Today in Fascism
- Thread starter Hüsker Dü
- Start date
Hüsker Dü
DA
You may want to check your source there.Timely, thanks.
Cori Bush Melts Down on Stage After Primary Loss: 'AIPAC, I'm Coming To Tear Your Kingdom Down'
Less than two days after the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's headquarters was vandalized, Rep. Cori Bush (D., Mo.) promised to tear down the Jewish group—a remark that caps off a failed primary campaign that began with an accusation she was "fanning the flames of antisemitism."freebeacon.com
"AIPAC, I'm coming to tear your kingdom down."
This only 2 days after AIPAC's headquarters were vandalized with "F$%K Israel" hate graffiti.
If I were you, I'd find another liberal hill to die on.
And “I’m coming to tear your kingdom down” comes from an old spiritual song.
You are trying to link her with vandalism?
Here, this shows a more realistic view.
Cori Bush threatens AIPAC during concession speech | The Jerusalem Post
Bush's resentful concession speech toward AIPAC was fuelled by their nearly $9 million dollar donation to her rival's campaign.
www.jpost.com
And once again being critical of the Israeli government doesn’t equate to “anti-semitism”
Hüsker Dü
DA
Coastal elitist confused and incoherent
Fox News host Laura Ingrahamcommitted an unforced error regarding midwest geography on Wednesday night’s The Ingraham Angle, and one which may not go over well with prideful residents of Minnesota and Wisconsin. During a discussion that was critical of the “radical policies” of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Ingraham implied that Milwaukee was in the border state of Minnesota. Not only that, but she did so right after claiming to be well acquainted with Walz’s home state. “If you know Minnesota well, and I know it well—especially Milwaukee—it’s changed,” Ingraham told her guest, The Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway. “It has never recovered from 2020, and it’s not the same place.” Milwaukee was the site of last month’s Republican National Convention, from where Ingraham broadcasted her nightly show.
Fox News host Laura Ingrahamcommitted an unforced error regarding midwest geography on Wednesday night’s The Ingraham Angle, and one which may not go over well with prideful residents of Minnesota and Wisconsin. During a discussion that was critical of the “radical policies” of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Ingraham implied that Milwaukee was in the border state of Minnesota. Not only that, but she did so right after claiming to be well acquainted with Walz’s home state. “If you know Minnesota well, and I know it well—especially Milwaukee—it’s changed,” Ingraham told her guest, The Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway. “It has never recovered from 2020, and it’s not the same place.” Milwaukee was the site of last month’s Republican National Convention, from where Ingraham broadcasted her nightly show.
F150s are racist. We should eliminate them and, instead, replace them with a tampon dispenser in every Redneck's garage.
Hey, Puppet, what is that line of Subarus doing to the air quality in Cheeseland?
Yes, coward, she can be linked with vandalism. Remember when she told the BLM to never stop? Or do you think they were out refurbishing communities?You may want to check your source there.
And “I’m coming to tear your kingdom down” comes from an old spiritual song.
You are trying to link her with vandalism?
Here, this shows a more realistic view.
Cori Bush threatens AIPAC during concession speech | The Jerusalem Post
Bush's resentful concession speech toward AIPAC was fuelled by their nearly $9 million dollar donation to her rival's campaign.
And once again being critical of the Israeli government doesn’t equate to “anti-semitism”
Hüsker Dü
DA
Projecting will get everywhere with you likeminded trolls. So cute and clever you are, continue.
Heels Up Harris, on national news, told Lester Holt she'd been to the border. 5 seconds later, she admitted she hadn't.
I'd rather be confused and incoherent (like Biden) than a bold faced liar. Oh wait... JoeTato was both!
"continue". Isn't that what your other profile always says, Yoda?
Trump say's to follow your heart when it comes to abortion and how many weeks is too many. Harris/Walz will allow you to kill your child up to 9 months and maybe even after birth depending on the State. Coach Walz a swell fella. He even puts tampons in boy's bathroom so some of the boys can play girl.
Dr. Ben Carson and many other Docs have said some abortion centers are selling baby parts, tissues and organs in many States.
Dr. Ben Carson and many other Docs have said some abortion centers are selling baby parts, tissues and organs in many States.
PURE EVIL: Newly Released Undercover Video Exposes Planned Parenthood Employees Joking and Laughing While Allegedly Admitting to Selling Aborted Baby Organs and Dismembered Parts.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
What has happened to "the left"? Such a sad fall from what they were to authoritarian, anti-democratic, anti-privacy, and anti-freedom. Victimhood and Power is a hell of a drug. They are a deranged version of what they used to be. Shellenberger with the diagnosis.
---
They Create Anarchy To Impose Tyranny
Elites including Tim Walz are attacking free speech and personal freedom while encouraging more illegal migration and allowing more crime
MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER
AUG 7
For hundreds of years, liberals have been fierce opponents of authoritarianism. It has traditionally been liberals, not conservatives, who fought against restrictions on free speech, defended the right to privacy from the government, and fought abuses of power by government agencies. In contrast, conservatives have placed a higher value on maintaining social order and upholding traditional moral hierarchies.
But increasingly, it’s been liberal politicians who have demanded authoritarian restrictions on free speech and personal freedom. In December 2022, Democratic Vice Presidential candidate and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz claimed, “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the First Amendment protects both. And in 2020, Walz also implemented a Covid snitch line and encouraged residents to report violations of pandemic restrictions.
It turns out he wasn’t alone. The Civil Rights Department of California Governor Gavin Newsom introduced last year a snitch line and urged citizens to report their fellow citizens for alleged hate speech. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has called for greater censorship of social media platforms, and British police have over the last few days arrested three people for what they posted online. And Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has demanded greater online censorship, froze bank accounts of protesting truckers, and is pushing legislation that could send a person to prison for life for speech.
Each of those men would defend such measures as required for public safety. They would argue that misinformation and hate speech online lead to real-world violence like the riots we have seen in Britain. COVID-19 transmission threatened public health. And something had to be done to peacefully end the trucker protest.
But none of those measures was required because there were other ways to deal with those problems. It is a gross simplification to attribute Britain’s recent riots to online misinformation and the best antidote to misinformation remains good information, not censorship. There was never any reason to think that people outside not wearing masks were a sufficient threat to public health to justify a snitch line reminiscent of Communist totalitarianism, violating both privacy and personal liberty. And, the government had other ways to end the trucker protest and indeed used them, making the bank freezing a gratuitous and authoritarian overreach.
What’s more, the authoritarian measures imposed by these leaders were highly selective in nature. None of the four politicians named demanded censorship of the misinformation and hate speech that spread after the killing of George Floyd, which one could argue contributed to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) riots as much if not more than the ones over the last week in Britain. Nor have the politicians called for censorship to halt the sharp increase of illegal migration. And all of the politicians have adopted a different standard of policing of protests by BLM and other left-wing causes than for anti-immigration, Freedom Convoy truckers, and right-wing ones, which some have called “two-tier” policing.
In the case of gender, liberal politicians have pursued anarchy for medical professionals and tyranny for anyone who stands in the way of so-called “gender-affirming care.” On the one hand, liberal politicians like Walz and Newsom have championed the right of medical professionals to block puberty, prescribe cross-sex hormones, and perform surgeries. On the other, they have increasingly taken over from parents the right to decide what happens to their children.
As such, liberal politicians like Walz, Newsom, Trudeau, and Starmer are simultaneously creating greater authoritarianism and greater anarchy. This is in stark contrast to liberals in the past who fought authoritarianism and demanded greater free speech, personal freedom, and privacy. What exactly happened? How did liberals become advocates of anarcho-tyranny?
<cont>
---
They Create Anarchy To Impose Tyranny
Elites including Tim Walz are attacking free speech and personal freedom while encouraging more illegal migration and allowing more crime
MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER
AUG 7
For hundreds of years, liberals have been fierce opponents of authoritarianism. It has traditionally been liberals, not conservatives, who fought against restrictions on free speech, defended the right to privacy from the government, and fought abuses of power by government agencies. In contrast, conservatives have placed a higher value on maintaining social order and upholding traditional moral hierarchies.
But increasingly, it’s been liberal politicians who have demanded authoritarian restrictions on free speech and personal freedom. In December 2022, Democratic Vice Presidential candidate and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz claimed, “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the First Amendment protects both. And in 2020, Walz also implemented a Covid snitch line and encouraged residents to report violations of pandemic restrictions.
It turns out he wasn’t alone. The Civil Rights Department of California Governor Gavin Newsom introduced last year a snitch line and urged citizens to report their fellow citizens for alleged hate speech. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has called for greater censorship of social media platforms, and British police have over the last few days arrested three people for what they posted online. And Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has demanded greater online censorship, froze bank accounts of protesting truckers, and is pushing legislation that could send a person to prison for life for speech.
Each of those men would defend such measures as required for public safety. They would argue that misinformation and hate speech online lead to real-world violence like the riots we have seen in Britain. COVID-19 transmission threatened public health. And something had to be done to peacefully end the trucker protest.
But none of those measures was required because there were other ways to deal with those problems. It is a gross simplification to attribute Britain’s recent riots to online misinformation and the best antidote to misinformation remains good information, not censorship. There was never any reason to think that people outside not wearing masks were a sufficient threat to public health to justify a snitch line reminiscent of Communist totalitarianism, violating both privacy and personal liberty. And, the government had other ways to end the trucker protest and indeed used them, making the bank freezing a gratuitous and authoritarian overreach.
What’s more, the authoritarian measures imposed by these leaders were highly selective in nature. None of the four politicians named demanded censorship of the misinformation and hate speech that spread after the killing of George Floyd, which one could argue contributed to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) riots as much if not more than the ones over the last week in Britain. Nor have the politicians called for censorship to halt the sharp increase of illegal migration. And all of the politicians have adopted a different standard of policing of protests by BLM and other left-wing causes than for anti-immigration, Freedom Convoy truckers, and right-wing ones, which some have called “two-tier” policing.
In the case of gender, liberal politicians have pursued anarchy for medical professionals and tyranny for anyone who stands in the way of so-called “gender-affirming care.” On the one hand, liberal politicians like Walz and Newsom have championed the right of medical professionals to block puberty, prescribe cross-sex hormones, and perform surgeries. On the other, they have increasingly taken over from parents the right to decide what happens to their children.
As such, liberal politicians like Walz, Newsom, Trudeau, and Starmer are simultaneously creating greater authoritarianism and greater anarchy. This is in stark contrast to liberals in the past who fought authoritarianism and demanded greater free speech, personal freedom, and privacy. What exactly happened? How did liberals become advocates of anarcho-tyranny?
<cont>
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
<p. 2>
Anarcho-Tyranny
In 1993, the governor of North Carolina made a big show out of enforcing a new seat belt law while he was, at the same time, releasing convicted criminals from prison who had committed a far more serious crime. This combination of government overreach and leniency created “anarcho-tyranny,” according conservative intellectual Sam Francis, which he described in 1994 as “a kind of Hegelian synthesis of what appear to be dialectical opposites: the combination of oppressive government power against the innocent and the law-abiding and, simultaneously, a grotesque paralysis of the ability or the will to use that power to carry out basic public duties such as protection or public safety.”
Francis goes on in his essay, titled “Anarcho-Tyranny, USA,” to conclude that the solution to lawlessness is for more citizens to buy handguns and take the law into their own hands, and in later writings, Francis embraces racialism. We believe more police, greater deterrence, and incentives are the main solutions to crime and disorder, not private gun ownership. And we reject Francis’ racism unreservedly.
But Francis’ concept of “anarcho-tyranny” depends neither on vigilantism nor racism. It describes well the policies and measures of Democrats and other liberal leaders across the Western world. Indeed, it does so more today than it did 30 years ago when Chronicles magazine first published it.
Consider this passage by Francis: “And, it is characteristic of anarcho-tyranny that it not only fails to punish criminals and enforce legitimate order but also criminalizes the innocent. At the same time, the governor of North Carolina grotesquely fails to uphold his famous oath to protect the citizens of his state by keeping convicted felons in prison, he has no problem finding the time to organize a massive waste of his time and the taxpayers’ money to hound and humiliate a perfectly innocent citizen for the infraction of a trivial traffic law.”
What Francis did not get at was how much of anarcho-tyranny is driven by victimhood ideology. The reason Starmer wants to crack down on anti-immigrant rioters but not migrant rioters is because the latter are oppressed and the former oppressors. The same goes for why Walz refused to call out the National Guard on Black Lives Matter: black Americans are victims of historic oppression and thus stopping the riot would continue the oppression. And the same goes for why Newsom allowed violent crime to rise to levels 31% higher than the rest of the United States, and for homelessness to rise 40% since he took office: the people on the street are victims and so, to them, everything should be given and nothing required.
In the case of Covid, victimhood ideology played out as expected. The vaccinated, locked-down, and masked social distancers were the heroes seeking to save historically oppressed victims, while the unvaccinated, unmasked, and unlocked-down were the villains. It was heroic for people to narc out their neighbors on snitch lines and for President Joe Biden and his staff to demand greater social media censorship since, they believed, they were saving lives of the most vulnerable.
The professional-managerial class and the administrative and therapeutic state are overseeing the anarchic and tyrannical transition to Wokeism. Instead of policing the streets, governments are policing the Internet. Where there once were police, there are now social workers. Where people were once arrested for illegal camping and open drug use, they are today revived when they overdose, are given drug paraphernalia, and are increasingly supplied with the drugs to use. When there are no consequences for self-destructive behavior, a lot of medical care is required. Where the state once respected the right of parents to raise their own children, the administrative state is seeking increasing control. And when “hate” is identified as the “root cause” of “real-world harm,” there’s a lot of censoring to do.
Anarcho-tyranny can be thought of as the strategy for liberal politicians to impose Woke ideology on social institutions, from the universities and news media to the criminal justice and health care systems. Woke ideology is the inversion of the liberal Enlightenment ideology that has governed Western civilization for centuries. Instead of equal justice for all, the Woke are seeking a two-tiered system, one for the historically oppressed (e.g. non-whites, criminals) and the other for historical oppressors (e.g. whites, the police). Where Western elites in the past delivered greater public order and greater private liberty, the Woke are delivering greater public disorder, tyranny for those designated oppressors, and greater personal freedom for those designated oppressed.
In the end, the anarchy and chaos help justify the authoritarianism the illiberal Woke liberals seek. The politicians aren’t consciously creating chaos, much less plotting for how they will use it to impose ever-more draconian demands on society in general and historical oppressors in particular. Rather, the authoritarian uses of the chaos are natural extensions of their ideology, which they hold unquestioningly.
If black people or migrants are rioting, it’s the fault of society for being too oppressive, in the view of the Woke. As Walz said, “They told us last year. ‘Change cash bail.’ ‘Change how you do traffic stops.’ It didn't happen and look what we got.” The solution for the Woke is not to send in the National Guard or crack down on crime but rather to create snitch lines and blacklists, censor hate speech, and send police to arrest people for what they wrote on Facebook.
Liberals, Democrats, and progressives are rapidly replacing the old standard of equal justice under the law with the new Woke hierarchy of the oppressed, by which the more moral, higher status, and more powerful members of society are the ones who share the race, sex, and sexuality of the historically most oppressed members. Wokeism is inverting the ethical, spiritual, and symbolic system that is the foundation of Western civilization. There is no single law that we are equal under. There should be different rules for different people based on the racial and sexual moral hierarchy of Wokeism.
Wokeism that is driving the demand by elites for anarcho-tyranny rose from the nihilism created by the decline of religion. Without an ultimate basis for deciding what is right and wrong, good or evil, elites turned to hedonism, including through power-seeking and a highly simplified form of altruism, or compassion for the vulnerable, which is itself a way of wielding power. The heavy emphasis on compassion and caring in Christianity was tempered by an Old Testament commitment to equal justice under the law. Compassion unbound by Christian or Enlightenment morality became Wokeism, a morality that inverted historical power dynamics. And, in contrast to Christianity and Enlightenment liberalism, it denies rather than affirms individual human agency and responsibility.
Why did liberals become advocates of anarcho-tyranny? In part, their secularism and nihilism led them to embrace a highly simplistic inversion of Enlightenment values, including equal justice before the law, and impose it on society. Another reason was the growing power of the administrative state, which has sought to expand its influence over more domains of life, from the family to social media platforms.
Political Contradictions of Anarcho-Tyranny
The seeds and spouts of anarcho-tyranny were visible in the post war era through to Francis’s essay in 1994. But it took illiberal Wokeism’s conquering of liberalism and its implementation by Democratic politicians over the last ten years for it to bloom. Defenders of civilization have, over the last 50 years, achieved many remarkable victories, often by running against liberals on questions of law and order. But there’s no question that the trends in the 30 years since Francis’ essay have been toward greater anarcho-tyranny, not less. And if the drivers of it are indeed secularization and the rise of the administrative state, then we might see more, not less, anarcho-tyranny in the future.
The wild card remains politics and pragmatism. Most people like law and order, and personal liberty, at least for themselves. When forced to think about it, or compromise politically, many if not most on the Left embrace law and order and personal freedom for all. Violent crime is unpopular, and both Newsom and other Democratic politicians are at this moment in California cracking down on homeless encampments in order to protect their political dominance. Starmer is cracking down on riots. From a practical perspective, anarchy and chaos are unpopular. As such, left-wing politicians, including Walz, his running mate Kamala Harris, Newsom, Trudeau, Starmer, and their allies, are all vulnerable so long as the chaos continues.
Liberal support for authoritarian measures and policies and its defense of lawlessness for people designated victims and their descendants will either change or face defeat politically. Liberals can return to their historical opposition to authoritarianism or cede the issue to conservatives. Conservatives, who have traditionally placed a higher value on maintaining social order and upholding established hierarchies, may find an opportunity to pick up liberals and libertarians alienated by illiberal Wokeism. If antagonism between Left-Right goes from being liberal-conservative to illiberal-liberal one, the seemingly linear trend toward anarcho-tyranny could still reverse itself.
Anarcho-Tyranny
In 1993, the governor of North Carolina made a big show out of enforcing a new seat belt law while he was, at the same time, releasing convicted criminals from prison who had committed a far more serious crime. This combination of government overreach and leniency created “anarcho-tyranny,” according conservative intellectual Sam Francis, which he described in 1994 as “a kind of Hegelian synthesis of what appear to be dialectical opposites: the combination of oppressive government power against the innocent and the law-abiding and, simultaneously, a grotesque paralysis of the ability or the will to use that power to carry out basic public duties such as protection or public safety.”
Francis goes on in his essay, titled “Anarcho-Tyranny, USA,” to conclude that the solution to lawlessness is for more citizens to buy handguns and take the law into their own hands, and in later writings, Francis embraces racialism. We believe more police, greater deterrence, and incentives are the main solutions to crime and disorder, not private gun ownership. And we reject Francis’ racism unreservedly.
But Francis’ concept of “anarcho-tyranny” depends neither on vigilantism nor racism. It describes well the policies and measures of Democrats and other liberal leaders across the Western world. Indeed, it does so more today than it did 30 years ago when Chronicles magazine first published it.
Consider this passage by Francis: “And, it is characteristic of anarcho-tyranny that it not only fails to punish criminals and enforce legitimate order but also criminalizes the innocent. At the same time, the governor of North Carolina grotesquely fails to uphold his famous oath to protect the citizens of his state by keeping convicted felons in prison, he has no problem finding the time to organize a massive waste of his time and the taxpayers’ money to hound and humiliate a perfectly innocent citizen for the infraction of a trivial traffic law.”
What Francis did not get at was how much of anarcho-tyranny is driven by victimhood ideology. The reason Starmer wants to crack down on anti-immigrant rioters but not migrant rioters is because the latter are oppressed and the former oppressors. The same goes for why Walz refused to call out the National Guard on Black Lives Matter: black Americans are victims of historic oppression and thus stopping the riot would continue the oppression. And the same goes for why Newsom allowed violent crime to rise to levels 31% higher than the rest of the United States, and for homelessness to rise 40% since he took office: the people on the street are victims and so, to them, everything should be given and nothing required.
In the case of Covid, victimhood ideology played out as expected. The vaccinated, locked-down, and masked social distancers were the heroes seeking to save historically oppressed victims, while the unvaccinated, unmasked, and unlocked-down were the villains. It was heroic for people to narc out their neighbors on snitch lines and for President Joe Biden and his staff to demand greater social media censorship since, they believed, they were saving lives of the most vulnerable.
The professional-managerial class and the administrative and therapeutic state are overseeing the anarchic and tyrannical transition to Wokeism. Instead of policing the streets, governments are policing the Internet. Where there once were police, there are now social workers. Where people were once arrested for illegal camping and open drug use, they are today revived when they overdose, are given drug paraphernalia, and are increasingly supplied with the drugs to use. When there are no consequences for self-destructive behavior, a lot of medical care is required. Where the state once respected the right of parents to raise their own children, the administrative state is seeking increasing control. And when “hate” is identified as the “root cause” of “real-world harm,” there’s a lot of censoring to do.
Anarcho-tyranny can be thought of as the strategy for liberal politicians to impose Woke ideology on social institutions, from the universities and news media to the criminal justice and health care systems. Woke ideology is the inversion of the liberal Enlightenment ideology that has governed Western civilization for centuries. Instead of equal justice for all, the Woke are seeking a two-tiered system, one for the historically oppressed (e.g. non-whites, criminals) and the other for historical oppressors (e.g. whites, the police). Where Western elites in the past delivered greater public order and greater private liberty, the Woke are delivering greater public disorder, tyranny for those designated oppressors, and greater personal freedom for those designated oppressed.
In the end, the anarchy and chaos help justify the authoritarianism the illiberal Woke liberals seek. The politicians aren’t consciously creating chaos, much less plotting for how they will use it to impose ever-more draconian demands on society in general and historical oppressors in particular. Rather, the authoritarian uses of the chaos are natural extensions of their ideology, which they hold unquestioningly.
If black people or migrants are rioting, it’s the fault of society for being too oppressive, in the view of the Woke. As Walz said, “They told us last year. ‘Change cash bail.’ ‘Change how you do traffic stops.’ It didn't happen and look what we got.” The solution for the Woke is not to send in the National Guard or crack down on crime but rather to create snitch lines and blacklists, censor hate speech, and send police to arrest people for what they wrote on Facebook.
Liberals, Democrats, and progressives are rapidly replacing the old standard of equal justice under the law with the new Woke hierarchy of the oppressed, by which the more moral, higher status, and more powerful members of society are the ones who share the race, sex, and sexuality of the historically most oppressed members. Wokeism is inverting the ethical, spiritual, and symbolic system that is the foundation of Western civilization. There is no single law that we are equal under. There should be different rules for different people based on the racial and sexual moral hierarchy of Wokeism.
Wokeism that is driving the demand by elites for anarcho-tyranny rose from the nihilism created by the decline of religion. Without an ultimate basis for deciding what is right and wrong, good or evil, elites turned to hedonism, including through power-seeking and a highly simplified form of altruism, or compassion for the vulnerable, which is itself a way of wielding power. The heavy emphasis on compassion and caring in Christianity was tempered by an Old Testament commitment to equal justice under the law. Compassion unbound by Christian or Enlightenment morality became Wokeism, a morality that inverted historical power dynamics. And, in contrast to Christianity and Enlightenment liberalism, it denies rather than affirms individual human agency and responsibility.
Why did liberals become advocates of anarcho-tyranny? In part, their secularism and nihilism led them to embrace a highly simplistic inversion of Enlightenment values, including equal justice before the law, and impose it on society. Another reason was the growing power of the administrative state, which has sought to expand its influence over more domains of life, from the family to social media platforms.
Political Contradictions of Anarcho-Tyranny
The seeds and spouts of anarcho-tyranny were visible in the post war era through to Francis’s essay in 1994. But it took illiberal Wokeism’s conquering of liberalism and its implementation by Democratic politicians over the last ten years for it to bloom. Defenders of civilization have, over the last 50 years, achieved many remarkable victories, often by running against liberals on questions of law and order. But there’s no question that the trends in the 30 years since Francis’ essay have been toward greater anarcho-tyranny, not less. And if the drivers of it are indeed secularization and the rise of the administrative state, then we might see more, not less, anarcho-tyranny in the future.
The wild card remains politics and pragmatism. Most people like law and order, and personal liberty, at least for themselves. When forced to think about it, or compromise politically, many if not most on the Left embrace law and order and personal freedom for all. Violent crime is unpopular, and both Newsom and other Democratic politicians are at this moment in California cracking down on homeless encampments in order to protect their political dominance. Starmer is cracking down on riots. From a practical perspective, anarchy and chaos are unpopular. As such, left-wing politicians, including Walz, his running mate Kamala Harris, Newsom, Trudeau, Starmer, and their allies, are all vulnerable so long as the chaos continues.
Liberal support for authoritarian measures and policies and its defense of lawlessness for people designated victims and their descendants will either change or face defeat politically. Liberals can return to their historical opposition to authoritarianism or cede the issue to conservatives. Conservatives, who have traditionally placed a higher value on maintaining social order and upholding established hierarchies, may find an opportunity to pick up liberals and libertarians alienated by illiberal Wokeism. If antagonism between Left-Right goes from being liberal-conservative to illiberal-liberal one, the seemingly linear trend toward anarcho-tyranny could still reverse itself.
Timmy Tampon....
rumble.com
Trump: Kamala and Walz Share The Same Ideology
Trump: Walz "ordered tampons in boys bathrooms... This is [Kamala's] ideology, that's why she picked him."
rumble.com
