Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 9 of 11     «   Prev   6   7   8   9   10   11   Next
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,906
Reply with quote  #121 
It could equally be argued that succeeding in doing so has allowed the Right to believe it can get away with murder. Though Trump's election was already pretty strong proof of that contention. Actually, there are some parallels; Trump, the admitted serial abuser of women and inarguable public liar was nevertheless elected, and Kavanaugh, I would say a pretty inarguable public liar and accused on evidence that, while not sufficient to obtain conviction, merited taking seriously of being a historic abuser of women, was nevertheless confirmed. Add to that both men displaying a choleric and aggressive temperament that itself ought to have called their fitness into question, and Kavanaugh looks more and more like a pale ghost of Trump.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,913
Reply with quote  #122 
Excuse me, but the Left for decades has gotten away with presenting itself as "tolerant", "humane" and "compassionate" despite all evidence to the contrary.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,123
Reply with quote  #123 
There's very little evidence that Kavanaugh lied:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-hearings-desperate-opponents-focus-on-drinking/

It's all supposition at best, willful smears at worst, not to mention trivial stuff. Kavanaugh is nothing like Trump, and, incidentally, is no Trumpian. There's stronger evidence Ford lied than Kavanaugh. The right has actually behaved, in general, far, far better than the left on this one, which I will be the first to admit isn't always the case. Alas, Trump is a blot on the conservatism, though.

The fitness point is frankly absurd. It's gaslighting,
or something out of a show trial, nothing more. The media-Democrats smear him in the most over-the-counter, public way imaginable, and then turn around and get offended when he finally gets annoyed. You can bet they'd never make the same arguments if it were a Democratic nominee or Democrat (indeed, they didn't when it was Hillary Clinton getting annoyed at the Benghazi Committee).


Justice Stevens was an activist judge. Earl Warren himself was a Republican appointment. No doubt he will be calling for Ruth Bader-Ginsberg to step down after her several recent public political statements , which certainly weren't provoked by vicious smears and hysteria. I wait with bated breath. One of the many ironies is that the court now finally has a majority that affirms a judicial philosophy that puts faithfulness to the original intent and plain meaning of laws before ideology or broader political philosophy. That's the best way to restrain partisanship on the court. One of the many ways in which the media shows its bias on this issue is by pretending there conservative and liberal judges today are analogous when they're not.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,913
Reply with quote  #124 
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-worried-about-the-current-populist-upheaval-what-comes-next-will-be/

A decent, thoughtful read by former Canadian PM Stephen Harper on current political trends. He points out that the current "populist" trend has its roots in the 2008-09 financial crisis and the alienation and sense of disenfranchisement it created, along with the hollowing out of Western industries. This isn't entirely inaccurate, and can't be ignored.

However, I can argue it goes back further, to 9/11 and perhaps before, which shapes our current political polarisation between Left and Right over how the West views itself and the world generally. A Left whose fixations are on social justice, equality and identity politics in the guise of being an "open" and "fair" society, and a Right whose fixations are on national identity, freedom and Western Civilisation.

Harper points out the recent trends in Europe - although Eastern European countries' tendency towards right-wing politics is a result of history (experiences of Communism). In a sense, Western Europe, North America and Australia have been hobbled with the fact that, as Douglas Murray and Melanie Phillips pointed out, a widespread self-loathing that has its roots in the post-World War II period - a revulsion against the crimes of Nazi Germany, the drive towards decolonisation, the Civil Rights Movement in the US and the struggle against Apartheid in South Africa, which largely shaped social and cultural trends in the West.

It is true that Canada, like Australia, largely avoided the 2008-09 financial crisis due to more prudent fiscal management and/or conservative banking practices. But Canada, like Australia, NZ, US and UK, is very much caught in the West's Culture Wars. After all, two of the global right-wing movement's very popular figures, Lauren Southern and Jordan Peterson, are Canadian. On the other hand many Canadians, like Scandinavians, seem to consider Politically Correct virtue-signalling as part of their national identity.

The polarisation has played out in two recent Canadian provincial elections in the two largest provinces - Ontario and Quebec. In Ontario, it delivered the Tories under Doug Ford into office, the Liberals' tacking to the Left resulted in their annihilation and their displacement by the leftist NDP. In Quebec, this has finished off separatism as a political issue and resulted in the most significant realignment of the electorate since 1960 and 1976.

What Harper should have tackled here is how the current polarisation in the West, which goes beyond the cheap labelling of "populism", has arrayed the diverse forces of Left and Right against each other, and how they increasingly transcend national borders - a Left in a sinister alliance with Islamists, and a Right that incorporates a motley collection of conservative, traditionalist and libertarian figures. In both cases, alliances are being forged that were unthinkable a generation ago.

As an addendum to my remarks on Harper's article, the current polarisation can be shown in the divergent responses to the Iran protests and the land issue in South Africa. The Left is driven by the postcolonial and identity politics view that Western nations are inherently "racist" and that the West is the root of all evils in the world. This explains its indifference to what goes on in both Iran and South Africa. Conservatives, on the other hand, have taken up the fight in those causes in face of the constant insults and abuse from the Left on these issues.

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,913
Reply with quote  #125 
Here are some articles to demonstrate what I have been saying from the start:

http://nj1015.com/njs-ice-spokesman-wrote-for-anti-muslim-hate-groups-report-says/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/john-bolton-chaired-anti-muslim-think-tank-n868171

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/gabriel-hays/2018/09/04/newsweek-slimes-act-america-ice-splcs-hate-group-label

And here's good examples of CNN (quelle surprise) parroting SPLC smears about Bolton and Fleitz:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/01/politics/fred-fleitz-john-bolton-chief-of-staff/index.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/07/politics/kfile-bolton-chief-of-staff-online-columns/index.html

This is the media at work here: they parrot SPLC tropes about "anti-immigrant" and "anti-Muslim" "hate groups", treating the SPLC as though it was an objective and authoritative reference for doing so. In doing so, they are conferring a sinister organisation a kind of entirely unwarranted authority.

The whole purposes of this is to:
a) exaggerate the "white supremacist" and "neo-Nazi" threat
b) defame conservatives as "haters"
and c) somehow tie b) to a) without any shred of evidence.

And so we have not only violent attacks on people but also censorship in media and no-platforming, denying the hosting of events, etc. This isn't democracy in practice, it's budding authoritarianism.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,913
Reply with quote  #126 
Meanwhile in Portland...

https://pjmedia.com/trending/antifa-takes-over-portland-streets-again-as-mayor-wheeler-goes-mia/
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,913
Reply with quote  #127 
Kanye West has struck a blow in the Culture Wars and the Left HATE it:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2018/10/11/cnn-segment-calls-kanye-token-negro-attention-whore-and-what-happens-when-negroes-dont-read-n2527459
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,906
Reply with quote  #128 
The report somehow fails to mention that the people making what certainly would otherwise have been racist and highly offensive comments were all themselves African-American. It does make a difference. The occasion will I expect have been West's out-to-lunch lunch with Trump. Those of delicate sensibilities should note before reading that West's foul language is repeated uncensored in the report.

Kanye West is I understand widely considered a great artist. Having no knowledge of his work I have no opinion on the question, but am willing to believe it, stranger ducks than this one have produced enduring work. But not a lot stranger. In his public pronouncements West has two basic modes; ludicrous, and incomprehensible. Of course, since those pronouncements tend to be inordinately lengthy he usually manages to accommodate both modes in a single address.

And, to give him credit, if he is actually trying to come across as a complete and utter nutjob then his efforts are invariably successful. As an African-American artist lending support to Trump, though, his success is mixed at best. I don't call him a betrayer, whom he supports is a matter for him. I do say that if the best Trump can find as a supporter is an apparent raving lunatic with no ability to communicate in comprehensible English then that does not really do a lot to enhance his credibilty.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,913
Reply with quote  #129 
Kanye West has always been an eccentric and contrarian. He is a necessary counterweight to the cancerous influence of people like Jay-Z and Beyonce Knowles. But you see, the problem is that black people who go against the grind will be seen by the Left as "Uncle Toms" or "Native Informants". It's pure Marxist drivel on their part.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,123
Reply with quote  #130 
A Democratic congressman also recently called Clarence Thomas an uncle Tom. The language is racist, not to mention very ugly, in the sense that it is based on the idea blacks must, by the very fact they are blacks, think and act a certain way about politics. It may not be as bad as certain other forms of racism, but identity politics like this is still racist, according to the very definition of racism (obviously, I reject ideological redefinitions of the term). Also, this kind of identity politics is ultimately Marxist inspired. That is its genealogy. Everyone is to be defined by membership of one of a few broad classes, and all politics, society, and culture is determined by the exploitative relationship between these classes. Whiteness, like patriarchy, is just a variation of the Marxist notion of bourgeois. You can literally trace the development.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,913
Reply with quote  #131 
Some have argued that anti-whiteness is just a re-purposing or repackaging of anti-Semitism with all its canards, e.g. claiming that all inventions and achievements of white men were "stolen" or "copied" from others.

Quadrant nails it:

http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/10/ideology-white-hatred/
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,123
Reply with quote  #132 
This is amazing, it turns out Pocahontas Warren really is native American. She's between sixth or tenth generation (which latter could literally be Pocahontas) American Indian:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/elizabeth-warren-roughly-1-64th-to-1-1024th-native-american/

People on the right are in stitches about this. Ben Shapiro described it as one of the biggest own goals he'd ever seen in politics. But if you want a clear indication of mainstream media bias, you can just see how many outlets took it seriously as showing Trump wrong, especially considering the person who ran the test said he didn't have enough native American samples, so used ones from Mexico, Columbia, and Peru. So Elizabeth Warren is apparently 1/64th to 1024th Columbian, or something. I'm sure Trump is chastened. Perhaps he could give Warren 1/1024th of the millennium dollars he promised her on proving her ancestry.

David French had a good article on the media bias:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/elizabeth-warrens-native-american-ancestry-spin-media-fell-for-it/

I love, for example, this apparently straight-faced comment from the AP:

Quote:
A DNA analysis done on Sen. Elizabeth Warren provides strong evidence she has Native American heritage, a claim her critics have long mocked.





Edit: The Cherokee nation itself doesn't seem very impressed by Warren's antics:

http://www.cherokee.org/News/Stories/20181015_Cherokee-Nation-responds-to-Senator-Warrens-DNA-test
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,913
Reply with quote  #133 
Let's face it, all of these race activists don't really care about the communities they claim to represent. It's all about gaining absolute power without accountability. It's what the whole identity politics industry is about - the unelected race relations bureaucracy and self-appointed community leaders who benefit from this cushy arrangement. They are comfortable causing trouble for society because they don't want to test themselves in another field even if they're qualified.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,906
Reply with quote  #134 
That doesn't seem to be relevant to Elizabeth Warren, an elected senator who previously had a successful academic career, and has never been either a race relations bureaucrat or claimed community leader. The facts are that there was a tradition in her maternal family that they had Native American descents, Trump made a characteristically rude jibe about it and issued his mocking challenge, and she accepted and was, indeed, proved right. It is a given that Trump won't honour his pledge and that that will do nothing whatsoever to discredit him among his base, and perhaps he would have been better ignored. The Cherokee Nation certainly would be, their comment was entirely gratuitous given that Sen. Warren has made no application for or claim of membership.

American Indians both North and South have a substantially similar genetic heritage, as a moment's reflection on the facts of geography would lead you to expect. The use of South American Indian DNA for comparison was therefore valid. What else? Oh yeah, Pocahontas. Her fame has led to many claims of descent from her, some valid and provable, some not. But she was no Cherokee, and Sen. Warren has never been among those so claiming. It was Trump that introduced the name to the debate, and who should be jibed at for it.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,123
Reply with quote  #135 
I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. She has at most 1/64th American Indian.* That means at least six generations ago, far beyond any sensible capicity to identity as an Indian. Trump was presumably mocking her self-serving identification, and not the claim she may have had some minute ancestry. And it was self-serving. Warren officially identified as an American Indian for a decade, at a time when minority status had become a plus for employment at a place like Harvard. It was self-serving, as was her claim her father's family had rejected her mother because she was part American Indian. She patently wished to have minority status. She doesn't have it. Most American whites would be blacks, and vice versa, on this score. I have seen it disputed, but there does seem evidence she is within the range of the average white American in terms of American Indian DNA. Her doubling down on it is positively Trumpian, as French points out, except that the mainstream media is actually covering for her, whereas they'd have knives drawn for a Republican who did something similar. It's just absurd, and Pocahontas is rightly mocked for it. It isn't just Trump's base, who is laughing, but pretty much everyone without Trump derangement syndrome. French, if you recall, was briefly talked of as the Never Trump candidate for conservatives in 2016. If Democrats and left-liberals actually thinks this stuff plays well, they must be more unhinged than their recent behaviour has hinted at. The media-Democrats seem to have long decided that outdoing Trump on that score is their best bet, to the point where moderates and independents paying attention should long have ceased to see Trump as any more worrying than many of his critics and opponents.

* I say at most because the comparison used South American natives, not North American ones. As you say, these groups are genetically close, but Warren made quite specific claims, at least at times, so this underscores that even the most optimistic spin on this test doesn't prove anything definitively (not that it's not hilarious).
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.