Hypocrisy of The Left - part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
So all homosexual Jews are well established liberals???

You just keep digging...
No but Dave Rubin is.


Well then you shouldn't have tried to use Rubin being a "gay married jewish man" as your only evidence that he couldn't possibly be alt right. Made you look a tad silly.
True but when I said some like Dave Rubin I meant a liberal like Dave Rubin, since he a widely known Liberal. Very badly worded.
 
True but when I said some like Dave Rubin I meant a liberal like Dave Rubin, since he a widely known Liberal. Very badly worded.
So when you said:
When someone Like Dave Rubin a gay married jewish man is considered an alt right neo nazi, you probably should be questioning where you stand. BUT nope.

You actually meant calling a liberal, far right?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The same thing happens on both sides of politics. Both try to paint the other side as so extreme they cant be taken seriously.

Look what happened in the UK. Corbyn was painted as a far left communist by the msm. These hatchet jobs stuck to him........until people actually read his Manifesto and realised that many of his policies were wildly popular.

People that consider someone like Bernie Sanders far left simply for wanting the same single payer medicare system as every other modern nation, should probably consider their own position on the political spectrum.
 
So when you said:


You actually meant calling a liberal, far right?
No like I just explained. A liberal a very far reaching liberal, is being called far right for zero reason. It's ******* dangerous when you use those labels the way it's happening today, when these real monsters come they will come in a raging storm.
 
The same thing happens on both sides of politics. Both try to paint the other side as so extreme they cant be taken seriously.

Look what happened in the UK. Corbyn was painted as a far left communist by the msm. These hatchet jobs stuck to him........until people actually read his Manifesto and realised that many of his policies were wildly popular.

People that consider someone like Bernie Sanders far left simply for wanting the same single payer medicare system as every other modern nation, should probably consider their own position on the political spectrum.

Until people recognize that the MSM in the West has been utterly infiltrated & hijacked by the intel agencies, plying the multi-nat corporations narratives, then they'll continue to allow themselves to be dictated to & manipulated into taking these 'faux-sides'....

Divide & conquer baby.....Via chaos do we rule the masses.....It's as blatant & obvious as it gets.

Take the current 'Russian' narrative for example.....Gist for the corporate mill, to keep the masses gaze away from the real story.....The massacres taking place currently in the Middle East, amid the mad scramble for the oil fields.
 
No like I just explained. A liberal a very far reaching liberal, is being called far right for zero reason. It's ******* dangerous when you use those labels the way it's happening today, when these real monsters come they will come in a raging storm.

It's not for zero reason at all; both of your own links make it abundantly clear that it's because he interviews a very large number of people who are indisputably far right and alt-right and in some cases just out-and-out conspiracy theorist nutjobs; but when he interviews them he does not question or challenge even their most egregiously objectionable nonsense, not even on "classic liberal" grounds - he merely provides them with another free platform to spout their drivel.

If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
 
That's pretty insulting, Snake.:mad:

Seriously though, it's become accepted as a kind of paradigm and, in my experience it's just plain wrong in relation to those people whose opinions were formed at University in the late 60s and early 70s.

The very small minority who came to Uni with their political allegiances already formed have retained and acted upon those allegiances all their life.

The vast majority came with a relatively immature right-wing mindset, having gone through their entire education under the Menzies government where that attitude was just accepted as the unquestioned norm.

However, at Uni, they ran into the ferment sparked by conscription/Vietnam, and seriously considered the issues for the first time. Many remained politically neutral and/or retained their lukewarm rightist position; a miniscule few shifted to a committed rightist position; a slightly larger number to the committed left (of whom many have actually lived "the long march through the institutions"); and a significant number to a left-liberal alignment.

But here's the thing.

Of all the significant number of acquaintances with whom I've remained in touch directly or indirectly, not one has changed the essential opinions with which he/she left Uni at the age of 21 or 22 (even though, outside the heavily committed, very few have been politically active, at least outside the polling booth).

Oooohhh boy, really? You and your glitterati buddies went to uni back in the 70's and you haven't changed your 'ethenshuall opinions' for what, 40+ yrs? And you're actually proud of that? No wonder getting an edumacation on the taxpayer dime got shut down.

At least nowadays people have to pay for their 'higher' education. No free thinking allowed thanks very much for the rabbits.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Only the far right! You don't think that people on the far left, like Gough, aren't dangerous as well?
No look at any socialist government to see evil from the left but in current western countries the push back from the right is where the next monster will come from.


If he believes all white men benefit from white supremacy, all accused of raped should be automatically jailed, no boarders should exist, believes western civilization is the only reason for terrorism. Then yes he would be dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Where are there currently socialist governments right now? I too would like to view this evil.

I suspect we're about to start hearing some idiosyncratic definitions of "socialism", to go along with Rubin's equally idiosyncratic definition of "classic liberalism"; not to mention the whole new meaning being given to "new left", seemingly in appalling ignorance of the highly important New Left movement which began half a century ago, and whose effects are still influential today ("identity politics", anyone?).
 
I suspect we're about to start hearing some idiosyncratic definitions of "socialism", to go along with Rubin's equally idiosyncratic definition of "classic liberalism"; not to mention the whole new meaning being given to "new left", seemingly in appalling ignorance of the highly important New Left movement which began half a century ago, and whose effects are still influential today ("identity politics", anyone?).
The movement during the 60-70's has very little to what is happening right now, actually it has nothing to do the push back but lets just ignore that huh?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top