One might think it would stand to reason that if she and other leftists can dish it out, surely they can take it also, right? Wrong. A leftist responding to my comment promptly injected race into the dialogue. I mean, this was a dispute between two white people (Kathy Griffin and Donald Trump, or perhaps me and and Kathy Griffin, depending on how you look at it), and a leftist still managed to make it about race. (But who's surprised by that, right?) He said I was mad the south lost the war. I pointed out that the Confederacy was a primarily Democratic endeavor. What followed that comment was a slew of responses from other leftists that served to illustrate the abject ignorance, hypocrisy, and outright psychosis that permeates the leftist mind.
This is false, obviously; at least in the context of the poster. The Democrat party of just thirty years ago was "Conservative" in comparison to the ardently pro-"transgender" Democrat party of today. (Bill Clinton signed DOMA for Pete's sake.) Every party, literally every person in the country in 1865 (even blacks), would be considered radical right-wing "Conservatives" by current Democrat standards; i.e., not subscribing 100% to a hardcore Marxist world view. But leftists typically can't (or won't) grasp such nuance, and were you to explain it you'd be wasting your time, because they wouldn't care. Leftists are never one to let facts get in the way of their agenda. For the leftist, reality conforms to the party platform, not vice versa. And if you disagree it's because you're racist. Even if race has nothing directly, or even indirectly to do with the topic. Because the definition of racism to a leftist is anyone in disparity with the Socialist platform.
I naturally asked Misty (not his real name but I wouldn't want to "assume his gender") to explain to me how lifelong Democrat Robert Byrd, who participated in a sixty senate working day filibuster of the Civil Rights Act to preserve segregation, was a "Conservative."
"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side [...] Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. - Robert Byrd, 1946.
Donald Trump, who has never been in the KKK, is a "racist" and/or "white supremacist" according to Democrats. But not Robert Byrd. No, these same Democrats defend former Klan leader and recruiter Robert Byrd. Byrd, they will tell you, reformed himself and is therefore absolved of all past transgressions. Donald Trump conversely was never in the Klan in the first place, yet should be ashamed for something in which he's never taken any demonstrably significant part; racism. So Trump is somehow guilty of racism and should apologize for supporting white supremacy. But Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama (among others), who all gave eulogies for former Klansman Robert Byrd, are not guilty of supporting white supremacy and have nothing for which to apologize.
"We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our states," said the leader of the filibuster group of which Byrd was a part. Fourteen hours and thirteen minutes rambled ole Rob Byrd, doing his part to save segregation, eighteen years after he wrote the excerpt in the above quotation (at forty six years of age and hardly the young, naive, unwitting racist Clinton portrayed in his eulogy) and 99 years after the Civil War.
You may be asking yourself, how can someone be in the party of slavery and Jim Crow, support a racist eugenics program started by Nazi sympathizers, and give a eulogy at a former Klan leader's funeral and not be racist? Yet Donald Trump is racist. If you're struggling to grasp how that's possible, it's because you're operating under the legitimate definition of the word racism. Remember what I said earlier; the definition of racism for a leftist is anyone in disparity with the Socialist platform. So if the Socialists say that Donald Trump is bad, and you disagree, you are "racist." And why is Trump bad? He doesn't want to "help" people as much as the Democrats. And how do you help people? By giving them assistance from the government; i.e., other peoples' money; i.e., Socialism. In other words, Donald Trump is not fit to be president to a Democrat, because in their minds he doesn't want to give people as much Socialism as his Democrat opponent(s).
I asked Misty to explain to me how Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama (who all gave eulogies at Byrd's funeral in 2010) are "Conservatives." Because only a racist Conservative would give a eulogy for a racist Conservative. Right? And then when done with that, I asked him to explain to me how it's not racist to support a (Democrat) party, that supports a racist eugenics program (abortion) pioneered by Nazi sympathizers. He did none of the above. Instead he responded with the demonstrably false claim that Byrd (who was unanimously elected leader of his local KKK chapter) was never a Klan leader, and that abortion wasn't pioneered by racists and/or Nazi sympathizers.
"The most responsible and most intelligent members of society are the less fertile; that the feeble-minded are the more fertile. Herein lies the unbalance, the great biological menace to the future of civilization. [....] The mating of a moron with a person of sound stock [...] undermines the vigor and efficiency of an entire nation and an entire race." - Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, 1922.
"The inferior always predominates numerically over the best, if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. [...] In every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1925.
Let it simply be asked. If a Nazi is someone that shared/supported Hitler's views on race and eugenics (which any leftist would concede is the case), what is someone who supports a eugenics program started by someone (Sanger) that agreed with Hitler on race and eugenics? Again, I refer to Euclid's maxim. "Things which equal the same thing also equal one another." Basically, if both A (Hitler) and C (Democrats) are equal to B (Sanger), then A and C are also equal to each other. Thus, it's quite easy to illustrate that Democrats are more substantially the ideological progeny of the Nazi world view.
Sanger much like Byrd is not condemned by Democrats for her racist views or founding of a racist genocidal organization, but rather defended and even celebrated by Democrats as a paragon of social "progression," despite the fact she retained these views until her death in the 1960s. She even has a statue in the Smithsonian (that no Democrats want taken down).
Planned Parenthood also gives an award (their "highest honor") in her name to those deemed exceptional supporters of the racist eugenics movement. In 2014 it was awarded to Nancy Pelosi. You might recognize that name from above as one of the prominent Democrats that gave a eulogy at former Klan leader and recruiter Robert Byrd's funeral. (I'm sure all this support of overt racists is just a big coincidence though.)
So Donald Trump is a racist who wants to kill millions by repealing Obamacare, say Democrats, who celebrate a Nazi sympathizer integral in the extermination of tens of millions of (disproportionately brown) people. Nancy Pelosi, who eulogized a former Klan leader and received the highest honor awarded from an organization founded by a genocidal racist, is not.
The common and farcical rebuttal dispensed by leftists that the Republicans and Democrats traded places, is something only one utterly ignorant of the abject parallels between modern and antebellum Democrat policy would believe. Antebellum Democrats imported brown people by the millions to do their menial labor, and wanted them to be counted as part of the population in order to increase their power in government (as representation in congress is based on population). Likewise, modern Democrats want to import millions of brown people to do their menial labor, and want them to count as part of the population (given amnesty) in order to increase their power in government (as representation in congress is based on population). Antebellum Democrats didn't want slaves being educated because it diminished their dependency upon the Democrat power structure. Modern Democrats don't want blacks being educated (e.g., oppose school vouchers) because it diminishes black dependency upon the Democrat power structure. (If black Americans insist on getting an education, Democrats want them funneled into completely subverted schools and colleges they control, as opposed to private schools that base progression on performance as opposed to adopting or regurgitating the Democrat platform.)
The notion that the Nazis were "Conservatives" (which Misty subsequently made) is even more farcical.
"We met, we asked questions, he gave brilliant replies. I love him. The social issue, completely new insights. He has it all thought out. [...] Big corporations, trusts, etc., are all to be nationalized. This is what we discuss. I can accept this firebrand as my leader. I bow to his superiority. I acknowledge his political genius." - The diary of Joseph Goebbels, describing his first meeting with Hitler, April 13, 1926.
Since when has "nationalizing" corporations been a "Conservative" position? What party seeks to nationalize industry in the United States?
So once again it's easy to illustrate which party has more in common with Germany's Socialists. And Misty, at this point, was MIA.
It should be obvious to any thinking person that Nazism had far more in common with the likewise deeply racist Democrat party in America, and as such it was far less of an ideological transition for Democrats to shift from one oppressive racist ideology to another, than Republicans which originated as an abolitionist (anti-slavery) party. The "shift" that occurred, and to which Socialists like Misty allude, was the racist aristocratic Democrat party of old shifting to racist aristocratic Socialism; the ideology of "modern" racists by which they would revive and preserve their traditional power structure. Simply observe the "modern" Socialist Democrat leadership. Just as in antebellum America, prominent Democrats today spend their days "managing" the lives of others, only now they do it on an exponentially larger scale through massive government bureaucracies and programs instead of plantations.
This "shift" is rather conspicuously observed in the tone of their rhetoric which, once the Democratic party realized overt racism was no longer politically viable in the mid-twentieth century, shifted from that of master to benefactor. After years of the Democrat party being politically crippled following the civil war, and still suffering crushing political defeats decades later as racist sentiment among most white Americans even in the south dwindled, all of a sudden the Democrat party that had been flagrantly racist for well over a century wanted to "help" the very people they'd oppressed. Even now it consistently wants to do this by simply offering (as "assistance") the very things they provided as masters (e.g., free food, housing, health care, etc.). Except unlike the antebellum slave owner who was personally responsible for the cost of his slaves, the "modern" Socialist Democrat party has redistributed the cost to the taxpayer through government assistance programs. They get all of the same benefits while you get all of the cost. They've reclaimed the very people they were forced to free by Republicans, from Republicans, by buying their votes (and perpetual servitude) with your money.
Even now white leftist/Democrat leaders and voters commonly exhibit this rhetorical disposition.
As beautifully illustrated in the above video, in which white Democrat after white Democrat, plainly thinks black people are too poor and stupid to afford an ID or have and use the internet. They're hopelessly inferior and therefore need "assistance" from, and their lives to be managed by, Democrats. But this, their ostensible desire to "help" people of color, is proof that the parties "traded" or "switched places" according to the average Democrat voter.
It would be laughable were half the country not clearly falling for it.
Again, they routinely openly reveal their racist disposition toward people of color without realizing it. The presumed inferiority of brown people is on constant display from white Democrats, even did they not openly admit they support illegal immigration because "They do the jobs we won't do." It's a win/win for them. The Democrat leadership is freed from the burden of menial labor, which allows them to live as part of a permanent aristocracy that governs (manages those beneath them) full time, and the serfs perpetuate their own serfdom by maintaining the Democrat power structure which is now, and has always been, predicated upon the subordination of a permanent class of "inferior" serfs in this country.
It's a circular system you see. The more dependent the serfs become on government, the greater the "assistance" bureaucracy grows, providing ever greater validation and necessitation of the existence of "managers" of said bureaucracy. (A role which the Democrat aristocracy is always willing to, and will forever, occupy.) The slaves labor in the fields, and the masters manage the slaves' lives, forever. One hand shakes, and validates the other's existence and role, ad infinitum. If one hand should ever shop shaking, the Democratic power structure in America would fall apart (as it did following the Civil War), which explains the lengths to which the Democrat leaders (and their lemming voters) will go to defend that system. Both sides are irrevocably invested in it. Many of the dependents have been managed for so long, they don't want to be freed, but rather seek (indeed demand) more management of their lives.
This assiduous creation and perpetuation of dependency that robs the dependent of the desire for freedom is but another parallel between modern and antebellum Democrats.
"The only means by which the ancients maintained slavery were fetters and death; the Americans of the South of the Union have discovered more intellectual securities for the duration of their power. They have employed their despotism and their violence against the human mind. In antiquity, precautions were taken to prevent the slave from breaking his chains; at the present day measures are adopted to deprive him even of the desire of freedom. [...] As they will not raise them to their own level, they sink them as nearly as possible to that of the brutes." - Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America.The antebellum Democrat sought to make the slave so dependent upon the master that life without the master became inconceivable. The modern Democrat seeks to make the constituent so dependent upon government assistance and management they provide that life without the assistance and manager becomes inconceivable. Simply observe how the modern Democrat constituent expresses abject despair at the very notion of a government entitlement program on which they depend in some way being abolished. Obamacare was signed into law only seven years ago and Democrats already construe it as something they cannot live without (despite the fact anyone above seven years of age did just that). They portray its repeal as an apocalypse that will kill millions. The "assistance" on which they depend (or hope to depend) not existing, and no one managing these aspects of their lives, has for them become inconceivable.
The ironic thing is that I don't even like Donald Trump. I didn't vote for him. But lies are lies. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. And I will defend someone whether I like them or not, whether they share my platform or not, when I see them being unjustly attacked. But that's a sort of objectivity conspicuously unknown to leftists, who hear and repeat the aspersions dispensed by their Democrat masters, with all the credulity and obliviousness of a tape recorder.
No comments:
Post a Comment