5333 private links
“Our pretensions to civilization have become very thin,” begins Hayward. “Political violence was legitimized last year and is spreading wildly now. “Might makes right” is clearly the only “principle” behind freedom of speech. That’s why Chinese Communists will never be censored by Big Tech.”
“When every “principle” becomes nothing but a ruthless exercise of power, it’s not surprising that a growing number of people conclude they must demonstrate some sort of power in order to be taken seriously,” he continued. “Violence is the crudest exercise of power.” //
John Hayward
@Doc_0
·
Jan 11, 2021
A well-run civilization makes it clear universally that violence is absolutely unacceptable. Giving free passes for irresponsible rhetoric and destruction to groups favored by the dominant political ideology of the State undermines that message.
We must also [give] people peaceable means of expressing themselves and controlling their own lives, to relieve the pressures that can lead to violent outbursts and other forms of lawlessness. The less healthy discourse and freedom of action you have, the more pressure builds up. //
People begin getting the idea that violence gets results and that the law won’t really touch those who do get violent. As a result, we slide back into barbarism. //
“A great deal of our society today boils down to anarchy and barbarism arrogantly disguising itself with the trappings of civilization,” tweeted Hayward. “That’s the key to understanding cancel culture and crybullies: they sanctify their lust for power by loudly claiming to be helpless victims.”
Facebook, MailChimp, and Constant Contact have all banned the group from using their services. Parler has been banned from all of the major app stores, and now faces extinction from Amazon. Are these actions coordinated? Absolutely and without question. This is actual fascism. Again, the definitions have changed.
And is it “violence” from the right which they fear? No. It is the violence from the left if they do not do it, which they do. Cancel culture’s ugly start has come to its inevitable fascist evolutionary jump; to full-on control. Businesses didn’t board up around the country based upon a threat of a Biden win, but fear of the left’s reaction of a Trump victory. Similarly, the Big Tech Left isn’t doing this solely out of their fear of the right, but rather their fear of the survival of the left should they not take this action. //
We will survive this purge, and when we do, we will be stronger for it. The left, however, is scared and rightfully so. Their efforts to destroy the heart of America have failed. They have awakened the American spirit, and their best efforts to silence it have failed. They’ve brought us to this point and are now demanding that we change to fit their new definition. I don’t think so. In our world, the sky is still blue, and the Constitution still protects us from them. We aren’t a threat to them unless they make us so. We aren’t their enemy unless they make us so. If anything, the soul of America is coming, and if they decide to define that as a threat, so be it.
Looking at the behavior of some of the right-leaning people that had infiltrated the Capitol building, you can see that sanity and calm thinking hadn’t won the day. While not quite as destructive, the actions looked a lot like the leftist Black Lives Matter riots than anything.
These people didn’t just arrive at their conclusions in a vacuum, and while there are many paths to becoming a radical, the left’s ability to make people feel a sense of desperation is definitely one of them.
One of those ways the left does that is to silence, censor, and belittle. It’s a tactic that might work a while but behind the seal they put on dissent, pressure builds. At some point, it’s going to explode.
The censorship of conservatives isn’t new. It’s been going on for years and it’s no conspiracy theory. Video evidence shows just how blatant the censorship of conservatives is, and despite how the leftists in Silicon Valley deny it, it’s clear that the left wants it.
The silencing of conservatives or right-leaning voices isn’t going to make the problem go away, it’s only going to increase the anger and vitriol felt by the silenced. The radicalization won’t come because of an abundance of radical speech, it’ll come from a lack of expression of dissenting opinion, the vast majority of which is entirely reasonable.
Resentment will drive the radicalism, not false information.
There’s a difference between dissenting speech and actually dangerous speech, and the left has more or less lost sight of what that difference is in its quest to sensationalize and silence.
The left continues to put the kibosh on conservative speech at its own risk, and — God forbid — a real insurrection rises up that actually takes the lives of a good number of people, the left will only have themselves to blame.
“Well-meaning people say Republicans and Democrats have the same fundamental goals but different ideas and strategies for achieving them. I’ve always regarded this as wishful thinking, but if it were ever true, it no longer is today.
“The two parties, as presently constituted, have distinctly different visions for America based on conflicting worldviews.
“Some will object that all Americans want everyone to be prosperous, safe, free, and to live in harmony, but I’m not sure that’s even true anymore, given the left’s anti-Americanism, its intolerance and authoritarianism, its romance with socialism…
“… its hysterical environmentalism, its preoccupation with identity politics, its radicalism on race and gender, its attempts to erase our borders, its culture of death, its devaluation of the Constitution, its hostility to Second Amendment rights, and much more.”
For those reasons and others, Limbaugh argues that despite feelings of dejection and pessimism, now is not the time for conservatives to give up hope. On the contrary, he suggests there are reasons for optimism among America’s conservatives — principal among them that Donald Trump broke the mold and proved it could be done.
President Trump showed that an outsider actually can win the presidency and advance a constructive agenda against nearly overwhelming resistance. He single-handedly transformed the Republican Party into a far more efficient and effective policy vehicle. His very presence smoked out the radicalism, authoritarianism, corruption, destructiveness, and utter meanness of the left. […]
Trump presented a template for how the Republican Party should and can expand its base, and how it should push its own agenda every bit as aggressively as the Democrats do theirs, without the cheating and lawlessness.
He inspired tens of millions of Americans with his unflagging patriotism, with his defense and promotion of this country and its interests. The enthusiasm at his rallies was no accident, and it will not diminish but rather surely increase.
What will become of ‘Trumpism’?
Limbaugh believes strongly that “Trumpism” will be alive and well in the Republican Party, long after Trump is gone.
“Our side is fired up like never before, and the Republican Party will likely remain the party of Trumpism, even when Trump ceases to lead it. There will not be another Trump — but there doesn’t need to be, as long as the next GOP president largely follows his policy agenda (apart from spending, which we desperately need to rein in), adopts his template for fiercely fighting for that agenda, and continues to expose and proactively fight against the tyranny of leftist media and social media.”
Abbott said that the number one question he gets from Texans is about whether or not these Californians coming here for jobs will regress the state into something that looks more like the overpriced and overregulated state of California.
“I have great news for them,” said Abbott. “These relocations are not going to change the politics in Texas, and we have mathematical proof for it.”
“Two years ago, I was on the same ballot that Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke were on the ballot,” said Abbott. “We did an exit poll asking people after they left the polls, did you vote for Ted Cruz or did you vote for Beto O’Rourke, and then we asked them ‘did you move California or are you a native-born Texan. The results of that poll showed that 58 percent of the people who moved from California voted for Ted Cruz.”
“Interestingly, that almost identically matches a separate poll that was taken — also an exit poll from the same election — that showed that 57 percent of the people who moved from California voted for Ted Cruz and both of those polls matched a study that was done a couple of years before that that asked Californians who came to Texas ‘are you conservative or are you liberal?’ Fifty-seven percent of the people who moved from California said they were conservative, 27 percent of the people who moved from California said they were liberal,” added Abbott.
What is the measure of a man’s courage? Is it measured by jumping on an enemy grenade to save his friends? Is it boldly braving enemy fire to pull one of his comrades from the brutal bloodbath of an enemy ambush? Both of those are great examples, but they miss a critical element…Fear. Fear can take many forms, both rational and irrational. //
Regardless of duration, there can be no courage without fear. The two go hand in hand. I picked up the following off a website devoted to sufferers of chronic pain regarding courage and fear:
Two brothers born of the same cloth. Different in many ways, yet the bond between them growing up was forged forever. Fear has no direction and cannot see very well. He moves too fast and often lives in the future and in the past. Courage cannot be seen unless his brother Fear is with him. Courage is slower moving and needs great power to emit light.
Here are a couple, other quotes about fear and physical courage:
“I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.” – Nelson Mandela
“Being terrified but going ahead and doing what must be done—that’s courage. The one who feels no fear is a fool, and the one who lets fear rule him is a coward.” – Piers Anthony
“A hero is no braver than an ordinary man, but he is braver five minutes longer.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson
There is another aspect beyond physical courage and fear of death or dismemberment. There is the fear of being on the wrong side in politics…the fear of being called a racist for espousing unpopular, political views. In this case, courage is defined as standing your ground, even if unpopular…when it’s controversial to do so. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. famously said:
“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
Mark Twain remarked:
“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”
Which brings me to the subject of today’s offering: Rush Limbaugh, talk radio host and conservative icon. Limbaugh was an unafraid conservative when it really wasn’t cool to be one.
“I have a little bit of understanding of something that had perplexed me for a lot of my life, and that was Lou Gehrig.
“On the day that Lou Gehrig announced that he had his disease that was forcing him to retire from Major League Baseball, he said to the sold-out Yankee Stadium, ‘Today I feel like the luckiest man on the face of the earth.’
“I didn’t understand that. I mean, here’s a guy who’d just been diagnosed with the most terminal of terminal diseases, and I said, ‘This can’t be real. He can’t really think he’s the luckiest guy in the world. This is just something that he’s saying because it will play well.’
“I don’t mean to be insulting Lou Gehrig; don’t misunderstand. I’m just saying, how in the world if you’re being honest can you feel like you’re the luckiest man on the face of the earth?”
“Well, when I got my diagnosis and when I began to receive all of the outpourings of love and affection from everywhere in my life from so many of you in so many ways and from my family — who, man, they have supported me my entire career. Even during times, it would have been understandable and easy for them to say, ‘Rush who? We don’t know this guy.’
“But that never happened. I mean, I’ve been totally supported by virtually everybody in my family. I’ve been propped up. I have been defended. I’ve been made to look better than I am. My lovely wife, Kathryn, has done so much in that regard. She has done so much with RushLimbaugh.com and with the charitable efforts that we have engaged in.
“And all of it has been to my benefit — and yours. It’s for the benefit of people who are the recipients of our efforts. So many people have put me first in all of this, and I understand now what Lou Gehrig meant, ’cause I certainly feel like that. I feel extremely fortunate and lucky.
“And because I have outlived the diagnosis, I’ve been able to receive and hear and process some of the most wonderful, nice things about me that I might not have ever heard had I not gotten sick. Again think, how many people who pass away never hear the eulogies, never hear the thank-yous? I’ve been very lucky, folks, in I can’t tell you how many ways.” //
Avatar
skep41
11 hours ago edited
Rush made President Bigmouth Bill so angry that that mendacious montebank demanded 'equal time' to refute him. He ended the Congressional majorities Democrats had held since FDRs time. He skewered Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and every other pompous leftist bigmouth who was afflicting our country, including Republiclowns who were supposedly on our side. He stopped Clinton Care. He opposed that wretched Empty Suit (Obama) when almost everyone else was too scared about being called a racist to criticize his awful policies. He savaged Bigmouth Bill's hopelessly foolish and corrupt ex-wife for 30 years. He had insight. He had humor. His voice was ringing and powerful and what a treat it was when El Rushbo went on a verbal tear... the spoken word at its finest. He destroyed the liberal media monopoly and called out their lies at every turn with his mastery of a forgotten medium which he turned into a weapon of clarity and purpose. Rush never betrayed us little bugs who love him. He is a great man. My heart is filled with sadness that he is so ill. He has stood up for freedom in a way few others have.
American conservatives should not be cheering for concentrating power in the hands of a few, whether those few are politicians or business owners. Big business and big government always collude. //
In either case, economic power is being used to enforce a new cultural and political hierarchy. It is often not the owners of the businesses doing this, but the managerial class, who are, in theory at least, only stewards of other people’s wealth.
Those on the right, such as Kevin Williamson, who sneer at boosters of small businesses, ignore these power dynamics. Perhaps it would help them to think of flourishing small businesses as a sort of economic federalism that prevents the further concentration of economic power. Just as we balance our government because concentrated power encourages tyranny, the power of big business should be balanced by a multitude of small and medium enterprises. //
Better to work for the stereotypical rich owner with a mansion on the edge of his factory town than for mid-level managers in Manhattan — the former might see workers as people, but the latter just sees numbers on a spreadsheet.
This culturally radical but economically neoliberal managerial class is the dominant force in the Democratic Party, which is increasingly comfortable identifying as the party of money. One need not look far to find self-congratulatory commentary from leftists praising themselves as the educated, productive class in society. Reality is more complicated, but it is noteworthy that Democrats want to be the party of the elite rather than of the little guy.
This gives conservatives an opportunity to rediscover our natural identity as defenders of localism. We should champion an ethos that sees small as beautiful — and that recognizes that small makes for better coffee.
First published in January 1981, Mandate for Leadership served as a conservative plan of action for the Reagan Administration. By the end of Reagan’s first year, he had implemented nearly half of its ideas. This first edition of Mandate for Leadership appeared on the Washington Post’s paperback bestseller list, and the Post called it “an action plan for turning the government toward the right as fast as possible.”
Since 1981, Heritage has published five editions. The 2016 edition of Mandate for Leadership earned significant attention from the Trump Administration, which embraced 64 percent of its policy solutions.
For decades, Heritage has been on the forefront of policy innovation and impact. This year’s volume of the famed Mandate series is no exception. The conservative agenda presented within this book is thoughtful and dynamic, and any Administration can use this analysis to make the country better.
-- Mark Meadows
United States Congressman
I have a few theories about what made my article about being a Democrat who went to a Trump rally go massively viral. Perhaps it was the… //
But what was so refreshing was that there was very little talk about race or gender or orientation or anything that would indicate a collectivist mindset. People viewed each other as individuals and engaged in discussions of ideas.
In theory, I knew this would be the case, but experiencing it in practice was different. You must understand that right now in the land of the Democrats, EVERYTHING is about identity politics. Every. Single. Thing. And race is at the top of the list. If you’re white, no matter what you say or what you do, you are expected to be contrite in your inherent racism and continually re-affirm your shame in how you were born. It does not matter if you grew up poor, or how you’ve struggled, or any hardships you’ve had to overcome. All that matters is the color of your skin. Or your gender. Or your orientation. Or your ableness. It is exhausting to have to live in a constant state of self-deprecating purity and to perceive everything in your experience as a struggle between those who have power and those who are “oppressed.”
It wasn’t like that at CPAC. People didn’t see others as a race, or a gender, or an orientation, or a disability. They saw each other as people who were fully capable of stepping into their greatness without a handout. And some of the standouts at the whole event were those who the woke left would call “marginalized.” //
But perhaps one of the most striking things about my CPAC experience was the emphasis on individual liberties and privacy. This was a major theme that was consistent across the majority of the talks I attended. //
as I sat at CPAC and listened to all their talks about individual liberties and freedoms, it dawned on me that, although there are many things we differ on, I had been looking towards the wrong group of people to protect the things I care about the most.
Attacks on civil liberties are not coming from the right — they just want the government to get out of their business. The attacks are coming from the left. They’re coming from people who have convinced themselves that “words are violence.” They’re coming from people who are seeking to ban so-called “hate speech,” as if the speech that everyone agrees on ever needs to be protected. They’re coming from the social media giants who continue to ban conservatives for absurdly minor things while allowing progressives to harass and bully them with no repercussions. They’re coming from far-left groups like Antifa, who think that violence against your political opponents is always justified.
The conservatives I met at CPAC don’t care what the color of your skin is — they care about the content of your character. They don’t care who you love, or how you worshipped, or what you have between your legs. They believe in self-sufficiency and empowerment and about not paying taxes to support your lifestyle (but in return, they won’t ask you to pay taxes to support theirs). And they may not agree with everything you say, but they will defend your right to say it. //
Don’t worry, I’m not running right out to join the Republican party. I just escaped the grasp of the Democrats and am perfectly happy sitting in the land of the politically homeless for a while. But if I end up needing to choose between liberty and authoritarianism, I know exactly where to go.
James Madison hated fighting in the world of public opinion and parties until he was left with no other choice. //
There are no roads in the American journey that we have not passed by before, and this time the subject of use is James Madison. During the Constitutional Convention and the ratification process, Madison believed that the structure of the document and new government it framed would be strong enough to protect against public opinion, party, or faction.
So diffused was the representation he thought, and so limiting of power the checks and balances that no one interested party or set of interested parties would be able to steer the ship of the state alone. But by the early 1790s, Madison found himself in Congress as the leader of the opposition to the Washington administration and the Alexander Hamilton-led Federalists. The mercantile class, in Madison’s view was running roughshod over the agrarian South and he believed violating the constitution.
It is at this point that Madison makes an astounding reversal. Suddenly he needed public opinion. Furthermore, the founder who most detested political parties was about to found one with Thomas Jefferson. What Madison learned was that no system, regardless of how magisterial, could on its own secure the freedom and liberty of its citizens. The best it can do is to offer a fair marketplace of ideas.
Conservatives need to ponder and understand this Madisonian moment. The fault of Frenchism is that it relies upon the structure of the Constitution, just as Madison had, to protect against government overreach. But it does so at a time when the marketplace of ideas is shrinking into a progressive media culture that brooks no opposition. The Constitution is a backstop, but it does not in and of itself create the common good, it leaves that to us.
Conservatives must demand to be part of the conversation about drag queens preforming for toddlers, or kids being taught they are inherently racist. We have to be loud when addressing those who would censor newspapers or defund websites. A robust and effective conservative movement founded on the reverence of Western values cannot be achieved by treating the Constitution as the Alamo, just waiting to get wiped out. //
It’s time to stop playing defense. Like Madison, we must open our eyes to the fact that politics is inherently about power, not just resisting power, but also asserting it. If we go too far, let the other side rely on the courts and the constitution for a little while.
Madison would go on to become president, but perhaps more importantly his Democratic-Republican Party would as the name suggests eventually branch into both of our modern parties. He knew when to fight. That is a lesson the right is badly in need of today.
We're not all saying the same things
Although fact-checking the 1619 Project and offering academic criticism is important, it is not the most effective strategy for winning the hearts and minds of Americans.
Although criticism of The New York Times’ 1619 Project has not yet stymied the project’s success, giants in the conservative world are beginning to forge a tactical and strategic response that will outflank the project’s stated purpose of reframing the country’s history.
The 1619 Project is a series of essays about slavery and racial issues. Its primary claim is that racism has tainted every aspect of America’s founding and development. The project contains 18 essays, a collection of original stories and poems, a photo essay, a five-episode podcast, as well as other elements. The Pulitzer Center has also provided free reading guides, copies of the magazine, and lesson plans to educators.
In conjunction with the Pulitzer Center, The New York Times has already written and disseminated curriculum to public schools with the intention of reframing the country’s history by demonstrating that 1619, the year a slave not owned by Native Americans set foot on U.S. soil, is our true founding. Despite criticism from renowned historians, academics, and conservatives, the project continues to gain momentum.
The project was the dream child of Nikole Hannah-Jones, who is also the author of the project’s flagship essay, which argues, “Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true.” Hannah-Jones has shared that a fundamental restructuring of society must include financial reparations because “It’s not enough to simply have political power if you don’t have economic power. //
What’s Wrong With the 1619 Project
”Many major publications have pointed out the project’s historical, factual, and logical inconsistencies. Some of the best have been Joshua Lawson’s article in The Federalist, which pointed out that slavery was not unique to the United States and worldwide abolition lagged behind that of the northern states, and Lucas Morel’s work in the American Mind that argued American history should not be interpreted as a zero-sum narrative where the accomplishments of African Americans must displace the achievements of the Founders.
Twelve Civil War historians responded to the project with a letter to New York Times Magazine. The letter states: “As historians and students of the Founding and the Civil War era, our concern is that The 1619 Project offers a historically-limited view of slavery, especially since slavery was not just (or even exclusively) an American malady, and grew up in a larger context of forced labor and race.”
The historians go on to point out numerous historical discrepancies as well as instances where authors blatantly misinterpreted events to fit their narrative. Although the editor of the New York Times did respond to the letter, he neglected to publish it or to make any recommended corrections. //
Counteract Falsehood with Truth
One such response is a new free online course being offered by Hillsdale College (Disclosure: I am employed by Hillsdale College, but have not had a hand in the development of this course).
The class’ title is “The Great American Story: A Land of Hope” and will be taught by Hillsdale President Larry P. Arnn and Wilfred M. McClay. The course is based on McClay’s book, “Land of Hope: Invitation to the Great American Story,” winner of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s book of the year for 2019.
“The last thing we need, I think we all agree, is another history book. What we do need, what we’ve long needed is a clear and compelling narrative of the American story. An honest account that is also compelling and inspiring for students… And I think we have one,” said constitutional scholar Dr. Matthew Spalding of McClay’s book.
The purpose of the course is to counter narratives like the 1619 Project and to restore civic knowledge that leads to informed patriotism. According to Arnn, The 1619 Project is “an ideological campaign to undermine Americans’ attachment to our founding principles and to the Constitution by making slavery – rather than the principles of liberty that ended slavery and preserved our liberties for nearly 250 years – the principal focus of American history,” reports KPVI. The course is set to launch on February 12 and will encompass 25 lectures.
While the hallowed doctrine of stare decisis—the rule that judges are bound to respect precedent—certainly applies to the lower courts, Supreme Court justices owe fidelity to the Constitution alone, and if their predecessors have construed it erroneously, today’s justices must say so and overturn their decisions.
As Hollywood moves further left, here are some of the best conservative films that promote liberty, truth, family, patriotism, and the fight against evil.