Saturday, April 21, 2012

How the liberals keep us distracted

A neo-Nazi group marched in Frankfort Saturday, which provided the liberals with yet another way to convince the rest of us how badly we need them in order to fight the dangers that threaten the Republic.

Events like this are largely imaginary. There is no real right-wing threat. So what the liberal media do is use every little insignificant crackpot gathering, no matter how small, to rally the liberal troops to the defense of democratic values and to show the rest of us how brave they are in fighting off the extremist hordes.

Of course, liberals have a different definition of "horde." All they need is Billy Jo Bob and his two illiterate brothers to put on sheets and stand on a street corner in Hooterville and mumble a few incoherent racists slogans through their beards and, presto, there will appear a cover story in the Courier-Journal's Section B on the coming Right Wing Apocalypse.

This is what the Southern Poverty Law center does every year when it releases a report purporting to show high numbers of "hate groups" around the United States. Of course, it's list includes groups that are functionally non-existent and groups that are run by some college drop out with a laptop from his mother's basement. And then it expands its definition of "hate group" to include groups that disagree with its left-wing political agenda and announces in increase in the number of hate groups.

And of course the big city liberal newspapers dutifully write their stories to further establish their legitimacy.

All of these things serve the same purpose as Emmanuel Goldstein in George Orwell's 1984. Emmanuel, the reviled enemy of the Party, is, of course, purely fictional. But he serves to distract the attention of the society away from outrages the Party is perpetrating on them. Party members are gathered together to watch Goldstein's speeches as they scream and yell maledictions at the television screen in what is called the "Two Minutes Hate."

The small and insignificant neo-Nazi rally in Frankfort Saturday provides the liberal in the media with the perfect opportunity for its own Two Minutes Hate: While they divert our attention with images of Billy Jo Bob and his two brothers making fascist salutes, the liberals themselves continue to goose step through our institutions, undermining the culture themselves.

Our government puts more and more people on public assistance every year; the quality of our schools continues to deteriorate at the hands of teachers unions and university education departments; and the institution of marriage, the only institution standing between many women and children on one hand, and poverty on the other, is being continuously undermined.

But no matter. There are neo-Nazis. And they are dangerous.

Of course, one of the groups at the Frankfort rally there to protest and mug before the cameras was the Fairness Campaign, whose director Chris Hartman, who went Medieval a few weeks ago in the Capitol hallway when a gay rights bill masquerading as a bullying bill was voted down in committee. Hartman went haywire, shouting and pointing his finger threateningly in the face of an opponent of the bill (who undoubtedly felt bullied).

Did the liberal media report on the intimidating tactics of their left wing friends? The CJ made brief mention, but downplayed the incident. And there was not even a passing remark in the Herald-Leader.

They were too busy shouting at Emmanuel Goldstein on the screen in front of them.

11 comments:

Art said...

the institution of marriage, the only institution standing between many women and children on one hand, and poverty on the other, is being continuously undermined

That's some Reed Richards imitation. But be careful, I suspect even Mr. Fantastic has his breaking (snapping?) point.

Lee said...

The real Nazis are the Tea Partiers, who gathered by the thousands to promote the fascist notions of constitutional government and a government that spends responsibly.

KyCobb said...

Projection, Martin, projection. How much time does the right spend spewing hatred about the gays/socialists/immigrants/atheists who are destroying America to distract from their policies of enriching the 1% at the expense of everybody else?

Old Rebel said...

Good post. And the SPLC also magnifies the "neo-nazi" threat by lumping them with anyone who speaks out for enforcing existing immigration laws - supposedly, they're motivated solely by "hate."

KyCobb said...

Let's talk about a guy who totally isn't an ignorant, cross-burning redneck, but rather a guy who interviews presidential candidates on his radio show, AFA's hatemeister Bryan Fischer. Right now, he is very upset with Mitt Romney for hiring a homosexual (gasp!), and is demanding a commitment from Mitt to support his extreme anti-gay agenda:
http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147520359

Mr. Fischer also doesn't think that 1st Amendment guarantees apply to Mitt Romney's religion, or any other non-christian religion, as defined by Bryan Fischer.

One Brow said...

Distraction is praticed on sides. ARe any further examples than "War on Chirstmas" needed?

Art said...

The real Nazis are the Tea Partiers, who gathered by the thousands to promote the fascist notions of constitutional government and a government that spends responsibly.

LOL. The Tea Party hates the Constitution. Tea Partiers (and I daresay most conservatives) detest Article III as well as Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16 and 24. Moreover, many of them are equivocal when it comes to 13 and 19.

The way I see it, the Tea Party constitution would consist of Commandments 1-4 and Amendment 2. And probably some of the shared themes from the various Confederate state constitutions.

Lee said...

> The Tea Party hates the Constitution. Tea Partiers (and I daresay most conservatives) detest Article III as well as Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16 and 24.

Well, in the same vein, and since no evidence is required as per your standard of evidence, the entire Democratic Party is North Korea in waiting.

> The way I see it...

Goes without saying.

Singring said...

So in Martin's mind, I guess a gay guy shouting at a political opponent in the State Capitol for a couple minutes is as bad or worse than 50 Neo-Nazis holding a rally on the stairs of the State Capitol?

Art said...

Well, in the same vein, and since no evidence is required as per your standard of evidence...

Think I'm exaggerating, Lee?

The Republican's attitudes towards Article III are best summarized by Gingrich's intention to jail judges whose decisions he doesn't like.

The 1st Amendment - can we say "Ground Zero Mosque"?

The Fourth? Drug testing for those on public assistance. Say no more...

The Fifth? Conservatives have hated Miranda from the get-go.

The Sixth? The Tea Party would de-fund all public defender offices.

The Ninth? DOMA. 'Nuf said.

The Fourteenth? Doesn't apply to everyone, according to the Republican Party.

The Fifteenth? Just ask the proponents of the New South about that one ...

The Sixteenth? Um, er, too obvious.

The Twenty Fourth? Photo ID's anyone?

Lee said...

> Think I'm exaggerating, Lee?

No, I think you're distorting.

> The Republican's attitudes towards Article III are best summarized by Gingrich's intention to jail judges whose decisions he doesn't like.

Well, if you can summarize Republican attitudes that way, it shouldn't be too hard to find one (1) other Republican who has expressed the same view.

Problem is, Newt has pretty much expressed *every* viewpoint on *every* issue. It's like comparing red or blue with rainbow.

No, I don't think you can use Newt as the standard for Republican opinion, any more than I can take ex-Gov Lamm's statement that old people need to die and get out of the way and apply that to Democrats in general. Both are closer to their parties' 'crazy old aunt in the attic' than to the mainstream.

> The 1st Amendment - can we say "Ground Zero Mosque"?

So unless a Muslim mosque is allowed to be built any place the Muslims want it, it's a violation of the First Amendment?

I know (personally) a church in Nebraska that was told that land that they already owned and upon which were already building a church, and had already been zoned just for that, had their zoning revoked, their land condemned, and then given to a large department store chain. I guess the First Amendment defense didn't work for them, either. Either that, or localities have the right to zone.

Needless to say, the church is still worshiping. Just not where the city said they couldn't.

> The Fourth? Drug testig for those on public assistance. Say no more...

This conservative thinks it's none of the government's business what you put in your blood stream.

Etc.

Whereas, on the left, you have the President enacting executive orders and empowering czars and bureaucrats with sweeping powers because he doesn't think Congress is moving fast enough.

And you have him undermining the Supreme Court *before* they have handed him a judgment on ObamaCare, warning them that overturning the law would be "unprecedented". This is after he used the occasion of a State of the Union address to try to humiliate the Court who were sitting there listening to him as a courtesy.

So if anyone has a problem with separation of powers, it's this administration.