When I read this article, I thought of my experiences here at Radio Paradise. It was here on the forum pages of this website that I met the most ardent defenders of political correctness and the righteousness of the left. Starting with the 2004 election, I felt angry and isolated after my interactions with people here. I have since left that phase of my life behind, but I can understand how people that are still confronting political correctness and are upset about it could support a man like Trump and what he stands for. I think that a lot of Americans are fed up. They are fed up with all of it, but particularly with people telling them how to think and how they are stupid when they don't agree with the party line. Thus, Trump is their savior: someone who is not afraid to say things that are controversial and is smart enough to give as good as he gets on the political attack front. He is the guy you wished you were when a smug uber liberal taunts you during an internet argument. He is the guy that you wish you had in your corner when when you say something out loud and are immediately triple and quadruple teamed by the PC policemen who dice you up with their long knives. I don't post many political things on Facebook anymore and have unfriended most of the RP attack dogs that follow me there to pick fights and defend the Liberal Realm, but I can see how there are a lot of people that are feeling their ideals and way of life being threatened and want a champion.
That being said, I do not condone Donald Trump's actions and words. He appeals to our darker side as a country. I won't vote for him. In fact, I fear for what will happen to our country if he gets elected. But I know that Trump did not come from a vacuum, and his success has to be attributed to a larger phenomenon than some would understand and admit. Is it too late to avoid a Trumpian fate? Hopefully not, but karma is a bitch, so we had better prepare for the backlash.
And for me, I'm going back to my listener and lurker status.
The new era of liberal political correctness — in which colleges designate "free speech zones," words like "American" and "mother" are considered discriminatory, and children are suspended from school for firing make-believe weapons — has reached critical mass. If not for the loony sensitivities foisted upon us by the left, someone like Trump would be immediately dismissed as unprofessional and unserious, an incoherent blurter. Instead, he's the equally extreme response to extreme correctness — if everything is offensive in Liberalville, then nothing will be offensive in Trumpland.
It's all absurd, of course. Trump says things that are unequivocally offensive, and regularly. But conservatives (and even comedians) have reached their limit on political correctness. And so Trump supporters will justify nearly everything he says, no matter how bizarre or unbecoming.
Remember, too, liberals taught us a valuable lesson about political correctness that many conservatives haven't forgotten: It's only offensive if you don't like the person saying it. When conservatives tried to accept the liberal rules of political correctness, pointing out Vice President Joe Biden's too-numerous-to-count slurs and gaffes, there was a collective shrug from the left.
So, if the rules are demonstrably stupid, and they only exist for the right, why play by them?
This is how Trump supporters came to be. They have taken the governor off the racecar.
When anybody you disagree with is a fascist then the word fascist just means someone you disagree with.
There are actual fascists. What will you call them? What credibility will you have left when you do?
When I read this article, I thought of my experiences here at Radio Paradise. It was here on the forum pages of this website that I met the most ardent defenders of political correctness and the righteousness of the left. Starting with the 2004 election, I felt angry and isolated after my interactions with people here. I have since left that phase of my life behind, but I can understand how people that are still confronting political correctness and are upset about it could support a man like Trump and what he stands for. I think that a lot of Americans are fed up. They are fed up with all of it, but particularly with people telling them how to think and how they are stupid when they don't agree with the party line. Thus, Trump is their savior: someone who is not afraid to say things that are controversial and is smart enough to give as good as he gets on the political attack front. He is the guy you wished you were when a smug uber liberal taunts you during an internet argument. He is the guy that you wish you had in your corner when when you say something out loud and are immediately triple and quadruple teamed by the PC policemen who dice you up with their long knives. I don't post many political things on Facebook anymore and have unfriended most of the RP attack dogs that follow me there to pick fights and defend the Liberal Realm, but I can see how there are a lot of people that are feeling their ideals and way of life being threatened and want a champion.
That being said, I do not condone Donald Trump's actions and words. He appeals to our darker side as a country. I won't vote for him. In fact, I fear for what will happen to our country if he gets elected. But I know that Trump did not come from a vacuum, and his success has to be attributed to a larger phenomenon than some would understand and admit. Is it too late to avoid a Trumpian fate? Hopefully not, but karma is a bitch, so we had better prepare for the backlash.
And for me, I'm going back to my listener and lurker status.
You're confusing me with a libertarian. I'm a pragmatist.
I'm all for keeping out dangerous criminals. That's why we have a thorough and reasonably effective screening process for refugees.
As for immigrants from Mexico, if we build the wall as Trump suggests, we will prevent the net emigration back to Mexico from the US that has been occurring, resulting in more of them being in the US than would be here if we don't build a wall. But don't worry, a lower percentage of them are criminals compared to your fellow illegal descendants of anchor babies, so keeping them on this side of the wall should benefit us with respect to crime. Indeed, we have waves of immigration that have occured to thank for lower crime rates. Only problem is, immigrants who stay often start families, and after a generation or two of pumping out "native born" illegal Americans, their descendants (being natives) would be expected to be more crimey. We could pass a law to require vasectomy as a prerequisite for citizenship, but eventually that would drive population down so much we would have even more problems with filling job openings, and would have to expand work visa programs, I imagine.
Riiiiight. If you say so.
I have a hard time understanding how not believing that there is such a thing as illegal immigration to the US in the first place does not mean embracing open borders. I used to think that I am a pragmatist first and foremost, but since someone brought the thought of being pragnostic to my attention, I'm starting to rethink some things. The religious attachments to the term prognostic don't apply to me, rather that pragmatism is dead and I have lost faith in it.
Political correctness has killed the ability to have any discussions of facts, devoid of theory and emotion, which is my interpretation of pragmatism. The case of jihad ... it is not a criminal act, it is a state of war. To treat it like a street crime is just plain insane. It may implement street crimes to achieve its ends, but to trivialize these crimes as just work place violence, prevents the understanding of its true nature.
At any rate, this can has been kicked down the road since the Amnesty deal made during Reagan's term has turned out to be nothing more than lies and broken promises. No one was talking about fixing it since then that could draw national attention to it, until Trump showed up. And by fixing it, I don't mean passing a 2,000 page omnibus legaleeze blank check for bureaucrats to make the decisions and create regulations. 10 pages should be enough, with everything spelled out in no uncertain terms. Uncertainty is the enemy of peace and resolution. IMO, the last 7 years have brought about the deliberate growth of uncertainly to instill fear and divide into our national fabric and destroy us from within by turning us against each other. Furthermore, political correctness has made the conversations necessary to fix the divide impossible to have.
If there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant, then we don't have an immigration problem.
So, I lost this really well designed reply to this post, all intellectual and everything, with references and other trappings of the intelligentia to make me look smart. So, instead, I'm gonna wing it - here goes.
Trump appeals to our baser desires as a human animal. He hits primeval brain spots, and exploits them. Not bad, not good, just that's the truth. All of us are products of our environment, intelligence, and experience, and as such, we (as a society, or race) are fallible, regardless of social standing, income, or what have you. We are all intellectually compromised, no matter what.
Anyway, I kinda like Trump, because he's not afraid of being intellectually compromised - he already knows he is, and then spouts shit that nobody in their right minds would ever utter. Trump may well be the James Dean of politics. Whatever.
I give the exact same kudos to Bernie. He's a Stoic in the face of extinction, and yet still survives. There's nothing not to like about the guy, regardless of politics, which I am pretty sure is a way overrated subject.
God Bless America
ps Hillary can go fuck herself
Popped in to backscroll and see what's been going on since my last visit. Sheeshuz.
Anyway, I basically agree with what you said. Right now the way I feel about things is that if I can't have Trump, I'll take Sanders. Either we stop this train right now or we speed it up and get to where we are presently going quicker. And what you said about Hillary ...
Truman was President when I was born. I've seen the same movie too many times. I'm too old to deal with this crap anymore. All the ethics and values that I was raised to hold near and dear are now hateful and harmful to the world I'm told. A heritage in this country that goes back 375 years, all hated and worse. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Party on, Garth ...
‘It’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion,” Hitler complained to his pet architect Albert Speer. “Why did it have to be Christianity, with its meekness and flabbiness?” Islam was a Männerreligion—a “religion of men”—and hygienic too. The “soldiers of Islam” received a warrior’s heaven, “a real earthly paradise” with “houris” and “wine flowing.” This, Hitler argued, was much more suited to the “Germanic temperament” than the “Jewish filth and priestly twaddle” of Christianity.
Bullock wrote that, "once the war was over,promised himself, he would root out and destroy the influence of the Christian Churches".Phayer wrote that "By the latter part of the decade of the thirties church officials were well aware that the ultimate aim of Hitler and other Nazis was the total elimination of Catholicism and of the Christian religion. Since the overwhelming majority of Germans were either Catholic or Protestant this goal had to be a long-term rather than a short-term Nazi objective." According to Shirer, "under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler—backed by Hitler—the Nazi regime intended to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists".
It would probably end up being a full-time job to check all your nonsense.
It is well-known that the Nazis initially appealed to Christianity (I called it "opportunistically" below while pointing out that +90% of Germans were Christians) and gave their own twist to it. The regime changed its tune over its course. However it is a far cry from being driven by Muslim beliefs, regardless of how much you'd like to believe and misrepresent it.
Instead, as you point out with the second quote, it relied somewhat on pagan mystical views as part of glorifying Germany's heroic past to promote their new 1000 year Reich (Empire).
If I asked you to describe Donald Trump’s supporters in one word, you might say angry. As I have taught you in the Master Persuader series, if most people have the same explanation for a thing, they’re probably right.
Now suppose I asked you for one word to describe what the opponents of Donald Trump dislike about him the most. This time your answers are all over the map. Some say he’s a fascist. Some say he’s xenophobic. Or racist. Some say he’s only in it for the money, or the ego. Some say he’s a narcissist. Others believe he is secretly working with the Clinton campaign to guarantee Hillary’s victory. Some say he is just bitter, or stupid. Some expect him to announce it was all a joke and quit.
That’s a lot of reasons. But I submit to you that all of those reasons – as varied as they seem – have one thing in common. And that one thing can be embodied in one word.
‘It’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion,” Hitler complained to his pet architect Albert Speer. “Why did it have to be Christianity, with its meekness and flabbiness?” Islam was a Männerreligion—a “religion of men”—and hygienic too. The “soldiers of Islam” received a warrior’s heaven, “a real earthly paradise” with “houris” and “wine flowing.” This, Hitler argued, was much more suited to the “Germanic temperament” than the “Jewish filth and priestly twaddle” of Christianity.
Bullock wrote that, "once the war was over,promised himself, he would root out and destroy the influence of the Christian Churches".Phayer wrote that "By the latter part of the decade of the thirties church officials were well aware that the ultimate aim of Hitler and other Nazis was the total elimination of Catholicism and of the Christian religion. Since the overwhelming majority of Germans were either Catholic or Protestant this goal had to be a long-term rather than a short-term Nazi objective." According to Shirer, "under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler—backed by Hitler—the Nazi regime intended to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists".
Look at this warning on Wikipedia for Hitlers views on Islam. Even they admit the rot.
This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.(November 2015)
If you could understand how Wikipedia works, you'd know that anyone can add such a disclaimer/note while backing it up on the talk page. It does not mean "Wikipedia" admits to anything. You are however welcome to set the record straight by providing sources that enhance your argument. Alternatively, you could simply rely on such reputable sources as Breitbart or maybe Conservapedia.
So many arguments and so many twistings of the truth.
Look at this warning on Wikipedia for Hitlers views on Islam. Even they admit the rot.
This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.(November 2015)
Wikipedia is SJW controlled unfortunately and many sections are completely unreliable.
I think I'd rather trust Wikipedia or primary sources than your unsourced/mendacious memes: "Therefore, I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator: By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."
or alternatively: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"
It's pretty obvious we're in Breitbart territory when we hear about SJWs (and libtards, etc.)
Wikipedia is SJW controlled unfortunately and many sections are completely unreliable.
Unfortunately, American gun control proponents like quoting Professor Harcourt out of context in order to feed their argument. If you read the full context of Harcourt’s report, it is clear the Nazis’ gun control laws were used to oppress the Jewish people.
“If you read the 1938 Nazi gun laws closely and compare them to earlier 1928 Weimar gun legislation – as a straightforward exercise of statutory interpretation – several conclusions become clear. First, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. Third, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms.”
Some sites will quote Hitler as saying, “To conquer a nation, you must first disarm its citizens.” While Hitler apparently never said this quote, what he actually did say was far worse.
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police.”
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/2686274/obama-crying-during-speech-compared-to-adolf-hitler-fake-tears-nazis-gun-control-laws-video/#rPMF3vo4eYfmX8cl.99
Accusations of racism, misogyny etc.. are a silencing tactic used to avoid debating issues. It's been overused and doesn't work any more.
Also here's two uncomfortable truths about Hitler seeing as you are bringing him up.
1. He used gun control, starting with a very teary emotional speech, to disarm the German populace before taking absolute control.
2. He LOVED Islam saying it was the only religion he respected. He said he was fighting for Allah. Makes sense really considering just how much he hated Jews.
The media are suggesting those dancing girls at Trump's rally are little Nazi's. link
2. Hitler was a Catholic, and talked (opportunistically) of God (and "The Lord") in his infamous manifesto to a very receptive audience. Germany at the time was a country of +90% Christians. Anti-semitism was rife at the time (and had been for centuries) and by plenty of people incl. Christians (both Protestants and Catholics) and not just in Europe either. 'Allah' is just the Arabic word for God, however it was not 'Allah' that was on the Army's belt buckles.
Hitler's anti-semitism was linked first and foremost to the loss/defeat of WW I. He blamed the Communists (and their "Jew-inspired" (see Marx) ideology).
The new era of liberal political correctness — in which colleges designate "free speech zones," words like "American" and "mother" are considered discriminatory, and children are suspended from school for firing make-believe weapons — has reached critical mass. If not for the loony sensitivities foisted upon us by the left, someone like Trump would be immediately dismissed as unprofessional and unserious, an incoherent blurter. Instead, he's the equally extreme response to extreme correctness — if everything is offensive in Liberalville, then nothing will be offensive in Trumpland.
It's all absurd, of course. Trump says things that are unequivocally offensive, and regularly. But conservatives (and even comedians) have reached their limit on political correctness. And so Trump supporters will justify nearly everything he says, no matter how bizarre or unbecoming.
Remember, too, liberals taught us a valuable lesson about political correctness that many conservatives haven't forgotten: It's only offensive if you don't like the person saying it. When conservatives tried to accept the liberal rules of political correctness, pointing out Vice President Joe Biden's too-numerous-to-count slurs and gaffes, there was a collective shrug from the left.
So, if the rules are demonstrably stupid, and they only exist for the right, why play by them?
This is how Trump supporters came to be. They have taken the governor off the racecar.
When anybody you disagree with is a fascist then the word fascist just means someone you disagree with.
There are actual fascists. What will you call them? What credibility will you have left when you do?
Accusations of racism, misogyny etc.. are a silencing tactic used to avoid debating issues. It's been overused and doesn't work any more.
Also here's two uncomfortable truths about Hitler seeing as you are bringing him up.
1. He used gun control, starting with a very teary emotional speech, to disarm the German populace before taking absolute control.
2. He LOVED Islam saying it was the only religion he respected. He said he was fighting for Allah. Makes sense really considering just how much he hated Jews.
The media are suggesting those dancing girls at Trump's rally are little Nazi's. link
