…even if he does not use the word “communist”. It matters not.
On keeping Maxwell safe
UPDATE: From what I have been able to tell, and this is not certain, it seems that what the media is calling a “mural” that was painted over with black paint, was actually an illegal set of giant yellow letters saying BLACK LIVES MATTERS on the ROAD! And the couple were just restoring the road to what it legally has to look like. So that is the state of media today.
If its communist propaganda grafitti, its a “mural”. If someone does anything to it, its a HATE CRIME. This is in fact exactly what Marcuse/Habermas plotted with the Frankfurt School. Please see post below with 3 videos.
The California couple caught on video painting over the "Black Lives Matter" mural have been charged with a HATE CRIME.
They face up to one year in jail. pic.twitter.com/fpfme7gnZK
— Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) July 7, 2020
In 2019, Ava Lon took on the herculean task of watching a long video by a Polish intellectual, I think an artist turned bell-ringer as he saw communism in ascendance in the West.
The video was an explanation of exactly who and what the tacticians of Marxism are and did. He left how we can see that around us, up to us.
This requires concentration. But each of the three clips are short, and very important.
Thanks again to Ava Lon for this massive and important effort. One which grows in importance by the day.
Hate Speech. A tactic of the Frankfurt School:
On homosexuality, artists, and the long march:
On how to stigmatize an entire culture:
Brad discusses the Demcocrat State Senator who got attacked by communists under the BLM or ANTIFA label and why that should not surprise anyone.
So here is an unexpected datapoint for the overall hypothesis.
The couple who the media has been attempting to destroy and humiliate in public for defending their own home, the one where prosecutors and politicians are swearing they will find a way to prosecute them for defending themselves against the communist mob; the couple who Tucker Carlson defended so eloquently and passionately on his show last night (and rightfully so) are lawyers who defend BLM and ANTIFA and are hard core leftist elites. Oh yeah.
The Western Rifle Shooters link above is a worthy read from a tactical perspective as well.
You could almost hear the narrative being crafted in liberal newsrooms. The white couple who scared off lefty trespassers in St. Louis was about to be poster kids for every garbage ‘woke’ narrative under the sun. These clowns forced their way onto these people’s property.
They were trespassing. That’s illegal—a key aspect of this story. The property belonged to Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who came out armed with firearms to deter these lefty agitators from the premises. Mark was sporting an AR-15 rifle, which surely triggered liberal America. This was a case of self-defense. To make things more interesting, the McCloskey’s are actually supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement. This lefty mob was marching on the house of Mayor Lyda Krewson, a Democrat after she released the names and addresses of locals who are for defunding the police department:
Before anyone scoffs at the headline, remember that a few short months ago, even the most red pilled observer showed total denial that police departments would ever be defunded or even serious talk about it. Yet here we are.
After watching the FOX clip below, please watch the DSA clip edited in August of 2019, but filmed sometime before that.
On Friday, the Minneapolis City Council voted 12-0 to approve a measure to abolish the city’s police department.
The unanimous vote will not automatically dismantle the police department, but it is the first step in a much longer legislative process, according to the New York Post.
The idea of dismantling police departments gained recognition among city council members amid city-wide, and eventually nationwide, riots after George Floyd was killed by police officer Derek Chauvin last month.
The Post continues that the vote to abolish the police force will require amending Minneapolis’s charter, and that a draft amendment suggests replacing the police force with a “Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention.” This department would consist of peace officers and use a “holistic, public health-oriented approach” to ensure public safety.
The proposal will have to first pass through a committee, be reviewed by Minneapolis’s Charter Commission, and finally approved again by the entire city council by August 21st. However, Mayor Jacob Frey, a radical Leftist in his own right, still is against the idea of abolishing the police and can veto the measure.
Unafraid and accurate. Of course, in order to be accurate you have to be unafraid as truth is already illegal. Not yet in statute, but in effect. Should you speak the truth you will suffer consequences much worse than a fine or even a short stretch in jail. You will be publicly humiliated, fired and destroyed and in danger from leftist thugs forever. Your business will be dismantled and you will be de-platformed.
Nonetheless, Tucker Carlson serves truth in an all you can eat buffet in this segment. So much so many people will want to sell their livers for pate.
In this, Tucker explains how this is what we all know it is. A communist revolution. And it must be taken a lot more seriously than it is.
There is a lot of material exposing the horror behind the stories, as well as the horror of the stories today.
Of course, one probably shouldn’t see the second without understanding the first, or else one becomes part of the stream of misdirected action which is likely the intention of these events, shaped by unnamed sources, which have shaped our world this year.
Most of the policies and events of the past many years, but most effectively 2020, seem to be a deliberate reversal of the use of logical fallacies.
For example, if one reads a book or website on what constitutes breaches of logic you might notice one called, “Argumentum ad hominem”.
This is where you attack the speaker rather than the idea in order to discredit the idea by ridiculing or otherwise devaluing the speaker.
In logic of course, this does not hold. Meaning if you seek a truth, that truth exists independently of the speaker, or even his credentials. Which is a related fallacy called, argumentum ab auctoritate.
In other words, if you meet a drunk on the street who gives you medical advice, the advice itself is independent of the fact that it came from a drunk on the street. In fact, he could be a top ranking surgeon on a bender, which again, doesn’t mean the advice is correct either. you have to analyze an argument on its own merits.
The modern left imputes layers upon layers onto that fallacy such that the gene pool of the speaker affects the weight the speaker brings to the argument.
And like true communists, if you object to an idiotic argument that may be brought by a black person for example, then your questioning of the argument will be made equivalent to your being a “racist” against the speaker and his entire race.
It feels very much like the Frankfurt school tacticians read a proper book on logical fallacies and created an entire set of anti-cognitive tools based on their opposites. Tools that let them destroy reason itself in order to apply a Hegelian/Marxist system on the world And it seems to have worked so far.
In fact it’s possible that Hegel, the source of all this crazy, did exactly that as he was a philosopher and was likely familiar with Greek thought and the pursuit of truth.The rest of them from Marx to the second generation school of Frankfurt school tacticians just refined these tactics. An example below on Habermas, the second generation Frankfurt School tactician who created the means to force a Marxist consensus on the majority, then make all opposition to that consensus, “hate speech”. Which goes a long way to explain Global warming, and the labels applied to anyone who uses real science to show why all the models concerning it are nonsense.
One of the main attack vectors of Hegelian/Marxist methods is “Critical theory”. Pretty much the weaponization of ad-hominem but in every possible way it can be used. The adjective, “Racist” being the tactical nuke of ad-hominem slanders.
For evidence of that look no farther than the death of George Floyd. There is not on scintilla of evidence that the police who is alleged to have caused his death had racist motivations. Not one person has come out and said he had issues with black people or other non-white groups. But the accusation that he did was enough to set off what looks more and more like a pre-planned communist insurgency based on the accusation alone.
For a great primer on Critical theory, check out this video by Bill Whittle when he was with Pyjamas Media. He does an excellent job of explaining the Frankfurt School and the basics of communism and critical theory in under 12 minutes.
Moral inversion, the idea that the person pointing out a horror is the bad one and the people perpetrating the horror are victims of the violence of your pointing it out is another kind of rhetorical nuke. Islamophobia is maybe the best example of that.
Notice the escalation also of moving from ‘words are violence’, meaning that saying something that goes against communist objectives, like stopping Islam from deconstructing Western freedoms, to “silence is violence’ meaning that now, you must openly agree with communist objectives or be part of the tactics required to achieve them, or your failure to do so justifies our violence in retribution against you.
And make no mistake, that is what silence = violence means.
There are many more logical fallacies that have been inverted, weaponized and launched on us to destroy logic and reason as our modus. We certainly see it in Black Lives Matters actions as it is meant to replace rule of law, due process and the presumption of innocence with identity-politics based accusations.
Which also explains why up until about now, BLM actions happened after an officer killed a black suspect in self defence or at least understandably and not when it really was a racist cop. The idea is to create fresh layers of outrage with each stage so that the system itself comes unglued. What good is an autopsy if everyone thinks that the results of it are rigged for political purposes? (Yet more damage the Epstein affair has done perhaps) Or a trial if all the evidence for the defence appears to be damage control to let a “racist white cop” off the hook for a “racist murder” of an “innocent black man”.
All these actions are meant to foment contempt and distrust and hatred for the system itself. Which is why, (as what was meant to ba a paragraph or two about links to be posted) has turned into this. Its critical that we understand what’s going on or we become the useful idiots of this well strategized attack on Western thought and civilization.
Here is a link to Stephen Coughlin’s paper, Re-remembering the Misremembered Left. A detailed analysis of the people and ideas that led us to where we are now. He and Richard Higgens have written more and newer papers which deal more directly with these events and can be found here.
Re-Remembering is especially interesting to me, because it was written before the pandemic and the riots. But help frame these events in a way that allows clarity.
Thank you to anyone who made it this far. Really this was meant to be an intro for some of today’s horrors. But it went a little long. Looking forward to any thoughts or rebuttals in the comments.