Featured Post

An American Coup D'etat?

This has gotten completely out of control. I never thought I would see our country's politics reduced to the degrading levels of a Banan...

Thursday, October 24, 2019

The Party of Lynching Objects to the Word "Lynching"

Wait! What? The Demprogs are in another snit of outrage? Collective mind exploding? All because President Trump used the word "lynch" in describing the secretive and fraudulent "impeachment" process now underway by the Dems? We truly have entered the world of Lewis Carroll.

I assume the Dems are upset over some sort of copyright infringement by the President.

Let us remember that the Democrat Party is and has been the political repository of slavery, racism, secession, Jim Crow, anti-Semitism AND, yes, lynch mobs. The Democrats OWN the word and action. I have  written before (here, herehere) about the long, sordid, and continuing history of the Democrats and lynch mobs.

As noted in one of those linked postings,
In the old days, Democrat-led lynch mobs terrorized the rural South; today, Democrat-led lynch mobs terrorize all of urban America.
 I should add that they terrorize the political sphere as well. The Antifa thugs are the direct descendants of the old KKK thugs and form the armed wing of today's Democrat Party much as the Knight Riders formed that of the old Democrat Party.

The incitement to mob violence; the appeal to base instincts; the obliteration of due process and fact-finding; those are the hallmarks of that party, both then and now. Justice Clarence Thomas, commenting on his Senatorial confirmation process to the Court, called it "a high-tech lynching," and, lest we forget, he said that to none other than Senator Joe Biden. Thomas was victimized as Kavanaugh would be later by vague unsubstantiated charges from a liar.

The whole #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen campaigns are nothing but polished up versions of those lynchings conducted by Democrats in the old South that resulted in hundreds of black men hanged, shot, beaten, or burned to death.

So the Democrats feel, think, insist that they have the copyright on the word "lynching"?

Fine.

It's theirs. They own it. They earned it.

They even had a corrupt Attorney General by the name of Lynch.

41 comments:

  1. I grow so tired of the outrage theatrics that are easily negated by C-Span or past news reports.
    But, they play well to the uninformed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Democrats are also the ones who spit on our Vietnam veterans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of my other fave progressive tactics is to deny some commonly accepted thing ever happened [while insisting their own things happened and happen all the time, of course]. I have a coworker who insists that never happened. Sometimes they do this by narrowing the definition in order to make their point. Sometimes they're right, in some sense.

      If you know of examples, or anyone does, I'd love to know them. Sooner or later, the topic will come up again in conversation.

      Delete
    2. Urban myths spread and take lives of their own, and events become easily conflated.

      The more important point is that this country didn't treat veterans with much respect when they returned home, and the men who were trying to serve their country deserved better than they received.

      Delete
    3. yes, it happened.
      http://www.startribune.com/disrespect-for-vietnam-vets-is-fact-not-fiction/160444095/

      Personal stories and links here
      https://www.quora.com/Were-soldiers-returning-from-Vietnam-really-spat-on-in-airports

      Journalistic research indicates yes
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homecoming:_When_the_Soldiers_Returned_from_Vietnam

      There are plenty of links saying it never happened, but how can that be proved? One documented example where it did happen is enough. There were plenty of examples back in the day, but it's denied now because it embarrasses the left.

      Delete
  3. It's so nice to see conservatives own up to their history of lynching. It's a shame you can't do that without pretending that the instigators of violence are antifa, as opposed to the white nationalists, but I suppose I can't ask for too much self-reflection at one time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shoveling manure as usual again.

      Delete
    2. whitewall -- we probably should show some compassion for "One Brow". She seems to be English or Canadian or some such, which means she is poorly educated.

      Notice her use of the term "conservatives" -- by which she presumably meant the Democrats who want to keep things the way they were, with Americans of African heritage firmly confined to the plantation and poor Americans of European heritage knowing their place while the Democrat elite lives high on the hog. Poor old "One Brow" tripped over own her feet -- again.

      Delete
    3. Conservative in what sense? Conservative is necessarily a vague term. The old Democrat South was not pro-free-market. Their intellectual leader John Calhoun disparaged merchants and markets. He was a monarchist at heart, and wanted to be part of a new nobility. Modern conservatives are free-marketeers, mostly. They were not pro-individual-rights, at least for their slaves. So in some sense of the word they were conservative, but not in 2019 language at all. They were not conserving what today's conservatives want to conserve (freedom and limited government), at all.

      Delete
    4. Could OneBrew be 'Mike the Lib' on the Chris Plante Show? Now I have voice to put with the manure.

      Delete
    5. The next response from One Brow will be that the Democrats and Republicans "switched sides" in the 1960s. I hear this all the time from the NPCs when I point out the sordid past of the Democrats. You have to kind of stand back and take a look at what that statement entails, and then how ridiculous it is, but they totally believe it, because it helps justify their hate. They hate us, because we are apparently what they were. Cognitive dissonance is a requirement to be a Democrat nowadays.

      Delete
    6. White supremacists have been demonstrating their garbage for several decades without serious incident as their numbers dwindle towards zero.
      But *now* their 20-30 attendees at a *national* rally are met with tens of thousands of protesters, with many being antifa thugs no different than those white supremacists.

      The left is fomenting this crap as a way of scaring their constituents. There's been no 'rise' in the crap fringe white supremacists, let them die, regardless of how people feel about their viewpoints.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    7. It's almost as if OneBrow has never heard of video ...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLxNlmif9ng

      Delete
    8. Gavin LongmuirOctober 25, 2019 at 10:54 AM
      Notice her use of the term "conservatives" -- by which she presumably meant the Democrats who want to keep things the way they were, with Americans of African heritage firmly confined to the plantation and poor Americans of European heritage knowing their place while the Democrat elite lives high on the hog. Poor old "One Brow" tripped over own her feet -- again.

      I 'tripped over my own feet' by using a word the way it defined? Thank you for the laugh.

      Delete
    9. Salvorhardin October 25, 2019 at 2:50 PM
      The next response from One Brow will be that the Democrats and Republicans "switched sides" in the 1960s.

      I agree that's much too simplistic and compacted. In the early 20th century, you have liberals and conservatives in both parties. The separation really started in the 1930s, with Roosevelt's programs. You have the Democratic convention of 1948, where thirty-plus Southern delegates walked out to protest the civil rights platform, most of them joining the Dixiecrats (and many later becoming Republicans). However, it wasn't until Nixon that the Republicans really pushed their Southern strategy.

      Delete
    10. reader #1482 October 25, 2019 at 7:10 PM
      White supremacists have been demonstrating their garbage for several decades without serious incident as their numbers dwindle towards zero.

      C'mon, you're smarter than that. Every single act of terrorism in the US in 2018 was by a white nationalist.

      Delete
    11. AnonymousOctober 25, 2019 at 8:39 PM
      It's almost as if OneBrow has never heard of video ..

      Yes, Democrats also use overblown rhetoric in Washington. What a great example of whataboutism.

      Delete
    12. I figured it would be Monday morning when most are at work that you would show up shovel in hand. Poaching content for another 'no participants blog' again?

      Delete
    13. whitewall,

      You've got an interesting calendar, if Oct 25 was a Monday this year on it.

      Delete
    14. That's right up there with the thing about switching places in 68. Just enough contextual material to be arguable, not making much ultimate sense on the ground.

      Apart from the many who have raised the problem of positional definitions of conservatism, it's worth remembering that large chunks of the segregationist world were progressive in their times, and part of the traditions that led to many liberal/progressive/center-left values today. Economic populism, economic statism, labor activism. Not all of them, sure. And some of the southern activists on those issues would be considered early progressives on race. But there's plenty of admixture to go around.

      So 'conservative' in the purest sense of 'opposing change', perhaps, but then that would exclude most of what came to be called American conservatism in the postwar era, so that's a tough row to hoe.

      Delete
    15. random observer October 29, 2019 at 5:35 PM
      So 'conservative' in the purest sense of 'opposing change', perhaps, but then that would exclude most of what came to be called American conservatism in the postwar era, so that's a tough row to hoe.

      Not particularly tough. Social movements do change as times change, and WWII led to one of the largest changes in the way we understand ourselves. In the post-war period, what it mean to be a liberal or a conservative would have changed, it would be difficult not to. That's partly a driver of the 40-year shift in political party makeup over that time.

      Delete
    16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallahassee_shooting

      probably not the case... facts can be difficult to ascertain... but seems very unlikely


      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting
      anti-semitism is quite in vogue among progressives... many cheers were had on the left.

      The white supremacists are only *emboldened* by the left's inappropriate crediting them with violence. These are guys who ride greyhound to their 20-person 'national rally'.

      Remember... out-numbered 100-to-1 or more.

      They're the weapon of the left, as though these idiots living in their parents' basements are of the same threat level as muslim terrorists who slaughter people by the thousands... regularly. The weapon is the distraction. The progressive leaders wield the distraction far less deftly than Trump and constantly resort to histrionics and the boldest lies possible in their hopes of power.

      Honestly, I don't see America holding out against the gulags and concentration camps much longer. The country is ripe for the socialist nationalism the top democrats are peddling. Too many indolent people, too affluent, an amazing combination of softness and harshness. Progressives are entirely the opposite of 'bold love'.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    17. reader #1482,

      I haven't seen where the Tallahassee shooter made a manifesto, but ranting about women and African Americans doesn't exactly disqualify him from the white nationalist list. The real question is whether his act is one of terrorism, AFAICT.

      Who were the "left" cheering at the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting? Anyone in political office?

      I agree their numbers are small, but it only takes one guy with a gun to kill a dozen others.

      Muslims terrorists kill people in countries with large Muslim populations. Hindu terrorists kill people in countries with large Hindu populations. Buddhist terrorists kill people in countries with large Buddhist populations. Christian terrorists kill people in countries with large Christian populations. What religion dominates our country?

      What do you mean, "holding out"? We have concentration camps already, holding tens of thousands of people, and private prisons with contracts that say they have to kept full by the state or the state pays a penalty. Who are the people arguing against our concentration camps and gulags? The progressives.

      Delete
    18. If Stalin's gulags and Hitler's concentration camps are our current criminal incarceration system, you will definitely need a new word to describe what's soon to be from our incoming national socialists.

      Might be that you personally are practiced in conforming with the progressive line. Good on you.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    19. reader #1482,

      Had you said "Stalin's gulags" and "Hitler's concentration camps" (though most people mean the death camps by that), then I agree my response would not have been apt.

      Delete
    20. Truly few would be confused by the reference, but so be it.
      Watching the California state government take over parental roles for vast swathes of children makes me sad, but when it comes down to it, America of late kind of deserves the punishment of a progressive government.
      As our gracious host has observed, progressives love humanity and hate humans.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    21. reader #1482,

      Few people are confused by notion that Alabama was conservative in the 1870s, the 1920s, the 1960, and the 2000s, but you would not know that from most posters on this board.

      I agree that it is sad watching California take over parental roles. To me, it's even sadder watching children sicken, suffer permanent injury, and occasionally die from their parents' unwillingness to protect their health.

      The real safety from the concentration camps/gulags won't come from either end of the progressive/conservative scale, but from the freedom end of the freedom/authoritarian scale.

      Delete
  4. Comment needs an edit. Old South Democrats were not pro-individual-rights, at least for their slaves.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lewis, No commentary about the Ukraine state employees. I would think that you would be familiar with many of the players. Especially the once pranced out in the press as "Career Diplomat". As this label papers over any underlying biases. Is there a unstated rule that you State folks don't talk trash about one another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No such rule, but I don't know how much of what's being reported is true.

      Delete
  6. With Trump's use of "lynch" and his defense of it, he has controlled the narrative and caused the media and Dems to soil themselves even more. C-Span has a vast library of politicians and their comments.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If I can think of any other examples I'll try to come back here. For now, I just learned here why #Lynch was trending on Twitter yesterday. Go figure. An interesting tactic in its own right that comes up a lot. Very progressive, and VERY American, I'm sad to say. Take a word or a concept that had and has wide general application throughout the Anglosphere, redefine it as having no legitimate meaning outside the narrow scope of American race relations, and then pound hell out of anyone who dares use it in any other way. Good times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Last I checked, POTUS is an American using the term "lynch" in an American context.

      Delete
    2. It seems to have been exported to the old world early enough for an apparently false etymology linking it to 17c Ireland to have emerged by 1904. The word certainly seems to have been used on that island and not just as a surname.

      But you're right that Trump is an American speaking in an American context, which is why I was put in mind of how broadly the term seems to have been used even within that context. Pop culture seemed once replete with it in movies both as a metaphor [as Trump used it] and as an actual thing not exclusively about African Americans. As the actual thing was about 75% African American targeted in the South [I assume any in the West were more diverse in target and motivation, if fewer in number] I see the problem on some level, but it is not a fact, concept, metaphor or word that is exclusively about race.

      Curiously, it seems that the most accepted origin for the word [albeit not the act of extrajudicial hanging] was about murdering Loyalists in revolutionary Virginia. As an Anglo-Canadian, I express outrage on their behalf at its long-established metaphorical use.

      Mileage seems to vary more and more with time, especially in the contemporary US, so I suppose my only points are two-fold:

      1. That black-white race relations were not in fact the only thing going on or necessarily the most important thing going on at every time in US history, or perhaps any. It isn't the defining prism it now seems to some, and that is true even when acknowledging all the evils done in that context. Other things are always happening that have nothing to do with it. Language reflects both realities, including this particular metaphor.

      2. America's obsessions with race and language control bleed out into the rest of the English-speaking world and corrupt our lives as well. That's our stake in the matter. And not only by shaping the minds of our own peoples. Eventually someone in another country will get called out for a routine remark using the latest banned word, by some American media outlet, and have to briefly struggle with WTF level confusion.

      Delete
    3. random observer October 30, 2019 at 4:00 PM

      1. That black-white race relations were not in fact the only thing going on or necessarily the most important thing going on at every time in US history, or perhaps any. It isn't the defining prism it now seems to some, and that is true even when acknowledging all the evils done in that context. Other things are always happening that have nothing to do with it. Language reflects both realities, including this particular metaphor.

      The relationship between the out-group and the in-group always a much larger effect on the lives of the members of the out-group, and forms a much more defining prism for out-group members.

      2. America's obsessions with race and language control bleed out into the rest of the English-speaking world and corrupt our lives as well. That's our stake in the matter. And not only by shaping the minds of our own peoples. Eventually someone in another country will get called out for a routine remark using the latest banned word, by some American media outlet, and have to briefly struggle with WTF level confusion.

      I agree that people of other countries should not be expected to understand words the way we understand them, and vice-versa.

      Delete
  8. Dip, I keep checking here waiting for some inside baseball on Ukrainegate/coup as all the State Dept people are coming out

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is very important in the debate today; I have called the House GOP leadership and the President. The House rules changed under this resolution will not permit exculpatory info from being given to the POTUS team.. Rep. Lesko pf AZ tried to amend the resolution and it was rejected That is unconstitutional under the Brady Ruling revised in 1972: The Representatives I called did not know of the extension of the 1963 Brady ruling to include impeachments.
    In Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153 (U.S. 1972), the Supreme Court extended the prosecution's obligations under Brady to disclosure of impeachment evidence.

    The Supreme Court clarified that all impeachment evidence, even if not a prior statement by a witness falls within the Brady rule.

    White House number 202-456-1111
    All GOP numbers http://clerk.house.gov/memb...

    ReplyDelete
  10. I apologize if my earlier was a bit snarky. Although I stand by my points on language, the tone could have been better.

    I find that in many fora, Youtube comments are a classic, if anyone comments on something like a video of 50s music or cars or clothes or movies that it was a great time, someone will immediate suggest the poster must have enjoyed oppressing black people. It's not that I can't get the message, it's that the subject matter clearly was not about that, and tens of millions of white Americans would have not been oppressing black people but filling their days with other things. If you wan't to call it a social blind spot then that's one thing, but I have a hard time with the insistent emphasis. Or, to clarify, it's one thing to insist on a thing being remembered, another to pretend it was the only thing.

    In Canada, I don't think I met any aboriginals until well into adulthood, they not being as common in Toronto as in some places. Without denying that we dispossessed them of a continent and then some, I am aware of other stuff having gone on that was not meaningfully related to it. Whether or not I have any interest in apologizing for the dispossession notwithstanding.

    SO my tone likely reflected that- I see a new tendency to do what seems to me like telescoping. I imagine if I belonged to either out group I'd feel differently. Where you stand [or what you see most clearly] depends on where you sit, and so on.

    I'll leave it at that. In the end, I leave it to Americans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was intended as reply to One Brow October 31 0813

      Delete
    2. I don't spend very much time on Youtube, and none reading the comments there. I can see why you would be annoyed by that behavior.

      Delete