January 6th has legs
I’ve noticed many times that virtually all the liberals I know – even those who are having a few doubts and questions about what’s been going on under the Biden administration – are still firmly convinced that January 6th represents a terrible and dangerous insurrection and that if I don’t agree I’m some sort of QAnon-influenced conspiracy theorist. To me, this represents the remarkable and continued power of the press and the left to set a narrative that becomes firmly entrenched in people’s minds and is remarkably recalcitrant to change.
How to counter this? I’ve actually been told by a few people that if I sent them some written material on it they’ll read it, presumably with an open mind. I think that it’s easy to think one’s mind is open, but hard to execute. And one big problem for me is what to send them, because “TL;DR” (too long; didn’t read) is an ever-present problem.
For a couple of weeks I’ve been amassing links from which to choose. There are close to fifty now, and obviously I have to winnow that down to just a couple. But which ones? It’s not really a topic that lends itself to summary approach, if one wants to even have a chance of reaching a person on the other side. There are so many misconceptions to break down, lies to counter, and omissions to fill in.
And then there’s the trump card (forgive the expression) of discounting the messenger: “Well, it’s just [fill in the blank] who says that, and we all know that person is a liar.” No, we don’t, but that’s what they often think is the case, and it’s hard to get past that assumption. That’s why someone like Turley or Dershowitz or Greenwald, as non-conservatives, can be so helpful, although after just a few occasions of siding with the right they are likewise discredited by many.
So although I welcome the news that Tucker Carlson is offering this, I have my doubts that it could reach the unconvinced – who often think Carlson is some sort of KKK wizard:
Fox News host and the current cable news king Tucker Carlson announced that after much research and investigation, he’s releasing a multi-part series about the January 6 riots that cuts through a lot of the media posturing and speculation and gets down to the facts.
I obviously haven’t seen it, but my guess is that it’s pretty good. That link goes on to give examples of many of the attacks that have already been mounted against it. That’s no surprise, because getting the word out in a relatively short and relatively easy-to-understand way would be one of the biggest threats the left could face right now. So of course it must be quashed even before people have a chance to see it, so they won’t think to waste their time on something that’s already been “debunked” and is issued by the evil lying Carlson.
Yes, leftists are in an absolutely apoplectic rage over the release of the trailer, which seems likely to corroborate the excellent reporting from Julie Kelly at AmericanGreatness and from Darren Beattie at RevolverNews. When one considers the dismal record of the highly politicized FBI (not only the nefarious misbehavior in Russia-gate, but general incompetence over the past two decades) as well as the recent scandal in l’affaire Whitmer, one can only conclude that it seems likelier than not that the FBI and other actors (Pelosi and the Capitol police and perhaps others) were at least partially involved in instigating a “manufactured crisis” which could serve as the pretext for declaring war on half the citizenry (“extremists” and “domestic terrorists”), along with the full power of the surveillance state and the DOJ.
Is the FBI saying there was no insurrection not enough?
There’s believing, and there’s admitting. For the left, refusing to admit what they actually know is true is considered a victory.
When you think about it, getting somebody’s wrist up between his shoulder blades to make him admit what we both know doesn’t solve an issue anyway.
In many cases, the objection, the insistence that the proffered facts are false, isn’t the issue. They’re simply not interested in changing their views. Their views are fixed for various reasons and facts are hardly an issue.
I expect to spend some time this weekend with a person who, I am certain, will insist that parents with objections to various school programs are really domestic terrorists. I anticipate a wide-eyed insistence that it is true and facts will be met with mush.
I understand your difficulty. It’s too easy for a person committed to a certain point of view to dismiss any argument coming from a “non-approved” source. I think the best argument would be to summarize the actual court documents if you can find someone to remove the legal obfuscation and relate them to the facts in a way such as:
“Man with a horned helmet accused of walking through capitol bellowing and beating his chest,” held without bail for 6 months.
Man accused of putting his feet on the Speaker’s desk,” held without bail for x months.
and so on, followed by:
“Woman tore up official government document on camera in Congress while in session,” no charges filed.
“Man filmed setting fire to a federal courthouse in Seattle,” released on own recognizance, charges dropped.
Maybe someone who reads this will be willing and able to do it.
IF you really want to counter it with them, then don’t oppose it…
what you do is accept it and then work from the premises and such…
“Yeah, the 6th was awful, i agree that everyone who used a gun should go to jail for a long time! I wonder how many… do you know? ”
While that is not that good, i am sure others could do better…
The point is not to convince them that there are no heffalumps and whoozels… but to jump on their bandwagon and lets really ride it till they figure out there are no h and w
Hitler (and Munzenberger) taught the left that reality is belief…
and belief does not have to be grounded in reality…
and perception is the doorway (thanks Huxley and your books)..
ie.. you feed information through the cable of perception to be incorporated by belief to establish reality – see popper, skinner, boas, etc. the people who laid the groundwork for this later outcome.
I would suggest some things to read, but its a waste of time (proven), otherwise, i would not now have to suggest… i could discuss with someone else that knows the information… oh wait… i presented relevant historically important stuff to read that no one did… so you and most others also suffer the same foibles of all the other humans Neo – you do the same thing you complain about but dont recognize it as such as your position has your rationalization/reason… even if the person waits for 20 literal years, you (and others) would not read one copy of many things what was pointed to!!!
¯\_(?)_/¯
Hysterical…
My experience is that any evidence that goes against the set-left-narrative will be rejected somehow. The narrative attachment is emotional and rationality, talk, figures, won’t break through. Reality in the form of bad experiences might, but only if the bad times/things can’t be blamed on political enemies.
I believe that the Biden-times will have to get worse in order to cause this kind of breakthrough for many.
re Munzenberger, the Stalinist master propagandist, here’s what he told Arthur Koestler, back when AK was still a Communist:
“Don’t argue with them, Make them stink in the nose of the world. Make people curse and abominate them, Make them shudder with horror. That, Arturo, is propaganda!”
Much of the communication of today’s “progressives” and “liberals”, and of the Democrat party in general, is informed more by Munzenberg’s approach than by normal marketing and political approaches.
The Tucker Carlson documentary promises to be of great importance.
Those who refuse to consider factual information regarding Jan. 6th will then be in effect, supporting the Left’s American Political Gulag in DC. In that support, they then become complicit in what has become a crime against humanity.
The treatment of those political prisoners violates so many Constitutional provisions, as to amount to a direct attack upon the Constitution itself, which makes that attack an act of treason.
Indirect support for treason should result in loss of citizenship because it is an attack upon the very basis of American citizenship.
I agree, geoffb. The main challenge (among many) of persuading any liberal (I don’t think leftists can be persuaded of much of anything) about the Capitol riots is that this event is very tightly anchored by many of their deeply, deeply held convictions. These include:
1. Most Trump supporters are white supremacists.
2. White supremacists are the biggest threat in America today.
3. While ill defined, ‘white supremacy’ is typically viewed as openly opposing the left’s narrative on racial matters in any way, shape or form. The race of the person is of limited importance. Thus, Larry Elder is a white supremacist, or at least a fellow traveler.
4. Trump supporters (particularly those who go to his rallies and sport MAGA hats) are incredibly highly emotional and have a strong propensity for violence. Almost all of them own an arsenal of guns and are ready and willing to use them if provoked even slightly.
5. Most Trump supporters also are QAnon followers, which is a vast, hugely influential conspiracy theory with a cult like following; it is a major existential threat to the peace and well being of the United States.
And so, of course January 6 was an insurrection; a coup attempt, the closest the federal government came to being violently overthrown since the Civil War. Challenging any of the above challenges the very core of many liberals’ convictions. They are not likely react well.
CNN is already coming out swinging by labeling Carlson’s upcoming series dangerous bullsh!t. I’ve watched several of Carlson’s interviews and stories on the subject and haven’t seen that he throws out wild conspiracy theories. What I’ve seen always has facts backing up the stories or questions:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/29/media/geraldo-rivera-tucker-carlson-fox-series/index.html
Artfldgr:
That’s a good suggestion.
However, it won’t work for me in this case because all these people know my point of view already. Plus, I’m a lousy actress.
Neo:
You do such excellent work. Wasn’t the agreement was to go with “The Democrats Glorious 6th of January.”
Which is better than “Day of Glory, January 6th”.
Maybe “Entrapment at the Capital, 6th of January Style.”
Definitely need something better than “1/6”.
“Feds lie, Ashli Babbitt dies”?
More of this, reported nationally and truthfully would go a long ways toward monkeywrenching the emotional attachments of Democrats. But like the FBI/Left axis-praxis inciting/leading the Jan. 6th events it will never be truthfully reported.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/10/29/tiki-torch-wielding-virginia-dems-caught-faking-white-supremacist-photo-op-to-smear-glenn-youngkin-n1528014
I haven’t read it yet but Hillsdale College’s newest Imprimis has a piece on J6.
A couple weeks after the printed edition comes, they put it online for everyone.
Liz Cheney is another who has already come out swinging against Tucker Carlson
Try list of those who did acts of breaking in and are not charged, jailed and not on radar of the drag net.
Many things if nationally know would be dangerous to Leftism
The pre-planning Jan 6 operation
Massive voting fraud in 5 states all syndicated and coordinated
A good start would be go back and read every Julie Kelly article
Years ago, a wise executive gave me some advice:
“Always remember, when you’re running a large organization, you’re not seeing *reality*. It’s like you’re watching a movie where you get to see maybe every thousandth frame, and from that you have to figure out what’s going on.”
This applies even more so to politics and political opinion formation. No one can directly see the reality of what’s going on in Afghanistan, at the border, in the criminal justice system, at the ports, etc….we have to construct our view of reality from the frames we do see, and in this case it’s a lot less than one out of 1000.
Which means that he who edit the film and decides on the frames to be viewed has enormous power.
The Progs are watching a very convincing highlight selection, and things that contradict it seem impossible or just plain crazy to them.
We have two local lefty columnists, Tom Burke and Syd Schwab, who characterize anything they don’t agree with as a lie. So, any conservative idea or opinion is a lie. It’s obviously a short cut, an easy out. That way you don’t have to refute the idea or opinion. Declare it as a lie, and boom, you’re done. This is the hallmark of those who are closed-minded. If Steven Pinker is right, you will not change their minds because it is a a genetic trait. If closed-minded people hear an incessant narrative of leftist ideas, especially from childhood, they will be life long leftists. It is why the left has concentrated on education and media. Propaganda works if you can drown out the other side.
In a study of open minded attitudes toward climate change by the Annenberg Center, they found that:
“The primary influence on people’s opinions on things like climate change is, ‘What are people like me saying?'” Kahan said. So, social groups seem to influence people’s ideas about controversial subjects. And people tend to form social groups with like-minded people. The open-minded, curious people will gravitate to their peers and the closed-minded with theirs. It seems nearly impossible to envision people changing their minds unless they are among the open-minded segment of humanity. Unfortunately, I haven’ t found any data that shows what percentage of humans are open- minded.
Even a reversal by the MSM and having them report unbiased facts about 1/6 would not change many minds, IMO.
Now I see Ace has up that the Tiki-Torchers were a Lincoln-Project Rick Wilson special.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/396238.php
David Foster.
The Left has been playing the same film over and over my entire life. Even at seeing only 1 frame in 10,000 I’ve seen the entire film now, completely, many times.
The January 6th argument for the right is a tough, tough argument to make, mostly because there is just no way to credibly justify the actions of the most egregious of the Trump supporters involved in the 1/6. Even if they were provoked by undercover federal agents, even if the police opened the doors and let them in, even though progressives are celebrated as heros for doing similar things, it is simply not OK to interrupt a session of Congress, especially the session most associated with the peaceful transfer of power. It is simply not OK enter the private office of the Speaker and help yourself to her laptop. It is simply not OK to drive the members from the floor and occupy the Speaker’s chair, and so on.
Whether we like it or not, January 6th was a big deal. It is without a doubt the most significant stain on the American norm of peaceful power transfers.
That said, I think neo is absolutely correct that the Democrats are spreading ugly, destructive lies about January 6th and we need to get the truth out. It does matter that the rioters did not actually kill anyone. It does matter that the rioters weren’t armed. It does matter that the DOJ engaged in abusive prosecutions of folks who weren’t rioting and probably didn’t even realize that they were trespassing. It does matter that adequate security at the capital would have prevented the whole thing. If it turns out that federal agents or leftist operatives were egging people on and encouraging them to breach the capitol, that certainly matters too.
That’s the pickle Trump puts his supporters in, though. If you say that 1/6 wasn’t a big deal or that the Trump supporters were innocent, the discussion is over and you will convince no one. Once you admit that 1/6 was really bad, but not nearly as bad as Democrats make it out to be, a significant portion of people are going to tune you out anyway because your argument will sound like partisan special pleading.
And so the left has cover to continue their lies and abuses. Trump and his supporters are the best gift the left has ever received.
People can say what they want about Tucker but I give him credit for doing a series on January 6th. I have a family member who was there and did not go into the Capital. He said people were friendly and not violent. He also noted that there were some in the crowd that looked and acted like agents. My family member is a sophisticated world traveler and has situational awareness of his surroundings. I believe what he saw.
Now we have people like Turley, Dershowitz and Greenwald, and I will add Revolver News, giving their logical and factual interpretation of what actual occurred on January 6th. As HRC would like to say; ‘It’s a nothing burger.’ I really think it has been blown out of proportion by desperate Democrats and a dishonest media. I think people that call January 6th an insurrection are uninformed. But I am polite and steer away from the topic. They will not change their mind and I do not know why they cling to the worst case scenario and appear to want that to be the truth.
Thanks for carrying on the “narrative” while pretending to be supportive, Bauxite.
Perhaps you might consider that the American norm of peaceful power transfers was egregiously stained by the overwhelming evidence of voter fraud which has been ignored by those in power, including most significantly those in Congress.
The right and ability to engage in peaceful protest of political injustice is arguably the absolute highest value that we as Americans ought to recognize and uphold.
One value that I used to think was important in this nation was that we do not use the perception of the violation of “norms” as a basis for cracking down on legitimate points of dissent and debate.
Start from that premise–not the premise that political institutions are somehow sacrosanct and any questioning of their prerogatives is a “stain” on our republic–and you might have some credibility.
As it is you are a classic example of the “concern troll.”
Bauxite:
You don’t have to prove every Trump supporter on Jan 6 was a nonviolent Quaker to prove there was no insurrection.
And Russiagate was a FAR FAR bigger stain that tried to invalidate an election and actually was a premeditated mendacious and widespread conspiracy by government officials and the press rather than a few ordinary citizens.
Nice try.
I also seem to recall that the well-documented violent protests of the peaceful transfer of power that was the Trump Inauguration somehow did not raise the hackles of those concerned about stains on the norms.
Bauxite: “Whether we like it or not, January 6th was a big deal. It is without a doubt the most significant stain on the American norm of peaceful power transfers.”
I think you stole that from Liz Cheney. Or is Bauxite Liz’s screen name?
But Neo, you are correct.
I was visiting with my 90 year old father-in-law, a man I consider a great friend and for whom I have the utmost respect (despite our political differences) on January 6.
I was of course stunned and blindsided by what I was seeing, and I immediately questioned whether there were Antifa and others involved. In any event he blamed Trump, and could hardly believe that I shared the belief that the election was illegitimate. Somehow our discussion (which sounded like an argument because he is extremely hard of hearing) came around to him questioning how I could ever support a man like Trump. I asked him whether there was any actual Trump policy that he disagreed with. He said that Trump had “completely botched Covid, and should have protected the country better.” I pointed out that in January and February, while Trump was cutting off all flights from China, the Democrats were impeaching him for exposing Joe Biden’s corruption and telling us all that Trump was a xenophobe. He said “what evidence of corruption?” I said that Joe Biden’s son Hunter was being paid $80K per month by the people who were being investigated by the Ukranian prosecutor that Biden got fired by holding up a billion dollars in aid, which Biden bragged about on video.
He had never heard of any of it. He thought what I was telling him was the product of right wing disinformation. I think he still thinks that. I don’t know.
When I get into a political discussion with someone, and they bring up something that I don’t know about that seems to support their case, I check it out–sometimes they are right and I am wrong. (often there is no “right” or “wrong” and the issue is one of interpretation, but still I try). I don’t like being wrong.
I don’t think the same impulse applies with liberals. I think that to them being “right” means being on the correct side. And being on the “wrong” side is worse than being–factually–wrong.
I have tried over and over to bridge this divide, with people I would very much like to be able to have civil, intelligent discussions. Without any real success. That is what we are up against.
The Dems know that lies stick, even after they are proven false. That is why they keep telling them even after facts proving their falsehood are openly circulating.
I want to thank Fauxite for playing along.
Feel free to get those billy goats down off the bridge
neo – I agree that Russiagate was a bigger deal than January 6th. (And, as dirty tricks go, Russiagate was a lot more successful than January 6th too.) However, the political impact of Russiagate is much less than January 6th. Unfortunately, I think that only serious news junkies even understand what Russiagate was. For better or worse (mostly worse), it wasn’t even clear whether Russiagate was a Republican or Democrat scandal until the Horowitz report more than two years later, after most of the damage was done. Maybe someday we’ll know the full extent of it, if Durham ever finishes.
January 6th, on the other hand, was viseral. The images of a gun sticking through the broken window into the floor of the House, of the mob climbing the scaffolding outside the capital and breaking windows in the capitol . . . these are the sort of things that people remember. I know now that the rioters didn’t have guns and that the gun in the iconic image was a capitol police gun, but then again I’m a news junkie (as I suspect most of your readers are also). Most Americans are not news junkies.
This is all unfortunate, but I’m afraid it’s reality. Arguing January 6th is a political loser for the right and the best thing politically is to more or less follow Condi Rice’s lead. Admit that the riot was a disgrace, call out the ridiculousness of the “insurrection” narrative, and then move on.
“This is all unfortunate, but I’m afraid it’s reality. Arguing January 6th is a political loser for the right and the best thing politically is to more or less follow Condi Rice’s lead. Admit that the riot was a disgrace, call out the ridiculousness of the “insurrection” narrative, and then move on.”-Bauxite
That’s the ticket. Look Condi Rice is a smart lady. But the calculated passivity of the Bush years are part of why we are in this current mess.
1) Let the left brazenly lie
2) Dont push back.
3) Lie back and think of America.
Letting the left and the press keep pulling this stunt over and over and never challenging it. Is rewarding them. For all of Trump’s faults. This is one thing he understood clearly. And a chunk of the reason he is so loathed by them.
The constant game of screaming Nazi and racist were allowed for so long because folk like Rice feared the push back. Now we are stuck with a group of highly radicalized imbeciles who are now in charge.
Good plan there sport. Fall back on those utterly failed policies
So Mythx, what’s your alternative? Argue that the folks climbing scaffolding, breaking windows, and stealing federal property were actually the good guys?
I know the left is completely full of it with their insurrection narrative. But in politics, if you’re explaining, you’re losing.
The lefts’s games with January 6th are bad, but this is not a hill worth dying on.
“with liberals. I think that to them being “right” means being on the correct side. And being on the “wrong” side is worse than being–factually–wrong.
I have tried over and over to bridge this divide, with people I would very much like to be able to have civil, intelligent discussions. Without any real success. That is what we are up against.” boatbuilder
“There are none so blind as they who will not see”.
In all these discussions, let’s never forget that Trump won the election. January 6 was the day that the despicable politicians in Congress were certifying this stolen election, including Republican nasties like McConnell and Pence. Most of the many thousands who went to the Trump rally on that day were there to protest the fraud. I would have been there myself if it had been feasible.
It was clear right away that antifa types were promoting violence. A Chinese woman reported that she had seen exactly the same methods in Hong Kong. Later it became clear that the FBI also acted as agents provocateurs.
Now that we’ve seen the Junta in action for 9 months, it’s worth thinking about the role of this hideous Uniparty in trying to destroy our wonderful country.
Bauxite,
“The lefts’s games with January 6th are bad, but this is not a hill worth dying on.”
Your assumption that the left will be satiated with but one American Gulag reveals a refusal to look at the consequential repercussions of allowing this historically profoundest attack upon Constitutional guarantees to stand.
Count on it, eventually they will be coming for those who think as you. Being in effect, mostly on their side will not be nearly enough to save you.
“So Mythx, what’s your alternative? Argue that the folks climbing scaffolding, breaking windows, and stealing federal property were actually the good guys?
I know the left is completely full of it with their insurrection narrative. But in politics, if you’re explaining, you’re losing.
The lefts’s games with January 6th are bad, but this is not a hill worth dying on.”-Bauxite
First off STOP JUST SITTING THERE AS THEY LIE.
I thought that would be an easy first step. Your method maintains the solid slow death by a thousand cuts we have been doing since the sixties.
Second point out their utterly selective sense of outrage.
The “insurrectionists” caused massively less damage and lasted all of 6 hours. The riots all over the country by leftists caused BILLIONS more in damage and killed many.
Also if the left were so concerned. How about finding out who planted bombs at the DNC and RNC hq’s. To me that seems a tad worse and yet we never hear a damn peep out of anyone on that. I for one would like that person behind bars. Instead keep Arizona grandma there for another 6 months.
The problem with your version of things Bauxite is that you are letting the left frame the narrative. Then are essentially arguing if the frame is straight on the wall. While grumbling in a passive aggressive manner, under your breath, about the fact that there are holes all over.
So you can either push back now. With all the voice and will you can muster. Or you can push them back later. With something considerably worse. And seeing how the left has no compunction about frame jobs (see Virginia today) or using the actual arms of the government against you. Good luck in ending this sans bloodshed a decade from now
I’m sorry to have to say this, Neo, but I think you’re wasting your time. People on the left are delusional. Their worldview is based on a steady diet of lies and propaganda from leftist teachers and professors, news media, the entertainment industry, and social media. Reality and facts are irrelevant to them. You will never convince them to question their beliefs. Reason and persuasion simply don’t work.
My own mother, who is in her late 80s, is a perfect example of this. She reads newspapers every day and watches hours of network TV news, and she believes everything they tell her. So of course she is a knee-jerk leftist Democrat voter with a Biden/Harris sticker on her Prius. At her age, she doesn’t get out much, so she is essentially out of touch with the real world. She considers herself well informed, but everything she thinks she knows is leftist propaganda and gaslighting. It is impossible to have a rational conversation with her about politics or current events, and I don’t even try. If she brings them up, I change the subject.
She is my mother and I love her. I don’t know how much longer she will be with us, and I won’t squander any of my precious time with her by attempting to counter her programming. It won’t work, and it will only make both of us unhappy. What’s the point of that? And the same goes for any of the other lefties I know. I can ruin my relationships with them with political arguments, but the chance that I will actually convince them is zero. Why bother? Life is too short to spend any of it in such a futile and frustrating way.
Zerohedge has a roundup of how traitorous to free speech and the Constitution and Rule of Law the RINOs are bing about Tucker Carlson questioning what happened on J6th.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/tucker-rips-lying-coward-liz-cheney-after-she-joins-democrat-meltdown-over-his-j6-expose
THESE ARE OUR ENEMIES WITHIN.
In re the Tiki Torchers – Ace’s post has a great photo-shop adding in the Abercrombie & Snitch crew from the J6 rally.
He relates that some people are saying that the Lincoln Project is taking the fall to protect McAuliffe’s campaign.
Maybe.
However, the Lincoln Rejects are hand-in-glove with McAuliffe.
Or perhaps, hand in pocket.
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2021/10/29/report-the-lincoln-project-has-spent-279000-boosting-terry-mcauliffes-campaign-this-cycle/
Twitchy has a collection of snark, as usual. Most is the same as at Ace’s, but here is one he missed, which buttresses his suspicion.
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2021/10/29/boom-katie-pavlich-calls-on-the-democratic-party-of-virginia-to-ask-the-fbi-to-investigate-the-people-in-the-youngkin-bus-tiki-torch-photo/
Breaking news on the Tiki Torch Brigade!
https://babylonbee.com/news/kkk-member-posing-by-glenn-younkins-buss-turns-out-to-be-ralph-northam
Re J6th. Two themes emerge in comments. First, stop wasting your time, neo. The useful idiots have adopted a hive mind, and thus are incapable of any rethink or absorbing falsifying new, sounder, facts that undermine the Fascist Left’s moral narrative of the Right’s evil.
The second line is Bauxite’s RINO-Style line that’s seductive faux realism: that historically, during our lives, been proved to both fail and hyper-power the Left’s fascism and tyrannical Will To Power.
What to do instead? Empathise with the apparent yahoo’s about the stolen election! Educate them how unbelievably extraordinary the stumbling Alzheimer’s Biden could ever win. Empathise with the outrage of Trump faction apparent on J6th, which is at least 50% of the nation.
And then go to real historical literacy test: that J6th hugely resembles The Hitler Party false flag claim that the Reichstag was burned by communist threat ending German Democratic institutions, and therefore they blamed a hapless Dutchman, in order to justify their legitimacy. The parallels run too deep to ignore. Paint out the alternate ‘reality” we see and let them poke away at it,
INVERT THEIR PERCEPTIONS and argue the supporting facts (which are numerous and mostly available here). But only after finding those sophisticated enough to entertain considering a historical analogy.
These are the fact that led Angelo Codevilla to declare in January that America is now ruled by a classic Oligarchy. (A fact that’s also easy to support.) And that the US system of broken Constitutional system overlaid with an Oligarchy that demands obedience by Authority and is fragile and historically destined to fail.
I see no point in mincing large, sweeping perceptions. Make them. Demand that THEY FALSIFY these perceptions, and the coming course of events that will flow from it.
Let THEM react later, in later months, and next year to your prognostications. At least for those who initially dismiss your statements as folly and conspiracist nonsense.
So what if they dismiss you! Good riddance. Granted, these situations hardly seem to be precisely parallel before or after. These aren’t and that’s not my point.
For example, the US has greater resilience than Germany did. But that’s especially because the federal system is not only at the Federal level (albeit broken), but on the state level as the Constitution provides. And this institutional reserve is where blowback is coming from (eg, De Santis, Florida). And for example, there are other sources of inertia (resistance to the née transformational order — the regnant Trumpists themselves).
Let the persuadable by facts, arguments, realities, come to you. Sooner or later. It’s folly in any group setting to believe you can “out” the one or few and target those alone unless you adopt suitable fact based screening tests on your targets.
(And to those who tu quoque me, I reply that I am currently testing this approach in deep Blue US. In addition, I’m beginning a digital marketing career with special interest in serving the Right — unlike Sen. McCain’s faux R, but really Democrat operative, the strategist named Schmidt, with the Lincoln Project, Bulwark, etc).
I found the recent revolver article on Jan 6 world shattering. The video in the article is shocking.
I knew the fbi was involved, but to this extent? John Sullivan was kicked out of Antifa because they thought he was an fbi infiltrator. And he shows up on Jan 6th? Hmmm..,
https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/
The Marxist D Rep. Gallego in Arizona out of the Yuma area SE Arizona goes on MSNBC to triple down on the CommieCrats projective guilt on “Violent” Pubbies, claiming a direct connection between the Tea Party organizing under Marxist President Obama through J6th events, and on through board rooms today, he claims: Gallego said, ‘The coup is ongoing. It means that the coup has moved from, you know, the rabble-rousers, those losers, those terrorists that showed up on January 6th into the political realm, which actually happens a lot if you follow terrorism.“
Here’s a full couple of segments from the interview:
“Representative Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) said Friday on MSNBC’s “All In” that the Republican Party was attempting to overthrow American democracy since the Tea Party movement in response to former President Barack Obama’s administration.
“Gallego said, ‘The coup is ongoing. It means that the coup has moved from, you know, the rabble-rousers, those losers, those terrorists that showed up on January 6th into the political realm, which actually happens a lot if you follow terrorism. They sometimes find themselves in politics, and there will be another attempt at some point. It will be in the courtrooms, it will be in the board rooms as what you are seeing with Fox News, or it will be in the voting booths where they are making it more difficult for people to vote. So it’s a scary situation for this country. The insurgency has moved on from a bunch of people wearing camo pants to a bunch of men and women wearing Brooks Brothers. It is probably more dangerous than what I saw January 6.”
The Republican Party is now under control by a fundamentally black authoritarian and illiberal faction. Gallego’s continues,nconflating race with political programme and ideological clash:
“Gallego said, ‘Correct. But this has been going on for a while, Chris. Now a lot of people are seeing it. Let’s begin. You know this goes back prior to this election. When you saw the Tea Party movement, and you were at the protests of the Tea Party, I was at the first one observing them, you saw people trying to overthrow, start overthrowing the government because they didn’t like the fact that there was a Black president. [TJ Notes: Never mind that TP support reflected US racial breakdown quite accurately. Falsifying facts matter not at all to these propagandists.] We saw the rhetoric they were using. You saw the legislation. For example, in the statehouse, they were putting in legislation to overturn the right of citizens to vote for the U.S. Senate. They wanted to have the state legislators do that from now on. This has been an existing part of the Republican Party. [TJ again: I know this was discussed, but I’m unaware it got any traction, and I was a TP follower paying close attention then.] The problem is the Republican Party and the corporate overlords always thought they could contained it. Now it’s taken over. Now Trumpism is in charge.”
“Gallego added, ‘The only real way to defend ourselves right now is for us to have a very vigorous democracy where we get out the vote and stop all attempts for them to actually disenfranchise us because the coup is ongoing. It’s not armed but now it’s armed with legal briefs, armed with different ballot initiatives to diminish peoples right votes, other legal means that, unfortunately, could have bad results, more so than what we saw on January 6th.’ ”
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/10/29/gallego-gop-has-been-attempting-to-overthrow-america-since-tea-party-movement-the-coup-is-ongoing/
THIS IS HOW the CommieCrats will keep the Big Lie of J6th going and use it to crush real and substantial election reforms at the state level.
And this refutes Bauxites claim that letting sleeping dogs lie will work with rabid mad dogs.
Expanding the point above: the automatic projection of what the Ruling Class Left is doing, disowning it, pinning guilt and deviousness on their enemies.
To me, this represents the remarkable and continued power of the press and the left to set a narrative that becomes firmly entrenched in people’s minds and is remarkably recalcitrant to change.
Bingo. That power and those narratives have prevented citizens for decades from forming informed opinions about the doings of the world, the country and just about everyone who might receive their votes to governing office.
It looked for a while as if the Internet would be a counter-force against such institutionalized bamboozlement, but now that the ‘social media’ barons have thrown their censorship in on the Left side, that hope may be fading too.
People stuff themselves on FB and Twitter one liners while watching sitcoms and take no time for the long read, which is the only way civilization will endure.
Once you admit that 1/6 was really bad, but not nearly as bad as Democrats make it out to be, a significant portion of people are going to tune you out anyway because your argument will sound like partisan special pleading.
And so the left has cover to continue their lies and abuses. Trump and his supporters are the best gift the left has ever received.
So, half the country is a benefit to the left ? We will just have to agree to disagree on that one.
The January 6th “accepted narrative” is just another example of how facile it is to have many (most?) people believe whatever those in power wish the people to believe.
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.”
And worse, having the sheeple believe a lie renders the task of manipulating and CONTROLLING their actions and thoughts a rather simple task.
Neo’s liberal friends – like almost all liberals – will not read or listen to anything contrary to their deeply held belief system because, IMHO, it threatens to reveal that their basis of belief is a fraud, a big lie.
It would force them to reveal to themselves that they were “taken to the cleaners,” manipulated and misled. They would have to admit to themselves (the hardest thing to do), that they themselves willingly and freely allowed this to happen. And the more intelligent and “thinking” the individual is, the more loathe he/she is to accept this.
So, best to stick your head in the sand and not even entertain the notion that one’s belief system is based upon a mountain of lies; yep, ignorance can be bliss.
Many great comments here. Boatbuilder @ 10:11: well said. I have had similar frustrating experiences with smart, worldly, “well-read” people who don’t want to be bothered by new facts. I think there are two ways to respond to that: dismiss them as self-deluding idiots or (as you say) check my own facts and reasoning. Because all of us fall short and it is SO embarrassing to be wrong (or should be).
But after checking and checking, and meeting the same glassy-eyed indifference from one’s interlocutor, what is to be done?
Please, please:
Publish your nearly 50 links
JohnTyler…YES! (hr: why not.)
Is the theft of Pelosi’s laptop, the breaking of windows, entering the capitol illegally, stealing documents, putting feet on Pelosi’s desk, etc. worse than the murder of Ashlii Babbit?
“And the same goes for any of the other lefties I know. I can ruin my relationships with them with political arguments, but the chance that I will actually convince them is zero. Why bother? Life is too short to spend any of it in such a futile and frustrating way.”
And this right here is the problem. One’s mother, father, etc. is one thing but this passive approach with others is just as toxic as Condi Rice, etc. letting the left and the press keep pulling their stunts over and over and never challenging them. Once they shove their politics and ideology at you, unprovoked, you have an obligation to push back. Not just for your own dignity but for others and the truth/reality as well. The repeated failure of those on the right to speak up, in context, when confronted, is what has gotten us into this absurd situation in the first place. Those of us who do speak up, again IN CONTEXT, are getting mighty tired of taking all the flak for you people.
“One’s mother, father, etc. is one thing but this passive approach with others is just as toxic as Condi Rice, etc. letting the left and the press keep pulling their stunts over and over and never challenging them. Once they shove their politics and ideology at you, unprovoked, you have an obligation to push back.”
First of all, no I don’t. I am obliged to do things that I promised or agreed to do. I have made no such commitment regarding politics. If I choose to simply disconnect completely from political discourse, then I will do so, and your approval is not required. It’s my life and my choice. I reject your assertion that I “have an obligation” to do things I never said I would do.
I will also say that attempting to use a guilt trip to manipulate people into doing what you want is a tactic I associate with the Left. Adopting it is not a good look for you. (Note: This is an example of me “pushing back.”)
Second, if people I know insist on shoving their politics and ideology at me, and they don’t stop when I politely ask them to, then I stop talking to them. Life is too short to spend any of it tolerating that kind of thing. If your political views and mine are different, we can still be friends on a “live and let live” basis, but that involves avoiding the topic of politics. If you can’t do that, then I don’t need you in my life. Goodbye.
See how easy that is? Now if you and similar conservatives…”conservatives” could just muster the courage to speak to leftists as you’ve just spoken to me, we’d all be a lot better off. It’s not that hard.
WTP:
Few of my liberal friends bring up politics with me anymore and haven’t for a very long time. The ones who do bring it up are willing to talk about it in civil fashion for the most part, and even to listen. Sometimes they end up agreeing on one point or another. But it doesn’t change their overall politics nor would I expect it to. That’s a different and longer journey.
WTP:
You assume people haven’t done it from fear of doing it. I don’t think your assumption is correct. I think a lot of people did it a lot, it did no good at all, and caused enmity. So they stopped. They saw for themselves that we were NOT “all better off” from such constant and futile confrontation.
Seconding ht
Please publish that list. I’ve been researching the topic. The more data, the better.
Thirding ht & Cap’n Rusty
Please do post the list. Perhaps pin a thread for continuing discussion of this topic…
I am having this issue with family members who are Independents (one former Republican who lives in Mass and has been indoctrinated). I argue they are misinformed – they reply back how dare I claim they are uninformed! One gets too much news from Bloomberg, the other claims they don’t follow politics yet always has the msm talking points in response to current events. It’s tiring. God help us.
WTP. Leftists are primarily emotivists. Feelings guide them. They consider these a source of knowledge (which they may be) and wisdom (which they may often not be).
Thus, your post commending out (most others posting here) on civility towards you or something is decidedly ironical.
WTP, your approval is very much appreciated. You are right in saying that “it’s not that hard” to continue doing what I’ve been doing for years. I will endeavor to “muster the courage” to make no change whatsoever in my life, just as you advised me to.
P.S. I’m not a conservative. If you need to stick a label on me, it should say “libertarian.”
Re: Democrats brainwashed…
Could it be stupidity?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian and anti-Nazi, while in prison, pondered the submission of German citizens to Nazi doctrine and decided it wasn’t malice, but stupidity which was the problem.
__________________________________
Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease.
Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed- in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental.
In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.
–Dietrich Bonhoeffer
https://southsidemessenger.com/bonhoeffer-on-stupidity-entire-quote/
__________________________________
Mark Tapscott at NRO mentioned this and linked an entertaining and educational animation of Bonhoeffer’s piece.
–“Bonhoeffer‘s Theory of Stupidity”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc
@ huxley > thanks for the link to the Sprouts School video; glad to see that it got some exposure at NRO. It should definitely be shown to high school students, and I hope some home-schoolers and teachers will do so.
“Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.”
Perhaps we could encourage them to enter into competition for the Darwin Awards.
Bonhoeffer was right, sad to say, although it’s a shame that we still conflate stupidity with intellectual acumen, as he makes clear that they are not at all the same thing. Moral stupidity is certainly not correlated with IQ, although it looks like it should be; even children and mentally handicapped people are able to learn and practice ethical behavior — to know right from wrong and act accordingly.
I guess our personal challenge is to be sure that we do not allow ourselves to choose being stupid when the opportunity presents itself.
Which doesn’t mean that we will always make the “right” choice, if that is interpreted as efficient or utilitarian or successful in the worldly mode, but it will at least be the moral one, reached by study and reflection and not by knee-jerk emotion.
Kudos to Neo and the Salon for presenting so much good argument, pro and con, on so many topics, a helpful aid for both study and reflection. Including the occasional Dueling Data Dumps.
“There’s glory for you!”
https://quotes.yourdictionary.com/author/lewis-carroll/6884
@ huxley – continuation of the conversation on Joan of Arc, because it pertains to my fascination with her story.
She was most definitely NOT Stupid, although some of her followers might have been – that is, they rallied to her for emotional, political, and social reasons, rather than truly understanding what motivated her actions (that being her obedience to divine personal inspiration and commandment).
Bonhoeffer: “Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or of a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity.”
That happens on both, or all, sides of an ideological (including religious) or partisan issue, in this case the question of who was to be the ruler of France: the Dauphin (heir), or the English king (who was supported by some factions of the French, for one reason and another).
Stupidity is not confined to the “wrong” side, but can be displayed by adherents to the “right” side as well.
(These days, we mostly judge the Dauphin’s to be the right side, but that’s because he eventually won the war, and the English king gave up his claims. We might look at it differently if the French had squandered Joan’s victories, which they nearly did.)
Bonhoeffer: “Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.”
I think the key to diagnosing a case of “stupidity” is whether or not the individual allows his partisanship to lead him into actions which are objectively evil regardless of the virtue (or not) of his faction’s objectives (hence the necessity for the Adversary to champion “subjective morality” instead).
“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” and all that.
(Citations to C. S. Lewis and “The Man for All Seasons,” and possibly some Kipling and Heinlein, omitted as an exercise for the reader.)
Citation to the scripture (Matt. 7:15–20.)
“It is interesting that this declaration by the Savior was made in response to accusations from the scribes and the Pharisees that he was performing his miracles and healings by the power of the devil.”
(Dean L. Larsen, in an LDS Conference talk)
Also interestingly, I believe that this is the real root of the charges against Joan: that her visions were not of God but of the Devil.
Wikipedia: “At Chinon and Poitiers, Joan had declared that she would provide a sign at Orléans. The lifting of the siege was interpreted by many people to be that sign, and it gained her the support of prominent clergy such as the Archbishop of Embrun and the theologian Jean Gerson, both of whom wrote supportive treatises immediately following this event.[55] To the English, the ability of this peasant girl to defeat their armies was regarded as proof that she was possessed by the Devil. The British medievalist Beverly Boyd said that this charge was not just propaganda; it was sincerely believed since the idea that God was supporting the French via Joan was distinctly unappealing to an English audience.”
Her trial was run by a pro-English faction, and it was so procedurally illegal that the verdict was set aside afterwards, and most people interpret it as being simply a political vendetta.
My reading (which includes some material omitted by Wikipedia) is that the real driver of the French clergy’s malice was that she wasn’t being properly subservient to the Catholic Church’s European monopoly on Christ. She claimed to have a direct line to heaven, without going through their official channels.
The English forces were just her opponents.
Her accusers were the ecclesiastical equivalent of the Administrative State.
Most of them were Stupid.
It took the Germans (i.e., most of them) a total, utter, horrific catastrophe for them to sober up.
And even then…not all of them were, um, persuaded…
Let’s hope there’s another way….
Maybe runaway inflation will do the trick. Maybe the government garnishing a hefty chunk of people’s savings and income….
(Wrecking blue cities, and states, into wrecks doesn’t seem to be doing the trick, at least not for most…)
But this is why “Biden”‘s incessant demonization of those who do not support the Democratic Party MUST continue—i.e, “he” MUST ensure that the Democrats (whose goals and policies are intended to “transform”, i.e., destroy, America) continually project their political opponents as the ones whose goals and policies are intended to destroy America; IOW to persuade / convince / threaten / intimidate / lie / scorn / ridicule Democratic Party opponents so as to “prove” that “Biden” is the only one capable of SAVING AMERICA from destruction.
I suspect that it is up to the individual states to hold the line, somehow.
The line of sanity.
The line of respect for law and the individual.
The defense of the country.
Which is why the governors of those states (along with their supporters) are being targeted 24/7 by “Biden” and his pals in the media/infotech.
Which raises the question: How will the public be able to discern the huge disaster (and madness) that infects the Blue states and contrast that with the normalcy and freedom—the basic sanity—of the Red states…which are in “Biden”‘s sites and which must be destroyed?
An eyeopener (actually, that might be the understatement of the century):
“The Modern Weaponization of Our National Security System is the Lasting Legacy of Barack Obama and Eric Holder”
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/10/29/the-modern-weaponization-of-national-security-system-is-the-lasting-legacy-of-barack-obama-and-eric-holder/
One MUST read the whole thing…but Key grafs (regarding “Individual states”):
“…For their own self-preservation, the Intelligence Branch has been interfering in our elections for years. The way to tear this apart begins with STATE LEVEL election reform that blocks the Legislative Branch from coordinating with the Intelligence Branch.
“The extreme federalism approach is critical and also explains why Joe Biden has instructed Attorney General Merrick Garland to use the full power of the DOJ to stop state level election reform efforts. The worry of successful state level election control is also why the Intelligence Branch now needs to support the federal takeover of elections.
“Our elections have been usurped by the Intelligence Branch. Start with honest elections and we will see just how much Democrat AND Republican corruption is dependent on manipulated election results. Start at the state level. Start there…. everything else is downstream…”
Hmmm….come back to see if there was any reply to my post but I don’t see my post. I worked hard on it. It was brilliant. Trust me. Quotes by Solzhenitsyn, reasoning that was pure as the driven slush. A masterpiece. Given the weather, probably an internet connection glitch. Sigh. Well this more crude but to the point will have to do…
Neo,
“You assume people haven’t done it from fear of doing it. ” And you assume a good bit, or a good bit of exaggeration, with that as well. People lack backbone partly out of fear but also because they lack encouragement. Especially (somewhat) harsh encouragement. My point somewhat parallels Mythx’s point regarding the GOPe above only at a individual level. People need to stand up to the leftists…again…WHEN THEY START, mmm…, STUFF. This isn’t that hard to do. Yes, I have been discouraged as well. I don’t challenge it every single time because then I can be dismissed as a one-note-Anny (or Nanny or Fanny or wtf the cliche is). However, if more people on the right would get some backbone we could avert some real bad juju that is coming down the pike. Don’t like the disharmony with your lefitst friends, your friends who had the nerve to bring it up in the first place? Well you’re really not going to like it if/when it comes to physical violence because everyone is living in their own little bubbles/silos because their ideas are never challenged. I don’t remember who I read this from but I think it was the guy who originally coined the term “meme” (with it’s original meaning of an idea working like a gene). I think it was Stephen J. Gould but I could be wrong. Like genes, ideas need to interact with each other lest the same sort of inbreeding we see in genetics create similar monsters with ideas. Which are far, far more dangerous.
As for Dr. ‘libertarian’, well I kind of assumed that but was too polite to infer it publicly. No, really. I have zero respect for the intellectual cowardice of libertarianism. It held its appeal when I was a college sophomore (ok, and a good bit later but that’s when it first bit me). The only true libertarians live on the edges of civilization or beyond it. It’s an ideology unfit for any serious basis for a functioning society and thus usually the last refuge of scoundrels.
“…backbone…”
Related: Courageous MEP mavericks say “NO” to the vaccine (and explain why)—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-meps-protest-oppressive-vaccine-passports-question-why-political-elites-push-agenda
File under: Refuseniks?
AesopFan:
I should have known you were booked on Bonhoeffer!
I like that Bonhoeffer piece and the animation because it keeps our opponents human, not evil or even inhuman as some commenters here are prone to claim.
Bonhoeffer is using stupidity in a special, social sense — not garden-variety, foolishness:
____________________________________
The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect, but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or that they allow this to happen to them. We note further that people who have isolated themselves from others or who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem.
____________________________________
Bonhoeffer sees this stupidity as a human reaction, almost a social law, in the face of rising power:
____________________________________
… it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or of a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity.
The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence, and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances.
____________________________________
Furthermore, in conversation with a “stupid” person (as AesopFan also quoted):
____________________________________
…one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil.
____________________________________
So, yes, such stupidity is dangerous and can turn to evil. Nonetheless, they are still human and this is one of the many, many traps into which humans may fall.
I would add my usual Planet of the Apes shtick. We are pack animals and the forces which bind us to the pack are close to as strong as family. This goes beyond IQ and upbringing.
AesopFan, this is more my thinking aloud than a note to you. I will return on Joan later.
@ huxley – good points about Bonhoeffer’s letter, and the pack mentality of humans (aka herd, tribe, social circle, cult — pick the most appropriate one for each group).
In re Joan: leading the pack is not the same as running with it.
Another entry on the side of the Refusers – because they are being coerced, not persuaded. Also relevant to the question of what we do when people we love won’t listen to our reasoning.
Apply to the issue of your choice.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1454071799545843714.html
Doc Zero (John Hayward) 2021-10-29
*Or, as with the EU (and the left in America as well), just keep holding more elections until you get the result you want, and then stop.
This rang a bell with the general discussion on why conservatives always lose out to leftists – we don’t like being rude, and they revel in it.
Dr. Chaotica:
Don’t know if you are still around, but you’ve got my support.
Back in 2016 some were trying to back me into a corner with A->B->C logic that the election was a binary choice, so I must support Trump.
I didn’t. I voted for Trump in 2020, but I didn’t in 2016 and I don’t regret it a bit.
Carry on.
The English forces were just her opponents.
Her accusers were the ecclesiastical equivalent of the Administrative State.
Most of them were Stupid.
AesopFan:
Quite right. I once debated Joan with a serious conservative Catholic, who wanted to go live in that SSPX community in Kansas.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/retreat-christian-soldiers/603043/
He always took the side of the RCC and wanted to lay the blame off for Joan on the British and a few mistaken clergy.
I reminded him that among Joan’s last words:
Bishop, I die through you!
She was right. It took six centuries for the RCC to admit its grievous error and canonize Joan in 1920.
Her court testimony in the show trial is heartbreakingly beautiful. A 19 year-old girl, alone and imprisoned, stands up against the best minds the Catholic Church and England can supply and she humiliated them with her grace to the point that they made the proceedings private.
Then they burned her at the stake.
My lord the wilting flowers. The simple attempt to put some backbone into a few conservatives…excuse me, “libertarians” is simply too much to bear. Precisely why we are in this situation. Cowardice at merely the suggestion of standing up to leftists, even verbally. This isn’t even why we lose, it’s the meta reason for why we lose. Pathetic.
WTP:
Ah, and here you are online, oh brave brave person, to talk some spine into these fragile flowers. How can we thank you enough?
You make assumptions that are not proven and for which you have little to no evidence, about other people’s character and especially motives, and then proceed to insult those people on the basis of your assumptions.
If you do ever actually engage in political conversation with people on the left, your persuasive powers must completely overwhelm them with your brilliance.
Personally, I think the only way to change their minds is to have THEM define the top ten key aspects of the “iNsUrReCTiOn”. Then have them provide the next ten.
At that point, you have to dismantle each point. I’m not sure what all the leftist talking points are, but suffice to say, none of them are accurate.
And again, you miss the point. It’s not about brilliance, it’s not about reason. If those legalistic approaches were viable, these issues would not be coming to a head in this manner. It’s about standing for something, yes even online but also in person. Nothing in this world comes without risk. Unfortunately it’s gotten to where we risk our friendships and (some) family relationships. Those on the left have been perfectly happy to do so, as can be seen by so many on the right whose children and friends no longer speak with them for reasons of simple disagreement. I am not advocating breaking relationships but if you are unwilling to risk that those on the left will break them, you are already caving to their game. You have let them set the rules. AGAIN, I am not advocating forcing these issues into (otherwise) polite conversation. I am saying that if THEY push it, you have a responsibility to push back. They are using bullying techniques. There is no reasoning with that. Not that you shouldn’t try reason either. But just surrendering truth, reality, and even perception to them is why they have been so incredibly successful moving that Overton Window.
WTP:
I am referring to the persuasive powers you exhibit here, which are quite short of brilliant, and have until now amounted mostly to insults. Your most recent comment is more thoughtful, however.
Again, though, you are making assumptions that are unwarranted. If people – most of whom have ALREADY argued with friends and family FOR YEARS (see? I’m shouting) to no avail, choose to forego the arguments for the sake of love and friendship – then why would you assume that those friends and family aren’t already well aware of where that person stands? My friends and family certainly are.
People have a finite amount of energy, and they choose to ration it so that they expend it where it is most likely to effect a result. Why keep shouting at those who already know exactly where you stand and have not ever changed their minds despite tons of arguing with them? Best use your energy on those who have expressed an interest by either requesting a talk with you or requesting links to articles on the right from you, and whose minds are at least open a tiny tiny bit to what you might have to say.
That has zero to do with courage.
And if you are merely saying that if someone starts “pushing it” with you, you should stand up for what you believe, most people here have already done so many times. For example, there’s a person with whom I’ve argued for many years to no avail, who likes to tweak or tease me now and then by making some politically inflammatory statement. That’s all it is, just a little goad. And I always say to him, “If you’d actually like to talk about that issue, I’m more than willing. But if you’re not prepared to argue with me about politics for real, than don’t bring it up.” He retreats, because he has no interest in actually having that discussion.
And even then…not all of them were, um, persuaded…
Neo-nazi movements have had very little purchase in Germany or Austria.
Go back and read where I said these five things. Read them out loud to yourself.
1) “Once they shove their politics and ideology at you, unprovoked”
2) “Those of us who do speak up, again IN CONTEXT”
3) “People need to stand up to the leftists…again…WHEN THEY START, mmm…, STUFF. ”
4) “I don’t challenge it every single time ”
5) “AGAIN, I am not advocating forcing these issues into (otherwise) polite conversation. I am saying that if THEY push it, you have a responsibility to push back.”
Now think about what/where you may have mischaracterized my position.
WTP:
I am pointing out that the people you are calling cowards have almost certainly done exactly what you are advocating, and for many years, and are choosing not to continue to beat their heads against that particular brick wall. We are arguing about their REACTION to other people bringing up politics, and whether they are cowardly at this point if they decide not to rise to the tired old bait.
Your assumptions and your name-calling are the problem, and that is what I’ve pointed out from the start, and that is not a mischaracterization of your position.
Not so much referring to “Neo-nazi movements [in] Germany or Austria” as those individuals, generally private rather than public, with Nazi sympathies (whether faint or more than faint…or wistful nostalgia about a movement that “had such promise” or that “started out right and gave us back our pride but somehow lost the thread”…or was somehow betrayed”(?) either by its enemies or by very, very bad luck.)
In other words, a question of “…we were so close, so close…” together with “…it’s the victors who are always “right”, who write the history, who decide what the truth is…. If we HAD won, then we would have been in the right…” etc., etc. ad nauseum.
Important to note, FWIW—none of this is new—that the Germans, generally speaking, were far more willing to take responsibility for their country’s prior decisions than were the Austrians, the latter being more inclined to see themselves as “victims” of the Nazis (or so they preferred to rationalize the Anschluss, even if documentary and other defense would shriek to differ)…and while some prominent German historians also took this route, such revisionism didn’t really catch on there. (This of course may be changing as the years go by….)
In other words, a question of “…we were so close, so close…” together with “…it’s the victors who are always “right”, who write the history, who decide what the truth is…. If we HAD won, then we would have been in the right…” etc., etc. ad nauseum.
Well they were right about that. Not that they were right in general, but it is the victor who writes the history. Fortunately (“fortune”, ha) “right”, along with some backbone, makes might. While their system was awful and would eventually collapse, they still would have lasted a good bit longer were it not for US economic might and geographical location. Were it not for the US they would have survived perhaps a few generations? Certainly longer than the Soviets did with a far more ridiculous system. And that clinking, clanking, clattering collection of caliginous idiocy lasted 70 years. But imagine a similar world without the US. The opposition would have been ground down just as those who opposed the Romans were. And were not the Romans “right”? Or better yet, on a much smaller scale, the Spartans?
As for Neo, etc….yeah, whatevs. I suspect the overreaction I’m getting here is because I’m hitting a bit close to the truth. I notice Dr. libertarian wasn’t willing to speak up for himself so, I’ll take that for what it says.
IOW, if the Nazis had won, they would have been “right”?
And you’re absolutely sure about that?
Oh, heck, why argue? Let’s compromise:
The Nazis were “right” until El Alamein, i.e., until the summer of 1942—or…if that’s not long enough let’s say they were “right” for as long as they were able to besiege Leningrad, i.e., until the beginning of 1944—and after that (July 1942 or January 1944) they were wrong, OK?
Or maybe, closer to home, the Nazis were “right” until June 1944 but from July 1944 onward they weren’t (though perhaps with a brief interlude at the Battle of the Bulge, when they were “right” again…or “almost right”)?
Agreed?
Or if even that’s not satisfactory, could we agree that they were “right” because their plan to destroy as much of the world’s Jews was successfully implemented (as far as it goes) but they weren’t “right” because they failed to finish the job?
Gosh, these compromises can get a bit tricky. Well, whatever….
Well, yes. That’s my point. I’m not saying that I think they were right at any time. But that’s just MNSHO. However insofar as the shifting history of history is concerned, they were. Until they weren’t. What makes “right” ultimately right is the commitment to the right ideas. But if those espousing the right ideas lose faith in themselves, they lose. For a time. Maybe years, maybe decades. In the case of the Dark Ages (which of course now history tells us didn’t exist…or does it?), centuries. Were it not the case history would not have quite so much tragedy. Then what would all those academics and poets do with themselves?