Progressive Left Wing Liberal Party

[American_Jihad]

Victims of the Left: Black Americans

This essay examines specifically how the left, in its self-identified quest to elevate African Americans by means of myriad social justice campaigns, has in fact done incalculable harm to the black community in the United States.



Table of Contents (Click on the numbered topics to jump to the desired category):

1) How the Left Created Black Victimology and Black Rejection of American Values

2) Affirmative Action: How the Left Has Harmed Blacks through the Bigotry of Low Expectations

3) How the Left Consigns Blacks to Substandard Education

4) How the War on Poverty Devastated the Black Community

5) How the Failed Crusade of “Sex Education” Harmed the Black Community

6) The Crime Wave that Has Decimated Black America

7) How Blacks Have Been Victimized by Leftist Policies Concerning AIDS

8) How the Left Demands Black Conformity of Thought

9) Notes

...

Black Americans As Victims of the Left - Discover the Networks

 

[American_Jihad]

Monica Crowley on Today’s Totalitarian Left
An interview.
November 1, 2015
Mark Tapson

On the Fox show Outnumbered Thursday, Newt Gingrich referred to liberals as “the totalitarian Left.” That same day, on Fox Business’s Varney & Co, political commentator Monica Crowley remarked that the Democrats of today, seeking a fundamental transformation of America, are not the classical liberals of the past.

Gingrich’s description of the Left’s totalitarianism dovetails directly into Crowley’s, since that fundamental transformation is a total one that necessarily must be coerced. Both their comments echo what the Horowitz Freedom Center has been declaring for twenty years: that “inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out.”

I reached out to Monica Crowley for her further thoughts on the matter.

Mark Tapson: Monica, on Varney & Co you commented that new Speaker of the House Paul Ryan may be under the illusion that he will be dealing with the Democratic party of old, but today’s Dems want to fundamentally transform America and can't be viewed as partners in restoring America. Could you elaborate on that a bit?

Monica Crowley: We are in a war. It is a war for America – for the very nature of what America is and what it should be. It is not a war that we have sought, but like it or not, it is a war that has been brought to us by the Left. For decades, the Left has been waging a war for the future of the country. Their war is waged against the Constitution, free market economics, our social fabric and values – and they fight 24/7. They never rest. They never falter. And they rarely fail – and when they do fail, they pick up where they left off and begin the fight anew.

Their objective is – as then-candidate Barack Obama called it in 2008 – the "fundamental transformation of the nation." We now have seven years of evidence as to what he meant: moving America away from a nation built on individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense and economic freedom, and toward a European-style socialist state sapped of superpower strength and influence. Mr. Obama and the Left have largely succeeded in accomplishing that transition. They are winning the war – and the Republicans aren't even in the battle. Most of them simply don't get it.

With a few exceptions, such as Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee and House members like Louis Gohmert, most Republicans simply don't understand what they’re up against. They don't understand – or they don't want to understand – that the Democrats of today are not the Democrats of the past. Mr. Obama is not John Kennedy or Bill Clinton or even Jimmy Carter. They were liberals in the classic sense – and mainstream Democrats. Mr. Obama is not a Democrat in that traditional sense. He is a leftist revolutionary. A completely different ball of wax – with a completely different set of objectives for the country. Objectives that involve uprooting our foundational principles and replacing them with socialist policies that will be exceedingly difficult if not impossible to reverse. This is their war. And most Republicans, certainly the Republican leadership, don't see it. And if they don't see it, they cannot wage an effective counteroffensive. That's why the Left continues to win elections and policy battles: because most conservatives and Republicans are playing the game by the traditional rules, and the Democrats are playing by a radically different set of rules – and they have their fellow leftists in the mainstream media serving as their wingmen. The two sides are aren't even on the same playing field.

MT: What are the implications for the Republican party, and for this country, if Republicans don’t grasp this hard truth about their political opponents and instead continue to compromise and try to work with the Left as partners?

...

Monica Crowley on Today’s Totalitarian Left

 

[American_Jihad]

Crymobs, Crybullying and the Left’s Whiny War on Speech
Shut up, they’re upset!
November 12, 2015
Daniel Greenfield

The left is a victimhood cult. It feeds off pain and fetishizes suffering as a moral commodity to be sold and resold in exchange for political power.

The cult’s credo is that its solutions to human suffering take precedence over freedom or democracy. It exploits suffering when it can and creates it where it can’t. Its social media has ushered in the Warholian era of victimhood where everyone can be a famously oversharing victim for 15 trending minutes.

Forget about meritocracy. This is the victimocracy.

The victimocracy’s foot soldier is the crybully. The crybully is the abuser who pretends to be a victim. His arguments are his feelings. He comes armored in identity politics entitlement and is always yelling about social justice or crying social justice tears.

If you don’t fight back, the crybully bullies you. If you fight back, the crybully cries and demands a safe space because you made him feel unsafe.

Lions form a pride, crows gather into a murder and crybullies cringe into a crymob. The crymob demands a safe space because free speech and dissent makes its crybullies feel very unsafe.

Crymobs will “safebait” by yelling and pushing and then whining that the people they’re shoving make them feel unsafe. One crybully safebaiting tactic is to yell loudly, forcing anyone talking back to them to raise their voice. That’s when other crybullies begin shouting, “Don’t yell at her.” Crybullies will push into you and cry that you’re making them feel unsafe. They will hit you and when you raise your hands in self-defense, they will scream that you’re putting your hands on them. (All these safebaiting tactics and more can be seen in the Missouri video.)

...

Or they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. And soon there was a crymob safebaiting its way across another campus, another branch of literature or around the world.

Crybullies are everything they claim to abhor. They are narcissists who complain about selfishness. Completely incapable of human empathy, they whine that no one cares about their feelings. They are prone to cowardly acts of violence, but demand safe spaces. They are bullies who say they’re bullied.

The crybully embodies the left. He is an oppressed oppressor. An abusive victim. A self-righteous hypocrite. A loudmouth censor. A civil rights activist who wants to take everyone’s rights away.

Crymobs, Crybullying and the Left’s Whiny War on Speech

 

[American_Jihad]

The President and Liberals Have A Lot To Answer For
San Bernardino was entirely predictable.
December 4, 2015
David Horowitz

On the heels of the Paris attacks, ISIS issues threats against the United States. A Muslim couple highly trained and armed to the teeth, with an IED factory in their house, with GoPro cameras on board, murders 14 and wounds 17 members of a seasonal gathering in San Bernardino, and a day later no one in the media will say it’s a terrorist attack. Even on Fox, the word is “No one will say whether it’s workplace violence or a terrorist attack.” Really? Who leaves a meeting goes back home, as the killer did, gathers up his wife, drops his six month old child with the grandmother, dons battle fatigues and drives back to the meeting to carry out his mayhem? The obvious answer is no one.

Twenty years after Islamic jihadists declared war on us, fear of offending Muslims still trumps securing the safety of 300 million Americans, non-jihadist Muslims included. This suicidal stupidity flows from the top. The president will not acknowledge that millions of Muslims are at war with us. His first response to this latest massacre is another call for gun control. How about bomb control – three were set at the target site.

Here is the lead headline in Salon, an Obama-Hillary supporting Internet site: “Syed Farooq is an American: Let’s stop the Muslim vs. Christian debate and take a look at ourselves. His terrible deed does not spring from an unknowable foreign culture. It is violence endemic to the United States.” Blame America first. The author of this piece, by the way, is a supporter of the Islamic terrorist army, Hamas. But that’s all right with liberals. As is the president’s importing of terrorists into the United States. There are 900 ongoing investigations of ISIS sympathizers in the homeland – and no doubt thousands of undetected ones too – thanks to the Democrats’ open borders attitudes and amnesties.

...

The President and Liberals Have A Lot To Answer For

 

[American_Jihad]

Why Liberals Support Islamic Terrorism, and Oppose Self-Defense Against It
Posted by Daniel Greenfield

...

Where self-defense is often defined by liberals as a form of entitlement and class privilege. "Grievance based violence" by contrast is treated as a response to intolerable oppression, and an expression of the underclass rising up. Since in the liberal worldview, violence is divided into oppressive and revolutionary violence. Oppressive violence is a function of class privilege, where revolutionary violence is a form of revolutionary justice. So that in the liberal calculus, the middle class homeowner protecting his house from a mob, is practicing "oppressive violence", while the mob is practicing "revolutionary justice".

Understanding this is the most vital part of understanding liberal morality, or lack thereof. Class or group status, defines whether violence is legitimate or not, in the eyes of the liberal.

...

Liberals have no problem with violence. They have a problem with violence that does not have a progressive source agenda. They are however willing to shield many forms of violence that are not at all progressive under that umbrella... so long as the violence is directed at a State or group they oppose.

This explains why liberals continue to support Islamic terrorism, when it is not at all progressive or liberal. Similarly Communists in the Czarist period, including Jewish Communists, were willing to support Pogroms against Jewish communities, as a form of revolutionary violence... even when the mobs carrying out the violence had nothing in mind beyond anti-semitism and looting, and the pogroms themselves were actually promoted by the Czarist government ; because they believed that opening the door to any peasant violence served to pave the way for an overthrow of the Czarist government. And Tolstoy, one of the architects of modern pacifism, who had a great deal to say about the evils of violence, was unwilling to condemn the pogroms.

...

The left wing understanding of legitimate violence as being based in class and grievance, rather than in self-defense and legal rights, must be countered by emphasizing these values instead. Rational interests must be emphasized over emotional appeals, a game at which liberals are expert at winning.

The core must be to remember that the right of self-defense is the foundation of individual and national rights for a Republic. By contrast for liberals, grievance based violence opens the door to a progressive tyranny, as it did during the French revolution or the fall of the Czars and the following interregnum, or as they still believe it will today.

Sultan Knish: Why Liberals Support Islamic Terrorism, and Oppose Self-Defense Against It

 

[American_Jihad]

January 6, 2016
The American Left and the Death of Political Discourse
By Steve McCann
Much has been made of the precipitous decline and near death of political discourse in the United States. Many attribute this to the coarsening of the language. However, this factor is a symptom of a current underlying and foundational dilemma: the inability of not only the general public but nearly all of the so-called societal leaders and opinion makers to generate an original thought, as well as a stubborn refusal, because of a rapidly evolving totalitarian mindset on the Left and their total domination of the Democratic Party, to use reason and logic when confronted with irrefutable facts and arguments.

These traits can be explained, insofar as the general public is concerned, as the consequence of their subjection for the past forty years to a woeful and deliberately incomplete education bordering on indoctrination. However, this factor does not fully explain many of the so-called best and brightest falling into the same abyss and being unable to coherently expound on an original thought or concept while mindlessly espousing a failed statist ideology.

Those who publically espouse the statist philosophy do so in age-old and threadbare platitudes. The depth of thought rarely exceeds three basic tenets: 1) capitalism and individual wealth accumulation is evil; 2) only an economy and society dominated and controlled by a powerful central government, controlled by the left, can guarantee fairness of outcome and absence of any moral absolutes and 3) anyone who disagrees with 1 and 2 is dangerous, ignorant and not only greedy but tyrannical and thus must be relegated to the ash heap of society by any means possible.

Not wanting to understand that these tenets have been in existence since the late 1840’s, the current proponents act as if they have discovered some new and overwhelmingly successful concept. The failure of those nations that chose to go down this road is conveniently ignored or mired in blissful ignorance. Mindlessly defending American Progressivism, regardless of it irrefutable failures, is all that matters.

This is most evident when the advocates of this errant viewpoint appear on television or the radio to debate or discuss the issues of the day. Whenever conveniently among their fellow-travelers, nearly every conversation immediately degenerates into either childish name-calling directed at conservatives or a competition to determine who can fabricate the most outrageous and false accusation aimed at any and all on the Right who disagree with the Left and their stewardship of the country.

Whenever these same proponents appear with the conservative opposition, a pre-programmed recording is switched on. It consists of: 1) Barack Obama and the Democrats are doing a great job considering how much the Republicans and Conservatives have done in the past to foster inequality, destroy the environment and oppose any and all lifestyle choices; 2) the nation needs to spend more money to solve all problems while raising taxes on the evil rich as punishment for exploiting the masses; 3) conservatives are callous, avaricious and care little for minorities, women and children; and 4) any overt criticism of President Obama and the good intentions of the Democratic Party is a not so subtle expression of racism. When called out on these points and confronted with irrefutable facts, the recording is switched on again and repeated as often as necessary.

These true-believers never offer any new ideas or concepts on how to improve the lot of the people except to expand government. How or why government bureaucracies coercing additional trillions of dollars from the marketplace and spending it as they see fit would make life better when it has not worked in other countries is not discussed, as that question cannot be answered and is thus ignored. What is not ignored is the unwritten marching order to regurgitate a well-worn script to undermine, demean and destroy those who actively oppose the progressive agenda.

All this infantile babbling is a manifestation not only of mind-numbed robotic incompetence but, more importantly, the necessity for the vast majority of those who traffic in these banalities to be part of what they perceive to be the in-crowd and the absolute necessity to stay in the good graces of the majority of the Ruling Class, which is predominantly left-wing, thus maintaining access not only to government largess but ego gratifying mainstream news and entertainment media attention. This subservience requires no independence of thought -- being a mindless foot-soldier for the cause maintains an emotional attachment to the elites regardless of the long term consequences of promoting a failed ideology and the authoritarian mindset that accompanies it.

For the past 100 years the primary trait of the leaders of the socialist/Marxist movements throughout the world has not been an unabashed belief in ideology, but an overweening narcissism. This ideology has been the perfect vehicle to subjugate the masses and control the levers of power. Thus it has been a complement to the addled thought process of these despots, who have believed that their superiority to the unwashed masses was unquestioned and their ability to govern was beyond dispute. The current leadership of the American Left, as personified by Barack Obama, are also motivated by this same narcissism and power lust.

The majority of the American people, asleep during the past sixty years of overwhelming peace and prosperity, are gradually waking up to the massive deception that has been perpetrated by the Left and their inability to solve the almost insolvable problems they, in large part, have created. Thus the tone and nature of political discourse has become more strident as the Left, in an effort to protect their gains, status and self-image, will do or say anything regardless of the damage it may inflict on the country including demanding the de facto repeal of the First Amendment. As Kevin D. Williamson points out at the National Review:

They have sought to use the FCC to revoke the broadcast licenses of Rupert Murdoch and other political hate totems, and have long dreamt of using federal regulation to shut down talk radio. They have gone to the Supreme Court to argue that they should be empowered to ban books, films, magazines, and newspapers when they desire to do so for political reasons. They are energetic suppressors of free speech.

While the American Left and their mind-numbed robotic followers may bristle at any comparison to the totalitarian regimes of the past, including those of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin and Mao, their mindset is the same insofar as abridging freedom of speech and, through intimidation and the coercive power of government, permanently shutting down their opposition. This totalitarian mindset is in full flower on the college campuses of today and openly visible for all to see.

The two major candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are full throated adherents of this brown shirt mentality. Hillary has referred to Republicans as the “enemy” that must be defeated while never saying the same about radical Islam; she has unabashedly supported the Black Lives Matter movement and promoted the ongoing chaos on American college campuses as well as lobbied for government control of talk radio, the internet and all political funding and speech. Bernie Sanders has called for a “revolution” that would, in essence, crush the economic and political rights of the opposition in order to relegate them to subservience.

The United States is indeed a nation of immigrants and for those of us who came to America from failed totalitarian states or from countries destroyed through wars fomented by the adherents of socialist/Marxist ideology we see clearly that the long shadow of political oppression is rapidly descending upon this land. As the 2016 presidential election approaches there is no issue of more importance if America is to remain the land of the free.

Much has been made of the precipitous decline and near death of political discourse in the United States. Many attribute this to the coarsening of the language. However, this factor is a symptom of a current underlying and foundational dilemma: the inability of not only the general public but nearly all of the so-called societal leaders and opinion makers to generate an original thought, as well as a stubborn refusal, because of a rapidly evolving totalitarian mindset on the Left and their total domination of the Democratic Party, to use reason and logic when confronted with irrefutable facts and arguments.

These traits can be explained, insofar as the general public is concerned, as the consequence of their subjection for the past forty years to a woeful and deliberately incomplete education bordering on indoctrination. However, this factor does not fully explain many of the so-called best and brightest falling into the same abyss and being unable to coherently expound on an original thought or concept while mindlessly espousing a failed statist ideology.

Those who publically espouse the statist philosophy do so in age-old and threadbare platitudes. The depth of thought rarely exceeds three basic tenets: 1) capitalism and individual wealth accumulation is evil; 2) only an economy and society dominated and controlled by a powerful central government, controlled by the left, can guarantee fairness of outcome and absence of any moral absolutes and 3) anyone who disagrees with 1 and 2 is dangerous, ignorant and not only greedy but tyrannical and thus must be relegated to the ash heap of society by any means possible.

Not wanting to understand that these tenets have been in existence since the late 1840’s, the current proponents act as if they have discovered some new and overwhelmingly successful concept. The failure of those nations that chose to go down this road is conveniently ignored or mired in blissful ignorance. Mindlessly defending American Progressivism, regardless of it irrefutable failures, is all that matters.

This is most evident when the advocates of this errant viewpoint appear on television or the radio to debate or discuss the issues of the day. Whenever conveniently among their fellow-travelers, nearly every conversation immediately degenerates into either childish name-calling directed at conservatives or a competition to determine who can fabricate the most outrageous and false accusation aimed at any and all on the Right who disagree with the Left and their stewardship of the country.

Whenever these same proponents appear with the conservative opposition, a pre-programmed recording is switched on. It consists of: 1) Barack Obama and the Democrats are doing a great job considering how much the Republicans and Conservatives have done in the past to foster inequality, destroy the environment and oppose any and all lifestyle choices; 2) the nation needs to spend more money to solve all problems while raising taxes on the evil rich as punishment for exploiting the masses; 3) conservatives are callous, avaricious and care little for minorities, women and children; and 4) any overt criticism of President Obama and the good intentions of the Democratic Party is a not so subtle expression of racism. When called out on these points and confronted with irrefutable facts, the recording is switched on again and repeated as often as necessary.

These true-believers never offer any new ideas or concepts on how to improve the lot of the people except to expand government. How or why government bureaucracies coercing additional trillions of dollars from the marketplace and spending it as they see fit would make life better when it has not worked in other countries is not discussed, as that question cannot be answered and is thus ignored. What is not ignored is the unwritten marching order to regurgitate a well-worn script to undermine, demean and destroy those who actively oppose the progressive agenda.

...

Read more: Articles: The American Left and the Death of Political Discourse

 

[American_Jihad]

The Left’s Embrace of Islamic Rape
Why progressives are sacrificing their own women on the altar of utopian ideals.
January 11, 2016
Jamie Glazov

Introduction: As the disturbing reports pour in about the New Year’s Eve Muslim sex assaults in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Finland and other European countries, it has become clear that the new Utopian Multicultural Europe that the Left has worked so hard to build is now here. Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker’s response to the assaults under her watch has been to reprimand the victims, suggesting that they had asked for it. She has vowed to make sure that women will change their behavior, so that they don’t provoke Muslims to sexually assault them again. There will now be published “online guidelines” for women to read so they can prepare themselves. One wonders if it will be the burqa or the niqab that will be the solution of choice.

These eerie developments are, of course, completely in line with why Naomi Wolf finds the hijab “sexy" and why Oslo Professor of Anthropology Dr. Unni Wikan’s solution for the high incidence of Muslims raping Norwegian women is not for the rapists to be punished, but for Norwegian women to “take their share of responsibility” for the rapes because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. Norwegian women, she has counseled, “must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

We are also now aware that German police fired water cannons at German protesters in Cologne who gathered to protest the rapes and sexual assaults committed by the Muslim refugees. Right, it is not the Muslim migrants who committed sex assaults that are being shot at with water cannons, but those who feel that what they did violates women’s rights and western values.

...

The Left’s Embrace of Islamic Rape

 

[American_Jihad]

The Left is the Real Terror Threat
The Left helped fuel Islamic terrorism -- and it keeps it going.
January 27, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

Men and women, some whose clothes were still marked with gray ash, walked dazedly toward Union Square. Many did not know what to do or where to go. So they kept on walking. They knew the country was under attack, but they did not know how bad it was or what might still be heading for them.

Behind them lay a changed city and thousands of American dead. Ahead was the bronze statue of George Washington, facing into the devastation and raising his hand to lead his men forward in victory. Around its base, with the destruction of the World Trade Center as their backdrop, leftists had set up shop, coloring anti-war posters even while rescue workers were risking their lives at Ground Zero.

In the coming days, the statue of Washington would be repeatedly vandalized by leftists drawing peace signs and “No War” and “War is Not the Answer” slogans on it. But that moment crystallized my realization that while Muslim terrorists had carried out the attack, it was the left we would have to fight.

While some New Yorkers had gone to help the victims of Islamic terrorists, the left had rushed to aid the terrorists. Unlike the rest of us, they were not shocked or horrified by the attack. They were treasonously working on ways to spin the murder of thousands of Americans to protect the enemy.

The greatest obstacle to defeating Islamic terrorism is still the left.

The left helped create Islamic terrorism; its immigration policies import terrorism while its civil rights arm obstructs efforts to prevent it and its anti-war rallies attack any effort to fight it. In America, in Europe and in Israel, and around the world, to get at Islamic terrorists, you have to go through the left.

When a Muslim terrorist comes to America, it’s the left that agitates to admit him. Before he kills, it’s the left that fights to protect him from the FBI. Afterward, leftists offer to be his lawyers. The left creates the crisis and then it fights against any effort to deal with it except through surrender and appeasement.

Islamic violence against non-Muslims predated the left. But it’s the left that made it our problem. Islamic terrorism in America or France exists because of Muslim immigration. And the left is obsessed with finding new ways to import more Muslims. Merkel is praised for opening up a Europe already under siege by Islamic terror, Sharia police, no-go zones and sex grooming and groping gangs, to millions.

The left feverishly demands that the whole world follow her lead. Bill Gates would like America to be just like Germany. Israel’s deranged Labor Party leader Herzog urged the Jewish State to open its doors.

And then, after the next round of stabbings, car burnings and terror attacks, they blame the West for not “integrating” the un-integratable millions who had no more interest in being integrated than their leftist patrons do in moving to Pakistan and praying to Allah on a threadbare rug. But “integration” is a euphemism for a raft of leftist agenda items from social services spending to punishing hate speech (though never that of the Imams crying for blood and death, but only of their native victims) to a foreign policy based on appeasement and surrender. Islamic terrorists kill and leftists profit from the carnage.

The ongoing threat of Islamic terrorism is a manufactured crisis that the left cultivates because that gives it power. In a world without 9/11, the Obama presidency would never have existed. Neither would the Arab Spring and the resulting migration and wholesale transformation of Western countries.

In the UK, Labour used Muslim immigration as a deliberate political program to “change the country.” In Israel, Labor struck an illegal deal with Arafat that put sizable portions of the country under the control of terrorists while forcing the Jewish State into a series of concessions to terrorists and the left. The same fundamental pattern of Labour and Labor and the whole left is behind the rise of Islamic terrorism.

...

The Jihad would not be a significant threat without the collaboration of the left. Without the left standing in the way, it’s a problem that could be solved in a matter of years. With the aid of the left, it threatens human civilization with a dark age that will erase our culture, our future and our freedom.

We cannot defeat Islam without defeating the left. That is the lesson I learned on September 11. It is a lesson that appears truer every single year as the left finds new ways to endanger us all.

The Left is the Real Terror Threat

 

[American_Jihad]

Catastrophizing and the "Demons" of the Radical Left
February 15, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

Let's start with "Catastrophizing". It means what it sounds. Believing that things are unspeakably and unimaginably horrifying. It's usually applied to people evaluating their personal lives, but it has clear political applications.

‘My demons won today’: Ohio activist’s suicide spotlights depression among Black Lives Matter leaders

Since he died early last week, news of McCarrel’s suicide has rocked the national police protest movement, forcing a round of introspection about a reality that predates the seminal 2014 shooting of a black teenager in Ferguson, Mo.: Some of the most prominent activists and organizers are battling not only the system, but depression.

...

The WaPo story obviously takes this at face value. The media is bound to. And yet it's telling a very different story. Not so much about black fragility, but about the sense of fragility and catastrophe embraced by the unstable.

Butler, who started much of the campus mess, had depression issues for a while. The imaginary narrative of black genocide he summarized is typical catastrophizing. Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt was one of the few mainstream figures to link catastrophizing to the hysteria of these activist movements.

...

Templeton began spewing hate at others and found it incredibly intoxicating. It's not an original idea. Just look at some of those deranged crowds cheering a Hitler speech. Or a Stalin speech. Certain types of movements attract 'losers', the unstable, the angry, looking for a reason to live and finding it in abusing others while crying that they are justified.

It turns out that #BlackLivesMatter, like the rest of the left, is no different.

And the WaPo article only adds further to the catastrophizing. Rather than holding up a mirror, it continues to enable the psychological demons driving a racist, destructive movement of hate.

Catastrophizing and the "Demons" of the Radical Left

 

[American_Jihad]

February 29, 2016
The incredible shrinking Democratic Party
By Thomas Lifson

...

A 44% decline in support from the largest ethnic group in the country by far is yuuuge.

Carter agrees:

Democrats in 2016 are only getting about two-thirds of the primary votes that they received eight years ago.

Republican turnout in the South Carolina primary, by contrast, was up more than 70 percent from 2008.

South Carolina's turnout numbers are not an anomaly. They're consistent with other primaries to date. Republicans are psyched. Democrats are demoralized.

Presidential elections increasingly hinge on each party's ability to turn out the faithful. There simply are not many truly independent voters who cast their ballots for different parties in different cycles. A big chunk of voters who identify as independents do so not because they cherish a moderate middle ground between two parties, but because they see their own party as insufficiently committed to its ideological principles. In this era, lousy primary turnout spells big trouble for the general election.

The poor Democratic turnout figures are not an indictment of Clinton alone. Maybe the DNC's decision to bury the party's debates on weekends and holidays helped Republicans generate more early enthusiasm with primetime coverage. And part of Sanders' pitch, of course, is his insistence that progressive energy will bring out high numbers of enthusiastic voters that an old party insider just can't compete with. It's a good pitch. But so far, it isn't happening.

...

Read more: Blog: The incredible shrinking Democratic Party
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[American_Jihad]

Hildabeast will be as bad as obongo maybe worse...

Progressive 'Thought-Blockers': Racism
How the Left amasses and consolidates political power.
March 2, 2016
Bruce Thornton

Rather than being a racial healer, Barack Obama has presided over and at times stoked more racial divisiveness than we have seen in a long while. Just in the last year we’ve had Black Lives Matter marches and verbal assaults of Democratic candidates, the Oscar protests over the absence of nominated black actors, Ivy League university students marching over “microagressions” no one else can see, and the still simmering protests and agitation over police shootings of black men. Driving it all is our duplicitous and malignant national racial discourse.

...

But instead of using their wealth and prestige to address these tragedies, most of the well-heeled black elite perpetuate lies like “hands up don’t shoot,” decry “white privilege,” whine about “microagressions” at tony universities, and complain because not enough blacks were nominated for academy awards. People who live lives of material abundance and social capital far beyond the majority of white people who have ever lived, shamefully leverage for their own gain the misery of people they have nothing to do with. And they have hidden this moral idiocy by turning “racism” into another progressive “thought-blocker” that serves only politics.

Like other progressive “thought-blockers,” a spurious “racism” is a way for progressive Democrats to amass and consolidate political power, in this case as a tool for keeping black voters on the party plantation, patrolled by the equivalent of the Fugitive Slave Law that hounds any black person who dares to think for himself and challenge the racialist orthodoxy. The losers are truth, rigorous argument, sound evidence, and most important, the millions of blighted black lives that really don’t matter to the race industry.

Progressive 'Thought-Blockers': Racism

 

[American_Jihad]

The Mind of the Left From an Insider
What I witnessed inside a faith of lies -- and what it took to leave.
March 16, 2016
Michael Faraday

...

The victim narrative was in every conversation.

The class struggle/oppressed victim narrative is part of daily life on the Left. As a child, I would listen to adults talking. With friends and co-workers, with mothers chatting over tea, it was part of every conversation. They would talk about the weather, their kids, television, but before parting, one of them would always say something relating to the greedy oppression of the rich -- and the other had to agree. To not agree was social suicide.

While there were differences between working-class and middle-class leftists, certain attitudes were universal:

When a leftist has never worked, they feel very generous toward anyone who claims to need help, who fits the narrative. They are generous with their emotions.

When they do get their first real job, they are often shocked by the amount of taxes withheld and have a moment of doubt. But this moment of doubt gives non-leftists an opening. So the young leftist, terrified he/she will be changed, quickly walls off this doubt in their mind and refuses to touch it, until it fades.

Economics are not usually considered part of a culture, but for red-diaper leftists, their attitude to economics is cultural. It is part of the core, sacred narrative. They usually have a child-like view of economics, which they often have inherited from their parents. This is probably why the doubt triggered by their first tax shock is so easily forgotten for leftists. The child-like view is comfortable and familiar. Once amnesia sets in and comfort returns, discussions of economic reality are seen as right-wing propaganda.

...

Leftism encourages and is driven by the most negative, damaging emotions. It harnesses together childish emotions and paranoid thought processes. Its narratives are a filter that reality has to try to struggle through, often failing.

The child-like thinking solves all problems without pesky details and facts interfering, leading to delusions of intellectual brilliance.

It is actually very hard to give up being a leftist, even when you want to. I know people whose families have been murdered by communists and they are still leftists. It is not enough to see the problems. If you are a red-diaper baby, it’s all you know. You have been indoctrinated (with the media’s help) that the so-called Right is greedy and evil and the religious are hypocritical and delusional. Even if you have doubts, there is nowhere else to go, not without literally changing your mind.

I saw the cracks early. My parents had a fanatical hatred of the middle class and never spoke to them, if possible. In my teens I realized my father hated the wealthy because he wasn’t one. That didn’t stop me being a leftist. It made me want to be a better leftist than my parents. I began to see that class struggle was becoming a scam to get more free stuff. I still sought a perfect form of communism. I met upper middle class leftists and was appalled by their arrogance and snobbery. I traveled the world and did not find any form of communism that did not depend on capitalism to save it from collapse.

...

Despite all this, it is hard to totally leave leftist thinking because it surrounds you. It has become mainstream. It’s like trying to bail a boat with holes in the bottom. It takes a persistent intellectual effort to leave it behind. But there is another reason why it takes time to dig out the leftist brain parasite. A powerful lie lives there. It is the most powerful lie they have. It is that the Left “cares.” You must fully embrace the fact that this is a lie. All leftist “caring” has a hidden agenda.

Michael Faraday describes himself as a former useful idiot. He has worked as a refugee advocate and history teacher. He now teaches young people with Autism. He has spent three decades unlearning leftist thinking.


The Mind of the Left From an Insider

 

[American_Jihad]

Why the Left Is on a Never-Ending Witch Hunt
Leftism always identifies some group as the source of all problems in society, some class that makes all mankind choke.
March 21, 2016
George Fields

Reprinted from TheFederalist.com.

My kid sister, who does Twitter, took it upon herself to propagate my last article. Several of her friends reacted negatively. One was so utterly silly that I took to the typewriter to concoct a response; but then realized my critic was 14 years old. So I thought better of it and went to bed.

As I arose in the morning, my sister had sent me another critique of my article. It read as follows: “Guys this is cis white male trolling people. Just report block, and move on.” At first, I was thrilled to think leftists had finally determined that my sister and I, being of Sicilian and Vietnamese ancestry, had graduated into being white (the master race, as the Democratic primary would suggest), as opposed to being genetically inferior racial toxins requiring forced sterilization, as Madame Sanger and the Progressives of yesteryear contended.

As I spent the better part of the day waiting eagerly for the official diploma informing me of my change in status, I began to contemplate that, although I had been promoted to society’s ruling class, I had also been demoted to the Left’s newest object of hatred.

I say newest, because “white people” are surely not the first. Rather, it is innate to leftism to always identify some group as the source of all problems in society, some class that makes all mankind choke. For, you see, leftism is nothing but one unending witch hunt.

The Hunt for the Oppressor
Now having made such a claim, it is necessary that I reference facts. Once upon a time there was a certain thinker who thought the thought that would pave the way for all modern liberal double-think, or rather un-thought. His name was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and he famously quipped that “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Many found this idea appealing; but it begs the question. If man is born free, who has enthralled him? So a 200-year chase commenced to find the witch who had brought such maleficence to mankind.

If man is born free, who has enthralled him? So a 200-year chase commenced to find the witch.
First the Jacobins came, and found the clandestine oppressor to be nothing other than the church and the nobles. So they quickly proceeded to murder the entire clergy and nobility of the French nation. However, this seemed not to bring the desired result; their people still seemed enslaved, the freedom and utter equality they craved had not been acquired. They must have found the wrong witch!

Karl Marx soon followed, and identified the true enemy of mankind as the capitalists. So his followers proceeded to kill all the capitalists, and a quarter of the population of their nations in the process; however, this too failed to break the spell.

The Progressives in America and England soon followed, and ironically saw the oppressors to be the “inferior” genetics of southern Europeans and blacks, who so rapidly reproduced that they were destroying the otherwise paradisical society of white people with their uncivilized blood.

Nazis learned from the Progressives, but, being of a more moderate demeanor, determined that Jews were the worst of the bad lot. They were a sort of combination of what all the previous leftist movements had identified as malefactors: they were brownish, capitalist, and religious—the trifecta!

So the Nazis killed all the Jews, and then God, being partial to his chosen people, killed all the Nazis. Again, man was in chains, and the invisible slave-master was on the loose.

Now Witches Are Everywhere
Now with the birth of pluralism, the Left no longer feels the need to identify a single oppressor, but rather has embraced a slew of them, each oppressing within a single domain: men oppressing women, whites oppressing blacks, straights oppressing gays, industry oppressing the unindustrious, religion oppressing the irreligious, etc. The net effect of these oppressors explains the fact that “all mankind is in chains.” Now it is no longer necessary to do away with only the church, or the rich, or the Jews; rather, it is necessary to do away with all the “ties that bind,” and human civilization with them.

...

Why the Left Is on a Never-Ending Witch Hunt

 

[Bald Champion]

The Origins of Leftist Racial Orthodoxy

May 31, 2012 By Michael Filozof


If "diversity" is good, why do liberals congregate in lily-white enclaves like Vermont (the whitest state in the Union, according to the Census) and Marin County, California? White liberals hector others incessantly about the need for "diversity," but most have no interest in living in neighborhoods with large numbers of blacks. The ideal society in the liberal mind always seems to be a Scandinavian socialist one (which is to say that liberals strive to make the U.S. more like some of the most uniformly white nations in the world).

The liberal enforcers of racial correctness are quick to decry the evils of racism, yet they are quite willing to practice it themselves in the form of affirmative action -- and they are strangely silent when blacks engage in "hate crimes" against whites. Conservatives have been increasingly willing to point out these and other hypocrisies of our racial orthodoxy, but they invariably fail to understand its true origins.

What drives our contemporary racial orthodoxy? Many conservatives mistakenly believe that liberals obsessed by race are afflicted with "white guilt." Not so. The truth about racial matters in the U.S. is this: racial issues are not actually about race. In the hands of the progressive left, race is a tool used by powerful whites against other whites; specifically, race is a weapon used by liberals to bludgeon conservatives and delegitimize conservative, patriotic values.


But it has not always been so.

Prior to World War II, progressives and leftists -- like Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger -- viewed blacks as inferior human scum who should be eliminated through eugenic hygiene. But after World War II, "progressive" thinking about race underwent an astonishing metamorphosis. The American left forged a strategic alliance with blacks, using race to attack the core values of an American society they had now come to despise as the ultimate evil.

---


The White Negro is perhaps the most important work of literature in postwar America. It provided a blueprint for the cultural revolution of the 1960s, and in hindsight, it explains nearly all left-wing, anti-conservative behavior since. If blacks were social outcasts in American life, then the white enemies of traditional American values would align with them. An immoderate drunk like the late Sen. Edward Kennedy -- who was kicked out of Harvard for cheating, then killed a young girl he was presumably cheating on his wife with, and got away with it -- could not possibly point the finger at blacks and tell them to be honest, chaste, and sober. He could, however, falsely accuse Judge Robert Bork of wanting blacks to "sit at segregated lunch counters" to deflect attention from his own behavior. And it worked. (Today, following the same "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy, leftists align themselves with Islamic terrorists and radicals, under whose rule they would never actually want to live.)

---


Left-wing racial rhetoric about "fairness" and "equality" and "non-discrimination" has been used to conceal a subterranean leftist agenda of anti-Americanism and anti-conservatism for over fifty years. Conservatives persist in stupidly taking this rhetoric at face value; hence, they always find themselves on the racial defensive.

Conservatives need to stop being suckered by this leftist con game, and they need to do it before November.


Read more: Articles: The Origins of Leftist Racial Orthodoxy

Well your post is not very accurate about the people I know, and makes allot of wrong assumptions throughout. The majority of the people in my city are liberal, and less than a quarter of the people I associate with are white. I am as white as they come and I was born in a neighborhood that as primarily hispanic, with asian being the other primary race in the neighborhood. I know most of the white kids in my schools growing up were minorities, so that is also a false assumption.

I have never practiced affirmative action, nor have I championed it because it does not make sense in my city. As far as black on white hate crimes, I think all hate crimes are awful and I very well understand that other races can be blatantly racist and ethnocentric. I do think some liberals are overly concerned with race, and I also think a similar portion of conservatives dislike other people because of their race, religion or other thing. I think liberals are purely focused upon how white people relate to other races and it seems like some use it as a bludgeon and others suffer from white guilt.

You views on planned parenthood do not resonate with me at all, all I believe is that a woman can do what she wants, that it is not my business, its a part of freedom good or bad.

I don't think it is a game, I think there are a lot of liberals who are really concerned about equality and racial relations, but then again there are liberals like me who do not. The problem about conservatism is that there is room for the hater type racists among the ranks. People know this and it is a liability for conservatism, this is why librals take advantage of it.
Just like liberals always defend people like Treyvon Martin and Walter Scott, while conservatives always seem to call them thugs who had it coming to them. These things speak volumes society which is why many people think conservatism is inherently racist in America.

 

[American_Jihad]

The Origins of Leftist Racial Orthodoxy

May 31, 2012 By Michael Filozof


If "diversity" is good, why do liberals congregate in lily-white enclaves like Vermont (the whitest state in the Union, according to the Census) and Marin County, California? White liberals hector others incessantly about the need for "diversity," but most have no interest in living in neighborhoods with large numbers of blacks. The ideal society in the liberal mind always seems to be a Scandinavian socialist one (which is to say that liberals strive to make the U.S. more like some of the most uniformly white nations in the world).

The liberal enforcers of racial correctness are quick to decry the evils of racism, yet they are quite willing to practice it themselves in the form of affirmative action -- and they are strangely silent when blacks engage in "hate crimes" against whites. Conservatives have been increasingly willing to point out these and other hypocrisies of our racial orthodoxy, but they invariably fail to understand its true origins.

What drives our contemporary racial orthodoxy? Many conservatives mistakenly believe that liberals obsessed by race are afflicted with "white guilt." Not so. The truth about racial matters in the U.S. is this: racial issues are not actually about race. In the hands of the progressive left, race is a tool used by powerful whites against other whites; specifically, race is a weapon used by liberals to bludgeon conservatives and delegitimize conservative, patriotic values.


But it has not always been so.

Prior to World War II, progressives and leftists -- like Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger -- viewed blacks as inferior human scum who should be eliminated through eugenic hygiene. But after World War II, "progressive" thinking about race underwent an astonishing metamorphosis. The American left forged a strategic alliance with blacks, using race to attack the core values of an American society they had now come to despise as the ultimate evil.

---


The White Negro is perhaps the most important work of literature in postwar America. It provided a blueprint for the cultural revolution of the 1960s, and in hindsight, it explains nearly all left-wing, anti-conservative behavior since. If blacks were social outcasts in American life, then the white enemies of traditional American values would align with them. An immoderate drunk like the late Sen. Edward Kennedy -- who was kicked out of Harvard for cheating, then killed a young girl he was presumably cheating on his wife with, and got away with it -- could not possibly point the finger at blacks and tell them to be honest, chaste, and sober. He could, however, falsely accuse Judge Robert Bork of wanting blacks to "sit at segregated lunch counters" to deflect attention from his own behavior. And it worked. (Today, following the same "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy, leftists align themselves with Islamic terrorists and radicals, under whose rule they would never actually want to live.)

---


Left-wing racial rhetoric about "fairness" and "equality" and "non-discrimination" has been used to conceal a subterranean leftist agenda of anti-Americanism and anti-conservatism for over fifty years. Conservatives persist in stupidly taking this rhetoric at face value; hence, they always find themselves on the racial defensive.

Conservatives need to stop being suckered by this leftist con game, and they need to do it before November.


Read more: Articles: The Origins of Leftist Racial Orthodoxy

Well your post is not very accurate about the people I know, and makes allot of wrong assumptions throughout. The majority of the people in my city are liberal, and less than a quarter of the people I associate with are white. I am as white as they come and I was born in a neighborhood that as primarily hispanic, with asian being the other primary race in the neighborhood. I know most of the white kids in my schools growing up were minorities, so that is also a false assumption.

I have never practiced affirmative action, nor have I championed it because it does not make sense in my city. As far as black on white hate crimes, I think all hate crimes are awful and I very well understand that other races can be blatantly racist and ethnocentric. I do think some liberals are overly concerned with race, and I also think a similar portion of conservatives dislike other people because of their race, religion or other thing. I think liberals are purely focused upon how white people relate to other races and it seems like some use it as a bludgeon and others suffer from white guilt.

You views on planned parenthood do not resonate with me at all, all I believe is that a woman can do what she wants, that it is not my business, its a part of freedom good or bad.

I don't think it is a game, I think there are a lot of liberals who are really concerned about equality and racial relations, but then again there are liberals like me who do not. The problem about conservatism is that there is room for the hater type racists among the ranks. People know this and it is a liability for conservatism, this is why librals take advantage of it.
Just like liberals always defend people like Treyvon Martin and Walter Scott, while conservatives always seem to call them thugs who had it coming to them. These things speak volumes society which is why many people think conservatism is inherently racist in America.

Typical LONG WINDED liberal response...

 

[American_Jihad]

This post is for the comedic Carla_Danger...


'Democracy Awakening': The Radical Left's Latest Makeover
The same tired, pathetic tropes, repackaged as something new.
April 25, 2016
John Perazzo

...


The list of Democracy Awakening's nearly 300 member organizations provides further insight into the coalition's worldview. Among those members are:

• The Agenda Project, which believes that society can only function efficiently when the influence of government dominates the workings of the marketplace;
• American Family Voices, which advocates increased government control and intervention as the keys to improving healthcare, the environment, and the economy;
• The American Friends Service Committee, which sided with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War and has long agitated for the unilateral disarmament of the United States;
• Code Pink, a pro-Marxist group that supports the Hamas-loving Free Gaza Movement, characterizes Israel as an oppressor nation, and is backed by former Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn;
• Global Exchange, which seeks to “advance social, environmental and economic justice” by promoting an “alternative,” socialist-style system that “transform the global economy from profit-centered to people-centered”;
  [*]The SEIU, which donates millions of dollars annually to Democratic lawmakers and politicians who promote government expansion and higher taxes;
  [*]The United For Peace and Justice antiwar coalition, founded by Leslie Cagan, who proudly aligns her politics with those of Fidel Castro's Communist Cuba;
  [*]Tikkun, which aims to “save our planet from environmental destruction and from the perversion of human relations generated by the globalization of selfishness and materialism popularly known as capitalist globalization”;
  [*]The NAACP, which views America as a racist cesspool where blacks are victimized at every turn;
  [*]The Network of Spiritual Progressives, whose work proceeds from the premise that “from the divine perspective there is no such thing as a right to private property,” and that all “inequalities of wealth [should] get abolished”;
  [*]Greenpeace, which views the emissions resulting from every form of human industrial and recreational activity as the chief causes of potentially catastrophic global warming; and
  [*]Bend The Arc, which condemns Voter ID laws as barriers that “make it harder for communities of color, women, first-time voters, the elderly, and the poor to cast their vote.”

There's nothing new in any of this. Same old talking points. Same old Marxist, anti-American claptrap, dressed up as an “awakening.” At its core, Democracy Awakening is the quintessential embodiment of the Left's retrogressive ideology—smearing and demeaning one American tradition after another, all for the purpose of expanding government, crushing free enterprise, and shrinking individual liberty.


'Democracy Awakening': The Radical Left's Latest Makeover

 

[American_Jihad]

Leftist Violence & Double Standards
When will the media decry the culture of violence of Clinton and Sanders' supporters?
May 3, 2016
Ari Lieberman

The so-called “mainstream” national media has developed a penchant for focusing on violence originating from certain quarters while all but ignoring hooliganism emanating from others. The disparity in treatment is due primarily to an agenda being pushed by leftist elements within the media establishment, including, but not limited to, MSNBC and the New York Times.

Violence emanating from Trump supporters buttresses a false narrative that many within the establishment media wish to propagate; namely that Trump’s immigration and border policies are laced with racist undertones. The issue is not framed within the context of securing borders, protecting U.S. citizens from crime and terrorism and curtailing an already overburdened entitlement system for illegals. Rather, Trump’s opponents and their allies in the media have succeeded in framing the issue as one involving racial divisiveness and incitement.

...

Bullying and hooliganism of the sort that had been characteristic of the radical right has now become part and parcel of tactics employed by the radical left. Whether it’s a professor calling for “some muscle” to eject a student reporter at the University of Missouri or pro-Palestinian activists disrupting a peaceful gathering at San Francisco State University, the methods are becoming more violent and their use, more frequent.

These incidents of radical leftist hooliganism are given mere scant coverage by the leftist media. Often, they are entirely ignored by left-wing media and only belatedly covered after non-mainstream bloggers bring it to the community’s attention by creating a social media storm.

In the case of Trump, it is readily apparent that certain elements within the mainstream media have sacrificed journalistic integrity to advance a particular ideology. It is indeed a sad reflection of the present state of journalism.

Leftist Violence & Double Standards

 

[Norman]

The Origins of ...

the Progressive Left is not representative of Liberalism.

end of bullshit story

Today the regressive left seems to be the vocal majority in promoting liberalism(or rather, Marxism).

Yiannopolus was in fact asked if there is a problem in the democrat party with these people. He said yes. Why is that? Because the party is very bad at purging the losers from its ranks. And why is that? Because it's a party for losers.

 

[American_Jihad]

The Progressive Lust for Power
The Left's camouflage that hides its real motive.
May 18, 2016
Bruce Thornton

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have been talking a lot about “fairness” and “equality” during their primary campaigns. Like most progressives, they pass themselves off as the champions of the ordinary people who are suffering beneath the boot of rapacious capitalists and the plutocratic “one percent.” Give us power, they say, and we will create “social justice” for all the victims of “white privilege” and capitalist greed, not to mention redistributing even more money from the selfish “rich” in order to finance such utopian goals.

Promiscuously displaying their hearts bleeding for the oppressed has long been the progressive camouflage that hides their real motive: the lust for power. Whether they want power to advance their failed ideology (Sanders), or to gratify their ambition for status and wealth (Hillary), in the end it doesn’t matter. History has repeatedly proven that the libido dominandi, the ancient lust for dominating others that lies behind the progressives’ political ambitions, in the end always leads to tyranny and misery.

When progressivism began in the late 19th century, progressives at least were honest about their aim to expand their power over the ignorant, selfish masses. A striking––and prophetic–– example can be found in Woodrow Wilson’s 1890 essay “Leaders of Men.” Wilson rejected the limited executive of the Constitution for a more activist president who has the “insight” to know “the motives which move other men in the mass”:

...

The Progressive Lust for Power

 

[Moonglow]

The Origins of ...

the Progressive Left is not representative of Liberalism.

end of bullshit story

Today the regressive left seems to be the vocal majority in promoting liberalism(or rather, Marxism).

Yiannopolus was in fact asked if there is a problem in the democrat party with these people. He said yes. Why is that? Because the party is very bad at purging the losers from its ranks. And why is that? Because it's a party for losers.

Liberalism can't be Marxism.....try to twist the truth...