With some BernieBro “pulling an A-Team” – my new colloquialism for firing a lot of rounds at no particular target and hitting almost nothing – on Majority House Whip Steve Scalise and the recent outrage surrounding Kathy Griffin and her holding a prop of what looked like Donald Trump’s bloody decapitated head, liberals have been feigning outrage, claiming, “GAWSH, they don’t represent US!!! We may HATE Donald Trump and any politician with an ‘R’ by his or her – actually it’s zhe’s, fascists! – name, but we certainly don’t advocate using violence against them!”
I believe that these people are 100% sincere in their claim, and I also believe that they’re sincere when they say things like “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” In fact, I have several friends who identify as liberal, leftist and even “left-leaning” who know I voted for Donald Trump and don’t think I’m the antichrist for doing so. We have many fine conversations about a variety of topics from films, music and the arts but, when it comes to politics, many of my liberal or left-leaning friends balk and guffaw at certain claims that I make.
Some of their choice responses include the following:
“Fine, Edwin, if leftism is a mental disorder, than I guess we’re your mentally ill friends!”
“Yeah, SURE, the Democrats JUST want to take your guns! NO WAY are they ACTUALLY concerned about keeping guns away from psychos, unlike your precious Republicans!”
“Come ON, DUDE, you GOTTA at least admit that global warming is real, COME ON!”
“Sure, Edwin, you’re inclusive to ALL people, especially the Muslims, right?”
Now, first of all, as if this point needs to be made in the current year, the concepts of “liberal” and “conservative” are completely meaningless out of context, and furthermore, Democrat and Republican are just the names of parties (if I told you that I love the OLD Democrats, ya know, like George Wallace, you’d probably never talk to me again). When Rory Carroll interviewed me for his piece in The Guardian about conservatives living in Los Angeles, I told him that, like most people, I vote on policies, but because of my beliefs and voting record, I end up on the “conservative” side of the chess board. If you put a gun to my head demanding to know how I label myself, I’d say I’m a basic bitch libertarian (still don’t know if I’m supposed to capitalize that or not) with a wider Overton window than most; this has made my Venn diagram overlap with that of the Alternative Right, which I either am or am not considered a part of by certain people. However the idea of reducing complicated topics – abortion, guns, immigration, foreign policy, taxes, drugs and crime – into binary choices that fall under the categories of “liberal” and “conservative”, “left” and “right” or Democrat and Republican is simply acting as a herd animal OR lacking in critical thinking.
With my liberal friends, I believe it’s the latter, and that is why they are so dangerous.
I honestly feel that, as much as my liberal friends are astute, analytical and rational about their respective interests, hobbies and professions – film, literature, music, engineering, math, etc. – they are completely ignorant to the mechanisms that have been running our world since at least the mid-1960s.
The negative portrayal of Joseph McCarthy after the end of the Cold War and the over the top, cartoony stereotypes surrounding openly right-leaning people have made people afraid to label the left exactly for what it is; Communism. Throw in corporate collusion, and you have Crony Capitalism and Corporatism and have it cross national borders, and you have Globalism, which is nothing more than an attempt by a few elites to enslave the peoples of the world under a totalitarian, one-world government.
On the Savage Hippie podcast, Ann Sterzinger asked me when the “modern, far left version of the Democratic party began.” I told her it started in the 1960s with Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” and his war on poverty, the first real attempt in American history to socially engineer equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity.
The quick and basic history of the two major American parties goes something like this:
The Republican party began in 1854 with more or less the intention of disrupting the Southern agricultural economy – largely, but not entirely fed by slavery – by pushing for industrialization with factories that were primarily set in the North and owned by top hat wearing, cigar chomping Capitalists with funny mustaches. And if you think for a second that Abraham Lincoln truly cared about emancipating the slaves for some moral reason, you’ve got another thing coming; he made racial statements that would make David Duke blush, and he blatantly claimed that, if he could keep the union together without freeing a single slave, he would do it. On top of that, after the Civil War, he proposed sending every black person back to Africa. Anyway, after the North obviously won the Civil War, by all intents and purposes, the United States became a libertarian country where people were barely taxed, and some people got really rich off of the new industrialized economy; with very little exceptions, there were almost no social programs on the federal level to help people out, and Americans were forced to sink or swim. Some of the ones who swam got rich, effectively showing the potential of a country which gives its citizens the ability to succeed or to fail. Then, in 1929, the stock market crashed, many lost their life savings and a good amount of people lost their faith in a system where the federal government doesn’t take an active role in helping people. Unfortunately, in the three and half decades since FDR’s election in 1932 and the new deal policies which he instated, what was intended to help get a few people working again and to stimulate the American economy morphed into an attempt to socially engineer the nebulous concept of “equality” (again, I ask: equality of what, exactly? Ability? Opportunity?).
So then, am I calling the Democratic party a Communist or Globalist party? No… not entirely…
Again, as I said earlier, I believe liberals and so called left-leaning people mean well, but unfortunately, their lack of in depth political analysis, and their being quick to jump at anything that stinks of “racism”, “sexism” or any word with “phobia” attached to the end of it will be their, and subsequently everyone’s, downfall.
If the war on poverty worked, why are inner city blacks still disproportionately poor? Did any of these people ask that? Do they even know WHAT questions to ask?
The basic notion among the modern “liberal” left is that, if they see something as “unequal”, the laws must be tweaked to “fix” the inequality; it never simply exists as is. Since women and minorities were under-represented in certain professions, well-meaning politicians instilled affirmative action quotas that were implemented either by consent decree or by making the tests to get into certain professions easier; professions such as firefighting. In 1971, IQ testing was outlawed, so now employers had to come up with less efficient ways of testing if a potential employee would be qualified for work. One of the most egregious example of socially engineering equality in recent years is allowing for blacks to get into universities with 200 less SAT points than whites or Asians. Now, I ask, is that judging a man by the content of his character, rather than the color of his skin?
When experiments, such as instilling race or sex quotas or the pumping of money into inner city schools in hopes of achieving higher academic success in kids who come from single parent homes and don’t care about learning, fail, do you then continue to pump more money into inner city schools? When having the government pay a single mother for every kid she has leads to her having more kids so she can have more free money and continue to depend on the government, do you continue having the government pay her for to have kids? When stricter gun control measures in Democrat-run inner cities fails to solve the problem of gang-related drive-by shootings, while dinky, “homogeneous” (feel free to consider that “code”) have virtually no gun restrictions and ZERO gun violence, do you push for stricter gun control measures?
In all cases, logic would dictate “no.” So why do liberals keep advocating for such policies?
The old Communists attempted to recruit people off the streets to attend secret “community organization” meetings, in which someone lectured his crowd about the evil, oppressive nature of the Capitalist system. People would be fired up when they compared their working class status to that of the well-to-do Wall Street fat cats, CEO’s and company owners, who live off the labor of the people they employ, crying “it’s not fair!!! Oppression!” A few rubes obviously bought it, at least for a while. But somehow that kind of thinking went by the wayside when the average American got married, bought a house, had a couple of kids and lived happily ever after in a nice, clean suburb. Not the most exciting life, but we can’t all be Rockefeller.
So, when the old-guard Communism didn’t work, the nu-Communists or cultural Marxists, decided the struggle wasn’t going to be between the “haves” and the “have nots”, but between the so-called “dominant” culture and those people it allegedly dominates. Traditional gender roles were apparently “oppressive”, so came the feminist and “women’s lib” movement to address the “imbalance”, even though there was never a time when women were barred from entering scientific or STEM fields; they then, and mostly now, simply CHOSE not to. There was a disparity between the white man and the negro, so clearly whitey CAUSED that disparity, and now the negro needed some payback – forget that welfare more than compensated for any “reparations” and with interest to boot. Somehow Hispanics and Asians are never compared with blacks, only white people. And of course, the culture is too “straight”, and homos need more mainstream representation, so you better accept their dildo swinging, assless-chap wearing “pride” events, or you’re a “homophobe”; have straight people ever needed parades to represent that they like pussy?
And unlike old-guard Communism, the recruitment to become an apparatchik in the “struggle for equality”, isn’t done in secret meetings, but in the classrooms of universities and on “comedy” news programs by “social comedians” like Jon Stewart, Jon Oliver, Trevor Noah and Steve Cobert. Students are taught that a “history of slavery”, “racist policing” and an overall “racist system” is the reason blacks can’t get ahead, yet completely neglect that the Japanese were put into internment camps during World War II and came to dominate the tech industry. Students are taught that there is a “rape culture” under a system of “patriarchy”, even though rape used to be punishable by death; so does that mean that, during less “enlightened” times, we DIDN’T have a rape culture? Apparently, in universities, 1 in 4 women will be a victim of rape… or is it 1 in 5 or 1 in 7? How exactly do they define rape? Is it when a woman walks alone in the street, and a guy pulls her into an alley and has his way with her? Is it when a girl gets too drunk, and a guy fondles her neither regions without her knowledge? Is it when two consenting adults have sex, but since the woman was drunk, she couldn’t REALLY have consented? I’ve done the third example many times, so I guess I’m a rapist even though I’ve been drunk as well.
Oh, and apparently our culture was discriminatory towards gays until we “fixed” that with “gay marriage.” And while one would think the “gay-struggle” was won, and leftists would take a rest, think again! The left now wants you to recognize a man who dresses like a woman as “transgendered” rather than as a man who dresses like a woman, which WAS typically called a transvestite. And while it’s still accepted that a man who has is ding-dong chopped off and replaced with a fake vaginal device is a transsexual, I’m “transphobic” if I prefer not to sleep with or date this person, since I prefer to date and sleep with women who were, ya know, born women.
And, to top it off, in true Orwellian fashion, new words have been invented to describe anyone who fits the dominant culture. If you’re a “straight white man”, you’re now “hetero cis normative.” If you believe that there are two sexes – not counting hermaphrodites – you’re “gender binary.” And if you happen to be white, “hetero cis normative” and “gender binary”, you’re of the dominant culture and have some sort of privilege.
I asked someone an honest question; “if I’m dating a girl, and she decides to identify as a man, does that make me defacto gay?”, and she took to offense to it.
The question of why she took offense to what is a perfectly logical and reasonable question brings us back to our main point. She considers herself a liberal or left-leaning person and believes that my question comes from the insensitive point of view of an oppressor towards people who identify as “non-binary.” She means well, but she knows not what she does, and she will undoubtedly in the future be the kind of person who will push to implement more policies favoring people with the delusion of being “non-binary”, rather than what the person would have been called a decade or so ago; cuckoo.
This same person sees a black person get killed by a police officer and doesn’t question for a second WHY it happened. Was the black person committing a crime? Was he or she being rude to a police officer during a stop? Was he or she resisting arrest? The answer is always the same; racial discrimination. Forget that more whites, than blacks are killed by police. Forget that blacks consist of 13% of the population, yet commit more than 50% of the violent crime – mostly to other blacks. Forget any of the unpleasant details. If a white police officer – or white person in general – shoots and kills a black person, it’s ONLY because he or she harbored racial animus. The solution? Impede police from doing their job with needless bureaucracy. The result? More violence and death in the ghetto and more disparity between whites and blacks as whites leave the ghetto.
This same person hears of a case where a woman is raped on a college campus and doesn’t for a second wonder if alcohol was involved, if the person had sex with someone she didn’t like and then regret it later, or in the case of the phony Rolling Stone gang rape article, completely lie about it. The solution? Kick men off of college campuses if women accuse them of rape. The result? Men stop approaching women in college or at bars because they’re afraid that they too will get in trouble with the law.
This same person will worry about remembering proper pronouns; she’ll worry if she “mis-gendered” a person; she’ll concern herself of whether it’s more racist to “see color” or “be colorblind”; and if this person happens to come in the form of a man, he’ll worry if asking a girl on a date will lead to a charge of sexual harassment, or in some cases, rape.
And this person will think he or she is completely and 100% on the “right side of history” and in keeping with the times. He or she, who doesn’t follow politics in any meaningful way, will never question the narrative and simply try to keep in lockstep with it, thinking that things always need to be ” moving forward”, and with all the well-meaning intentions in the world, he or she will drive us all off of a cliff.