"Far right loons" go after the radical, extremist left

[badrouter]

The far-right loons? Among many others, Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-New York); Matthew Yglesias, unofficial Democrat party adviser and blogger, formerly co-founder of Vox; Barack Obama, (D) former two-term President of the United States

Of course, phrases like "the radical left" are immediately interpreted in highly unfavorable terms: the median basic bitch Democrat immediately assumes you're a January 6 MAGA insurrectionist. So, the cute manuever employed is to refer to "the radical left" as "the groups". Perhaps, hopefully, this phrasing will make the necessary conversation about leftist extremism more palatable to the basics.

Schatz on "the groups"

Yglesias on "the groups"

Obama DNC speech: In this speech to the DNC this summer, Obama spent nearly 1/5 of his 35 minute speech- starting around the 21:00 mark- going after the totalitarian extremists on the left. He's done this sort of thing many times. Of course, he does it with class and measured remarks. But, given the settings he does this in, you have to know his more candid and private thoughts and remarks are MUCH harsher. His comments are, as almost always, totally spot on. Of course, it takes a fellow "far right loon" such as myself to appreciate them. Obama also recently subtly rebuked the radical left by recommending a book (The Anxious Generation) by Jonathan Haidt. Recommending a Haidt book strongly suggests (virtually guarantees) that Obama also likes and approves of The Coddling of the American Mind, which, along with Greg Lukianoff, is the most famous book with Haidt's name on it. TCOAM is an outstanding, highly rational and apolitical book which happens to directly attack core tenets of radical leftist extremism. As a result, radical leftist extremists (OK, the groups) have tried to smear Lukianoff and Haidt as "far right fascists". You have to know your standard, fire-setting and freeway blocking leftist extremist is BIG MAD at Obama. 

A couple of comments from Torres:

 

 

[badrouter]

Rep. Ritchie Torres, a black Democrat who campaigned for Kamala Harris, should expect to be smeared incessantly as a "far right loon". It will be amusing watching the dimwits on the far left trying to smear such a man as "far right". If they had a second - or even a third, or more!-  way to attack those who disagree with them, perhaps we'd see them employ such a tactic. Of course, they only have ONE (1) trick: smear those who disagree as abominable, racist, sexist facsists. So, when that's the only trick available, they HAVE to use it. Watching the ensuing mental gymnastics will serve as low quality comedy.

 

[badrouter]

Masks, of course, are political speech. They serve to signal the virtue that supposedly comes with decalring one's self to be "on the right side of history". The seductive narative being the unscientific mantra "My mask protects you, and your mask protects me". It's a call for a communal approach to running society, and is in opposition to the concept of individual rights. The root of the word - commune- is, you know, instructive...even though many basics are big mad if you use another word with the same root. "My body, my choice...unless, as part of my declaring myself to be 'on the right side of history', I determine the need to assert my dominance and demand that you cover your face with a mask" passes as logcial reasoning in some circles. While they are exceedinly rare in purple or red areas, they are still much more commonplace than at any point in our history in far left blue areas. With political activism and polarization seeming to be at all-time highs, there will be MASSIVE opposition to mask bans. The best means of argumentation against bans on masks may actually prove to be a first amendment/free speech argument. Striking down a mask ban may have to involve the concession from the far left that masks really are political speech. While it may work to strike down the bans, the same precedent could be used to prohibit future mask mandates, which is something still desired by the far left.

[Nolebull813]

6 hours ago, badrouter said:

Masks, of course, are political speech. They serve to signal the virtue that supposedly comes with decalring one's self to be "on the right side of history". The seductive narative being the unscientific mantra "My mask protects you, and your mask protects me". It's a call for a communal approach to running society, and is in opposition to the concept of individual rights. The root of the word - commune- is, you know, instructive...even though many basics are big mad if you use another word with the same root. "My body, my choice...unless, as part of my declaring myself to be 'on the right side of history', I determine the need to assert my dominance and demand that you cover your face with a mask" passes as logcial reasoning in some circles. While they are exceedinly rare in purple or red areas, they are still much more commonplace than at any point in our history in far left blue areas. With political activism and polarization seeming to be at all-time highs, there will be MASSIVE opposition to mask bans. The best means of argumentation against bans on masks may actually prove to be a first amendment/free speech argument. Striking down a mask ban may have to involve the concession from the far left that masks really are political speech. While it may work to strike down the bans, the same precedent could be used to prohibit future mask mandates, which is something still desired by the far left.

That pretty much sums up the cult of the democrat party: they believe their way of thinking is the only way to view a subject and you are not a good person if you don’t believe the same about each situation of societal consequence. 
 

You want stronger borders to make communities safer, lower the drug overdose deaths, and ease the financial strain on government programs like police, hospitals and schools? It means you hate immigrants. So you are bad person. And if they paint you as a bad person, then it justifies their actions and attitudes toward you.

Pick any subject and they will apply the same standard of dehumanizing tactics they employ as advertised by the leaders of their cult 

[badrouter]

The truth is the vast majority of Democrats are not at all aligned with radical leftist extremism. They ARE, however, absolutely terrified of the following:

- being branded as a "racist" or "bigot" or "transphobe" on social media. They've proven to be MUCH, much more willing to suck on some toes and grovel incessantly towards their masters (the ones yelling the loudest and claiming to be "on the right side of history") than they are to uphold, you know, common sense, consitutional principles. 

- saying something that might, in some way, shape or form, possibly be construed as support for Tr*mp or that could possibly help him. This WAS a major concern because the median voter is extremely stupid and simplistic in their "thinking".  

The latter is now a closed matter: Tr*mp can't run for office again. There's zero chance of ever defeating (or losing to) him in an election ever again. So, the hope many of us have is that this reality will help Democrats who DISAGREE with the radical faction that wants to abolish the United States, abolish capitalism, abolish the police and abolish jails to come out and say as much. There's clearly no longer any benefit to be acrued from continuing the deny the existence of these groups. Own that they exist and then disown them. The strategy of playing coy about either their existence or their danger, in hopes of not losing their vote, backfired tremendously. Many radicals refused to vote for Harris as it was. But, the tactic of playing coy with some gaslighting mixed in only served to inspire FURTHER SKEPTICISM from moderates. 

Questions that society must answer:

1) Should we ever discriminate for, or against, anyone on the basis of race?

2) Should a key role of government be to engineer equivalent outcomes for all, as Vice President Harris has said repeatedly?

3) Should the criminal justice system do what they're doing in Canada, and award drastically different sentences for convicted criminals based explicitly on race?

4) Should authority and government officials lie and/or misrepresent the truth if, according to their own personal opinions, the truth might posssibly be construed by bad actors in a way that might possibly be less than good for "historically marginalized communities"?

5) Is it a good thing that much of Science, including the peer review process, has been hijacked by people who explicitly state that their primary purpose is to bring about "social justice", rather than pursue scientific truth?

6) Should scientists who purport to be focused on "social justice" be able to reject or falsify findings that fail to support their chosen narratives?

If the answer to ANY of the above questions is anything other than HELL FUCKING NO!, the electorate should reject the candidate.

[badrouter]

In a recent column, far-right and fascist loon Matt Yglesias saw fit to offer a far-right fasicst template he thinks Democrats should follow. You can read the column here. A preview of the far-right views can be seen below. Just look at those fascist views!!!