My main problem with their formulation is their abuse and misuse of the term "extremist" to label an entire segment of society, a full half of The People, with which they only disagree politically, as criminals.
You see, American Liberty - ALL American Liberty, theirs as well as ours - is on the line now, hostage to the hands of an angry, unthinking mob. Ordinarily, what is thought of as "extremism" is a bad, bad, thing. It causes it's adherents to cease listening to their opponents, as the Left has now done to the Right. They too, are "extremists", but it is now a dangerous thing to point that out. These are no longer normal times. Desperate times call for desperate measures. It's just that those measures should be proportional to the threat advanced, and right now, that threat is very, very high. It would back off several notches if the Left were open to political discourse, to the exchange and debate of ideas verbally, but they are not any longer open to dialogue. Totalitarian environments can only handle one set of "extremists" at a time, and that set must always be the people in dissent with the Ruling Class. Reference the Stalinist Soviet Union's "Great Purge", Maoist China's "Cultural Revolution", and a great many others around the world in the 20th century.
As Hillary Clinton pointed out:
See, the folks arrayed against you have to be open to a dialog first, instead of only out for blood, for a dialog to happen and bloodshed to be averted.
The American Left wants blood. Nothing will suit them but the death or "reconditioning", "re-education", or "deprogramming" of the Right to conform to their crazy ideas that have destroyed nation after nation during the course of the 20th century. Some of that destruction continues to this very day in those failed nations, particularly African nations that were destabilized by Marxism, a terrible legacy of the failure of Marxism last century that they find themselves unable to get out from under now in their weakened condition.
The Left are not open to debate in the matter, for they deny both science and history, while at the same time blindly accusing their opponents of being "science deniers" for not getting with the politically motivated "science" program. Science, REAL, actual science, is always open to debate and falsification when data is not in agreement with a conclusion. Their "science", in common with their politics, is not. Therefore, their "science" is not science at all, in the empirical sense of the word. Neither their "science" nor their politics can tolerate debate, as neither can hold it's own or present a cogent refutation of the arguments against them presented, so, the opposing arguments must be stifled, silenced, in order that the prevailing orthodoxy proceed unhindered.
Proceed to our destruction, the destruction of humanity, if not the destruction of the planet. I don't think humans are capable of destroying the planet, but we are certainly capable of annihilating ourselves and leaving the planet to the ants and the frogs.
Now, that is my problem with the DHS characterization of half of the people in this country, and "nationwide", as "extremists".
My problem with the NBC article presented is that it did not mention what I believe to be the single most important section of the DHS Bulletin.
The DHS bulletin, which can be found here says, and I quote directly from it:
It's the bit I highlighted in red that the NBC article failed to mention, and which is the most important part of the bulletin, as it informs us in no uncertain terms which side of the Conservative-Leftist political chasm that DHS has firmly placed itself on. It is, nearly word for word, a recitation of the prevailing Leftist narrative, and one which I might add is the very reason that they are silencing Conservative voices and calling for their "re-education" - it is unsupportable in open debate, and they fear that more than anything else, since they have no cogent or logical defense in any such debate. Now that they have seized government-wide power, they have DHS firmly planted in their camp, doing their bidding and parroting their words.
To put it simply, the term "false narrative" has not been proven, nor can they prove it, as it has not even been debated, nor can they hold their own in a free and open debate on the subject. So, they must silence it.
Now they have the full force of the Federal Government on their side in that effort.
And NBC conveniently failed to mention that at all...
... because they have the legacy Media firmly entrenched in their camp as well.
Shooting only breaks out when reasoning is no longer an option. Reasoning is no longer an option when either side refuses to dialogue, whatever their reason may be for it. The left is refusing to dialog, for fear that they will lose the debates. I've seen it time and time again lately as I attempted to engage them in dialog. So, the ball is in their court. Either back off that cliff and start a dialog, or keep pushing it and get what they get. The Right CAN'T back off from the cliff, for they are the ones who have been pushed to the brink, their backs to the edge. There is nowhere left for them to go other than forward into and straight through the unreasoning mob, or backwards over the cliff.
What do YOU think they will choose if they continue to be pushed?
.
Quote:“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
- Karl Hess, speechwriter for Barry Goldwater
Quote:"My reason for believing in extremism—intelligently directed extremism, extremism in defense of liberty, extremism in quest of justice—is because I firmly believe in my heart that the day the black man takes an uncompromising step and realizes he’s within his rights, when his own freedom is being jeopardized, to use any means necessary to bring about his own freedom or put a halt to that injustice, I don’t think he’ll be by himself."
- Malcolm X
You see, American Liberty - ALL American Liberty, theirs as well as ours - is on the line now, hostage to the hands of an angry, unthinking mob. Ordinarily, what is thought of as "extremism" is a bad, bad, thing. It causes it's adherents to cease listening to their opponents, as the Left has now done to the Right. They too, are "extremists", but it is now a dangerous thing to point that out. These are no longer normal times. Desperate times call for desperate measures. It's just that those measures should be proportional to the threat advanced, and right now, that threat is very, very high. It would back off several notches if the Left were open to political discourse, to the exchange and debate of ideas verbally, but they are not any longer open to dialogue. Totalitarian environments can only handle one set of "extremists" at a time, and that set must always be the people in dissent with the Ruling Class. Reference the Stalinist Soviet Union's "Great Purge", Maoist China's "Cultural Revolution", and a great many others around the world in the 20th century.
As Hillary Clinton pointed out:
Quote: A dialogue is not possible with a political philosophy that seeks only to destroy you.
See, the folks arrayed against you have to be open to a dialog first, instead of only out for blood, for a dialog to happen and bloodshed to be averted.
The American Left wants blood. Nothing will suit them but the death or "reconditioning", "re-education", or "deprogramming" of the Right to conform to their crazy ideas that have destroyed nation after nation during the course of the 20th century. Some of that destruction continues to this very day in those failed nations, particularly African nations that were destabilized by Marxism, a terrible legacy of the failure of Marxism last century that they find themselves unable to get out from under now in their weakened condition.
The Left are not open to debate in the matter, for they deny both science and history, while at the same time blindly accusing their opponents of being "science deniers" for not getting with the politically motivated "science" program. Science, REAL, actual science, is always open to debate and falsification when data is not in agreement with a conclusion. Their "science", in common with their politics, is not. Therefore, their "science" is not science at all, in the empirical sense of the word. Neither their "science" nor their politics can tolerate debate, as neither can hold it's own or present a cogent refutation of the arguments against them presented, so, the opposing arguments must be stifled, silenced, in order that the prevailing orthodoxy proceed unhindered.
Proceed to our destruction, the destruction of humanity, if not the destruction of the planet. I don't think humans are capable of destroying the planet, but we are certainly capable of annihilating ourselves and leaving the planet to the ants and the frogs.
Now, that is my problem with the DHS characterization of half of the people in this country, and "nationwide", as "extremists".
My problem with the NBC article presented is that it did not mention what I believe to be the single most important section of the DHS Bulletin.
The DHS bulletin, which can be found here says, and I quote directly from it:
Quote:The Acting Secretary of Homeland Security has issued a National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) Bulletin due to a heightened threat environment across the United States, which DHS believes will persist in the weeks following the successful Presidential Inauguration. Information suggests that some ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence.
It's the bit I highlighted in red that the NBC article failed to mention, and which is the most important part of the bulletin, as it informs us in no uncertain terms which side of the Conservative-Leftist political chasm that DHS has firmly placed itself on. It is, nearly word for word, a recitation of the prevailing Leftist narrative, and one which I might add is the very reason that they are silencing Conservative voices and calling for their "re-education" - it is unsupportable in open debate, and they fear that more than anything else, since they have no cogent or logical defense in any such debate. Now that they have seized government-wide power, they have DHS firmly planted in their camp, doing their bidding and parroting their words.
To put it simply, the term "false narrative" has not been proven, nor can they prove it, as it has not even been debated, nor can they hold their own in a free and open debate on the subject. So, they must silence it.
Now they have the full force of the Federal Government on their side in that effort.
And NBC conveniently failed to mention that at all...
... because they have the legacy Media firmly entrenched in their camp as well.
Shooting only breaks out when reasoning is no longer an option. Reasoning is no longer an option when either side refuses to dialogue, whatever their reason may be for it. The left is refusing to dialog, for fear that they will lose the debates. I've seen it time and time again lately as I attempted to engage them in dialog. So, the ball is in their court. Either back off that cliff and start a dialog, or keep pushing it and get what they get. The Right CAN'T back off from the cliff, for they are the ones who have been pushed to the brink, their backs to the edge. There is nowhere left for them to go other than forward into and straight through the unreasoning mob, or backwards over the cliff.
What do YOU think they will choose if they continue to be pushed?
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’