PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Mr Pou on October 30, 2018, 04:33:05 AM
-
When I see the alt.left's tactics, violence, extreme belief that they're right and everyone else is wrong, win at all costs, and now the shooting in Pittsburgh, I think Nazisism. How the 5th column today, like the early days of WWII, is trying to influence the public, and in ways that seem totally palatable to otherwise reasonable people. Is the world entering another dark age?
Yeah yeah, I'm probably way out at the end of the nut tree branch, but...
-
But you may be right.
-
You are right.
-
But you may be right.
"I may be crazy"
-
When I see the alt.left's tactics, violence, extreme belief that they're right and everyone else is wrong, win at all costs, and now the shooting in Pittsburgh, I think Nazisism. How the 5th column today, like the early days of WWII, is trying to influence the public, and in ways that seem totally palatable to otherwise reasonable people. Is the world entering another dark age?
Yeah yeah, I'm probably way out at the end of the nut tree branch, but...
Just go review the history back in the 1900's. Look at the various communist uprisings and look at the rise of the National Socialist (Nazis).
You'll begin to see very similar threads.
-
Yeah yeah, I'm probably way out at the end of the nut tree branch, but...
But you may be right.
You are right.
I agree as well.
;D
-
CNN propagandist placidly accepts that President Trump caused the Pittsburgh shooting, leads in with repeated references to his role in the rise of anti-Semitism. WTF? And people believe this shit. You can make the connections linking the media’s 24/7 anti-right narrative to a host of events in history that didn’t end well.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=THn0kuGxEAU
-
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fascism/2017/03/how_nazi_propaganda_encouraged_the_masses_to_co_produce_a_false_reality.html
Sound a bit familiar?
-
Be prepared to defend yourselves as always. If they don't win the midterms BLM, and Antifa will be on the loose.
-
I see two factors at work here. One is serious, and the other is more serious. First off - we are in the age of instant gratification, and instant decisions. Our attention span is about as long as the next headline, and the next headline comes at us every 2 minutes or less. This is why a liberal slanted media is so forceful. If one goes to cnn.com and sees the words 'Trump anti-semitism', then can then go to Vox and see 'anti-semitism in the age of Trump', then they can go to MSNBC and watch 2 minutes of the name 'Trump' associated in some way with 'anti-semitism'. It is echo chamber reinforcement, because no one wants to take more than 12 seconds to digest the reality. Ergo - they heard or saw it on 3 different outlets, therefore Trump must be an anti-semite.
The even more pernicious problem comes from the will to believe or hold faith in the abundant evidence to the contrary. This is far more prevalent in the liberal side than the conservative. they are followers. Either followers of a cult of personality(BO), or followers of doctrinal messaging(see above). If a liberal were confronted with the fact that Trump moved the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem it comes off as a negative. But - tell them that BO, and Clinton BOTH endorsed the same exact policy and watch as they try to fact-check that one in their mind. BO and Clinton said it(but failed), and Trump said it and did it. There are other policy positions that are similar, but in context this is the one that matters right now.
It saddens me that the liberals cannot choose to investigate any claims made by the hierarchy of the left messaging. We've all heard it too. The last time we went through something similar, with the will not to believe honest and direct evidence a lot of Jews got turned into ashes. A common theme of most of the #walkaway folks.
-
While I generally reject Godwin's law (and no, the OP is not invoking Godwin's law) - there is little arguing that current events are a mix-up of something between the unrest of the 60's and the events that led to the rise of the National Socialist Worker's Party in pre-war Germany.
They are and have been acting like petulant children but the violence has been ramping up for some time - people know and are sensitivie to this, but the media gatekeepers are doing a good job of hiding the interconnection between the radical alt-left government media complex and the radical alt left thugs, and then deflecting to the rare and random right wing nut job - Goebbels would be proud.
I do think people in general are waking up to this - and it is due in no small part to Trump's tweeting and his communication savvy at his rallies - he ensures that the message gets out by, I think, deliberately provoking the sanctimonious self-righteous media who in trying to castigate him only ensure that more people actually see/hear his messaging and can then decide for themselves if he really was trying to publicly ask his secret Russian handlers to steal Hillary's e-mails, or if he was joking but pointing out she had refused to turn over a shit ton of e-mails then claimed they were 'lost'.
I am concerned about this election but thinking back to the polling going into 2016 we still could see just the opposite of what has been predicted.
Keep your powder dry.
'Gimp
-
While I generally reject Godwin's law (and no, the OP is not invoking Godwin's law) - there is little arguing that current events are a mix-up of something between the unrest of the 60's and the events that led to the rise of the National Socialist Worker's Party in pre-war Germany.
I am concerned about this election but thinking back to the polling going into 2016 we still could see just the opposite of what has been predicted.
Keep your powder dry.
'Gimp
I'm sorry to do this, but I have to call you out on the connection between the events of the 60s unrest and anything remotely associated with the NSDAP. I lived through it as a youth in SoCal, and have studied extensively the background of the rise of Nazi Germany due to my distant heritage. In short - there is NO connection, even at its most culturally significant point. The 60s movement in the US was a direct result of some well-defined changes in social policy that people were fed up with. Very real, and very ugly things happened in the mid-60s starting with the execution of JFK and ending with the resignation of Nixon(yes, I know that was in 74). These two seminal events sort of bookend 'the 60s' and the social unrest was completely justified for many reasons. Murders of JFK, Bobby Kennedy, MLK, Watts riots, integration of southern schools, FBI secret investigations, Kent State massacre, and to cap it all off - an unjust and unjustifiable war in Vietnam. We were mad as hell, and weren't going to take it anymore(rent the movie). I don't blame the kids, and plenty of adults for the social unrest and actual violence against the state from about 1967-1974. It was a decade of one shit sandwich after another, and if not for the resignation of the president, and Ford following through on our exit from Vietnam, things were going to get even worse.
Take this in juxtaposition for the top-down totalitarian control of the NSDAP in Germany, where the state was everything, and all were coordinated through many state-run outlets just is not supportable. Yes, Germany had some legitimate gripes about the disarmament treaty of Versailles and they were struggling with economic stagnation in the 30s, but so was the US, and many other countries as we went through a world recession. Germany chose Naziism because it was pressed on them, not because it was the natural and selective choice of the proletariat. The majority of Germans never actually joined the Nazi party, but they still controlled all aspects of life in Germany, and state run media was the only word allowed. This is completely opposite the reaction of the people of late 60s US.
There is no 'and' about it. The two are completely separate and completely anathema in message and ideology.
-
I'm sorry to do this, but I have to call you out on the connection between the events of the 60s unrest and anything remotely associated with the NSDAP. I lived through it as a youth in SoCal, and have studied extensively the background of the rise of Nazi Germany due to my distant heritage. In short - there is NO connection, even at its most culturally significant point. The 60s movement in the US was a direct result of some well-defined changes in social policy that people were fed up with. Very real, and very ugly things happened in the mid-60s starting with the execution of JFK and ending with the resignation of Nixon(yes, I know that was in 74). These two seminal events sort of bookend 'the 60s' and the social unrest was completely justified for many reasons. Murders of JFK, Bobby Kennedy, MLK, Watts riots, integration of southern schools, FBI secret investigations, Kent State massacre, and to cap it all off - an unjust and unjustifiable war in Vietnam. We were mad as hell, and weren't going to take it anymore(rent the movie). I don't blame the kids, and plenty of adults for the social unrest and actual violence against the state from about 1967-1974. It was a decade of one shit sandwich after another, and if not for the resignation of the president, and Ford following through on our exit from Vietnam, things were going to get even worse.
Take this in juxtaposition for the top-down totalitarian control of the NSDAP in Germany, where the state was everything, and all were coordinated through many state-run outlets just is not supportable. Yes, Germany had some legitimate gripes about the disarmament treaty of Versailles and they were struggling with economic stagnation in the 30s, but so was the US, and many other countries as we went through a world recession. Germany chose Naziism because it was pressed on them, not because it was the natural and selective choice of the proletariat. The majority of Germans never actually joined the Nazi party, but they still controlled all aspects of life in Germany, and state run media was the only word allowed. This is completely opposite the reaction of the people of late 60s US.
There is no 'and' about it. The two are completely separate and completely anathema in message and ideology.
I was not suggesting that the hippies were Nazi's, that is why I said 'some kind of mix-up between', BUT the violence of the 60's was inexcusable, PERIOD. Actual assassinations, attacks on returning vet's, Kent State, none of it, PERIOD.
That said, I don't believe for a minute that the unrest of the 60's was purely organic and not organized, the structures we see uncovered today existed back then, just better hidden. And I disagree, the organizers utilized the exact same methods to stoke the anger you saw in the 60's, as was used in the late 30's, and as is being used now - the playbook is old and tattered but undeniably effective.
'Gimp
-
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/actor-james-cromwell-warns-of-blood-in-the-streets-if-democrats-dont-win-election
So if they don't get the results they want, they will induce violence? Sounds a little like Nazis to me. And those on the left are absolutely delusional if they don't realize that most of the blood spilled will be theirs and they will lose horribly.
-
I was not suggesting that the hippies were Nazi's, that is why I said 'some kind of mix-up between', BUT the violence of the 60's was inexcusable, PERIOD. Actual assassinations, attacks on returning vet's, Kent State, none of it, PERIOD.
That said, I don't believe for a minute that the unrest of the 60's was purely organic and not organized, the structures we see uncovered today existed back then, just better hidden. And I disagree, the organizers utilized the exact same methods to stoke the anger you saw in the 60's, as was used in the late 30's, and as is being used now - the playbook is old and tattered but undeniably effective.
'Gimp
I think some were and some weren't. There were individuals protesting for example, the Vietnam war, but there was also a leftist movement using organized "playbook" as you call it that had some of the same methods that all authoritarian wanna bes, including the Nazis, used. It's not about the particular ideology, it's about gaining totalitarian control. The Nazis and the Communists were enemies but were just two faces of the same evil coin.
The organizers used the clueless but justifiably upset individuals as "useful idiots" in some cases I suppose.
-
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/actor-james-cromwell-warns-of-blood-in-the-streets-if-democrats-dont-win-election
So if they don't get the results they want, they will induce violence? Sounds a little like Nazis to me. And those on the left are absolutely delusional if they don't realize that most of the blood spilled will be theirs and they will lose horribly.
Definition of fascism
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
So, according to the alt left progressives we are entering fascism. Read the above definition. Now, let's look at the current republican party under President Trump.
So far there has been zero indication the President has been racist. None. In fact, just the opposite has occurred as the President has reached out to all people, regardless of race or religion in order to improve their lives.
"Centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader". Actually the President has stood strong in his opinions of remaining within the constitution and having separate but equal divisions of government. Many times he has advised congress they must act on matters outside of his constitutional authority. And he has maintained that we must follow the rule of law. In no way has the President ever exhibited being dictatorial. Never.
"Severe economic and social regimentation". Again, nowhere can it be found the President has exhibited these traits.
"Forcible suppression of opposition". Again, nowhere can we find evidence that the President or his administration has tried to forcibly suppress his opposition. He has called them out numerous times, but never suppresses them.
Now let's look at how this applies to the progressives:
"A political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader". Think of Barrack Obama and how he applied to this part. I'd say spot on representation.
"Severe economic and social regimentation". Obamacare come to mind? How about the other policies from the Obama era? They fit nicely into this category wouldn't you say?
"Forcible suppression of opposition". Let's see, wasn't it BHO that had Foxnews reporters spied upon by the FBI? Remember the statement about how republicans could come along, but they had to sit in the back of the bus? Remember the quote of how "elections have consequences? How about the IRS investigating and suppressing conservative groups?
Yep, the progressives are masters of projection. Just remember that next time you hear one refer to Nazis, fascist or hate groups.
-
I was not suggesting that the hippies were Nazi's, that is why I said 'some kind of mix-up between', BUT the violence of the 60's was inexcusable, PERIOD. Actual assassinations, attacks on returning vet's, Kent State, none of it, PERIOD.
That said, I don't believe for a minute that the unrest of the 60's was purely organic and not organized, the structures we see uncovered today existed back then, just better hidden. And I disagree, the organizers utilized the exact same methods to stoke the anger you saw in the 60's, as was used in the late 30's, and as is being used now - the playbook is old and tattered but undeniably effective.
'Gimp
I'm willing to agree to disagree. When the fedguv mandated that a 19YO kid could be FORCED AT GUNPOINT to go to a foreign nation and kill its citizens, but could not vote for those with the power to order the conscription, something needs serious fighting about back home. When the FBI places agent provocateurs inside perfectly lawful, and peaceful organizations to foment and corrupt the message of peace and non-violence it's time to fight back. When peaceful unarmed students are murdered by national guard, well - amigo, it's time to take up arms in defense. My dad fought in WWII alongside two brothers. Grandparents fought in WWI, and other family in Vietnam. Kent State was the final straw for all of them. The nation under both Johnson and Nixon was starting to move toward totalitarianism and it had to be stopped.
Was the peace movement purely organic? Nothing is purely organic. But the FBI and many, many state undercover ops so far haven't shown any kind of directed action from big money players. If you know of someone like Soros of the 60s by all means, share. Many of the bums of the 60s hippy movement were incapable of taking action. The violent players of the day were by far the minority, and they were systematically wiped out in short order. Google the Symbionese liberation Army for one of the best examples. The feds/state shut them down real quick. But - the real peoples movement from about 1967 on was all about stopping the takeover by both parties of much of our liberty. Both sides were guilty, and both sides got schooled. But the Dems took it worse of all.
-
I think some were and some weren't. There were individuals protesting for example, the Vietnam war, but there was also a leftist movement using organized "playbook" as you call it that had some of the same methods that all authoritarian wanna bes, including the Nazis, used. It's not about the particular ideology, it's about gaining totalitarian control. The Nazis and the Communists were enemies but were just two faces of the same evil coin.
The organizers used the clueless but justifiably upset individuals as "useful idiots" in some cases I suppose.
The peacenics, the love not war, the music and movie crowd, the civil rights marchers never had any kind of power except through the media of the day. The number of power-hungry 'leaders' could be counted on the fingers of one hand. MLK, Che Guevara, Abby Hoffman, and a few lesser known. None of them had backing like there is today. All of them were true products of their upbringing and were willing to lose everything for their brand of liberty.