, I wonder, of the Shrinking Mind?
Doubtless advancing age. 🙂
Hmmmm. Try standing on your head for 1 minute in the morning. Its better even than Alex Jones golden fish-oil pills!
Don’t rule out TMB.
Too Many Birthdays
Aliza,
You made some historical errors. One, the North did not invade the South until after the South attacked Fort Sumpter. Granted many political squabbles set the stage for that attack and the South sought to secede peacefully initially, nonetheless the first shots fired were aimed at Union troops.
We did not exactly align ourselves with Stalin by choice. In fact the U.S. sought to avoid entering WW1 and WW2. Our involvement in both wars was because we were attacked which led us into war with Japan and later we came to the aid of Great Britain after Hitler violated the non agression pact Chamberlain had negotiated with the Reich.
As for WW1. This was another European war we got drawn into and not of our making.
Korea was another global “police” action that was initiated to stem aggression by North Korea.
Even Viet Nam was to stem the North’s attempts to unify all of Viet Nam under Ho Chi Min rule. You can argue that our decision to enter the conflict in South Viet Nam was sold under the false premise that we were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin but our real goal was to ensure we did not have indigenous raw materials cut off which would threaten us strategically. At the time it appeared that communist China was working to overthrow governments friendly to US through violent means. It was labeled the Domino theory.
Contrary to popular belief the US does not use military force to pillage the natural resources of countries. We always pay for such resources directly. Our goal is to ensure that others do not create chaos in markets which will lead to a broader escalation of conflict and its corresponding damage to people.
The only real conflicts that can be attributed to US expansionism in the last 150 years was the Spanish American war.
I understand your point that the US is not totally clean but that does not undermine Glen’s thesis. One must look at the totality oc works and on balance the US has done more for world stability and human development than its European and Asian Allies.
Solid.
Agreed.
Alizia tends to hold America to a standard she does not other nations.
Name a nation that has acted differently, given the circumstances. No, other nations WOULD have pillaged the resources. For all her many flaws, America is the best game in town. We can make her better, but not by destroying her ideals and strengths.
slickwilly wrote, “For all her many flaws, America is the best game in town. We can make her better, but not by destroying her ideals and strengths.”
Nicely stated.
Slickwilly writes: “Name a nation that has acted differently, given the circumstances. No, other nations WOULD have pillaged the resources. For all her many flaws, America is the best game in town. We can make her better, but not by destroying her ideals and strengths.”
If you read what I just wrote to Chris M., I think you will have a better sense of what my orientation is.
My position is that we have to come to understand Our Present. That is, the situation that is now being faced in the United States. It is severe, it is really weird, and it is very hard to get clear about. Doing that means to unravel ‘false narratives’. I describe that as ‘the fogs’ of confusion. But I am optimistic that the fog can lift. I believe in rational clarity.
…but not by destroying her ideals and strengths.
Notice that I have spoken of the chasm that opened between stated ideals and actual practice. Essentially, all that I say is that it is important that *we* tell the truth. The truth will give us a far better and more *solid* platform from which to see and interpret what is going on in the present, and help us devise action.
My interest is in reestablishing a ‘true conservatism’. And the tools for that are rationalism, honestly, revivification of values, etc. I am not an *enemy*.
You made some historical errors. One, the North did not invade the South until after the South attacked Fort Sumpter.
The North set up — provoked — the so-called ‘attack’ on Ft Sumpter (in which a mule was killed) as a pretence. A common strategy, used by many players in military conflicts, this particular one has given tremendous mileage to American adventurism and, you will find if you are honest (and it is hard for patriots to be so) that the strategy has been repeated. Provoke a chosen enemy to attack or to be seen as attacking in order to rally the public. I would be very surprised if you could not see this but, on a daily basis, I am amazed by the depth of lying that goes on among so-called ‘Conservatives’ (if indeed yo describe yourself as such).
So, I did not make an ‘historical error’, it is that I have actually researched some of these questions. I have at my disposal a two-volume set of editorials from the newspapers of the day (in my brother-in-law’s library) and I can present to you, as one example among many, editorials from pro-North newspapers in which the strategy I just described was laid out.
We did not exactly align ourselves with Stalin by choice. In fact the U.S. sought to avoid entering WW1 and WW2. Our involvement in both wars was because we were attacked which led us into war with Japan and later we came to the aid of Great Britain after Hitler violated the non aggression pact Chamberlain had negotiated with the Reich.
History is written by the victors. These histories are far more complex. This is a common saying but it is an important one. We do have the tools and, sometimes, the will, to correct and revise histories when they are infused with propaganda-narratives organized in military intelligence offices. I assert, as I think you know, that our present view of *the world* and of history is distorted by intrusions of lies. This is not to say that all is a lie and there is no truth, no. It is to say that we are called upon to re-order our views, our understandings, when correcting them will allow us to see better and more clearly *our present*.
My motto as it were is this:
Parrhesia:“to speak freely”, “to speak boldly”, or “boldness”. It implies not only freedom of speech, but the obligation to speak the truth for the common good, even at personal risk.
Therefor, and as part of the process I began when asked, essentially, by this Blog to engage with Ethics and to participate genuinely, and honestly, with the immense and difficult task of adjudicating issues large and small, I had to confront what I noticed as ‘lying tendency’. And with a philosophical commitment, and a spiritual commitment, to parrhesia, I confront what I see as ‘structures of lies’. Remember: the truth shall set you free. And freedom is an internal state. It begins in self-honesty and extends outward.
As for WW1. This was another European war we got drawn into and not of our making.
This is, Isaac, a statement of sheer ignorance. Because I am faced with a man who could make this statement, which indicates lack of familiarity with the *real history* and the realpolitik decision-making, I would have to tarry on this point not for a minute but for hours, days, weeks. What I believe you must understand, about that particular time, and about our present, is that there are planning elites — political managers — who rationally devise plans as they plot the best course for their ‘interests’. While it is true that the Great War was not of our making (that is, the US), it is at that time that the propaganda-offices of military planners began to frame the issues so to communicate effectively with the mass. It was in the course of these wars that new tools for social management were developed and, shall I say, perfected. There are very good books on this important subject and reading them opens one up to *seeing the truth* and describing reality accurately. You do not have to do this of course. You could just as well bolster the old, conventional views. But the problem is: if you do that you will not be capable of describing reality, and you will not be able (as a result) to describe *what is really going on in our present*. How could you then be an activist for important and real values? I say: you could not.
Therefor and again:
Parrhesia:“to speak freely”, “to speak boldly”, or “boldness”. It implies not only freedom of speech, but the obligation to speak the truth for the common good, even at personal risk.
Even Viet Nam was to stem the North’s attempts to unify all of Viet Nam under Ho Chi Min rule. You can argue that our decision to enter the conflict in South Viet Nam was sold under the false premise that we were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin but our real goal was to ensure we did not have indigenous raw materials cut off which would threaten us strategically. At the time it appeared that communist China was working to overthrow governments friendly to US through violent means. It was labeled the Domino theory.
My sole point is quite simple: when the US began its imperialist adventures it had to have turned against core elements in its own Constitution. By acting the imperial conquerer, by choosing (that is the choices made by industrialists and state-planners) to go that route, it set itself up for what I might call self-violation. Two orders of idealisms that are incommensurate.
When one notices this divergence between stated values and real actions in the world, one notices a chasm or a gulf that opens between the ‘original values’ and the historical conduct. It is really quite simple. But the most important element, in my view, is that it becomes necessary to lie about what one does because telling the truth is made impossible!
And what happens there is just as I have said: we ourselves become complicit in lies! We get trapped into reciting the propaganda-narratives yet we ourselves profess to hold to high, idealistic values. (I had to tear poor Michael West to minute shreds over this point, poor child!) The structure of our very selves, when this happens, gets unnecessarily complicit in lies that do not, in any sense, serve *our interests*.
Begin to tell the full and complete truth. It is the beginning of the possibility of acting positively and creatively in our world.
In the current Our Present, it is Fort Sumter… only people from South Carolina pronounce the “p”.
There are very good books on this important subject and reading them opens one up to *seeing the truth* and describing reality accurately.
Can you give a list of titles so folks can research your assertions?
Btw have you read Annie Jacobsen’s book The Pentagon’s Brain? It discuses “the clandestine intersection of science and the American military.” The info on what happened behind the scenes in Vietnam is eye opening.
I said: There are very good books on this important subject and reading them opens one up to *seeing the truth* and describing reality accurately.
Mrs Q writes: Can you give a list of titles so folks can research your assertions?
One of the books that influenced how I see things is ‘The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and The Birth of Public Relations’.
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp2cmhJckQA ]
The implications of Bernays — what he represents, what he did, and what continues today — are enormous by any measure. The science of social manipulation, social engineering, for good and for evil, is precisely at the core of everything. The PR ‘industry’, the collusion of governmental and industrial managers in forming the modern society, and the demand for dishonesty and mendaciousness, requires deep consideration by any thinking person.
I highly recommend ‘The Managua Lectures: On Power and Ideology’ by Noam Chomsky. I see Chomsky as a disciple of Machiavelli, albeit a communist-anarchist one. While I do not like his politics I think his analytical method is very useful. (But mentioning Chomsky, in conservative environs, tends to compromise one’s position!)
Another book I read recently (well, about 70% until I got the idea and got bored) was ‘Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years’ by Ross Baker.
I do not think Baker is any sort of nut or conspiracy theorist — he has a very good reputation I gather. The book allows insight into the background machinations, and, I guess, into what has been called The Deep State. That is, the structure of ownership and managerial direction.
Btw have you read Annie Jacobsen’s book The Pentagon’s Brain? It discuses “the clandestine intersection of science and the American military.” The info on what happened behind the scenes in Vietnam is eye opening.
Sounds interesting. I will look into it!
It was not intended to be italicized:
One of the books that influenced how I see things is ‘The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and The Birth of Public Relations’.
[ https://www.amazon.com/Pentagons-Brain-Uncensored-Americas-Top-Secret-ebook/product-reviews/B00RTY0GEA/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewopt_sr?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&pageNumber=1&filterByStar=five_star ]
The first review is a good source.
I ordered a (used) copy. Takes about 2 weeks to get here but reading the reviews it seems important.
That’s an accurate review & I hope you enjoy the book. An excellent follow up would be Surveillance Valley by Yasha Levine. Basically a more in depth look at Silicon Valley pioneers & their relationship to our government. I changed my mind about the internet freedom movement from it. Jacobsen’s Phenomena is also excellent and ties into the other books. Much to chew on!
Yes good ol’ “Dr.” Bernays. We jokingly call him Dr Bernays sauce. If you haven’t already read these I recommend:
True Believer by Eric Hoffer, The Rape of the Mind by Joost Meerloo, The Unseen Hand by Ralph Epperson, and Brain-Washing in Communist China by Edward Hunter.
The Green Grocer story by Vaclav Havel speaks to the times as well.
I was drawn to look up The Green Grocer by Havel and began by reading the Wiki page: [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_the_Powerless ]
I found — and ordered — Open Letters Selected Writings 1965-1990. That is the sort of material I like.
[ https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?isbn=9780679400271&cm_sp=mbc-_-ISBN-_-all ]
On the Wiki page this quote interested me:
“…they must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfil the system, make the system, are the system.”
That is the situation of the one living, perhaps consciously, under Totalitarianism. What concerns me more is those who live within lies but think they live in truth. (That was *my world*). It is a different situation though. The former is bowed down, externally oppressed, resigned. The latter is oppressed, if that word applies, through different mechanism.
I will look into the others. (We have The True Believer but I have not read it). Thanks!
Thanks to both you and Zoltar for going where angels fear to tread. 🙂
Alizia Tyler wrote, “It is imperative to bring intelligent conversation onto a platform of truth.”
My read of Glens really good comment of the day and your subsequent comment leads me to believe something entirely different than that sentence implies about your comment. In my opinion; what you are doing is not bringing “intelligent conversation onto a platform of truth”; what you are doing is your usual “blurring and muddying things by piling on generalities, tangents, cosmic puzzles, dancing angels and navel-gazing exercises” (#JackMarshall) by extrapolating Glens comment well beyond its intent. In other words, it appears that you are misrepresenting Glens intent in an effort to morph the conversation in an entirely new direction.
In other words, it appears that you are misrepresenting Glens intent in an effort to morph the conversation in an entirely new direction.
There is a great deal, Zoltar, that you do not understand. For you to get up to speed, in my opinion, it would be necessary to do a great deal more reading. You can take my impression of your ideas and your understanding for what it is worth (not much I gather!).
Getting to the bottom of what is going on now requires a directed consciousness and intellectual strength. The present is non-simple and many things connect with other things. Therefor the phrase which you sycophantically borrow from Jack at every turn — when you cannot understand what is being said — appears to me to be just a confession of your own lack of capacity to see and describe things, but also a will not to do so.
My project is different. And I will pursue it to its end. Like it or not, m’boy. 😉
Parrhesia: “to speak freely”, “to speak boldly”, or “boldness”. It implies not only freedom of speech, but the obligation to speak the truth for the common good, even at personal risk.
Alizia Tyler wrote, “There is a great deal, Zoltar, that you do not understand. For you to get up to speed, in my opinion, it would be necessary to do a great deal more reading.”
Of course the only true understanding of history and the world around us is your understanding. Glad we’re completely clear on that little detail.
To be very, very clear Alizia; you can “blur and muddy things by piling on generalities, tangents, cosmic puzzles, dancing angels and navel-gazing exercises” all you want, I took the red pill that Morpheus offered many, many years ago; however, you are still consumed by the Matrix of your own creation, and of course your own enormous ego.
Have a nice day Alizia.
Of course the only true understanding of history and the world around us is your understanding. Glad we’re completely clear on that little detail.
I would modify this. What I have been trying to communicate has to do with a new movement within ideas and within historical interpretation that is revisionist in the true and accurate sense of the word.
It is very much less personal than you make it. But your making it personal is important to note as that is one of the outcomes when we become *complicit* in structured narratives that have very little to do with us, but which we yet defend like the junkyard dog.
The ‘structure of our self’ gets wrapped up in narrative structures. Then, if I challenge the narrative structure you take it *very personally*, your eyes grow small read and intense, and you try to burn a hole in me!
I can only laugh at this ridiculous display! It has no effect on me at all. The purpose is to define what is true. The purpose is to really and truly get to the bottom of what Ethics is built on.
The sun is shining (too much rain here of late), I have much better speaker cables installed, and I will have the Nicest Day Possible accompanied by:
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=com5gPoZ8sI&feature=youtu.be&t=3481 ]
Troll.
Chris Cuomo is doing nothing more than giving thugs like Antifa and kooks like Jim Wright, who said Nazis deserve “a kick in their yellow teeth and a punch in the throat” license to attack those they disagree with. I think Islam is a political and religious pestilence, but I don’t think anyone would be ok with me knocking the first Muslim I saw down and trying to kill him. I am not the world’s biggest fan of gay people, but I KNOW nobody here would be OK with me walking through Provincetown with a club, looking to brain the first gay person I met. I am definitely not liberal, but I don’t think anyone would be all right with me targeting a prominent liberal politician for death because I didn’t agree with him.
It’s really dangerous when we designate certain kinds of hate as all right, even praiseworthy, and others as evil and worthy of a beatdown. We shouldn’t be surprised when someone takes these words seriously and beats some poor guy to death just because of his views.
I must add, those designated as worthy of attacks or beatings might not just stand by and take it. Eventually the Protestants started shooting back during the Troubles, the Indians finally started to bust the Dotbusters, and the Feds came down on the Klan. Eventually the right will start fighting back, and we have guns.
Had to look up Dotbusters, Steve. A Jersey thing. I thought you meant Sodbusters but I also assumed Indians were confined to reservations by the time people were settling and plowing up the plains. Hah. Learn something every day.
I also had not heard of this terrible event. I hope the instigators are in jail to this day.
On a somewhat related note I’m flying in from Mexico and stuck in LAX for a few hours due to a weather delay. On the CBP line there was an older gentleman coming in wearing a MAGA hat and a CNN is Fake News t-shirt, getting the expected hostile glares you would expect in California.
I walked up to him and said nice shirt. His eyes lightened up and I saw the most sincere smile in that dreadful waiting line. He even patted me on the back and suggested I get one (sorry, I’m not that brave). Certainly interesting time as per the old curse.
Glenn Logan wrote, “Is he saying the totality of the AntiFa position is good, or just that their hatred of racism is good?”
Chris Cuomo is a propaganda parrot blowing justification dog whistles at the all the hate emanating from the political left based on this kind of irrational brainwashed propaganda…
When you get right down to the core of the lefts’ hate, it’s easy to see that “HATE SPEECH = MURDER” is not just the projection from the poster child of institutionalized stupidity it’s signature significant of the core of all the hate emanating from the political left since November 2016 and before. It’s wide-spread, it’s irrational, and it’s paranoia.
Here is how this brainwashing propaganda works.
We can all reasonably agree that murder is one of the most immoral and evil things a human being can to to another human being and evil must be severely punished or destroyed or the evil will spread; so, once you’ve built your propaganda around that core belief and then convinced the masses that words alone are equivalent to actual murder it’s quite easy to openly justify crossing the moral line to any kind of violence. In my humble opinion, there is a concerted effort from the political left using Pravda equivalent media sources to intentionally incite violence through the use of brainwashing propaganda. The are just waiting for their martyr pawns to emerge to build their violent civil revolution upon, I think there sheep are brainwashed to the point of giving them what they want. From my solid foundation perched in the moral high grounds of the heartlands, I can see absolutely no other reason for their Monkey See, Monkey Do Hive Mindedness brainwashing propaganda.
The irrational brainwashed paranoia hate from the political left is why I don’t think the fracture in the United States can be fixed in a civil manner.
“Paranoia, they destroy ya.”
We can all reasonably agree that murder is one of the most immoral and evil things a human being can to to another human being and evil must be severely punished or destroyed or the evil will spread; so, once you’ve built your propaganda around that core belief and then convinced the masses that words alone are equivalent to actual murder it’s quite easy to openly justify crossing the moral line to any kind of violence. In my humble opinion, there is a concerted effort from the political left using Pravda equivalent media sources to intentionally incite violence through the use of brainwashing propaganda. The are just waiting for their martyr pawns to emerge to build their violent civil revolution upon, I think there sheep are brainwashed to the point of giving them what they want. From my solid foundation perched in the moral high grounds of the heartlands, I can see absolutely no other reason for their Monkey See, Monkey Do Hive Mindedness brainwashing propaganda.
What amazes me is how you are describing, without recognition, the precise manner through which the Iraq invasion was justified.
This event, and other similar events, represent ‘policy shifts’ that are said to be manifestations of a ‘policy coup’ that have affected American society dramatically. My assertion is manifold, but one important aspect of it is that it is these wars, began under false pretences, that are having a very very negative social effect.
Here it is stated so nicely, with mathematical precision!
…once you’ve built your propaganda around that core belief and then convinced the masses that words alone are equivalent to actual murder it’s quite easy to openly justify crossing the moral line to any kind of violence
In order to be able to *see* the present, and in this case to see and understand how Antifa (one example) organizes its view of reality and justifies itself, one needs to see how the Nation does it! These are connected.
The former *enables* the latter.
But the larger point is to begin to see and allow oneself simply to describe the truth. To provide an accurate description of things.
In my humble opinion, there is a concerted effort from the political left using Pravda equivalent media sources to intentionally incite violence through the use of brainwashing propaganda.
What you seem incapable of recognizing is how these ‘Pravda’ techniques are part-and-parcel of PR and propaganda used, routinely, by your own country. Prime example: the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
This idea, this presentation of facts, slides off you like a pea off a buttered plate or water of the duck’s back.
You can see what ‘the enemy’ does, but you cannot see how the same method and technique is part-and-parcel of entire systems that operate in Our Present.
Is there help for you, Dear One? Have you considered my 10 Week Email Deprogramming Course?
Alizia Tyler wrote, “What amazes me is how you are describing, without recognition, the precise manner through which the Iraq invasion was justified.”
Please try to explain that in 1000 words or less without going off on some meta-something or another tangent. Remain focused on the task, use real facts and share your sources for those facts.
The challenge has been presented.
By the way, it appears that your entire comment is nothing but a deflection of sorts from what I wrote and I bit (my bad), it’s really not contradicting what I wrote, or agreeing with it, it’s going off on other tangents.
I really don’t really give a damn if you agree or disagree with me and at this particular moment in time I don’t care why you agree or disagree with me, I just want you to firmly and definitively choose a position.
Now focus; get away from the meandering deflections; get off the I can’t choose fence and make a couple of choices.
Make a decision; do you agree or disagree with that section? Yes or no, don’t elaborate.
Make a decision; do you agree or disagree with that section? Yes or no, don’t elaborate.
Make a decision; do you agree or disagree with that section? Yes or no, don’t bother to elaborate.
Make a decision; do you agree or disagree with that section? Yes or no, don’t bother to elaborate.
By the way, it appears that your entire comment is nothing but a deflection of sorts from what I wrote and I bit (my bad), it’s really not contradicting what I wrote, or agreeing with it, it’s going off on other tangents.
I can only suggest, in a spirit of desire to help, that you open yourself to a wider range of ideas.
So, while I am (I think genuinely) concerned for the particular way that Antifa frames its arguments (the way its attacks are structured), I will not join you in a chorus of condemnation because this involves a sort of group-activity that many on this Blog routinely engage in. It is ‘liberal bashing’ and it is a sort of game, or perhaps pastime is the better term. It is a waste of time because it does not get to the root of anything at all.
I operate from this predicate: the so-called Conservative is no such thing. He seems to be a sort of co-dependent who places himself in a critical position just a wee bit to the right of the Progressive. He is, himself, a Progressive and cannot define anything that could be said to be *truly conservative*. He is a part of the problem and he has no solutions at all to any aspect of the problem. But he chirps away, or as in your case, barks.
He rails against the progressives and, in this case, against a mutation of the Progressive: a far more dangerous creature, the open Marxist. But the so-called Conservative cannot organize his ideas in order to confront this Marxist, and he does not have a clear enough sense of the degree that Cultural Marxism in it manifold manifestations has infected his own self, his own mind, his own structure of seeing things.
At the same time he continually acts as a sort of apologist for national policy which he should outrightly condemn as a conservative. And there, right there, he shows himself of a similar ilk as the Antifa activist. I say similar and do not mean to say ‘the same’.
What this man needs is more genuine introspection and a greater self-honesty. He needs to extract himself from the Established Propaganda (more properly the PR) Narratives, and he needs to return to First Principles. Instead of striking a self-righteous pose, or for example a heavy-handed moral pretence, he needs to make a decision to better think things through.
So, it is true that I do not precisely disagree with you nor do I necessarily oppose you. I seek to locate you and attach to you a fair and proper and accurate designation.
What infuriates you is that I do not submit to your wilful tantrums nor will I buckle to your demands to stop seeing things as I do, and lower myself to see things as you do.
In this sense *I* am much stronger than you (I am shifting now from the familiar ‘you’ to the you-plural) and I assure you that my ideas — that are impersonal — will have their effect and will change how things are seen and what actions are taken. This has to do with the restructuring of a Conservative position. It will take years. But already we have made great strides. More work remains.
Please Zoltar: consider the 10 Week Deprogramming Email Course! Normal cost $4,995.00 but lowered to $4,850.00 just for you! How could you refuse such a deal?