Pure evil struck a peaceful synagogue in Pittsburgh during a Sabbath service this morning. At least eleven people lost their lives, and two others are reported in critical condition. The gunman believed that Jews were helping those dirty little brown people from Honduras known popularly as the caravan. Of course, the gunman and the pipe bomber were really leftists who are seeking to destroy Trump's Republicans' chances in the midterm elections. They have been posing as right wingers for years, waiting for this opportunity to derail MAGA! What a bunch of EVIL BULLSHIT!
It makes me sick! For the past several years, we've even seen holocaust deniers and pro Hitler people post their bile on the post-Armstrong blogs. I've gotten right back in their faces, confronted them, and pissed them off. Same way with the haters of other minorities, and the anti- diversity people. To me, it was important to demonstrate massive resistance to the haters.
ReplyDeleteHaters are not terribly intelligent people. They don't know how to gather and interpret facts. One particularly sad example of this occurred in my state in the aftermath of 9/11. Some redneck shot and killed a convenience store owner, apparently assuming that he was in some way a countryman of Osama bin Laden. Had he done some simple investigating, he would have realized that the man was a Sikh, from India, an entirely different part of the world. This particular Sikh gentleman had a long alliance with the surrounding community, and was loved by all of the people in his neighborhood.
Haters bring all of the rest of us down, by making us hate them. They are like a cancer on humanity. When we have thinly veiled haters in public office, it provides an excuse for people who are on radical fringes to freely vent attitudes that, for the benefit and survival of society, are best overcome or restrained. I knew what was going on the minute I realized that Steve Bannon was part of Donald Trump's inner circle. Yes, he got dumped, but I'm convinced that that was little more than street theatre for the purpose of plausible deniability. The attitudes didn't suddenly from this stealth maneuver.
Vote, people! This intolerable stuff has the potential to become a whole lot worse before it gets any better!
BB
The anti sabatarian/legalism stance of some on the blogs come close to classic anti semitism. This becomes apparent in Yad Vashem.
ReplyDeleteThe narrative of kkk today is about jewish wrath for 2000 years of persecution and therefore their aim if destruction of christianity and the white race.
If anyone is to oppose that natrative people should adress those concerns. On the other hand we should not let radicals dictate any agenda.
The agenda should be dictated by shared values concerning rights and liberties and the will of the people as expressed through elections and participation.
On both counts the shooter is guilty by overstepping the set boundaries by the people.
I salute the policemen speeding to the crime scene.
Nck
I have learned not to frame reactions to shootings in terms of gun laws. Usually the laws are quite good in light of american acceptance of collateral damage in context of the possibility to raise militias.
ReplyDeleteIts a cultural thimg I ve come to accept.
Nck
My take on this, nck, is more in line with Occam's Razor. For years, Conservative pundits have been decrying the "fact" that the media is liberal. Members of the uber-right have simultaneously been stating that the media is controlled by the Jews (Not true! Rupert Murdock is not a Jew). If anything, the media is polarized. There are both liberal and conservative biases in different segments of the major media. As an example, what is known as "talk radio" is largely conservative. The point is that each side wants to deprive the other of their right to free speech.
ReplyDeleteYou can't have a wide spread theory that the media is liberal because it is controlled by Jews without having some demented zealots wanting to blame the entire Jewish race. We're witnessing as some of the failed techniques of the Third Reich corrupt our own society. I just hope that everyone wakes up in time for November 6!
BB
Yes BB.
ReplyDeleteI do not disagree. I am looking at cultural undercurrents though. I would not call the shooter "a victim of the polarized media". He is fed by a substantial subset current existing since the 1920's, today pointing its fingers at Soros et all,
Was it Ford factories shooting at striking workers in 1925 or so before radio days?
I agree in Congo radio was instrumental in inciting hatred between Hutis and Tutsis. 2 groupings that were created in colonial times. (2 non existant artificially created peoples for administrative reasons, who are actually the same.)
Nck
Some people are just easily influenced, nck. However, clearly, this guy made decisions, is responsible for them and needs to be held accountable. No way do I consider him to be the victim in this. I'm just saying that there are philosophies, and people, and manipulators/collectors of people who aid, abet, and encourage zealotry, and they need to be held accountable for this equation as well. The manipulators are not unlike those who would yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
ReplyDeleteAs a society, we have held such idea-makers as Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, and Osama bin Laden responsible for the evil acts which their leadership has inspired. Suddenly we have mass mailings of pipe bombs and mass ethnic murder, the latter in a worship service no less! I say we'd better use the ballot box while it still works, because I'm not sure it will remain intact until the next election cycle.
BB
I have posted some comments relative to this topic on one of my other blogs (which has been dormant for several months). For those who are interested, you can check it out here:
ReplyDeletehttps://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2018/10/supporting-rights-narrative-about.html
Oh yes. I'm quite aware of the 1 to 100 leaders that get sentenced after each (world) war.
ReplyDeleteI'm pointing at what "solution light" is offered by said persons that makes the "Helter Skelter", and other ideologies appealing to the masses in such away that a modest and moderate man like Miller is speaking about "civil war."
Are we calling Miller the one shouting "fire" in a crowd while the masses are just nicely consuming "solution light" as offered by their leaders of choice?
Yes. It is possible that "white collars" create "climates" in which the not so intelligent create abu ghraib, WWII, Twin Towers.
I am speaking about the appeal of "Homeland Security", creating a virtual police state, "Liberation" creating terrorism, "Freedom of chained middle classes" creating Helter Skelter, the fear of being wiped out (as a race) creating anti semitism or at least sentiments against the traveller (immigrant).
The only idea that can replace an idea is another idea.
My point of all I said sofar is that the idea proposed by the Left do not seem to appeal to a broad base, they even seem to incite radicalims in the right.
I am not giving any viewpoint regarding the merits of the ideas of both sides. I am just saying that social conditions in the United States do not seem to allow for faster change than the Obama administration stood for. While most change in society is already propelled by technological innovation, new ways of interpreting things. A large swath of society does seem to have other priorities than change.
These need to be adressed or radical elements will take action, which are the EXACT words of the shooter. He said "he could no longer stand idly by". Whatever mental psychic, economic, social problem might have harrangued him to perpetuate his evil.
But hey. I'm ok with it if he turns out to be "just" a lone wolf who is mentally ill and responded to some conspiratist website or radio program.
Thank heavens, then we can forget all about civil war or adressing the needs of large swaths of society regarding stability, honor through work and a clear identity they can celebrate and be proud of working toward an even brighter future with and for all countrymen.
I wish they are all lone wolfs and those radio pundits dark holes in an otherwise bright universe.
nck
The point you're making is a valid one. In a functioning democratic republic, ideas and candidates compete for support/votes; and the side with the most votes then assumes office and attempts to implement those ideas. The critical component of the success of this arrangement is that the other side accept the outcome of the vote and acquiesce (at least until the next contest) in what follows. That is NOT currently happening in the United States.
DeleteYes, our objective has to be one in which the most people possible are included and find fulfillment within the policies being promulgated by their government. As it is, we (in the U.S.) have large chunks of our population who currently feel alienated, disconnected, disenfranchised and angry. And, now, we have folks (who are supposedly part of the side that won the last contest) engaging in violence to further (in their minds) the goals of their side (viewpoint).
When the bombs and guns come out and folks are being killed, we usually characterize that as war. Is it appropriate to yell "fire" when you see the embers being fanned into flames?
For the record, the people to whom I referred as having yelled fire are the political leaders who use fear rhetoric to consolidate and preserve their power. They are the ones who incite the disenfranchisement which leads to the frustration and violence. Because there is nearly a 50-50 split on many of the major issues, and because presidential candidates can win the popular vote, yet lose the election, there are many heated opinions floating around out there, and the people who allow their entire personalities to be patterned after their favorite talk radio show host have become uncompromising activists. Some of the more easily influenced ones from both sides of the political spectrum end up resorting to violence. Most of the people in the middle of the road just want to peacefully go about life, feed their families, and raise their children.
ReplyDeleteThe governing style of our current president is a marked departure from the measured and statesmanlike styles of previous presidents. We have a leader who deliberately intimidates by making shocking statements, and then pulling back slightly to fulfill his policy goals. With no tone setting of proper presidential decorum, his less intelligent followers use that as an excuse to radicalize, and to drop their own sense of decorum.
Our power mongers are the ones yelling fire. They are waging a very visible war to win and consolidate the power. We, the little guys are just sounding the warning that this needs to be ratcheted back, or the kookaboos amongst us whom they incite will make the violence of last week just the beginning.
BB
I heartily agree.
DeleteThat's where I disagree and have been beating around the bush.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion President Obama whose measured, professor style, thinking mode appearing, moderate in adressing opponents implemented a couple of the most radical changes EVER in American society. Topics a European would not blink about for a second but appear to be radically marxist and diverging from what was "common" and "middle of the road" in US society.
I happen to agree with a lot of his views. But to me it is NO surprise at all that a president is elected whose primary goal is to reverse all and anything the Obama administration ever touched.
Things have gone too fast to soon, to radical for american society that is currently being plagued by a quick assumption of "regular nation" among other superpowers. (Russia nuclear weapons, gas supply and middle east involvement, Chinese goals to unite the entire Eurasian continent. (heavily opposed by the Trump administration currently)
Just as Pres Obama was a reaction to some of the insane policies of the Bush neocons. Trump is a reaction to, when you really study it, (to some normalization to european standards of living and others implementation of marxism).
Again. I am not saying I am disagreeing. I'm saying USA can't handle the pace of change and change causes friction in theory. And yes I agree. "Friction" in international relations is called "war" by the man on the street, so we might aswell call internal friction war too.
nck
That's what civil war is - war between citizens of the same country. And style is important. BB is right - President's are supposed to be measured, thinking and project moderation.
DeleteAs to your point about Obama going too fast with change. He went too fast in some areas for about half of our citizens. The other half thought he either had it just about right or didn't go far enough! And there's the source of the friction.
The normal rhythms of political life, the gentle swing of the pendulum between left and right, have been interrupted in the United States. The extremes occupy center stage, and we now lurch from one side to the other (as BB has suggested in previous posts).