There is quite a bit I disagree with in this article, but it is good to see someone from the Left arguing that anti-imperialism should be a priority issue.
By Noah Berlatsky
“I just feel like I had my best girlfriend break up with me,” Alex Jones declared in a live rant last month during the American bombing of Syria. “I will tell Trump that you really betrayed your family and your name, and everything you stood for with this horse manure.”
Dave goes back and forth with protesters during his entire speech to students at the University of New Hampshire. Due to security threats the University moved the venue from a 300 seat room to a 7500 seat hockey rink – without informing all of the attendees. This event was hosted by Turning Point USA.
f you want to know why the left keeps losing, look no further than the fallout from last Sunday’s ‘Day for Freedom’ march in London. The event was publicised as a protest against the ongoing erosion of free speech in the UK, most notably through the increasingly draconian application of hate-speech laws. The man behind the march was Tommy Robinson, former leader of the EDL, who took umbrage at being permanently banned from Twitter for his incendiary remarks about Islam. Before long, a number of prominent right-wing activists offered their support, and even without mainstream media coverage the attendance figures were in the thousands.
How is it that the principle of free speech, the bedrock of any democratic society, has been claimed by the right? Inevitably, right-wing media outlets such as Breitbart have declared the ‘Day for Freedom’ to be their victory. To an extent, they have a point. In recent years, the left has not only failed to defend freedom of expression, but has been actively hostile to it. Moreover, prominent left-wing voices have continually sought to broaden the scope of terms such as ‘far right’ and ‘alt-right’ to incorporate as many of their ideological opponents as possible. I can think of no strategy less likely to persuade and more likely to engender widespread resentment.
For modern conservatives, a question looms large: Has cultural Marxism or post-modernism done more damage to society? Canada’s Jordan Peterson claims the latter, while Paul Gottfried — one of America’s most most serious paleo-conservative intellectuals, says the opposite. On this week’s episode of ‘The San Francisco Review of Books on Sunday,’ Gottfried explains why he thinks that cultural Marxism is far more serious than post-modernism and what this means not only for America, but Western Civilization.
A first person account of Sunday’s rally in London.
On May 6th, what was purported to be the biggest free speech event the UK has ever seen (a “free speech Woodstock”) took place outside of Whitehall. Far left activists and the mainstream media have labelled the demonstration as “fascist” and “far right” respectively, while alt-right white nationalist figures like Millennial Woes and Richard Spencer have disavowed the event as being “demoralising” and overly-liberal for being too inclusive of non-whites, homosexuals, “freaks” and “trannies.” But how was the view from inside?
The event was triggered by a collision of illiberal decisions made by the British state, especially over the last year. Non-violent right-wing speakers banned from the country on the ludicrous grounds of “anti-terrorism,” a legal crackdown on “offensive” jokes, extremely inconsistent application of “hate speech laws” (that, according to many people associated with the event, is disproportionately invoked to defend Islam from vilification) and what is perceived as a willful ignorance of pressing problems concerning crime, censorship, media bias, immigration and Islam (the last of which was especially prevalent, which we shall return to in due course) by the government and establishment media.
My take on Russiagate is that I couldn’t possibly care less if Russia “interferes” in domestic US politics or not. Israel and Saudi Arabia interfere in US politics to an infinitely greater degree than Russia, and it’s not even an issue. The US interferes in the politics of just about all other nations. Turnabout is fair play.
David Pakman of the David Pakman Show, and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, square off in a discussion of allegations of collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and Russian officials and operatives.
RT UK speaks to author, commentator and self-proclaimed ‘provocateur’ Milo Yiannopoulos ahead of Sunday’s #DayForFreedom rally in London, where many are expected to protest in defence of free speech. Other controverisal figures, such as: Tommy Robinson, Lauren Southern, Gavin McInnes, Count Dankula & more, will be speaking at the event.
Another former Never Trumper admits Trump turned out to be just another moderate Republican/neocon stooge, as all presidents ultimately do if they want to remain alive, out of jail, and employable when they leave office.
By John Bowden
Former GOP presidential nominee and current Senate candidate Mitt Romney praised President Trump’s first year in office on Tuesday, saying it was similar to what the first year of a Romney administration would look like.
In response to a question from a voter in Utah, Romney seemed to indicate that he largely approved of the policies pursued by the Trump administration during Trump’s first year in the White House, calling it “better than expected,” the Washington Examiner reports.
“His first year is very similar to things I’d have done my first year,” Romney said. “The things he’s actually done have been better than I expected.”
The state always needs a moral panic to justify the expansion of its own power. Gay rights are now mainstream, marijuana legalization is moving rapidly, sanctuary cities are resisting immigration enforcement, skepticism of the drug war is growing, support for criminal justice reform is expanding, and protests against police brutality are now common. In other words, the state is losing many of its tools for self-expansion. This is one reason why political correctness is increasingly becoming incorporated into the state’s ideological framework, and why we are likely to see “traditional” cultural groups (i.e. gun owners, religious traditionalists, conservative whites, etc). becoming increasingly under attack in the future. However, the Red Tribe continues to be a major player in US politics, and currently controls all three branches of the federal government, plus a majority of state governments, even if the Red Tribe is losing ground and does not reflect majority opinion per se. Therefore, the state needs yet another target. Just in the nick of time, here comes hysteria over sex trafficking. Sex trafficking hysteria is becoming the new war on drugs, with the predictable bipartisan enthusiasm in the mainstream, and acquiescence on the part of much of the Left, as there was with the war on drugs. In the future, there will be a sex workers rights movement similar to the gay rights and marijuana legalization movements.
This would seem to go against the general trend toward marijuana legalization, skepticism of the “war on drugs” and support for “criminal justice reform” generally. It’s also interesting how after 50 years of the “war on drugs,” there are now more drugs, more powerful drugs, and more drug overdoses than ever before. In the future, the Trump era will probably be regarded as Reagan-era “conservatism”‘s last stand.
By Matt Laslo
Don’t let all the chaos and scandals of the Trump administration distract you from one of their most stunning successes: They’ve utterly changed the conversation in Washington when it comes to drug crimes. While a few prominent voices on Capitol Hill continue to call for doing away with mandatory minimum prison sentences, there’s a new bill being pushed by top Trump allies inside the Capitol to actually extend mandatory minimums to more fentanyl dealers and to eventually even apply the death penalty in some cases.
“It’s not just that it’s so potent, but it’s also that it’s so concentrated. So, it poses a unique risk in the way that other drugs do not,” Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) told reporters when he unveiled his bill at the Capitol.
Abortion is the issue on which there is probably the most common agreement among social conservatives. There is probably no issue which social conservatives appear to be winning over the long run, and yet liberal and left opinion continues to act as though social conservatives are a dire threat to civilization as if the last 50 years had never happened.
By Elizabeth Nolan Brown
A new poll suggests that young Americans are becoming more liberal about abortion as they age. According to the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), a quarter of 18- to 29-year-olds say they have become more supportive of abortion rights in recent years; only nine percent have become less supportive.
This stands in contrast to baby boomers and older Americans. Among respondents age 65 and up, only six percent tell PRRI they’ve recently become more supportive of abortion access; 12 percent are more opposed. “The relative stability of attitudes in the general public towards the legality and availability of abortion over the past few years has masked a growing polarization of opinion between younger and older Americans,” says PRRI CEO Robert P. Jones in a press release.
The 18- to 29-year-olds surveyed (a mix of younger millennials and elder Gen Z) were also significantly more likely than their oldest counterparts to agree that at least some health care providers in their community should provide abortions: 69 percent versus 46 percent.
Who is Candace Owens and why is Yeezy tweeting about her?
Who is Candace Owens? If you’d never heard of Candace Owens before yesterday you’re not alone. The conservative commentator who’s been called the ‘next Tomi Lahren’ and YouTube star was working her way up the media ladder slowly until she got a huge social media boost — from Kanye West.
The hip-hop star and Kardashian spouse busted Owens’ world wide open when he tweeted:
The Southern Poverty Law Center now attacks religious conservatives and mainstream political conservatives in the same way it attacks white supremacist organizations. The further leftward the wider society, government and culture drift, the more people and groups with “conservative” values will be on the receiving end of such attacks. It will be interesting to see if these groups retain their traditional patriotism the more they are regarded as outcasts, or whether they will (hopefully) embrace “anti-Americanism.”
By Carol Swain
Catholics, Evangelical Christians, and pro-family organizations have a common adversary, one that is virulent and relentless. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a powerful progressive advocacy group that says its primary mission is to fight hatred, teach tolerance, and seek justice. Despite its noble beginnings in the years following the civil rights movement, during which it fought white supremacist groups resisting social change and the rule of law, the SPLC now works to advance the agenda of the cultural left. Ironically, given the deeply Christian character of the civil rights movement, the SPLC now equates traditional Christian and pro-family organizations with hate groups such as the Aryan Nations, the Ku Klux Klan, and neo-Nazis. What makes these religious groups an SPLC target? A shared biblical worldview that condemns homosexuality and transgenderism.
Liberal and left hysteria over “Chick-Fil-A” coming to town is reminiscent of the way the religious right would react to the opening of an adult bookstore or a gay bar back in the day. This article also makes an interesting point about demographics.
By Stephen Carter
The New Yorker has been taking it on the chin lately for its essay about Chick-fil-A’s “infiltration” of New York City. Although most of the piece is about the evils of fast food and the chain’s ubiquitous “Eat Mor Chikin” advertising campaign, the essay has been excoriated for its anti-Christian tone. “The brand’s arrival here feels like an infiltration, in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism,” we’re told. Not just that: “Its headquarters, in Atlanta, are adorned with Bible verses and a statue of Jesus washing a disciple’s feet. Its stores close on Sundays.” And lest we forget: “The restaurant’s corporate purpose still begins with the words ‘to glorify God.’”
What the author really seems angry about is that the company’s CEO opposes same-sex marriage. But the framing of the piece made Christianity the villain, and the headline — “Chick-fil-A’s Creepy Infiltration of New York City” — was sufficiently troubling that Nate Silver quickly tweeted “This is why Trump won.” Fair point. Religious bigotry is always dangerous. But there’s a deeper problem here, a difficulty endemic to today’s secular left: an all-too-frequent weird refusal to acknowledge the demographics of Christianity. When you mock Christians, you’re not mocking who you think you are.
I agree with the author of this article that there’s likely no compromise in the Red/Blue tribal civil war, and that it will likely the Blue tribe that wins with the US increasingly becoming a one-party state under the Democrats. Although I don’t share his optimism about the outcome of all that given that his preferred model, California, is developing a Third World class system (see Joel Kotkin here and here).
By Peter Leyden and Ruy Teixeira
he next time you call for bipartisan cooperation in America and long for Republicans and Democrats to work side by side, stop it. Remember the great lesson of California, the harbinger of America’s political future, and realize that today such bipartisan cooperation simply can’t get done.
In this current period of American politics, at this juncture in our history, there’s no way that a bipartisan path provides the way forward. The way forward is on the path California blazed about 15 years ago.
In the early 2000s, California faced a similar situation to the one America faces today. Its state politics were severely polarized, and state government was largely paralyzed. The Republican Party was trapped in the brain-dead orthodoxies of an ideology stuck in the past. The party was controlled by zealous activists and corrupt special interests who refused to face up to the reality of the new century. It was a party that refused to work with the Democrats in good faith or compromise in any way.
The solution for the people of California was to reconfigure the political landscape and shift a supermajority of citizens — and by extension their elected officials — under the Democratic Party’s big tent. The natural continuum of more progressive to more moderate solutions then got worked out within the context of the only remaining functioning party. The California Democrats actually cared about average citizens, embraced the inevitable diversity of 21st-century society, weren’t afraid of real innovation, and were ready to start solving the many challenges of our time, including climate change.