What do they have in common with Rob Ford?
I think this is right. I wish very much that I didn’t think this is right:
…for the people living through it, as with the World Wars, Soviet Famines, Holocaust, it must have felt inconceivable that humans could rise up from it. The collapse of the Roman Empire, Black Death, Spanish Inquisition, Thirty Years War, War of the Roses, English Civil War… it’s a long list. Events of massive destruction from which humanity recovered and move on, often in better shape.
At a local level in time people think things are fine, then things rapidly spiral out of control until they become unstoppable, and we wreak massive destruction on ourselves. For the people living in the midst of this it is hard to see happening and hard to understand. To historians later it all makes sense and we see clearly how one thing led to another. During the Centenary of the Battle of the Somme I was struck that it was a direct outcome of the assassination of an Austrian Arch Duke in Bosnia. I very much doubt anyone at the time thought the killing of a minor European royal would lead to the death of 17 million people.My point is that this is a cycle. It happens again and again, but as most people only have a 50–100 year historical perspective they don’t see that it’s happening again. As the events that led to the First World War unfolded, there were a few brilliant minds who started to warn that something big was wrong, that the web of treaties across Europe could lead to a war, but they were dismissed as hysterical, mad, or fools, as is always the way, and as people who worry about Putin, Brexit, and Trump are dismissed now.
Then after the War to end all Wars, we went and had another one. Again, for a historian it was quite predictable. Lead people to feel they have lost control of their country and destiny, people look for scapegoats, a charismatic leader captures the popular mood, and singles out that scapegoat. He talks in rhetoric that has no detail, and drums up anger and hatred. Soon the masses start to move as one, without any logic driving their actions, and the whole becomes unstoppable.
That was Hitler, but it was also Mussolini, Stalin, Putin, Mugabe, and so many more. Mugabe is a very good case in point. He whipped up national anger and hatred towards the land owning white minority (who happened to know how to run farms), and seized their land to redistribute to the people, in a great populist move which in the end unravelled the economy and farming industry and left the people in possession of land, but starving. See also the famines created by the Soviet Union, and the one caused by the Chinese Communists last century in which 20–40 million people died. It seems inconceivable that people could create a situation in which tens of millions of people die without reason, but we do it again and again.
But at the time people don’t realise they’re embarking on a route that will lead to a destruction period. They think they’re right, they’re cheered on by jeering angry mobs, their critics are mocked. This cycle, the one we saw for example from the Treaty of Versaille, to the rise of Hitler, to the Second World War, appears to be happening again. But as with before, most people cannot see it because:
1. They are only looking at the present, not the past or future
2. They are only looking immediately around them, not at how events connect globally
3. Most people don’t read, think, challenge, or hear opposing views
Trump is doing this in America.
Yup. Read the whole thing, despite how depressing it is.
It is similar to people who think that the climate is going crazy, because they didn’t live through the 30s, or the 50s. Let alone times farther past.
He’s saying a lot of the sort of thing I go on about – how often people are sucked in by the temptation to follow the haters, how we love to stereo type people who aren’t members of our ‘in group’ and how that makes the killing of those people so acceptable and the words of the hatemongering power addicts promoting such things so seductive.
There are a couple of his points I’m not so sure about though:
I don’t agree that the EU contributed to the absence of major European wars since WW2, and I don’t think it’s some sort of super glue holding most of Europe together. There are strong ties across Europe and these would still exist without the EU.
The European NATO countries between them have a far larger population (3x) and far larger economies (about 6x) that of Russia and it’s 5 or 6 allies in Europe and Southern Asia, they should be able to easily deter adventurism against them from Moscow. Perhaps a withdrawal of the US from NATO might be what they need to start working together more effectively in terms of their own defense, they should dwarf Russia militarily in conventional armed forces, so why don’t they? They count too much on the US as a backstop.
There were several factors preventing another war in Europe from happening. The existence of the EU only became relevant once Continental Europe came through reconstruction post WW2.
The population and the size of the economy are only a secondary factor. Unlike the USA or the USSR in WW2 there is no way you can rely on defense in depth while you switch production towards military weapons. Since the War on Ukraine the countries bordering Russia have actually investing more on weapons but unless the countries with the most GDP and industrial production actually increase their military spending it ain’t going to be enough.
France the UK are the only countries in Europe who could actually make the Russians think twice before invading. The rest is a walkover.
“There were several factors preventing another war in Europe from happening.”
Yes, hundreds of thousands of nuclear-armed US troops. And an existential threat from the Soviet Union.
The EU is just the Fourth Reich, and the people of Europe still don’t want to be told what to do by Germans. The faster it breaks up, the less violent the breakup will be.
Yeah that’s basically it. The US and the Soviet Union basically kept the former major European powers in check.
I mostly agree with your other comment as well. I just think that whole concept of Reich is kind of trite. It is there to justify a continuum which never existed in the first place.
The real power in the EU has always been the Council of Ministers. I’ve said that, more than once, to people over the years but most here still thought it was the Commission or the Parliament who led. It was kind of interesting to see even the Greek government committing that kind of foible. e.g. when Yanis Varoufakis thought because he was in agreement with the Commission that he had a real deal with the ‘EU’. Only to find that the Council of Ministers simply ignored the agreement and ran roughshod over it even openly mocking the Commission for overstepping its authority. After that little even the mask fell off and now people realize a bit more what a charade the EU governance structures are.
Back when the EU still had only like a dozen elements this kind of directorate style leadership kind of worked. It was possible to find a reasonable compromise most of the time. Now that the EU has 28 members the directorate just does not work anymore. They needed to change the governance of the EU before the enlargement to the East and they failed.
The people of Europe don’t want to be told what to do by Germans, French, Spanish or whatever. There was an expectation that the EU was going to be democratic in nature. Some favored a confederation while others favored a federation. I actually used to be an EU federalist at one time but I think a confederate style organization actually makes more sense for something like Europe. However I doubt the EU will last. It just outgrew itself to the point of rupture.
“He’s saying a lot of the sort of thing I go on about – how often people are sucked in by the temptation to follow the haters…”
Andrew,
And it is your opinion that there is a large enough group of “haters” to matter?
Just how do you personally define “hater”?
I think it’s an overused, grossly hyperbolic term.
Perhaps a withdrawal of the US from NATO might be what they need to start working together more effectively in terms of their own defense, they should dwarf Russia militarily in conventional armed forces, so why don’t they? They count too much on the US as a backstop.
Careful, this is close to Trump’s position.
I figure that since Trump has so much to say, like a million monkeys, he’ll occasionally emit something that makes sense.
People that think a million monkeys can produce Shakespeare have no mathematical sense.
I don’t expect Shakespeare from Trump
How about a million Trumps?
…I was struck that it was a direct outcome of the assassination of an Austrian Arch Duke in Bosnia. I very much doubt anyone at the time thought the killing of a minor European royal would lead to the death of 17 million people…
Minor? He was the heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary
One of the Great Powers before it was broken post WWI.
As for Russia there was an informal agreement not to expand NATO after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Russia wanted to keep the other countries as a buffer zone. With the expansion of NATO to its borders a war between NATO and Russia is almost inevitable. I doubt it will happen while Putin is in power though. If there’s a war between the major powers it will probably happen in the 2020s. Russia and China are still in the middle of their military buildup. Russia can conduct a regional war right now. They have a high level of military readiness. But its still a bit early to pick a fight with the other UN Security Council members.
I wouldn’t be too surprised to see a major war start in 4-5 years. The Russians and Chinese have been testing their weapon systems and training soldiers in proxy wars and peacekeeping missions for the last couple of years. Once the new weapons systems come online (e.g. T-14 Armata, PAK FA, S-500, RS-24; J-20, Type 002 Carrier, DF-41) it is highly likely a war will happen. Every system I mentioned expect the PAK FA and Type 002 Carrier is in LRIP right.
Yeah “the minor European royal” reference seriously degrades the credibility of the author.
As for the informal agreement not to expand NATO into the former Soviet countries, that is Russia’s well-propagandized interpretation of those early days. James Baker offered that, and the State Department almost immediately reversed the offer. There was never a promise to stay out of those countries, either with NATO or EU connections.
They have a high level of military readiness.
Yup, Russia and China getting lots of practice right now.
“I wouldn’t be too surprised to see a major war start in 4-5 years.”
Unless Clinton starts a war as soon as she’s elected, Europe will be too busy with its own civil war to think about fighting Russia. One way or another, the world will be a very different place in 4-5 years.
And hopefully it won’t be a nuclear wasteland.
I’m sure it is very scary for the elites to see all those peasants rising up. I doubt that the solution is to heap scorn on the stupid hater peasants. That seems to be the only solution that the elites can countenance, though.
Bingo!
[useless words added to make the comment long enough. 🙁 ]
While any series of events can be unpredictable (or very predictable after the fact as some claim) his argument fails on one point.
Unlike the fascists Trump is being compared to, Trump is giving up power to become president. Fascists start without power and seek to gain it. What’s in the presidency for Trump? A bigger name? He already has that. More money? Ditto.
I love the Ferrari ego and Lada brain comment (wish I’d thought of it, but will probably have a use for it in the future.)
Who does Trump hate? Not immigrants, his position is pure republican on that (they come in legally.) He’s being accused of being too chummy with Putin and not enough with NATO and the UN but what is he actually saying? Other countries need to take adult responsibility for their own welfare if they want our continued support. The UN which exists in NYC (unlike the league before it) because others want to guarantee America holds most of the burden, is one of the most anti-American institutions in existence with only our veto power keeping us from being dominated by enemies of America in the UN.
Is Trump going to ignore our allies from Russian or other aggressors? Not if they make the commitment to be real partners with US rather than just welfare recipients. This makes the world a much safer place.
Trump is not doing the same thing. He is not using hatred… that’s his opponents doing so and projecting (they never ever project do they? /sarc) on Trump. Andrew has called me a Muslim hater which is so ridiculous that it’s funny. Trump is getting the same treatment. Conservatives (even if Trump isn’t one) always do.
Trump is giving up power to become president.
I don’t think he thinks he’s doing that. I can’t imagine why you do.
Dear Rand,
Your statements about Trump are amazing. I know more about you than I or you know about Trump. As a now retired business developer, I can assure you that my public statements and political activities were undertaken to protect my business interests from regulators and officials from whom I needed permits, etc., and had exactly zero relationship with my personal beliefs. Likewise, I suspect but don’t know, Trump.
I have sat in negotiations where people said all sorts of Trumpian things, with the objective of P.O.ing or otherwise destabilizing the counter party. It is fun to watch and it can be marvelously effective in skilled hands. And Trump is, after all, the ultimate poker player. Do read the story about him tying up 3 of the largest investment banks in NY over 3.5 billion dollars in underperforming loans in the 1987 recession. The short story? The banks lost and had to re-structure his loans. I would love to see someone like him as Putin’s adversary instead of one of our precious Atlantic Seaboard intelligentsia with zero real world experience
I urge you to try to separate what you actually know from what you believe (for whatever reason) you know. Chill, take two aspirins, and call us back in November of 2017, when you have 11 months of data on Trump if he wins.
Mrs. Clinton is a whole other kettle of fish, she has a real record of governance, and it is calamitously incompetent, with the added feature that her stupidity somehow appears to always produce baleful results.
Thanks, and chill, you’ll feel much better.
I urge you to try to separate what you actually know from what you believe (for whatever reason) you know. Chill, take two aspirins, and call us back in November of 2017, when you have 11 months of data on Trump if he wins.
I get your point, no one should ever make judgments on candidates before they’re actually elected to govern because that would be unfair, how can people make any assessment of someones ability to do a job unless the candidate has actually had a fair crack at doing the job?
I think you should be in human resources, selecting pilots for airlines, doctors for hospitals, that sort of thing.
I agree. I see a lot of battlefield prep by Trump. He knows that to get what you really want, you have to ask for twice as much.
I can’t imagine why you [think Trump is giving up power.]
I say this with respect, which I clearly have for you, don’t play dumb. I said why. You are not a shallow thinker (or lacking in imagination.)
As president he would have new buttons to push which he sees as the only way to fix the mess we are in. Even you have to agree he’s right (assuming you can compartmentalize your beliefs about the man himself.) He already has more power than any number of powerful people (he owns a single building worth more than Romney.) He is one of the very few people in the world that you can say has about as much power as anybody needs. But to correct the ills that you see and report about (that I and millions of others also clearly see) he needs different powers and will be giving up other powers that someone not in government has.
He’s directly confronting the left’s monopoly in the media and incredibly, he’s winning (although not causing their heads to explode you can see the smoke.)
We talk about RINO’s working hand in hand with the left, but before Trump were we aware how much those pretending not to be are willing to vote with Hillary before Trump?
He’s a wrecking ball and it’s about time.
What power is he giving up?
Really Rand? He’s giving up the freedom of action that anybody not the president has. Even being a billionaire does not put him under the microscope as being president would.
I’m amused to hear that you think he thinks he is doing so. All hail the humble Donald Trump, who will suffer so for our sins.
Rand, do you really think as president his freedom of action is not limited? Had congress shown any balls Obama wouldn’t have caused a tenth the harm he’s done. With Trump, they won’t hesitate (at first, after he mugs a few they might lose their new found cajones.)
I think it should be, but I don’t think it will be until he’s actually impeached and removed.
So are you predicting impeachment already? Were you on Obama’s nobel prize committee?
I’ve been doing it for months. It’s the only good thing about him. Pence will make a great president.
When it comes to angering both Republicans and Democrats, Trump is a uniter, not a divider.
Great line, because there’s an even greater truth behind it. I missed that article. Thanks for the link.
So you’ve already decided he will not do a thing that is central to his campaign? You believe any VP raised to president would be a solution. Rand, you are through the looking glass.
How can you so clearly identify the problems with our government and not realize that more of the same is not just not a solution, but goes nowhere but the eventual destruction of our country? I don’t care who you pick. It ain’t enuff!
Trump is a wild card. The law says these bastards can’t be fired or even controlled by the people. That makes the solution extra legal. We need to find a way to do what isn’t legal. We have to start by realizing that all that is legal is written by the bastards that want to be untouchable. Play the game straight and you’ve lost before you even started.
Safety is not an option. The only possible solution involves risk more than our founders took (committing treason.) We are going to witness trouble the world has never seen before. Impeachment would just be a sideshow.
So you’ve already decided he will not do a thing that is central to his campaign?
No, I’ve decided long ago that I have no clue what he will do, and I don’t think that he does, either. He’s like a dog who chases cars, and doesn’t know what to do when he catches one.
We need to find a way to do what isn’t legal. We have to start by realizing that all that is legal is written by the bastards that want to be untouchable. . .
. . . . The only possible solution involves risk more than our founders took (committing treason.)
Wow, it sound’s like you think the solution is a coup, which would be followed by a civil war. That’s what you’d get if a group of military revolutionaries ever fought for control of the country through “illegal” means, there are no other “illegal” means to do as you advocate.
It never fails to amaze me that despite your adamant claims of a deep belief in Christian principles you’re always so keen on policies that do, or would, inevitably lead to bloodshed.
Perhaps it’s just that you don’t understand the implications of the things to advocate. A sure sign of a true Trump disciple.
“the things
toyou advocate”What’s in it for Trump? You tell me. For some reason he’s applying for President. If it was worthless to him why would he even try?
UN funding is based on GDP. That’s why the US pays more than other countries. In fact I think this funding scheme was originally proposed by the US. The UN General Assembly is mostly useless. The only place with real power is the UN Security Council which provides a place for nuclear weapon states and superpowers to discuss security matters.
What’s in it for Trump?
Perhaps what he actually says could be a clue? Yes, he goes back and forth on a lot of issues, sometimes in seconds. That doesn’t mean what you think it means.
He backed Mitt. Why?
Perhaps, he sees what you and I and millions of others plainly see… a government so bad that it boggles. Unlike you and I, he can do something about it.
I strongly recommend The Fourth Turning by Howe and Strauss. It explains a lot of what is happening–not the what, but the why.
People see patterns where none exist. Science is predictive. They sound as predictive as Woody Allen… “I predict in the future two nations will go to war and one will win.” But I haven’t read their work.
OTOH, the pendulum swing has long been an observed fact.
Wow, the desperation is getting slick with sweat from those who fear losing their power base. This long, tortured screed twisting itself and the reader into a pretzel trying to paint Trump as the next Hitler/Mussolini/Mugabe is just odd.
Apparently, being unwilling to follow the old guard into the destruction WE CLEARLY SEE somehow makes Trump voters uninformed in some way. There are some simple things that need to be done, and people have been asking that they be done BEFORE Trump was running for office. I was willing to vote for Cruz if he had behaved himself and won the nomination, but in the same spirit of fear as the author above, he went full-bore crazy on the campaign trail and trying to pull the rug out from under Trump with the delegate backroom deals and things like that. In a panic, he found himself unable to run an honest campaign, and on top of it, Trump was willing to shine light on Cruz’s deceit. The RNC was used to all the candidates playing along and remaining silent to all the hidden backstabbing they usually do to each other while we the voters watch. Trump doesn’t “play along”, the secret shenanigans were revealed, and the electorate is disgusted.
So now the columnists, and the two also-rans in the Republican race continue to pound on the nominee with the “he’s-a-fascist” boogeyman, and continue to insult our intelligence. Trump is low on detail? Almost all presidential candidates are low on detail, this is not new, or unexpected. Unless a candidate has been president or vice-president before, the real capabilities and limitations of the job are part of the “new-hire” learning curve. For those few presidents who go into their campaigns with highly-detailed policy, they are either defeated because their details are picked to death for campaign-killing flaws, or if they win, their policies are almost nothing like what they promised.
The standard to which Trump is being held is far too high, and all the opposition has left is innuendo of oogly-boogly Hitler 2.0 and a bunch of boobs voting for him during commercial breaks between Duck Dynasty episodes. It is approaching a mania.
There is one good thing about a Trump Presidency, the US has a robust political system that limits presidential powers, I’m confident it’ll stop the lunatic doing more than 10% of the damage Hitler caused.
The Germans had a Parliament. AFAIK Hitler burned it down and said the Communists (the major opposition party) did it so they were all arrested and declared illegal. Guess what. No opposition left.
I think the US system is more robust than the German system was in the early 30’s, but you’re right, from time to time Americans do get caught up on bandwagons that get out of control and if enough of the general public climb on board with Trump Congress will adopt those same sentiments, even if it takes and election or two.
Amazing how easily you see Hitler in Trump, but not in Hillary. Which one is more likely to kill her partner while stealing his documents? Which then turn up (in her possession the whole time) when it no longer matters?
Lets face it, to be a successful populist dictator requires charm, deviousness and the oratory skills to drive the weak minded into a furor, Hilary only scores 1/3, Trump’s a solid 3/3.
Trump is low on detail? Almost all presidential candidates are low on detail, this is not new, or unexpected.
Exactly, and the entire media is playing along with the Democrat’s attack just like they all have been using the theme that Trump’s convention speech wasn’t positive enough. Hillary and the DNC direct the media on how they are supposed to cover the race.
Yeah, and the Democrats’ and their surrogates’ attack plan has been comical. It’s like one of those Star Trek episodes where the alien absorbs the phasor blasts and feeds on their energy. Eventually, the crew realize they’re just making it stronger. The MSM just keep recharging the phasor banks:
“We like Trump.”
“But, he’s not one of us.”
“We don’t like you.”
“But, but… he’s not one of us.”
“We know. That’s what we like about him.”
“But, don’t you understand? He’ NOT LIKE US.”
“Yeah. We know.”
Sorry, overheated comparisons of Trump to Hitler or Mussolini are bunk. There are a zillion populist politicians out there and many of them push the same sorts of angles that Trump does. Not everyone of them becomes the next Hitler.
Instead, I think there is a far better comparison here in the decline of the Roman Republic, particularly in the role that populist politicians of that time played in the affair. For example, the Gracchi brothers rose to power on a platform of distributing public land to small landholders (even then, public land was farmed and such by wealthy landholders who used armies of slaves). Both they and their opponents quickly started breaking laws wholesale with blatant murder eventually embraced, one brother and then the other (over a decade later) were killed by mobs allegedly organized for that purpose (the first in 133 BC, the second committed suicide before being overrun by a mob in 121 BC). This was also the beginning of the infamous Roman proscriptions of the time where lists of rivals were drawn up to be executed when a new faction assumed power.
The next century continued the decline of the Roman Republic until it firmly ended with the ascendancy of Augustus Caesar as Emperor in 27 BC.
So sure, things don’t look that good, but I think it’s foolish to compare Trump to a situation that just doesn’t apply here. He doesn’t have the power of a Hitler in 1930-1932. He doesn’t have the establishment support that Hitler was eventually able to suborn. And he sure doesn’t have the backing of a huge number of thugs willing to kill for him.
But he could end up being a milestone along a road to a future Hitler or Caesar, and the end of US democracy.
I watched Lesley Stahl’s 60 minutes interview of Trump and Pence last night.
Trump: We’re going to destroy ISIS. . . NATO . . . Turkey . . . I’m so great . . . we’re going to destroy ISIS.
Stahl: “How, boots on the ground?”
Trump: We’re going to destroy ISIS . . . I like this guy. . .
I’ve never seen anything like it, never has a politician said so little with so much authority and confidence in himself. It was just bizarre, the guy’s a narcissistic loon.
“I’ve never seen anything like it, never has a politician said so little with so much authority and confidence in himself.”
Then you haven’t listened to many politicians.
+1 to Gregg
There are a zillion populist politicians out there and many of them push the same sorts of angles that Trump does. Not everyone of them becomes the next Hitler.
Obama is an example of a populist who didn’t become Hitler, even if he did use some totalitarian police state actions. Obama and Trump’s campaigns have a lot of similarities but Trump isn’t motivated by a political ideology held with a religious zealotry, like Obama. The danger is there for Trump to abuse his power but its there for anyone now that the precedent has been set.
No one gets to be a leader of a country without some charisma.
The attempts to claim Trump is going to act like a leftist socialist dictator are ridiculous.
Again, for a historian it was quite predictable.
The genius of predicting past events with 20/20 hindsight.
Indeed. This is just another pundit trying to elect Clinton by scaring us. Ignore.
William F Buckley famously said that he would rather be ruled by the first thousand names in the phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. He meant it. It’s not his fault that most conservatives don’t.
Trump is a shock jock who likes to talk. What he says is little different than your average American when he’s shooting his mouth off after a couple of beers.
“They are only looking at the present, not the past or future.”
I could only think, what planet have you been living on? It is precisely because of the failures of the past under business as usual, and the almost certain continuation of failure of that model going forward, that has elevated Trump to the position he is in.
Andrew-w wrote:
“He’s saying a lot of the sort of thing I go on about – how often people are sucked in by the temptation to follow the haters,…”
And I replied asking him how he defines “hater”.
Crickets.
C’mon Andrew – you certainly have no problem tossing the term around.
How do you define “hater”?
Do you think there is a large percentage of the population who are “haters”? Like roughty what percentage?
I think the term is used rather cavalierly and most often by virtue signalers. Or non-thinkers.
You used the term, Andrew – now define it.
I think the challenge here is not defining the term, “haters”, but defining it in such a way that it excludes himself.
Karl, ya crack me up!
People who hate all (name of group here) because of what a few (name of group here) have done.
Groups typically targeted by haters:
Muslims, Christians, Jews, Blacks, Whites, Police, Americans, Europeans, Saudi’s, Iraqi’s, New Yorkers, Republicans, Democrats.
That is an absolute dodge and you know it.
You speak of “haters” as a group of substantial size. Otherwise why mention them? When pressed to define the size and scope of what you call haters – crickets.
There are always haters in every society. You and the Dems speak of them as if they are this massive powerful group that must be fought and beaten.
How big? What influence?
Horrible dodge on your part. Try again.
You speak of “haters” as a group of substantial size.
Absolutely untrue, they’re the people within groups that can cause havoc and division within and between societies if their calls to hate gain ascendancy over those with saner and more tempered views, so it’s no dodge.
Your problem with my answer is that it’s not the one you wanted, one that you could then use to label me as someone who hates one of your “in” groups.
Andrew you specify a group you call “haters” and when asked to say who they are you essentially reply “People who hate”
Typical lib non-answer. Just the sort of avoidance technique a virtue signaler uses when they haven’t given the slightest thought to what they are saying.
You wouldn’t have mentioned the group unless you thought they were substantial in size…substantial enough to be influential. So when asked how big you avoid that too. Multiple times.
So we’ll just put you down as a typical virtue signaler who uses a word without any context.
Next!
People who hate all because of what a few have done.
You’ve defined the term to meaninglessness. Almost nobody would fit your definition even though I would agree haters exist. The other problem is your mind reading abilities are way off. You think people are haters when what they hate is very specific where you generalize it to meaninglessness.
I, for example, hate evil. You don’t even believe evil exists. You believe it’s a mere matter of perspective rather than an absolute truth. Telling people to take a shower in a gas chamber is evil. Absolutely evil.
Hating evil does not mean hating people (although it could.) It means hating what they do. I hate that Islam trains their children to dehumanize (not just Jews, but clearly and undeniably in that case.)
Abstraction is how all human minds function, but even the most uneducated hick can be taught to see the difference between a generalization and specific cases. Your definition of hater makes you the hick.
Yep Karl; he failed to exclude himself. He even admitted that Americans are targeted, so props for him being an honest hater. But Greg’s right. Andrew has failed to identify exactly what group the haters are, while simultaneously including himself in that group. Perhaps we should be fighting Andrew for Andrew’s sake? Possibly, but I’m not the hater Andrew is, and I won’t join his group of hate.
Andrew has failed to identify exactly what group the haters are,
That statement makes no sense as a reply to what I’ve said. they’re not “groups” they’re the people within groups advocating hate and violence against other groups, is that so hard to understand? Example: Black Lives Matter has a lot of people who believe that innocent black men are killed by police, but amongst all the Black Lives Matter supporters there will be different ideas for solving the problem they see, some will just want things like police body cameras and successful prosecution of the officers that they think are guilty of unjustified killings of black me, and a the other extreme there will be those who want to see a war against the police all police, ditto with regard to ISIS and Muslims most people see ISIS as bad and want to see ISIS ended, others want to extend that to Muslims, and want to see all Muslims ended.
Is this all so hard to understand? I’m sure most people get what I’m saying in an instant, maybe the reason that you don’t get it because you’re a hater and don’t see a difference between the people in the groups you belong to who just want to see the violence ended, and people in those same groups who think that the violence can only be ended by eliminating all the people in opposing groups?
Andrew has failed to identify exactly what group the haters are, while simultaneously including himself in that group.
What groups have I advocated hate and violence against? I’m not opposed to targeting individuals who promote violence, I am opposed to policies targeting whole groups based on the violent actions of a few within those groups.
This is a very, very good article about how we got to this point:
Why Are Voters So Angry?
Seriously, it’s a must-read. The current political establishment shows no inclination to roll any of this back, so it’s inevitable that people will look to political outsiders.
Great link. Too long to read before my appointment this morning (and includes links that should be followed.) It’s first on my reading list when I get back (I’ve got a long day today… it includes driving a hundred miles to get needles stuck in my left eye. The right eye was last week.)
You really need to find a better dominatrix.
ha! The good news is the swelling in my retinas has gone down so my visits are being stretched out to five weeks instead of four. But then again… do ya know a good one? I hear Rodians give great massage with their suction cup fingertips and all.
rickl, two things occurred as I read the article. It’s just pain facts. It’s the most depressing thing I’ve read. Reading it all I could see is a cartoon character running in the air over the chasm. It really is too late. Those that would perpetuate this system and even make it worse are too entrenched. No election can change it. The only solution is impossible. It requires someone in government to say to government workers…”you’re fired!” We never going to find such a guy.
Trump is too little, too (100 years?) late. America is over.
The only solution is impossible. It requires someone in government to say to government workers…”you’re fired!”
You are aware that it doesn’t matter whether someone says that or not, that civil-service rules prevent it, or are you as unfamiliar with how the government works as Trump probably is?
I am perfectly aware Rand. The word impossible should have been a give away.
I would like to know a solution… any solution. I don’t see one. Which means each of us must take our own action to protect ourselves fully aware it may not be enough. I’m hoping to be out of the blast radius here in Springerville, but no, I am not any kind of survivalist (any more than we all are.)