Understanding The Enemy: A Primer

Democrats do it all the time, they even kill.
And they wouldn't hesitate to use a "good police force."



"former Soviet bloc dissidents who resisted Communist totalitarianism, and are disturbed by the totalitarian tendencies in the illiberal ideological movement across the West we came to call wokeness.

The experience of Soviet communism gives these people their instinct for danger. But Americans—whether because wokeness called itself “social justice” or because they have had the uniquely American luxury of being on a holiday from history—often don’t see the totalitarian threat.

Americans might not have faced arrest and imprisonment for dissenting from the DEI or gender party line, but fear of losing their jobs, or of having their businesses destroyed and their reputations ruined, can be an effective means of achieving the same goal. By 2020 huge numbers of people in this country dwelled in fear of being fired, canceled, or targeted by ideological mobs for deviating even slightly from the approved orthodoxy."
Rod Dreher
 
And on the same theme, the theme of murder, one wonders why the single most important foreign policy aim of a previous Democrat President was to guarantee nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism......

Nor is that simply my opinion:

Iran Remains 'World's Worst State Sponsor Of Terrorism'

View attachment 1114308
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
https://www.rferl.org › u-s-state-department-iran-remai...
— U.S. State Department: Iran Remains 'World's Worst State Sponsor Of Terrorism' ... Nathan Sales, the U.S. State ...

And on the same theme with you, why are YOU posting a lie such as this?

If you didn't post lies and bullshit, you'd never post. Democrats signed a non-nuclear proliferation treaty with Obama which Trump tore up as soon as he got into office. Iran immediately started working on enriching uranium and is now weeks away from nuclear capability. That's ALL on Donald Trump.

Now he wants to sign a new deal with Iran. Too little, too late, as always.
 
1. Premise: the use of violence is less assumed if one can clearly articulate one's position, and prove its validity.



2. "2 Israeli Embassy staffers killed in 'act of terror' in Washington, DC
....a couple about to get engaged -- were gunned down outside an event at the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday in what FBI Director Kash Patel called an "act of terror." The shooting has sparked outrage and has been condemned as an "unspeakable" act of antisemitism after officials said the suspect, who is in custody, shouted "free, free Palestine" following the shooting."



3. "Suspect in congressional shooting was Bernie Sanders supporter, strongly anti-Trump​

James T. Hodgkinson, the man identified as shooting a Republican member of congress and four others on Wednesday morning, was a small business owner in Illinois who defined himself publicly by his firm support of Bernie Sanders’ progressive politics – and his hatred of conservatives and President Donald Trump."

Actual event, and shootings by Democrat.




4. Historic review: every presidential assassin in the history of the nation has been a liberal/Democrat- or has not been associated with a political outlook- none were right-wingers.



5.
So see Democrat "thinking" in microcosm, read the essay bt PhD candidate at George Mason, who endorses murdering those who disagree. This is the hallmark of their ideology.....censorship wasn't enough.

You've probably already read about Nicholas Decker's April 16 Substack essay titled "When Must We Kill Them?" so I won't go into all that again. Suffice it to say that anyone urging violence "as part of a coordinated strategy" against "the rot of the present administration [that] runs deeper than one man," then they've cast themselves far beyond the pale of civilized discourse."
pjmedia.com


pjmedia.com

pjmedia.com



And,.....in simpler terms:

The Scorpion and the Frog

1647296839144.png

A scorpion lived in a dark and dingy cave near a mountain. He grew tired of his surroundings and wanted Lied a change. One day, he came out of his cave and noticed that the valley across the river was very green. He crawled up to the riverbank and wondered how to cross it. Suddenly, he noticed a frog leaping around. “Hello, Mr. Frog, would you carry me to the other side of the river?” asked the, but you scorpion. “I would have but you see I don’t trust scorpions,” replied the frog. “All scorpions are not bad. If I sting you on the way I will die for I do not know how to swim,” explained the scorpion. Now the frog saw enough reason in the scorpion’s statement and agreed to carry him across the river. So the scorpion hopped on to the frog’s back and they set out on the journey. The frog paddled his limbs through the water as fast as he could. Half way through the journey, he suddenly felt a sharp sting on his soft hide. “Why did you sting me? Now both of us shall drown,” cried he. “What can I do for this is my nature,” replied the unrepentant scorpion. The frog and the scorpion immediately drowned in the gushing water.




It's simply their nature.

Just listen to this boob!!!

 
Let me show you how it does.


You wrote "a good police force."

That means something very different to the Democrats than it does to us.

"Good" may mean all sorts of things. If the Fascists/Democrats won another election or two, "a good police force" would go far further than cance and censoring folks like us, but would carry out the sort of policing that sent 1500 Americans to prison over the Reichstag Fire of Jan6.


You need a discussion of where the Constitution has a role with that "good police force."
Okay, nice thread. Your reply to my comment was 100%, off. Care to have me take the time and show you how?

Other than that, I see your threads, I try to read them. I can use this one as an example of what I see as wrong with your approach.

Understanding the enemy? Aint that the premise. No? You then define the premise as something about speaking well then one dont get pissed and start smashing stuff?

Understanding the enemy? Who is the enemy? Where is that clearly defined.

Where do you come up with the idea that every murder of a president was done by a democrat? Even Kennedy? Seriously? What about Lincoln? What about Garfield? Clearly an anarchist. Of course you can argue that is not how your statement reads but either way, your statement is wrong, in the context of what your "scholarly" essay. Your idea that all assinations fit in your description is a stretch of the imagination.
 
They “the enemy within” will go off the charts in violence and rage if this current Trump regime is able to cut off their free money supply from stolen Tax dollars.

This seems to be their biggest fear (not destruction of America) the likes of Mac1958 IM2 Crepitus Moonglow etc. as they are squirming about?
 
They “the enemy within” will go off the charts in violence and rage if this current Trump regime is able to cut off their free money supply from stolen Tax dollars.

This seems to be their biggest fear (not destruction of America) the likes of Mac1958 IM2 Crepitus Moonglow etc. as they are squirming about?
why else did they bring the justices into this, to stop the investigations into corruptions.
 
Further, understanding the enemy, that is the premise, and you fail at articulating that point.

It is not until your third numbered paragraph that we can figure out who the enemy is.

You need to state who you are talking about at the very beginning of your essay. The way you wrote this I thought you were talking about the ear in Israel.

Understanding democrats? The voters or the politicians? The democrat politicians, 1st year elected rookies are seasoned lifelong politicians?

Huge differences in understanding the voters or politicians.

Understanding the enemy? You dont understand democrats.

The voters, simple low intelligence. They are told what to think and what to do. They are easily manipulated.

I can go on and on.

Understanding politics? Money and Power.

Power in its simplist form, a politician getting a bridge built then telling friends and family.

Pchic, dont try so hard, kiss, keep it simple ...
 
And on the same theme with you, why are YOU posting a lie such as this?

If you didn't post lies and bullshit, you'd never post. Democrats signed a non-nuclear proliferation treaty with Obama which Trump tore up as soon as he got into office. Iran immediately started working on enriching uranium and is now weeks away from nuclear capability. That's ALL on Donald Trump.

Now he wants to sign a new deal with Iran. Too little, too late, as always.
Maybe I can save you some time: you don't have to remind folks that you are a simpleton, suffering from a Democrat mind-weld.

Everyone remembers.....you need not remind every day.




Let me provide one simple bromide for you to memorize that will aid to your understanding:

.....a simple rule that will clarify the current milieu:

Any article, event, opinion, data or study that redounds in favor of the Left/Demorat Party, is to be considered a lie or hoax.

Begin with that rule and you will never go wrong.



Democrats ( the Muslim, Obama) GUARANTEED THE WORLD'S WORST STATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM, NUCLEAR WEAPONS.


The Democrats made sure there were NO INSPECTIONS.


Only a fool like you would believe that either Democrats or Iranian savages tell the truth.
 
Okay, nice thread. Your reply to my comment was 100%, off. Care to have me take the time and show you how?

Other than that, I see your threads, I try to read them. I can use this one as an example of what I see as wrong with your approach.

Understanding the enemy? Aint that the premise. No? You then define the premise as something about speaking well then one dont get pissed and start smashing stuff?

Understanding the enemy? Who is the enemy? Where is that clearly defined.

Where do you come up with the idea that every murder of a president was done by a democrat? Even Kennedy? Seriously? What about Lincoln? What about Garfield? Clearly an anarchist. Of course you can argue that is not how your statement reads but either way, your statement is wrong, in the context of what your "scholarly" essay. Your idea that all assinations fit in your description is a stretch of the imagination.
"Where do you come up with the idea that every murder of a president was done by a democrat? "

I see the problem: you don't read carefully.

I try to always use English with precision. I do so with the diligence of a UN translator.



This is the fact:
Historic review: every presidential assassin in the history of the nation has been a liberal/Democrat- or has not been associated with a political outlook- none were right-wingers.



a. John Wilkes Booth was opposed to President Lincoln’s Republican war policies. His letter to is family explained he was furious with Lincoln for having brought war to the South! THE MURDERER OF MR. LINCOLN.; Extraordinary Letter of John Wilkes Booth Proof that He Meditated His Crime Months Ago His Excuses for the Contemplated Act His Participation in the Execution of John Brown. Commissioners of Public Charities and Correction. Fires. The Seventh Ward Fire Note from Chief Engineer Decker. (Published 1865)

Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, “…an angry Copperhead, a.k.a., ‘peace democrat,’ (when that meant pro-slavery, of course.) John Wilkes Booth - Liberapedia

liberapedia.wikia.com





John Wilkes Booth was the assassin of President Abraham Lincoln. (By Executive Order Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, which changed the federal legal status of more than 3 million enslaved people). Booth was a Confederate sympathizer during the Civil War and resented...liberapedia.wikia.com



"In the 1860s, the Copperheads comprised a vocal faction of Democrats in the Northern United States of the Union who opposed the American Civil War, wanting an immediate peace settlement with the Confederates. Republicans started calling anti-war Democrats "Copperheads", likening them to the venomous snake."

en.wikipedia.org



en.wikipedia.org





b. Charles J. Guiteau, who shot President James Garfield, was part of a utopian commune, the Oneida Community, where free love was practiced. Ackerman, “Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield,” p.135



c. Leon Czolgosz, who killed President McKinley, was a socialist and anarchist, whose act was instigated by a speech he heard by socialist Emma Goldman. American Experience | PBS



d. John Schrank, who shot and wounded Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, seemed to have no affiliation other than opposition to a third term. Theodore Roosevelt shot in Milwaukee



e. Giuseppe Zangara, who came close to killing President Roosevelt in 1933, (he killed Mayor Cermak) hated the rich and sought to “make even with the capitalists.” Outside of shooting elected officials, he would have made an ideal pick for Obama’ws cabinet. http://digital.library.miami.edu/gov/FDRAssn.html



f. Lee Harvey Oswald, who shot JFK, had been a communist ever since he read a communist pamphlet about the Rosenbergs. As soon as he was arrested, he called John Abt, lawyer for the American Communist Party. "CIA confirmed Oswald contacted Cubans, Soviets before assassination, memo shows" CIA confirmed Oswald contacted Cubans, Soviets before assassination, memo shows





4. Let's add these non-presidential assassinations by Leftists.



g. Sirhan Sirhan, who killed Robert Kennedy, was a Palestinian who hated Kennedy’s support of Israel.



h. Arthur Bremer shot George Wallace in 1972, due to Wallace’s support for segregation.

http://basicfamouspeople.com//index.php?aid=7134

Upon his release, Bremer showed no remorse: “ ‘shooting segregationist dinosaurs’ is not like shooting people because ‘they are extinct by act of God.’ This mention of God was the only blemish on Bremer’s otherwise impeccable liberal credentials.” Coulter, “Guilty,” p. 260.



i. Lynette ‘Squeaky’ Fromme, tried to shoot President Ford because she was incensed about the plight of the California redwoods. http://minx.cc/?blog=86&post=209933



j. Sara Jane Moore also tried to kill President Ford because “the government had declared war on the left.” http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=4900159







k. John Hinckley shot President Reagan to impress a girl. The jury found him “not guilty by reason of insanity.” “

…which is as good a definition of liberalism as I’ve heard.”

Coulter, “Guilty.” P. 260.




Where is the apology?
 
They “the enemy within” will go off the charts in violence and rage if this current Trump regime is able to cut off their free money supply from stolen Tax dollars.

This seems to be their biggest fear (not destruction of America) the likes of Mac1958 IM2 Crepitus Moonglow etc. as they are squirming about?
That seems to be happening.
 
Further, understanding the enemy, that is the premise, and you fail at articulating that point.

It is not until your third numbered paragraph that we can figure out who the enemy is.

You need to state who you are talking about at the very beginning of your essay. The way you wrote this I thought you were talking about the ear in Israel.

Understanding democrats? The voters or the politicians? The democrat politicians, 1st year elected rookies are seasoned lifelong politicians?

Huge differences in understanding the voters or politicians.

Understanding the enemy? You dont understand democrats.

The voters, simple low intelligence. They are told what to think and what to do. They are easily manipulated.

I can go on and on.

Understanding politics? Money and Power.

Power in its simplist form, a politician getting a bridge built then telling friends and family.

Pchic, dont try so hard, kiss, keep it simple ...
Per posts #24 and #27.


No one else seems puzzled about who the enemy is..

I don't believe you are, either.


Now, a subtext, not mentioned in the OP, by related to it: if the Democrat Party is totally defeated rather than revitalized as an American party, we ....WE.....need to beware of the danger of single-party rule. It is not just Democrats who can and did fall into being totalitarian.


The key is to rely on the Constitution.....and that is what I wrote to you.
 
Maybe I can save you some time: you don't have to remind folks that you are a simpleton, suffering from a Democrat mind-weld.

Per posts #24 and #27.


No one else seems puzzled about who the enemy is..

I don't believe you are, either.


Now, a subtext, not mentioned in the OP, by related to it: if the Democrat Party is totally defeated rather than revitalized as an American party, we ....WE.....need to beware of the danger of single-party rule. It is not just Democrats who can and did fall into being totalitarian.


The key is to rely on the Constitution.....and that is what I wrote to you.
See this, goodbye. You ain't here to discuss anything, you are pontificating
 
See this, goodbye. You ain't here to discuss anything, you are pontificating
Perhaps you missed the memo: you aren't oblicaged to read any post.

I notice you are no longer misquoting me as saying that Democrats are responsible for ALL presidential assassinations.

Where is the apology?

Goodbye.
 
Perhaps you missed the memo: you aren't oblicaged to read any post.

I notice you are no longer misquoting me as saying that Democrats are responsible for ALL presidential assassinations.

Where is the apology?

Goodbye.
It is what you implied, idiot. I guess you did not get the menu that there are no fucking menus.

Your long winded essays are a bore.

This one, an atrocity. Ho ahead and explain your premise. Hahaha

Seriously, explain your premise
 
It is what you implied, idiot. I guess you did not get the menu that there are no fucking menus.

Your long winded essays are a bore.

This one, an atrocity. Ho ahead and explain your premise. Hahaha

Seriously, explain your premise
Unlike your drive-by, thoughtless and fact-free posts?
 
It is what you implied, idiot. I guess you did not get the menu that there are no fucking menus.

Your long winded essays are a bore.

This one, an atrocity. Ho ahead and explain your premise. Hahaha

Seriously, explain your premise
As soon as you are reduced to vulgarity, it messages that you know you are wrong, and don't have the class to apologize.


You can leave.
 
Back
Top Bottom