Archive for the ‘Progressives and Left’ Category

Sargon of Akkad gives a good backstory on what’s happened in the last week here, with a fairly complete breakdown & summary:

He points out rather adeptly that the SJWs simply use whatever Alinskyite tactics they can against people they view as cultural enemies, regardless of truth, fact, or internal consistency.  Hold the enemy to their own rules, etc.

For further backstory on PewDiePie (especially for those unfamiliar with him), another video here:

And Kraut & Tea’s take on it here:

Not only are these guys immersed in internet culture and can act as guides for those who are less l33t and can’t triforce, but they also go into greater detail and in a more effective way than a long blog post full of links.

A lot of this rejection of the MSM is still the long-term effects of Gamergate, where video games “journalist” SJWs targeted the audience they’re supposed to cater to by colluding secretly and publicly telling gamers that they were dead as an identity, and then slandering them all as racist sexist homophobe white males in their mother’s basements, yadda yadda, same SJW leftist bullshit, different day.  The effect was that legions of politically apathetic video gamers who would otherwise frequently have been David Mamet-style “brain dead liberals” got mugged and found themselves at least understanding some conservative/classic liberal perspectives – and most importantly rejecting the SJW totalitarian left.

These two particular youtubers also trace some lineage to the “rational/atheist” groups that take pride in reasoned thought, which also leads them intellectually more towards classic Enlightenment liberalism and thus also priding themselves on trying to understand different perpectives.  That degree of intellectual honesty also allows them to see what’s happened with the media and the progressive (regressive) leftist SJWs.

Both are very sharp guys, and the places that they politically diverge from an American/classic liberal/libertarian/American conservative viewpoint (which are fairly frequent) are nonetheless places where due to that rigorous intellectual honesty, they’re the kind of people you could discuss such things with.  For example, Sargon’s been on Stephen Crowder’s show, and though there are political differences, it becomes reasoned discussion with differences based on experience and viewpoints.  There’s certainly never any “SHUT UP!” of the SJW left.

The recent “Women’s March” that was basically a test activation of the protesters we’ll be seeing for the next four years and who exist only to try to undermine the West had this as one of their prominent visuals:

2017-womens-march-hijab-poster

It’s meant to be a powerful visual, but to anyone with a lick of sense, comes across only as powerfully offensive.  It takes a symbol of liberty – the US flag – and turns it into a symbol of oppression and subjugation – the hijab.

Even at absolute best the hijab is a symbol of voluntary submission to a rigid totalitarian theocratic patriarchy (oh, the irony!).  But to an objective observer looking at how the hijab exists as a garment forced on women in much of the world, that image above is wrong on a lot of levels.

Kraut and Tea covers it in harsh detail, breaking it down (also be advised there are graphic images as the video goes along – images of actual abuse of women that was not being protested during the women’s march):

The instances of Islamic murder of women as “honor killings” he discusses in the video are only in his native Germany.

But this happens everywhere in the world.  Amina and Sarah Said were murdered in the US by their own father in 2008.

amina-and-sarah-said

There’s been so much going on in the last year that rather than do a massive field day story dump with a few comments, here’s a lot of them covered rather quickly by Brit youtuber Sargon of Akkad:

While I disagree with him on some things, this covers a lot of the cultural and international cultural stuff that has happened in the last year.  He also covers so much ground here there would be a massive stack of categories & tags, so some are omitted because it’s a long vid.

I’ve been following Sargon of Akkad for a while, and his takedown of the state of the media after We the People elected Trump is good stuff and covers a lot of ground, and covers some of the media/progressive/leftist politician collusion as well:

He’s wrong on a couple things at the end (mainly a rosy view of Snowden and Manning that they don’t deserve), but one of the reasons I like the videos he produces is that I don’t always agree with him, and he tends to show his work on arguments so even if there’s disagreement, it’s reasoned disagreement.

Stephen Crowder’s rant tearing into The Young Turks for being arrogant swaggering media leftist jackasses is wonderful as well:

There are some on the right, however, who want to apologize for upsetting their Hillary-supporting friends.  Sadly, thus:

Sad only that it doesn’t go on longer.

As they cut to the CNN rep talking to the audience, she’s setting them up with lines.

May as well start with the dumbest first.  HuffPo is calling for complete disarmament of the US citizenry.

One may say that the Supreme Court, after 250 years in which the Second Amendment was read as allowing only a well-regulated militia to have guns, recently reinterpreted it to mean that there is an individualized right to own guns. This suggests that we may have to get to domestic disarmament through the back door.

Make the gun manufacturers liable for harm done with their products. Ban the sale of ammunition. And vote for a president that will add to the Supreme Court those who will read the Second Amendment as written.

Above all, domestic disarmament is a true, compelling vision which cannot be said about the small gun control measures that are currently promoted by some of the most enlightened people among us.

That’s a whole new level of smugness right there.  Also, the Second Amendment as written would guarantee access to arms by American citizens, especially weapons used in a military capacity.  It’s very clear what it says, as are the numerous state Constitutions that mirror it.

And the next stupidest, via HotAir, from Democrat Senator Chris Murphy:

Today’s gun vote wouldn’t stop recent mass shootings, admits leading proponent

Asked by guest host Jonathan Karl whether the so-called “gun show loophole” would have done anything to stop Orlando, Murphy stammered and finally responded as though he was Miss Teen Connecticut answering a pretty tough question about what his favorite color is.

MURPHY: So, it may have in the sense that if you partner together with the bill that stops terrorists from getting guns…

KARL: But wait a minute. He didn’t buy those guns at a gun show. And he would have passed the background—he did pass a background check.

MURPHY: He did pass a background check, but if the Feinstein bill was in effect, the FBI could have put him on the list of those who are prohibited from getting guns. And what if he went into the gun store and was denied? He could have just gone online or to a gun show and bought another one. *

KARL:  OK. But what I’m trying to get at is that every time there’s one of these terrible tragedies, there’s these proposals. Your proposal would have done nothing in the case of Orlando. It would have done nothing to stop the killing in San Bernardino, and in fact, was unrelated to the killing in Newtown. So why are we focusing on things that have nothing to do with the massacres that we are responding?

MURPHY: First of all, we can’t get into that trap.  I disagree. I think if this proposal had been into effect, it may have stopped this shooting. But we can’t get into the trap in which we are forced to defend the proposals simply because it didn’t stop the last tragedy. We should be making our gun laws less full of Swiss cheese holes so that future killings don’t happen.**

Couple important takeaways here.

1st, let your lefty, gun-grabbing brother-in-law see this so he can stop telling you that you are an accomplice in the murder of innocent people just because you exercise the right to self protection. And repeat it on your social media as many times as it takes: These laws will not stop bad people from doing bad things with guns. Full stop.

Yeah, that’s pretty much it.

We already know that the Orlando terrorist beat his ex-wife.  He could’ve been denied based on that, but apparently his ex-wife never bothered to call the police.  He wouldn’t have had a security job, nor been able to buy a gun legally.  Wouldn’t have happened.

Speaking of wife-beaters not allowed to own guns, from ThisAin’tHell.  Short version is a reporter went into a gun store to try to buy an evil toddler-killing black rifle and was denied.  He claimed it was because he was a reporter.  Really, it was because he slapped around his wife.

The folks at Maxon Shooter Supplies and Indoor Range, who claim to be TAH fans, send us a link to the story about them in the Chicago Sun Times, wherein the Times sent Neil Steinberg, one of their reporters, to write about his experience buying and firing an evil black, scary gun (known in journalistic circles as an assault rifle). Steinberg does the handwringing thing about guns and journalistic integrity thing during his drive to Des Plaines, Illinois to the Maxon “lemonade stand” as the owner described it to me.

Driving to Maxon Shooter’s Supplies in Des Plaines on Wednesday to purchase my first assault rifle, I admit, I was nervous. I’d never owned a gun before. And with the horror of Sunday’s Orlando massacre still echoing, even the pleasant summer day — the lush green trees, fluffy white clouds, blue sky — took on a grim aspect, the sweetness of fragile life flashing by as I headed into the Valley of Death.

Earlier, in my editor’s office, I had ticked off the reasons for me not to buy a gun: this was a journalistic stunt; done repeatedly; supporting an industry I despise. But as I tell people, I just work here, I don’t own the place. And my qualms melted as I dug into the issue.

At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? “I don’t have to tell you,” she said. …

A few hours later, Maxon sent the newspaper a lengthy statement, the key part being: “it was uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife.”

Well, didn’t see that coming.

This would be on the 4473:

4473 lautenberg

From the Maxon Facebook page;

Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. “Journalist” is not a protected class, BTW. We contacted his editor and said that, while we don’t normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here’s why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He’s free to believe or disbelieve that’s why he was denied, but that *is* why he was denied. There was no “We’ll see you in court!!!!” type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn’t really our problem, is it? Thanks for your support.

 

Via WeeklyStandard and HotAir:

The problem we have—and really, the firewall we have right now, is due process. It’s all due process. So we can all say, ‘yeah, we want the same thing,’ but how do we get there. If a person is on a terrorist watch list like the gentleman—the shooter—in Orlando, he was, twice by the FBI, we were briefed yesterday about what happened. But that man was brought in twice. They did everything they could. The FBI did everything they were supposed to do. But there was no way for them to keep him on the nix list or keep him off the gun buy list. There was no way to do that. So can’t we say that if a person is under suspicion, there should be a five year period of time that we have to see if good behavior, if this person continues the same traits? Maybe we can come to that type of an agreement. But due process is what’s killing us right now.

Haven’t committed a crime but the government wants to restrict your rights because you’re on a secret list somewhere?  No problem!  Just do away with due process.

How to get rid of the 2nd Amendment?  Easy – just get rid of the 5th Amendment first!

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

5 years of rights restriction based on being put on a watch list?  A watch list that Ted Kennedy had to fight to get off of?

How about… no.

tar and feather