There
was another night of
protests against Donald Trump's presidency in Portland, Oregon. All
nights have witnessed violence. Clearly, these rioters aren't giving
Trump the benefit of the doubt. After all, it's quite possible that
Trump will nuke Israel or marry a Muslim illegal immigrant.
Anyway,
the fascistNazibigotedracist Portland police arrested 29
completely innocent and lovely people. All of them were innocent by –
their own – definition. And all of them were protesting violently
and hatefully against violence and hate.
These
Portland's peaceniks, according to the police, were also carrying
bats and rocks (during their cerebration of love and joy). Pacifist
objects were also thrown at the police. The police responded with
racist pepper spray.
In
Philadelphia, crowds held placards with the slogans "Not Our
President" and "Make America Safe For All". Now I'd
suggest that rioting and random violence (against Trump supporters)
isn't the best way to “Make America Safe For All”. That's unless
anyone to the Right of Pol Pot is excluded from this universal “all”.
The other thing is that Trump is their president, whether they
like it or not. And clearly - from the tantrums they've had outside
of their safe spaces - these cretins don't like it. Still, as some
left-leaning Christian churchman put it: “Their hearts are in the
right place.” Yes, their hearts are hidden under their weapons and
Che Guevara t-shirts.
In
Baltimore, the demon-strators marched through the city - in the
process blocking all the capitalist traffic - waving rainbow banners
(probably hugging flowers too). Now that's a strange fusion: rainbow
banners and random violence. As we all know, historically,
all those Communists and Trotskyists who were against nuclear weapons
were only really against the British and American “capitalist
states” having them. (i.e., not against the Soviet Union and China
having them.) Now we have pseudo-pacifists and peaceniks who believe
in violent demos and violent revolutions. These people just don't
like “capitalist violence”.
Now
for Chicago. I'm with the driver who shouted "shut up and accept
democracy" at these juveniles. I'm also with Rudy Giuliani. He
called protesters (on college campuses) "a bunch of spoiled
cry-babies". Some may think that's a bit over the top on
Giuliani's part. However, he was reacting to the sad fact that these
students were suffering from what clinicians call
“democracy-anxiety”; and, thus, they're now being offered therapy
(to ease their massive political woes).
Perhaps
this is a naïve question. Still, I'll ask it anyway: What's the
connection between Trump being elected and the smashing of shop- and
car-windows? Did Trump own these shops and cars? As for setting
rubbish alight: that rubbish mightn't have even voted for Trump. (My
guess is that the rubbish was Clintonite.)
So
what has Trump had to say about all this?
On
the one hand, Trump has said that the demonstrations were incited by
the media. On the other hand, Noam Chomsky (Praise Be Upon Him) often
tells his legions of disciples that the platonic Mainstream Media is
uniformly evil – that is, right-wing (i.e., non-Chomskyan).
The fact is, however, that the mainstream media – not every nook
and cranny of it, of course – is culturally and politically
left-wing and only economically capitalist. For Chomsky, that's still
not enough. He wants his books to sell even more than they already
do. He wants his monthly books to be reviewed by the New York
Times every week; instead of every few months (as is presently
the case). Only then will Chomsky, and his mindless tribe, be happy.
Readers
will be aware that many Clintonites and violent demonstrators have
said that the Trump presidency will “create deep divisions along
racial and gender lines”. Oh yeh?! So, on the 7th
of November 2016, every damn thing was hunky dory? So what was
all that guff coming out of the backside of the Black Lives Matter
movement? Shouldn't these morons have said that Trump's presidency
would create deeper divisions, not deep divisions?
Trump could of course create deep divisions if he were omnipresent
and omnipotent. As it is, certain Americans (as groups) create
divisions for themselves to bathe in, not individuals on their own.
And even the “most powerful man in the world” can only really tap
into moods and positions which already exist.
*************************
Let's
face facts. Liberals/Leftists have a serious problem with democracy.
Of course most people already know that. Just a quick glimpse at the
20th century demonstrates it. The UK's Brexit Show showed
it too. And now we have riots in Portland. Of course democracy is all
fine and dandy when it goes the right way – when it delivers
exactly what these people want. When it goes in the wrong direction,
then there's violence and talk of revolution. Or, in the UK's case,
talk of another referendum or even of London's separation from the
rest of England (as some are also saying about California).
These
students, layabouts and Clintonites simply don't accept democracy.
That's crystal clear. They accept democracy when it goes the way they
want it to go. When it doesn't, they're against it. Some of them even
attempt to come up with various arcane and convoluted theories as to
why that's the case. (It usually involves a quote or ten from the
prophet Chomsky and/or the prophetess Naomi Klein.)
Oh, and since we're on the subject, these “progressives” are also
vehemently against free speech when the speaker dares to say
something they disagree with.
No comments:
Post a Comment