Piers Morgan: Populism Is Rising Because Liberals Have Become Unbearable | Video | RealClearPolitics

 

“Populism is rising because liberals have become unbearable. In my core, I’m probably more liberal than not although fundamentally I see myself as a journalist and I like to see both sides and I can argue both sides of all these things, but liberals have become utterly, pathetically illiberal and it is a massive problem.”

Source: Piers Morgan: Populism Is Rising Because Liberals Have Become Unbearable | Video | RealClearPolitics

Couple of thoughts on this: first, I’m not a big fan of Piers Morgan, but he’s an intelligent man, and he’s gotten less objectionable since getting back to the UK. Maybe he’s seeing some things that he couldn’t see as clearly, here in the US? Or maybe it’s just like my father used to say: “Even a stopped clock is right twice a day”…? I dunno. But he’s right about this!

Not all populists are alt-right or far-right or whatever you want to call it, by any means. Most are just ordinary folks who are tired of seeing their own people being crapped on by privileged, entitled elites who claim that the ordinary people are the “privileged” ones. But I’ve said since the 2016 Presidential campaign that maybe the alt-right are antibodies for Antifa, cultural Marxists, and their ilk.

As a historian, I would say that you don’t get something like what happened in Germany in the 1930s because of people like Trump. You get it because of people like Antifa, and their apologists in the media, academia, and so on, until finally ordinary folks get sick and tired of it, and either hit back, or throw their support behind people who are willing to hit back. Continue reading “Piers Morgan: Populism Is Rising Because Liberals Have Become Unbearable | Video | RealClearPolitics”

Democrats refuse to condemn Antifa, their own brownshirts | American Thinker

Antifa thugs in Washington, DC. Photo credit: cantfightthetendies.

As America slips into what many are calling a “cold civil war,” not a single Democrat running for president is willing to condemn Antifa, the contemporary version of the Brownshirts that terrorized opponents of the Nazis.

Source: Democrats refuse to condemn Antifa, their own brownshirts | American Thinker

I still think “Red Guards” is a more historically and ideologically accurate comparison for Antifa than the “Brownshirts,” but I also realize it has less resonance, and less recognition value. Such quibbles aside, this essay is sadly all too correct.

“Antifa activists constitute a dedicated, organized national violent organization openly suppressing political opponents, something that ought to be condemned by everyone, not just those whom they seek to silence.

“Antifa now is arming itself. History teaches us that armed thugs pave the way for monstrous political oppression. Yet the leaders of the Democratic Party are now becoming complicit with armed thugs…”

A good friend of mine (and a fellow Anglican priest) posted this on Facebook yesterday, quoting another clergyman who commented,

“In the choice between the civilized and the uncivilized, one must always choose the civilized.”

Indeed! Today’s Democrats are full of hot air about supposed “white nationalist / supremacist terrorists,” but – as this essay points out – haven’t a word to say about their own Antifa thugs, who represent the far greater threat to peace and stability. Projection at its finest!

My friend who posted this added, in a reply,

What the Jacobins did to France, and the communists to Russia, Asia and other parts of the world, Antifa would do here if they had the power to do it. That’s why they must be crushed. It’s also why any connection that can be established between Antifa and the Dems must be highlighted.

I agree, and am doing my bit to that end!

Hope Not Hate: anti-fascist authoritarianism | Free speech | spiked

Hope Not Hate: anti-fascist authoritarianism

“There has always been something paradoxical, even ironic, about so-called anti-fascist and anti-racist groups… These anti-fascist bodies are a reminder that people with unshakeable good intentions on their side are always the most dangerous.”

Source: Hope Not Hate: anti-fascist authoritarianism | Free speech | spiked

Online columnist Patrick West notes that

“There has always been something paradoxical, even ironic, about so-called anti-fascist and anti-racist groups. While ostensibly promoting peace, understanding and tolerance in the face of nasty and intolerant far-right groups, they have always seemed to contain an essence of authoritarianism and intolerance themselves – and even an undercurrent of menace…

“These anti-fascist bodies are a reminder that people with unshakeable good intentions on their side are always the most dangerous. People who believe they are fighting evil impose no boundaries upon themselves, because in their battle in the name of good, anything is permitted.”

Now, it seems, “the latest anti-fascist group, Hope Not Hate, which sounds caring and innocent enough… latest campaign has been to urge major booksellers Waterstones, WHSmith and Foyles to stop profiting from selling ‘dangerous books’ with ‘extreme hate content.'” Correctly noting that “the concept of ‘dangerous books’ is both babyish and ridiculous,” Mr. West points out, accurately, that

“It should strike us as ironic that anti-fascists are seeking to ban books in the name of promoting tolerance. What next? Burning books? But this shouldn’t surprise us. Paternal, power-crazy, anti-fascists have a long track record of self-righteous censoriousness. They’ve always feared the ill-educated, unwashed masses of people who might have had too much to think. They always mean well. And that’s what makes them so dangerous.”

Dangerous indeed! Referencing a number of recent cases of authorities in the UK tagging people for anti-PC “thought crimes,” Mr. West continues,

“Free speech means standing up for people you don’t care for, because if your enemies aren’t safe from the encroaching powers of the state, then you and you friends won’t be safe, either. You don’t have to be a libertarian fundamentalist to be worried about the state now prosecuting people for jokes.”

It has until recently been seen as self-evident, here in the U.S., that free speech is meaningless unless it also protects unpopular, even offensive speech. This consensus seems, sadly, to be fading even here, and it appears already to have gone by the wayside in the U.K. (which used to have a robust tradition of free speech, but sadly never one protected – as ours still is, however tenuously – by a written Constitution).

I am, in any case, reminded of C.S. Lewis’ famous dictum:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Unfortunately, at the moment it seems that the tyrannical “omnipotent moral busybodies” are very much in the ascendant in today’s public square, aided and abetted by inaction on the part of those whose greatest fear is to be seen as being “intolerant.” But as the late great G.K. Chesterton observed, “Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions.” Sadly, there seem to be many such men in the present age of the world.

On recognizing the REAL threat to our culture and institutions (hint: it’s not the Right)

A tale of two rallies.jpg

A dear Facebook friend of mine accurately and perceptively posted the following, this morning:

I am constantly being told we need to find common ground and meet in the middle to deal with the alt left and alt right. I just made this reply on a comment on my timeline:

Well, I am not personally concerned with the so-called alt right. I believe that’s all smoke and mirrors meant to pull our focus away from the extreme leftist agenda. Suddenly, everyone is screeching about alt right, kkk, neo nazi, white supremacists… when was the last time you recall a bunch of skinheads pillaging, vandalizing, attacking cops, defacing property, throwing bottles filled with cement at folks and shooting people with paint guns? There is a BIG difference in exercising [our] first amendment right to speech, even if it’s racist in nature and I disagree with it, and being a violent mob that tries to stop free speech and peaceful assembly as well as demand the destruction and removal of anything “offensive.”

There is no middle ground there for me. I will stand by anyone’s constitutional right to express views, contrary to mine or not. I will not even attempt to compromise on the issue of violence and lawlessness. I don’t see how I can find middle ground with folks whose main agenda is the destruction of my nation and my freedom.

Needless to say, I agree completely. Some things should not be compromised on, period, ever. There are radical rightists, of course. Some of them are pictured (if they are authentic, and not planted agents provocateurs) in the top image, above. But they are small potatoes indeed, compared with the large, well-funded, media-savvy, and politically well-connected radical Left, who are actively attempting to destroy not only our historical and cultural heritage, but the very fabric of American society.

Besides, the problem with “finding middle ground” is that the “middle ground” keeps shifting. I saw this with the struggles in the Episcopal Church, back in the 1990s (and later): OK, so you agree to “middle ground.” Well, guess what? You now have 50% of what you once had. And you’ve been pegged as being “willing to compromise.” So then they come back and want to “compromise”… again. If you agree, you’re down to 25%. Then 12.5%. And so on… Nope. Sooner or later, we’ve got to take a stand. Better to do it sooner, while there’s enough ground left to stand on!

It’s one thing to compromise on whether to play checkers or chess, whether to go out or stay in tonight, or even which neighborhood to live in. It’s another thing entirely to compromise on issues like freedom of speech and assembly – and the right to exercise these rights freely, without being broken up by violent assault – or the protection of history and heritage. On these issues, in my opinion, there can be no compromise.

Either one supports the inalienable rights given to us by God and enumerated in the Constitution, or one does not. Either one believes that history should be preserved, even the parts of it which one finds problematic, or one does not. There is no “middle ground.”

Some will attempt to use the Biblical imperative to “love your neighbor as yourself” to justify the actions of the iconoclasts and the barbarians. But a foolish or misplaced compassion is not truly compassion at all. God is a God of truth, as well as a God of love, and a love which is grounded in falsehood is founded on shifting sand and will not long endure. And much of what is going on today is rooted in ignorance of our nation’s history (and the world’s), or worse yet, an unwillingness to even seek the truth.

And this willful ignorance is leading, in too many cases, to violence. Violence against human persons, violence against historical imagery (the difference between Antifa and ISIS has more to do with geography than principle), and violence against the truths of history. As another friend has put it, “it is Kristallnacht in the U.S.” A long, slow-motion Kristallnacht, but I agree. And it is not coming from neo-Nazis or the KKK, but the Left.

When they destroy statues with impunity, can burning books – or, these days, electronically altering them – be far behind? And then, can it be long before they come for us?

As my dear friend so aptly put it:

There is no middle ground there for me. I will stand by anyone’s constitutional right to express views, contrary to mine or not. I will not even attempt to compromise on the issue of violence and lawlessness. I don’t see how I can find middle ground with folks whose main agenda is the destruction of my nation and my freedom.

I stand with her.

In Their Own Words: This Chilling Chant Shows What ‘Antifa’ Fascists are All About

These four words tell you everything you need to know about antifa.

Source: In Their Own Words: This Chilling Chant Shows What ‘Antifa’ Fascists are All About

What are those four words, chanted at the Berkeley “demonstration” on Saturday? Listen for yourself:

Hard to miss: “No Trump. No Wall. No USA at all!”

Note those last four words. Mark them. Ponder them. Consider their implications.

You don’t have to like President Trump. I don’t, particularly, although I do respect him as the Constitutionally-elected President of the United States. You don’t have to agree with the concept of a border wall to keep out illegal immigrants. I think we should keep out illegal immigrants, and deport those who are already here, but I am ambivalent on whether a border wall is the best way to do that.

But… “No USA at all”…?

Yep, the article is correct: that tells you everything you need to know about these… people (and I used the term loosely).

This is what we’re fighting, folks. While the politicians and media and the professional complainers of the Left are whining and moaning about “racists,” “white supremacists,” Nazis, and God knows what-and-all, this is what’s sneaking in the back door. Except that they’re not exactly sneaking, anymore. More like breaking down the front door!

And we’re not fighting it; too many Americans are embracing it, or – what is almost as bad – ignoring it, and hoping it’ll go away. But it won’t. It’s a disease, a cancer, and if we don’t oppose it, actively and vigorously, it will spread and worsen.

“No USA at all.”

Is this what we want? Really?

Anti-history Protesters are Destroying Tourism in Gettysburg

For their refusal to surrender fact to immature and insecure emotion, the museum, along with the battlefield will be subjected to militant anti-history protests planned by Antifa groups on the anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg. These Antifa groups plan to burn Confederate battle flags and desecrate graves.

Source: Anti-history Protesters are Destroying Tourism in Gettysburg

And kudos to the Gettysburg Museum of History for refusing to give in to the dictates of political correctness, of which “Antifa” is the logical (if that word even applies) outcome:

Would that more people and institutions applied similar high standards!

“Antifa” supposedly stands for “Anti-Fascist.” Yet they are not only fascistic themselves – if by that is meant violent and totalitarian – but in some ways at least, worse than fascists: fascists, whatever their other faults, at least loved their own people. These barely-human scum hate their own people, and their own heritage. They seem to think that destruction of history and desecration of the memorials – including, reportedly, grave-sites – to men who were more courageous than the likes of these scoundrels can even imagine is somehow an acceptable way to demonstrate that “Love Trumps Hate.”

Of course, slogans like that are just for show. Their real motives and goals are far more sinister and far-reaching, and history – at Gettysburg or elsewhere – is not all they want to destroy. This is part and parcel of the larger assault on Western civilization itself (as recounted in numerous posts on this blog and far more numerous accounts elsewhere), and the creation of a “brave new world” of their own ideological design, out of the rubble. And history is a goal for the destroyers because a rootless people, a people severed from a strong and sympathetic sense of their own past, is a people weakened and vulnerable to ideological assaults.

Slime-buckets like “Antifa” claim to be part of a “resistance” against the policies (and person) of the current US President. But whatever one’s thoughts on President Trump, it is ruffians like this that truly need to be resisted. As the inscription graven in stone above the National Archives so accurately puts it, “What is past, is prologue.” Those who seek to destroy the past are undermining both present and future.

Resist them!

ANTIFA: Who Are They? An Explainer By Jason Kessler (@TheMadDimension) – GotNews

Recent riots in Berkeley, California and Washington, D.C. by loosely assembled left-wing agitators have drawn attention to the left-wing terror group ANTIFA, an organization which has a violent history in Europe and South America but has been largely unknown in the United States until very recently. They’re the ones responsible for Trump supporters being beaten by gangs of masked men, setting fire to cars, pepper spraying old men, pelting women with eggs and smashing Starbucks windows and ATMs. The term Antifa, short for anti-fascist, is a euphemism for communism.

Source: ANTIFA: Who Are They? An Explainer By Jason Kessler (@TheMadDimension) – GotNews

Gentle readers, I apologize. This is supposed to be a civilized blog, and I hesitate to even give such thugs and anti-civilized (anti-civilization!) low-life scum as Antifa a mention here. But sometimes it is necessary to mention a danger, in order to warn against it:

Jason Kessler has done an excellent job of describing this (loose, but surprisingly well-choreographed) organization and the hazards it poses, both in his blog post and video. The only points I would add are these:

First, “communist” or even “anarchist” (anarcho-communist) is not sufficient to describe these people. They hate everything that has made Western civilization great and beautiful. Judging from their words and actions to date, if one were to take the worst excesses of Stalin and Mao, and add in those of Oliver Cromwell and Robespierre, we might have a glimpse of what society would look like if Antifa and their fellow-travelers were ever to achieve dominance.

Second, do not be misled by words like “anti-fascist” and “anti-racist.” They may use terms such as “tolerance” and “coexistence” – when they’re not breaking windows or beating people up – but their very existence is indicative of the shadow side (to put it gently) of such ideas. What they really want is a post-racial, post-cultural society in which difference is obliterated and everyone thinks, acts, and looks pretty much the same, and in place of true diversity, particularity, and distinctiveness, we are reduced to an amorphous, undifferentiated blob.

I leave you with some words from the great J.R.R. Tolkien, who though he eschewed allegory, wrote much that is applicable to our present situation. Antifa has neither the power nor (yet) the terror of the Nazgul, of course, but they are of like kind, being servants of the Dark Lord. In speaking of the Black Riders (“Black Bloc”…?), Tolkien wrote:

“‘Is it not enough to know that they are servants of the Enemy?’ answered Gildor. ‘Flee them! Speak no words to them! They are deadly.'”

Indeed. Although I would say, there may be times – many, perhaps most, times – when fight, rather than flight, is the appropriate response to Antifa violence, lest they grow to the power and terror of Mordor.

Constant vigilance is the price of freedom.