Monday, December 28, 2015
Leftist group releases video comparing Trump to Hitler
The video consists of very brief grabs from Trump speeches intercut with old movie footage of 1930s Nazi rallies. As even a moderate and sentimental Christian gentleman like George Bush II was often called a Nazi by the Left, that is no great surprise. And comparing Trump's immigration proposals to Hitler's immolation of 6 million Jews also has plenty of precedent, idiotic though it obviously is.
But the video released by the Agenda Project carries the slander to a whole new level. If Trump becomes the GOP nominee we can expect it to be very widely aired. There will be no shortage of Leftist donors coming forward to finance that. So some comment on it seems warranted.
The only substantial thing they have to hang the advertisement on is Trump's proposal for a temporary halt to Muslim immigration.
An obvious immediate response is to note that Muslims are not a race but a religion. Muslims can be of any race. But a more important response is to ask what immigration restrictions have in common with killing Jews. They do in fact have some historical connections. That great Leftist hero, FDR, refused to admit to America Jews fleeing Hitler, the St Louis episode, thus sealing the fate of many of them. So if Trump is a Nazi so was FDR. When a Democrat President had the opportunity to confront and oppose Hitler, he actually aided and abetted Hitler. It was only when Hitler declared war on the USA that FDR went to war with him.
It could be argued that the Muslims concerned are also refugees fleeing death but that is not at all true. The refugees Trump wants to keep out do not come directly from Muslim countries. Muslim countries won't have them. They come from Western Europe where they already have refuge. So there is no threat to their lives and Trump's policies fully implemented would kill no-one. So much for the comparisons with Hitler. The comparison is fundamentally dishonest, like so much of Leftism.
But I liked this sentence in the screed below:
"The modern Republican Party has historically incorporated both racist and fascist elements in its political strategy".
The mention of history is perhaps unfortunate. A more accurate version of the sentence would be:
"The modern Democratic Party has historically incorporated both racist and fascist elements in its political strategy".
The KKK was composed of Democrats and Southern segregationists like George Wallace and Orval Faubus were Democrats. And FDR praised Mussolini and held him up as an example to be emulated.
And Democrat attempts to control everything that moves are very similar to what Mussolini did. See here. Judged by their policies, the Democrats are modern-day Fascists
The Agenda Project Action Fund released a new ad Tuesday blasting the Republican party, particularly Donald Trump, for "anti-Muslim" rhetoric. The ad is part of a yearlong campaign against the "fascist and racist rhetoric" the group says the Republican party has been spewing and promoting thus far in the 2016 presidential election.
"We have to ask ourselves: what kind of country do we want to be? One that stands up to hatred and lives up to the principles enshrined in the Constitution and inscribed on the Statue of Liberty or one that rules by fear and subjugation of individuals we deem different," said Erik Altieri, president of the Agenda Project, a progressive policy organization aimed at ensuring that politicians work in the interest of everyday Americans. "We must unite against this bigotry or we risk losing everything we represent as a nation."
The ad, which can be seen here, likens Trump's proposed ban on the immigration of Muslims to the U.S. to 1930s Germany. The Agenda Project Action Fund finds that the policy proposals of some Republicans harken back to the nation's long-embedded racial tensions.
"The modern Republican Party has historically incorporated both racist and fascist elements in its political strategy, the most prominent of which have been the so-called 'Southern Strategy' initiated in the 1968 and in the first post-civil rights movement election at the national level, with appeals to the 'White Vote' and, more recently, to 'real America' as articulated by such figures as Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman," reads a statement from the group.
"Previously, they were politically savvy enough to hide their bigotry, wrapping it in innuendo and alluding to it using dog whistle politics. Now, with Donald Trump as the party's front runner for their nomination for president, the gloves are off and the smoke screen has been cleared, leaving only the ugly reality."
Silent majority is toasting Trump as Left wallows in its vitriol
Political scientist Jennifer Oriel comments from Australia
The political year is ending as it began, with a sustained attack on conservatives and their replacement by a populist Right less willing to compromise on free speech and immigration. The New Right, embodied by political figures such as Donald Trump, is a counterforce to the continuing campaign of censorship and vilification by leftists determined to remove all traces of conservative thought from public life.
When Tony Abbott [former Australian PM] proposed a secular reformation of Islam, the Left compared him to Trump in a contorted campaign of guilt by association. Rather than address the problem of Islamist theocracy and the terrorism it produces, the Left urged Abbott to self-censor, framing him as a divisive element in society and the Liberal Party.
Network Ten's The Project [TV program] ran its coverage with the words "Abbott the Wrecker" splashed across the screen. SBS went into full scold mode, chiding: "Mr Abbott had promised to sit quietly on the backbench . but he's already causing problems."
Abbott certainly is causing problems - for theocrats and terrorists. The establishment Left did not complain so loudly when Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz called for a reformation of Islam, but Abbott embodies a combination of traits deemed intolerable by self-appointed political elites: he is white, male and Christian. From the lofty bureaucracy of the left clerisy, however, Abbott's cardinal sin is conservatism.
The editor of the University of Adelaide's student magazine "On Dit", Leighton McDonald-Stuart, described the corrosive effects of left bigotry on campus in The Courier-Mail: "The attitudes of . social justice warriors . is not conducive to (free) speech . You risk being labelled `fascist scum' if you happen to be of conservative ilk . If you seek to express a view that doesn't conform to . the revolutionary socialist groups on campus, then you are `racist'."
Across US campuses, the Left's campaign to impose its ideology by censorship has turned violent. Radical minority groups are attacking people whose skin colour is deemed politically incorrect. A multi-university group called the Afrikan Black Coalition stated: "White people need to be stopped. Period."
Last month, The Dartmouth Review reported a large group of Black Lives Matter activists storming the university library and attacking students while screaming: "F..k you, you filthy white f..ks!" They pinned one woman to a wall, shouting "filthy white bitch!" at her. Vice-provost of student affairs Inge-Lise Ameer responded not by condemning the violent racism of Black Lives Matter activists but the media that criticised it: "There's a whole conservative world out there that's not being very nice."
The Left's systematic and increasingly violent campaign of bigotry is fuelling the rise of political figures such as Trump. One cannot understand the Trump effect and the emergent populist Right without analysing the forces that produced them.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the odious treatise that produced the modern Left: Herbert Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance. Marcuse was a neo-Marxist who prescribed two methods to eliminate conservatism: censorship of free speech and the introduction of majority rule. The new majority would comprise Marcuse's "radical minority" and come to power by dominating public debate.
The neo-Marxist equation for equality is: "Not equal but more representation of the Left." The old standard of universal equality was superseded by a new formula to force the Right into political oblivion by engineering an over-representation of Left-approved minorities across public institutions. Media, academe and politics were all targets of the New Left's doublethink formula for social justice: inequality = equality.
Trump has crashed through the apex of neo-Marxism. His carefully crafted target group, the "silent majority", is a two-fingered salute to the Left's censorious activists. Trump's success rests on the premise that the silent majority is so angered by the decades of censorship and oppression devised by neo-Marxists that it will support any man whose free speech most offends their manufactured minorities.
Unlike the genuinely perse-cuted minorities of the Islamist and communist worlds, the minority groups of the Western Left have been manufactured primarily for political purposes. They enjoy equal and often greater rights under law than their fellow citizens. Affirmative action policy offers them privileged places in education and employment. They can access a range of special benefits under welfare, health and housing schemes. And the state shields them from words that may offend by encoding anti-free speech provisions in anti-discrimination legislation.
Minority politics may help some people genuinely in need, but it is also an expression of codified bigotry against the only group wholly excluded from its benefits: white men.
Trump is wielding such devastating effect because he embodies everything neo-Marxists have oppressed for a half-century.
He is white, male and capitalist. A determined freethinker and free speaker. A politically incorrect pundit who does not resile from attack but ups the ante after every blow. He pursues targets so aggressively that Republicans are at pains to disown him, especially after his call to halt Muslim immigration while America learns to manage the jihadist threat. But to everyone's surprise, Trump continues to dominate.
While public poll results vary, a Fox News poll held in South Carolina across four days showed that two days before Trump proposed a halt to Muslim immigration, his rating was at 30 per cent. He polled 38 per cent for the two nights following it. He is poll favourite to lead Republicans into the next election. And despite media portrayals of Trump followers as rednecks, a Rasmussen poll last week found the majority of Americans (46 per cent) support a temporary ban on Muslim immigration with 14 per cent undecided.
Trump is voicing the politically incorrect concerns of the silent majority and, for better or worse, they are rewarding him for it.
Trump is a middle finger aimed squarely at the establishment and the backlash against him has come from both sides of the political divide. It was The New York Times columnist David Brooks who distilled the complex issue into a sound bite, accusing Trump of bigotry. Brooks may be right, but the main challenge Trump's ascendancy leaves the Left is less to prove his bigotry than to disprove its own.
The Democratic Candidates Do Their Best to Preserve ISIS
The Democratic debate Saturday focused as advertised on how to deal with ISIS and the growing threat of Islamic terrorism, but absolutely no new ground was broken.
Although there were minor difference between the candidates, it came down to this: foreign -- build a coalition of Muslim states to fight ISIS; domestic -- work with our Muslim community to weed out the potential radicals. (That latter hasn't been working too well lately.)
In other words, no change from the Obama policy that has gone nowhere for years.
The candidates were most allergic to "boots on the ground." America wasn't going to be drawn again into a ground war in the Middle East. Yet there was no explanation how we could possibly win without troops. Nor was there an explanation of why the Muslim armies would suddenly coalesce against ISIS without us, without, in Lee Smith's famous words, "the strong horse" -- that is, without real U.S. on the ground participation.
The fact is they won't. And there will be no American victory, no defeat of ISIS, without our troops on the ground. Without the strong horse, nobody fights. Ask bin Laden. He knew. He was their strong horse, now it's al Baghdadi.
Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley looked clueless about how the Middle East works and they probably are. I would doubt they had read Smith's book or know much about that theory or anyone else's for that matter. I doubt too they would be able to answer serious questions about the roots of the Sunni-Shia conflict. The whole Islamic uprising is an inconvenience to them. They'd rather be talking about how bad Wall Street is.
For Hillary it's an embarrassment -- or should be. She's the woman who refused as head of the State Department to name Boko Haram (now pledged to ISIS) a terrorist organization at the very time they were raping and kidnapping girls in the name of Allah. Now she's telling us we have ISIS where we want it -- or something like that. Her remarks to that effect during the debate are being explained away or placed "in context"by Democrats, but that she could even claim something close to that is reprehensible. She and Obama are, if not the mother and father of ISIS, at least their aunt and uncle.
Hillary, during the debate, accused Donald Trump of being ISIS's best recruiter, specifically that they had already used him in a propaganda video. That turned out not to be true. You will be amazed to hear that Hillary lied.
Meanwhile, ISIS goes its merry way, issuing fatwas in Afghanistan, producing 20 videos threatening Saudi Arabia, performing multiple executions in Syria and and various attacks all through Africa.
Closer to home, the beleaguered Isis pharmaceuticals of San Diego has finally decided to change its name. (Wouldn't you?)
All of this is in the last twelve hours or so. During the same time frame, that would-be strong horse Bernie Sanders was assuring us this was the Muslims' business and they should be going to war against ISIS. It's probably just as well he didn't offer himself as commander-in-chief.
For more blog postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated) and Coral reef compendium. (Updated as news items come in). GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on A WESTERN HEART.
List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or here (Pictorial) or here (Personal)
Posted by JR at 1:31 AM