Progressivism

Yes. Antifa is just as bad for America as White Supremacy

When Antifa fights the Alt-Right, we all lose.

For all the love people have given Antifa recently, they and the alt-right are absolutely, equally, and completely terrible.

20767764_692955980910440_3219941889597621906_n

Something that the media-driven circus fight has made everyone forget.

Make no bones about it: Nazis are straight-up evil. Ideologically, politically, morally, and spiritually evil.

This first part is just for Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians, because, frankly, the left doesn’t care what we do or say about Nazis. Their minds are already made up. This just for our own good health.
In spite of reports and arguments to the contrary, I think the rally in Charlottesville was primarily a gathering of white supremacists and/or a ploy to force non-racists under their umbrella by association. It was so evident from the organizational phase alone, that controversial media figure Gavin McInnis, a proudly transgressive foe of political correctness, refused to go.
Moreover, I’m of the opinion that Donald Trump was absolutely wrong in not specifically calling out the white nationalists as evil right off the bat, and I think he absolutely compounded his error with his subsequent comments.

Nazism and white supremacism have crept into our party, our movements, our political house, and we need to evict them with extreme prejudice because they are antithetical to our worldviews; supporting centralized governments to suppress free speech, thought, and entire races of people.
For those actually familiar with conservatism: GUYS. These are literally the same knuckleheads that Buckley chased OUT of our temple back in the SIXTIES. What possessed you to let them back IN??

 

Enjoying Pepe memes and sticking a metaphorical finger in the eye of political correctness doesn’t make you a “white nationalist,” and merely being “anti-SJW” doesn’t make the White Nationalists conservative allies.
Enjoy watching Return of the Jedi? So did Jeffery Dahmer. That doesn’t make you a serial killer any more than it makes him your friend.

Their movement is hateful, they have no problem with violent protest, and they want a resurgence of a society that slaughtered millions of people.
Everyone has a right to speak, but NOT harass, intimidate, brutalize and murder their fellow citizens.
As long as we are a nation where we can change laws and policy at a voting booth, there is no excuse for that kind of behavior, and it needs to be punished.

So with that in mind, how can one possibly equate leftist groups like Antifa with human debris like the violent sections of the Alt-Right? It’s pretty simple:

1:Antifa, and the radical left in general, is JUST as violent as the Alt-right.
2: Their violence is giving LEGITIMACY to the Alt-Right.
3: Their core philosophy, in spite of the rainbow-colored, “friendship is magic” veneer their rhetoric has, is just as TOXIC as the Alt-Right.

my_sovietic_pony__comunism_is_magic_by_browny_flankbook-d4gynoi.png

“Gulags are no fun unless you share them with EVERYONE!”

 

1: The violence perpetrated by Antifa is not just MORE extreme and extensive than the Alt-Right, it actually PREDATES the violence from the alt-right.

Don’t kid yourselves. The “anti-fascist resistance” black blocs started breaking windows and faces long before the “alt-right” did; gleefully throwing punches and starting dumpster fires while Richard Spencer was still whining into his webcam about “white genocide.”
And it’s off the proverbial chain.

They suppress free speech on campuses by heckling, rioting, and attacking not just speakers they disagree with… but their own liberal professors who dared to so much as talk to those guilty of thought-crime. They routinely harass, intimidate, and physically brutalize their fellow citizens.  They ran down and beat people who disagreed with them or who voted for the wrong candidate. They livestreamed themselves doing it. They bragged about their violence on social media. They attacked people with bricks in tote bags, sticks, rebar, and box cutters. They beat REPORTERS so badly that it sent them to the hospital… and then stated that they DESERVED it. They maced anyone wearing a MAGA hat.. and even one of their own when he lost his mask and they thought he was on the other side. They nearly beat someone to death with a bike lock. They started fires, smashed windows, and ripped up buildings to prevent events they disapproved of from taking place, and physically assaulted anyone trying to attend.

They stabbed… a freaking… horse.

NONE of these were the “Nazi” gatherings they supposedly formed to protect us from. They were literally just presentations or peaceful demonstrations (usually hosted by conservatives, libertarians, or Republicans) that Antifa did not like.

When their “fascist” foes failed to actually manifest, Antifa settled for declaring anyone who disagreed with them to be a fascist, justifying their mindless rampages.

20729327_693027590903279_1434351415714284914_n

They are brutalizing people with a ridiculous level of mob violence, and mayors and university presidents are letting them do it. They give the police and security orders NOT to intervene, and eventually started to do Antifa’s work for them, by trying to bar speakers and events the black bloc had blacklisted.

And in light of the horror in Charlottesville, the smug response from the left, instead of condemning these jackbooted thugs who are using surprisingly fascist tactics to “resist fascism” is usually something along the lines of:

1I82t25w

 

No, it’s true. While figures loosely associated with the Black Lives Matter protest have actually killed a number of people, including police officers, Antifa and the rest of the radical left have not killed anyone like that white supremacist did.

BUT it hasn’t been for lack of trying. (And I’m not talking about just beating someone in the head with a chunk of metal; their preferred method of “dialogue.”)

Meet James Hodgkinson, someone who apparently fell into the public’s memory-hole the second he didn’t fit the narrative:

james-t-hodgkinson

He was just your average, left-wing, progressive activist, who wanted free healthcare, voted for Bernie Sanders… and opened fire on a group of Republicans practicing for a charity baseball game, almost killing Representative Steve Scalise. All of this was done for explicitly political reasons. The only reason no victims died was because of the miracle of modern medicine, and the fact that Hodgkinson was killed during a ten-minute shootout with Capitol Police before he could finish the job.

In short, their tactics are EXACTLY the same and their extent of violence is actually worse than the Neo Nazis. They aren’t just “counter protesting.” They are intentionally attacking people in a violent and premeditated fashion.

 

2: The barbarous behavior and mental gymnastics of both Antifa and the radical left are just normalizing and legitimizing the Alt-Right.

They normalize the alt-right when they spend the last two decades shrieking that anyone who disagrees with them is a fascist, pretty much destroying any meaning the word had.

They legitimize the alt-right when they accuse everyone from Rand Paul to Ted Cruz, to Mitt Freaking Romney (who is about as offensive as a cork-board) of being far-right, white supremacists.

They completely destroy their credibility as crypto-Nazis exposers when they accuse Dave Rubin, who is literally a gay Jewish man, of being a Nazi.

rubin tweet

Both Neo-Nazis and the radical Alt-Right expand their tent by finding otherwise reasonable people and saying “See? We both like Return of the Jedi. We’re on the same side.”
The Radical Left responds to this recruiting tactic by finding those same otherwise reasonable people and and shrieking “SEE? YOU BOTH LIKE RETURN OF THE JEDI! YOU’RE ON THE SAME SIDE!”

The Alt-right is literally just pointing at the Radical Left and saying “Look. They want to destroy your culture. They want to destroy everything. We can stop that.”
The Radical Left immediately debunks this simplistic, fallacious argument… by proposing that we blow up Mount Rushmore. Because White Supremacy.

So why is this such a problem? Mostly because the LAST time Antifa did this, around 80+ years ago, we wound up with Nazi Germany.
What am I talking about? Well, buckle-up, buttercup, because we’re about to embark on an unpleasant lesson in history and morality.

4e79979a8bbef87d23e0b0506aa4f4d0--safety-work-safety-pins

I am ready for unpleasant things!

The case is made that even IF Antifa’s violent methods are as bad as the Alt-Right, it’s justified by the nobility of their cause.
It’s where all those incredibly ignorant, offensive, and intellectually dishonest memes comparing the Black Bloc to the Invasion of Normandy came from.

 

The fact is, Antifa is the embodiment of a toxic, destructive ideology that is as every bit as horrific as Nazi Fascism.

They aren’t the cure to the cancer of white supremacy, and they DEFINITELY aren’t fighting Nazism on the beaches of France. They’re brawling in the streets of Weimar Germany, telling themselves that no amount of collateral damage matters as long as it’s for the greater good.
Just like Goebbels did.

They are literally the para-military arm of radical communism.

“Antifa” isn’t just short for “Anti-Fascist.” It stands for “Antifaschistische Aktion,” a far left group of radical communists who struggled for power in Germany in the early 1930s with Nazi street thugs. They lost the fight, driving both the ruling political leadership and general populace into Hitler’s arms, but were revived in the 1980s with all of the same principles, gusto, and deep love of mob violence.

 

antifa

 

Somehow, down through the years, we’ve kept our deep-seated and completely valid aversion to Nazism, but we’ve given Communism a free pass, because “their hearts were in the right place.”

This is where morality of thought and morality of action come into play: What someone thinks/says, and what someone actually does.

Nazis believed in strict public order, forming strong fascist governments, and exterminating all the racially impure and “traitorous” elements in their grasp to ensure that government’s strength.
So the Nazis established totalitarian governments, subsidized the press, suppressed free speech, and imprisoned or executed their political enemies. And in what has been rightfully burned into our brains as one of the most horrific atrocities in modern history, began to systematically exterminate over nine MILLION people just because of who their parents were.

Communists believed in removing the ruling class, returning the means of production to the people, equality of outcome for all, strong socialist governments, and the purging of political dissidents for the safety of “the people.”
So the Communists established totalitarian governments, subsidized the press, suppressed free speech, and imprisoned or executed their political enemies.

Oh, and they systematically exterminated somewhere in the neighborhood of one HUNDRED and fifty million people. Highlights include:

Even if you decide that the “motivation” for their deaths are better than the Nazis, it doesn’t make them any less dead. These were not people killed in some lunatic plan of racial purity. They were killed strictly out of convenience. Killed merely to trim down overpopulation. Killed out of necessity to preserve the unquestioned power of the party.

Killed for simply thinking the wrong things.

When Antifa protestors show up waving the hammer and sickle, or even banners with their logo on it, THAT is the legacy they are intentionally taking up. A legacy that has not only killed MILLIONS of human beings, but killed them for some of the worst reasons.

“Well those don’t count because that wasn’t real Communism. They weren’t doing it right. It’ll be different this time.”
Guess what? Richard Spencer and company is saying the exact same thing about White Nationalism. Do you believe THEM?

 

Antifa and the radical left don’t discriminate based on skin tone or ethnic background. They discriminate based on ideas. If you have the wrong ideas, you will be physically hurt until you recant or die.

Yes, Nazism and White Supremacy are 100% the wrong ideas. Good thing that’s the only thing Antifa is fighting, right?

antifatweet

Congrats! If you, like the overwhelming majority of moderates in America, fall into one of those categories or believe in the basic law of the land, you’ve got an appointment with a bike-lock-swinging protestor!

 

 

41iKZM4Y83L._SY300_

Also, according to protestors, you’re now an honorary Nazi! How does it feel?

I will fully acknowledge that there are perfectly decent people, laypeople and clergy alike, who also counter-protest these Neo-Nazi scum.
AS THEY SHOULD.
As should we all.
However, I’m having a hard time believing it was a group of socially-aware vicars charging White Nationalists demonstrators, wielding pipes and chains and swinging hands.
And it’s not the priests and rabbis, but the antagonistic radicals like Antifa that the media and alleged-academics alike are joyfully encouraging to continue this uncontrolled, misdirected form of mob justice; openly cheering for extra-judicial street gangs to hunt down and bludgeon people they don’t like.

People ask why I refuse to condemn one without condemning the other.
Because the Antifa protestors are using the exact same tactics, with higher levels of violence, to push an ideology that’s just as bad for the country as the Neo Nazis.

Refusing to call out this abysmal behavior from the left is every bit as morally reprehensible as refusing to call out the Nazis in the Alt-Right.

 

 

So don’t ask me to pick a side in this ugly brawl of equally bloodthirsty, totalitarian ideals. They’re both just groups of rabid animals, slowly shoving America down the path of the Weimar Republic as the media hungrily fans the flames for more ratings.

BOTH parties have a lot of soul searching to do, and all the moral posturing and peacocking in the world won’t change the fact that there is a rotten canker lurking at the heart of the progressive movement that is every bit as dangerous as Nazism.

And if we can’t figure this out, forget it. I’m moving to Poland. They seem to be the only ones in the world that know what’s up anymore.

20785772_1839672479381726_4142994724962408141_o

 

~ Louis Petolicchio lives and writes in Central Pennsylvania, where he staunchly opposes both Fascism and Communism, which somehow became a minority viewpoint within the last six months. Follow him on Twitter!

Advertisements

GOOP and the Clinton Campaign: How They’re Annoying Different People for the Same Reasons

Gwyneth Paltrow, in her highly publicized and ridiculed “Food Stamp Challenge” last week, unintentionally demonstrated the underlying problem that Americans have with Hillary Clinton.

And no. It’s not that they’re both blonde.

goopclintonIn case you missed it, last week, Gwyneth Paltrow was nominated by celebrity chef Mario Batali to take the “Foodbank NYC Challenge,” where participants try and see if they can eat for a week with the same budget that a person living on SNAP (food stamps) has… which they estimate to be about $29 a week. Aside that not only is that number disputed, and that the SNAP program was only meant to SUPPLEMENT a grocery budget, the challenge was an echo of an earlier version in 2013, and meant to raise awareness for the hunger and poor nutrition that people living on government benefits experience.

Paltrow partook in the paltry pantry plunge with a passion:

And she was virtually crucified in the court of public opinion for it.

Having the media, especially the Washington Post, descend on her various faux pas is nothing new. Her celebrity lifestyle site, “Goop,” has become a virtual speed bag for reporters/comedians in training who want to demonstrate the utter disconnect between celebrities and normal people.

Let’s be honest: When you say that your blog is for designers and cooks strapped for cash while pushing the most expensive, top of the line products… or make comments about how single mothers working 9-5 don’t have it as hard as a multimillionaire movie star, you kind of bring it on yourself.

https://i2.wp.com/i.huffpost.com/gen/1050987/thumbs/o-GWYNETH-PALTROW-GOOP-facebook.jpg“EVERYONE can afford this! This is what I GARDEN in!”

And when she gave up on the challenge just four days in, the ridicule only got worse. Some of it was actually legitimate criticism of her food choices. One drew attention to the “inexplicable number of limes.” (Seriously though. There’s SEVEN limes. Why?? Is scurvy a big fear in the Paltrow household?)
When this style of food stamp challenge was last run in 2013, with left-leaning senators taking selfies with their pitiful meals, some conservative lawmakers, and housewives, responded by tweeting pictures of what a huge difference that a little bit of crafty consumerism can make on a low budget:

Paltrow was accused of planning her week poorly on that kind of budget, and I would agree. I mean, if you’re strapped for cash, and need a cheap, filling food high in protein and calories, peanut butter is your friend. (The lack of peanut butter really bothered me for some reason.)

Across the board, the backlash to Paltrow’s endeavor was negative, and people were downright insulted. Especially to the people who DO live on food stamps, it just felt like a rich, white, blonde celebrity was patronizing them for publicity points. Their reaction was probably best summed up by a comment I saw on Facebook:

“You don’t know us, you don’t know our family’s struggle, and acting like you do just trivializes what we’ve done.

But here’s the kicker:

Paltrow doesn’t really deserve any of this criticism.

Was it ham-fisted, poorly executed, and in the end, rather laughable? Yes, yes, and yes.

However, what reporters and the public alike don’t seem realize is that Paltrow’s spectacular failure just UNDERLINED the point she was trying to make from the beginning: Wealthy DON’T get the struggle that poor people go through. They literally cannot.

As far as shallow, pedantic “awareness raising” campaigns go, this one takes the cake. (Not literally, because, y’know, food stamps, but still.) The storm of media mockery created a discussion about food stamps and surviving on the government dole that Democrat senators could have never instigated on their own.

It was never meant to be a statement for people living with SNAP benefits. It was meant to be a call to action for the people who have never had to. She wanted to demonstrate that rich people cannot effectively relate to poor people. Even if you disagree with her, her challenge implosion was a good illustration for her argument.

It’s a pity that Paltrow didn’t do this challenge TWO weeks ago, or else Hillary Clinton might have learned an important lesson before she stumbled into her first week of campaigning for president:

If an obscenely wealthy person tries to act like one of us peasants, they will fail, and the public will hate them for trying.

During her first announcement week, we were treated to a hit parade of innocuous, vapid, but well-meaning gestures as Hillary Clinton embarked on a cross-country road-trip in her giant, glossy-black Chevy van, affectionately nick-named “Scooby.”

https://i1.wp.com/www.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/2015313/rs_1024x683-150413133343-1024-hillary-clinton-mystery-machine_copy.jpgYou literally have no idea how badly I wanted it to look like this instead. You don’t. She would have legitimately won my vote if her van looked like that. You think I’m kidding, but I’m being dead serious. You don’t even know.

And she definitely gave it the old college try:
She kicked it off with a super casual, social-media announcement that packed more diversity into two minutes than a late 80’s Saturday morning cartoon show.

She took a van to Iowa instead of a private jet.

She stopped and talked at coffee shops.

She ate at Chipotle.

She flew home coach.

She carried her own bags.

She tried. She tried SO HARD.

Unfortunately, people just didn’t buy it.

Oh, there were plenty of awkward gaffes that happened along the way: Not only was she unrecognized by the employees at Chipotle, but she didn’t leave a tip. Her van was spotted parked in a handicapped spot. Her “everyday American” audiences were actually hand-selected and screened. The “students” posing in her coffee shop photos were actually active Democrat party coordinators.

Her “hip” social-media announcement and attempted virtual groundswell felt less like Hillary desperately trying to recreate Obama’s natural appeal to the youth vote, but more like a retiree trying to wear skinny jeans in an attempt to convince the world that “they can be cool too!”

https://i0.wp.com/mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/How-Do-You-Do-Fellow-Kids-Reaction-Gif-Steve-Buscemi.gif

The Clintons on the Campaign Trail.

But none of these were anything but minor news fodder for more conservative publications. (Honestly, half of America has wrongly parked in handicapped spots at least once, most people don’t tip at Chipotle, and having friendly audience is pretty standard your opening week.)

No, people didn’t buy it for the same reason they scoffed at Paltrow’s Food Stamp Challenge: A well-established national figure, who’s spent the better part of the last twenty-five years making it very clear that she’s above the average citizen, suddenly trying to act like a populist champion comes off as more than a little insincere.

So what’s the difference between Paltrow and Clinton?

Short answer: Sincerity and consistency.

For all of her faults, Gwyneth Paltrow genuinely seems to have a heart for the causes she pushes, even if the causes are misguided and her attempts to help are… bizarre. She actually seems to care. On top of this, the idea of Paltrow helping the poor in the richest, whitest way possible is nothing new. She is literally (in)famous for it.
Paltrow has always presented herself as just your “regular person” with “regular people problems”…. who happens to have millions of dollars and enduring celebrity status. Goop.com hilariously, but consistently, tries to help the less fortunate with solutions only the rich can afford.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has only ever been consistent about ONE thing: wanting to become president.

When even SNL sees through your facade after less than five hours of your debut, there’s a problem.

Even before she had officially announced, Clinton was already being chided for hiring high-powered image specialists to change her public appeal. Now, this is pretty freaking common for politicians of every stripe. The reason it raised so many eyebrows is that the personality Hillary chose to work with is the diametric opposite of how she’s behaved for the better part of her public career.

Republicans knew a wealthy, corrupt, scandal-hounded, power-hungry Washington’s insider that had ridden her husband’s coat-tails to success and wanted even more.

Democrats knew a driven, strong, powerful, pant-suited woman who was never afraid to independently assert herself and was ready to make history wherever she went.

So, whether you think of her as the Wicked Witch of the West or America’s response to Angela Merkel, her new persona as just a regular ol’ grandma whose taking a break from being hip, cool, and perfectly average in order to casually run for president is… confusing

However, aside from her new-found personality, which literally did not exist two week before her announcement, people, especially Democrats, are taking issue with her remarkably fluid policies. (It’s just a given that Republicans will hate her policies no matter what they are.)

While some of her more ardent sycophants, like Michael Tomasky from the Daily Beast, believe that Hillary is the key to reversing the “rightward drift in this country since 1980,” others vehemently disagree, including others at the Beast. In an open letter to the candidate, David Freelander accuses Clinton of being a phony; just saying whatever Democrats want to hear and avoiding “rubber meet road” scenarios.
This sentiment has been echoed by Bernie Sanders and even Roseanne Barr, who both say Clinton is just microwaving old ideas and trying to pass them off as new, exciting, home-cooked meals of her own invention.

When Bill de Blasio is considering running against her in order to provide Democrats with a REAL “leftist alternative,” you know there’s a problem.

It’s not that the Democrats see Hillary as being too moderate. It’s that they don’t see her as ANYTHING… besides someone who wants to be president. She consistently gives off an air of complete entitlement, and has been running her campaign like someone who DESERVES the presidency. What Hillary doesn’t seem to understand is that this is not a unionized factory; seniority does not automatically mean promotion.

https://i1.wp.com/benswann.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Hillary_Clinton_-700x357.png“You don’t understand. I put the time in. It’s MY turn. I DESERVE to lead you.”

She may BE the hope that progressives have been waiting for. They got a start with Obama, but gridlock, compromise, and generally unfulfilled campaign promises torpedoed that particular wave of hope and change. They’re gun-shy, and they want a candidate who will follow through, not someone who will treat the nomination as a coronation.

And Hillary is not showing signs of following through.

She’s already back to riding first class.

People are quick to say that it’s not such a big deal, but the problem is, when your campaign focuses such heavy attention on those little, scripted, “everyday American” moments, you’re going to be expected to keep it up.
Republican contenders haven’t had to deal with this particular sort of scrutiny because their campaigns have been almost universally issue-driven. Hillary is the only one who has placed such a huge emphasis on who she is as a person, because she’s trying to reinvent herself. But that’s coming back to bite her.

It’s not just about riding in planes, or even where you eat. It’s about WHY you do those “everyday American” things.

Obama didn’t just play basketball with college students for the cameras. He actually plays basketball. Bill didn’t learn to play saxophone just to get airtime on NBC. He actually plays saxophone. Regardless of politics, both of those presidents had extraordinary appeal and charisma, especially with young voters, because they felt REAL; they felt SINCERE, even if they weren’t.

Hillary, on the other hand, feels like someone just handed her a list of “Things Americans Do” and a list of “Things Democrats Like” and she’s reading them off to the cameras. It’s like she doesn’t even think about the crushing irony of what she says half the time.
She’s been attacking CEO’s for their unfair wealth, lamenting the mean-spirited nature of modern politics, and arguing that politicians need to stop with the massive flow of cash from questionable sources.
Meanwhile, conservatives and progressives alike are silently screaming “BUT YOU DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS!”

Hillary’s campaign is obviously a paper tiger when it comes to policy issues, which is why she NEEDS this to be a coronation. Once she gets into the general election, she’ll be able to fall back on the usual “Us. V. Them” rhetoric, declaring that liberals and moderates will HAVE to vote for her, because she’s their only choice. (Since Elizabeth Warren’s not making any more presidential overtures, they might be stuck with Hillary after all.)

But she can’t play those cards in the primary, and so until she actually goes into the ring with Republicans, she has to convince Democrats that she’s the populist hero they need.

Both Paltrow and Clinton have annoyed people by more common than they are, but with one, it’s amusing. With the other, it’s malignant.

Gwyneth Paltrow thinking she’s just like poor people is funny, in part, because she seems to think it’s true, and the media has gotten a LOT of mileage out of this harmless delusion. She actually believes it.

With Hillary Clinton, it’s very obvious that she doesn’t, and that just gives the whole facade a menacing air. Hillary leads anything but an average life, and her skin-deep attempt to convince people otherwise is insulting. Americans don’t like that. It’s perfectly justifiable to try and reinvent yourself for maximum appeal, but without ACTUALLY changing your behavior, it’s just so many nice curtains over a boarded-up window.

(Which doubles as a fitting illustration of Hillary’s policy on transparency.)

With Republicans like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, even if you think they’re completely insane, no one questions if they actually believe what they’re saying. In fact, the Democrat strategy against them seems to bank on the public taking them completely at face value.

With Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, not even her own base is sure she’s for real.

~ Louis Petolicchio lives and writes in Central PA, where he hopes to one day be rich enough to see the products featured on Goop as the bargains Gwyneth Paltrow clearly thinks they are. Follow him on Twitter!