#progressivism ruins everything it touches | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

candycanesuckers · 4 years

Text

A Collective Post Helping Defend and Define Stormfront:

There is a harmful narrative that has formed around a (feminist) character that appeared in the newest season of “The Boys” -- her name is Stormfront. Said narrative is the falsified idea that she is a Nazi. This was started mainly by Anti-Feminists in retaliation to the fact that the character is rather vocal about social injustice. Below are definitive rebuttals to the toxic propaganda spread by these people and the others who blindly took in it.

Defining Stormfront’s Past:

The reason why the slander on Stormfront is as active and believed as it is is because it’s based on the comic (in which Stormfront was a male, and yes, was indeed a Nazi), which then influenced the past of the TV-rendition of the character. In the show, Stormfront use to be apart of Nazi Germany before (assumedly) migrating to America and donning the alias of “Liberty” in the 50s, in which she carried out violently racist attacks behind the scenes.

Something worth noting is that Stormfront is the first ever Superhero created by Vought (the man who created the company was her husband; whether she was injected with V -- the serum to give people these super abilities -- when she was a child or well within her maturity is currently unknown). Because she’s the first ever superhero, she has a unique ability that other superheroes (from our current knowledge) lack; immortality.

Due to her immortality, Stormfront outlived her peers. She watched as the culture around her changed. She eventually had a daughter, which she then lived past, and she too lived past her husband. This means that she lived past the time where Nazi’s were to some degree a social norm, and lived through the period(s) where people actively fight back against Nazi’ism, racism, and other forms of prejudice. She was thrust into new cultures, and in turn, molded her beliefs into something new over the years she had lived through. She no longer had the leader, she no longer had the support, she no longer had the option to use her voice. And because of that, she learned that her beliefs were outdated.

It could be argued that the point to Stormfront’s character is to reflect the social evolution of America -- from how racism was mainstream to now progressivism being rewarded.

The Accusation That Stormfront Said a Slur Towards Kenji and she Killed an Apartment Complex of Black People Simply Because They’re Black:

In episode three, for those who don’t know, there was a super-terrorist (the title given to super-humans who use their abilities to aid in their terrorism), and The Seven were sent out to capture and put the terrorist down. Basically: they were doing their jobs as heroes. During the attempted capture of the terrorist, Stormfront was ultimately the one to get him.

While she was chasing him, they entered an apartment complex; while on the chase, she most likely would have noted that the terrorist isn’t actually doing any active action of terrorism -- he was just running. While she knew, and The Seven knew, that he was a terrorist, the public would probably see it as a superhero harming an innocent. Of course since he was an active threat, she was fast thinking. While chasing him, she stroke down some casualties and destroyed a portion of the apartment complex building that way there would be visible evidence that the terrorist would’ve been a threat to the lives of the public. And it worked. While what she did was arguably corrupt, that’s not the point here; the show makes a point to say all the heroes are corrupt.

In her fight with the terrorist, she does say something that features unfavorable language -- she called the terrorist a “yellow bastard” -- and while it’s displeasant, it is not a slur. Yellow is a color, and he was rather pigmented. It’s a distasteful descriptor. And she was right in calling him a bastard. He was a terrorist.

The Accusation that Stormfront Didn’t Like A-Train Because he’s Black:

We can assume that Stormfront has a strong sense of morality due to her past connections to Nazi Germany -- while she no longer holds those beliefs, it would suggest that she places importance on morals due to strong “moral” senses of the Nazi party. With her now being in the modern world, her sense of morality probably evolved into applying to more current issues.

In the show, Stormfront is shown to believe in the superiority of Supes (will touch on that even more later). Due to this, is is likely that she would look down on those who have super-abilities but does stuff that would harm them or otherwise negatively impact the performance of their heroics. In season two, it was shown that A-Train -- whose whole shtick was his extreme speed -- could no longer run to such extremes before triggering a possible heart failure. This would clearly motivate Stormfront to look down on A-Train and see him as a waste -- because he is effectively wasting away his own life.

Her saying “some people have quality, other’s don’t” is a clear reference to the fact that his quality of self-control and self-worth is low. He’s an addict, and has let his addiction ruin his life and multiple lives of the people around him.

The Accusation that Stormfront Thinks Black People are Trying to get rid of White People; An In-Depth Dissection on the Conversation Between Stormfront and Homelander in Which she Explains her Past:

The scene opens with her, Stormfront, finding Homelander alone and solemn overlooking the city. He’s being callous and dismissive towards her, and even says a sly comment in which could be taken as a potential murder threat, which obviously effects her and her future plans (since it’s rather clear that she’s merely using him for her own personal agenda). Because of his cold behavior towards her, she decides to bare her all to him.

“I will never lie to you again. I will tell you everything . . . Starting with this,” She begins. Stormfront hesitantly walks to a large brown box, the stoic look on Homelander’s face never leaving as he pointedly watches her every move. She opens the crate, and in it are numerous aged items belonging to her, including her Liberty attire and a collection of black and white photos.

Out of her collection of items, she picks up the photos due to them being an outline of her history and an easy open door to the unique ability she has (since she’s either immortal or has an extended life quantity).

She shows the first image to Homelander, an image that shows her next to a much older woman (who has previously been assumed by the viewer to be her mother or grandmother). “My daughter,” she begins, “Chloe. She died of Alzheimer's a few years ago.”

Before this scene, her unique relation to aging was unknown to Homelander; the only people who knew were Starlight and The Boys. Understandably shocked, Homelander asks Stormfront just how old is she.

“I was born in 1919, in Berlin.”

There’s beats of silence between them. The information that she just revealed settles, to both Homelander and the viewer, and then she flips to the second photo.

It’s of her, dressed in a beautiful, white blazer dress, standing next to three extremely influential figures from history (further highlighting her extreme age). As she flips to the next photo, she says, “And . . . The most important man in the room . . . “ Homelander looks down, and finishes the unsaid sentence: “Frederick Vought.”

The next portion of the conversation is one of the most important, both in-context of the actual conversation but also in terms of the audience finally understanding Stormfront as a person; it gives us an insight to her mentality, it further explores her history with Vought and the relationship she has with the company, while also showing us what seems to be her intentions with Homelander. “He gave me the first successful V injection. He taught me everything. And then we fell in love, and he gave me a daughter. He made me, and his genius made you.”

This one excerpt shows us an important aspect on Stormfront and her mentality: she glorifies and idealizes Vought. The glorification she has of Frederick Vought consumes her, evident through the passion she has while she speaks on how V made her into who she is. The glorification she has for Frederick then streamlines into the next aspect of what she talks about, which is the superiority that comes from being chosen to be a superhero (which she isn’t exactly unjust in; a separate post to discuss, maybe? Although I feel as if it’s pretty obvious how people with super-human abilities that routinely save the world are clearly above just normal civilians).

Emotions are clear on Homelander’s face as he hears all the new information released by Stormfront: he’s shocked, and really just at a loss for words. He turns away from her, almost in a way dismissing the rest of the photos she has as he tries to process everything. She holds the photos to her side, now untouched for the rest of the conversation, and continues to speak: “Frederick didn’t care about all the fans or stardom or any of that shallow bullshit. We are in a war for the culture. The other races are grinding us down and taking what is rightfully ours, but we can fight back. With an army of supermen, millions strong.”

This four-sentence paragraph is the strongest example we currently have from the show that showcases the sense of superiority Stormfront has due to her super-human abilities. This specific excerpt is commonly used as a dog whistle by Stormfront anti’s to push the narrative that she is a Nazi or at the very least a white supremacist, however with the context of her relation to Vought and the fact that she highlights it being an army of supermen, it’s made explicitly clear that the “war for the culture” is a culture where supes are naturally seen as higher than non-supes and don’t have to fear the possibility of public backlash due to “othering” that’s caused by a public that may be scared of people who are different than them -- which may be why Stormfront finds it so important to build an online following who truly knows her as a person, while still being aware that she ultimately has a platform and is in a position of power.

It could be argued that her current arc and characterization of glorification and superiority is meant to be an allegory for Nazi’ism, however, I will say in my own personal opinion that it’s incredibly weak to claim. Nazi allegories need to have someone explicitly shown to be wrong in their beliefs and ideals; Stormfront though, is justified -- or at the very least has solid ground to stand on. I mean, God, it’s shown that mothers and fathers were offering up their newborns to be injected with compound V. That should speak for itself.

Lastly, after Stormfront bore her history and ideals to Homelander, she says one last thing to Homelander, one last confession full of passion and desperation: “So I love you with all of my heart. How could I not? Everyone I have ever loved is in the ground. And then I found you. We found each other. And now neither of us has to be alone ever again.”

I believe this to imply that her sense of superiority is a front that she puts up and her desire to create a culture of supe’s is to create a new race of people that are similar to her in sense of life-span, that way she no longer has to keep losing those she loves and live a life where pain is a constant. I truly do think all of this is an act of longing for a life of less pain 💔

So in conclusion: her idea of a “war on our culture” is the idea of non-supes against those who are. It’s an entirely separate thing from Nazi beliefs and / or ideals.

Discussing Stormfront’s Feminism and Why it Should be Both Admired and Wide-Spread Within our Culture:

Stormfront is a traditional feminist; she doesn’t believe that women are superior to men, but rather that we’re all on equal footing and it’s our own personality and accomplishments that make us. Quoted from episode two, “Why does it matter whether heroes have a dick or vag? I mean, shouldn’t we all just be competent at our jobs? I don’t think girls do anything better, I think chicks and dicks are in it together.” She’s able to point out the systematic advantages men have and the unfair treatment of women by the media, but she’s still able to recognize that it’s an issue of the system that forms our culture rather than an issue of men themselves. She never takes out her issues on random men, but rather at the men in positions of power who fuel this sexist attitude (and the women who stand next to these men, allowing it).

She knows her worth, both as a person and as a woman. Throughout the six she has shown up in so far, Stormfront has been outspoken whenever she has seen someone reducing women to nothing but vapid sex appeal for the male gaze – such as her call-out in episode two towards the man in charge of story-boarding the commercial. She recognizes her worth and is able to voice the issues she has with the sexist disregard for the female characters.

Unlike a lot of people, she knows when to restrict herself. This is a problem with our culture at large – we reward loud, rude behavior (primarily within men) despite the fact that they’re being unnecessarily cruel towards what is a rather harmless individual (ex: Gordon Ramsay). During the scene where Stormfront is with Starlight doing press for the announcement of her being apart of The Seven, she points out the double standard and false idea of “girl power” being pushed. Despite it being a topic she would be passionate about, Stormfront is able to keep her points restricted purely to the topic at hand that she wants to discuss. Other people would be vicious and violently insult the interviewer, and they would be rewarded for it by getting clout on Twitter with strangers gushing about how she “dragged” someone, but Stormfront addressed the interviewer appropriately – she knew he was just a man doing his job.

Another example is the end of episode three. While it is “terrible” that she called the Asian a “yellow bastard” (although it’s not like she called him a Chink or BTS or whatever), she only did so because she believed that she was alone with him. If there was another individual with them, she would have restricted herself from offensive language. In a culture full of fake feminists that spew offensive language openly, I believe she is setting a standard of what the difference between personal behavior and outwards behavior that would have an impact on the world around her is. No one is effected by her saying “yellow bastard” the way she did, since she was alone. She is aware of her platform (since the introduction of her is with her on Instagram live) and knows what she can and cannot feature on her platform.

In conclusion: Stormfront is a good, self-aware, admirable feminist. Be like Stormfront.

The Accusation That People Involved on the Show Have Called her A Nazi:

It’s true. In interviews, multiple people have referred to Stormfront as a Nazi -- however, an important piece of context that these people who are spreading these quotes always seem to miss out, is the fact that every time they have discussed Stormfront being a Nazi, it’s in relation to her past. They never say that her Nazi beliefs are something carried on from Liberty to Stormfront (they refer to her as Stormfront since it’s simply easier to, though).

Even with that though, sometimes the intent of an author (or producer, or actor, etc.) does not translate to the actual finished product. What we see has more weight than what we’re told; we’ve been told that she’s a “Nazi white supremacist” but what we’ve seen is a deeply flawed character with a troubling past who’s actively working on making herself a better person. The producers, writers -- whatever -- have not translated their intent properly, so, therefore, it is invalid. Their interpretation of the character is wrong.This is something that happens a lot -- where the author means one thing but the product says another. A good example is JK Rowling; she intended to have Snape die with his sins absolved and being a martyr, but all he ended up being was an abusive creep with a vendetta against some child. Do you get it?

The Accusation That Stormfront Caused A Shooting:

So let’s just be clear: Stormfront clearly condemned the actions by the terrorist who shot the convenience clerk; she clearly doesn’t stand by that behavior nor support it. Using it as fuel for your little Stormfront hate-boner is weird and unfounded.

The Accusation That Nothing Shows Stormfront Had Changed as A Person From When she was Liberty:

A lot of people claim that Stormfront has showed no change from in comparison to her present-self to how she acted in the flashbacks, “proving” that she is still a Nazi. However, there are multiple examples that show she has actively became a better person; there are some major elemental changes to her as a person throughout time -- we know this by comparing what we know of her currently to what she used to be.

Firstly: She explicitly says that she “changed with the times,” which is a clear indication that she’s taken purposeful strides to change her values (since racism is no longer something we deem acceptable).

Secondly: While she had the mantle of liberty, she purposefully went out looking for minorities to brutalize them. While we don’t know if she ever said explicit slurs (such as the N-word or the C-word), she did make it apparent that her attack was on the basis of their ethnicity. However, in modern times, her attacks are purely motivated to fuel the reputation of Vought / because she was told to (and with one exception, which was to manipulate Homelander); this is: when she killed Kimiko’s brother, which was because he was deemed a super terrorist, and when she killed the apartment complex, which was to add to the narrative that he was a terrorist, and the exception is when she pushed Homelander into killing the white man (which was to make Homelander believe that the justice system is unjust . . . Which she is right in, to be fair).

Thirdly: Her study in creating a race of literal super-humans was diverse; it included people of all ethnicities and skin tones.

Fourthly: Stormfront herself shows, although not in a direct way, that she has actively changed. In episode five, Starlight confronts her on her past. Stormfront says, “going against your own people,” and clarifies it even further once Starlight assumes she means ‘white people’ with, “Starlight, superheroes. Don’t be racist.” While she was being condescending in what she said, the weight behind it still remains.

The Accusation That Stormfront Admitted to Being A Nazi by Saying People Love What She Says but Hates the Word Nazi:

In the finale, Stormfront’s past was exposed to the public. Because of how sensitive that information is, she got rightfully mad at whoever it was that leaked it. With the fact that Starlight had already tried to antagonize her before, Stormfront knew it was her. She found Starlight, and the two proceeded to fight.

However, before the fight, Stormfront said that before her past was revealed, people liked what she was saying. They listened to her. They just simply don’t like the word Nazi. She said it in the sense that “Nazi” is a word used to discredit someone, regardless if their views would make them a Nazi or not. You see it a lot now, politically, the opposing side (on both ends) call each other Nazis simply because they don’t have aligning political views. And because Nazi is such a strong word, calling someone one of them would have an impact on their public reception regardless. Stormfront isn’t a Nazi anymore, but people were still calling her one regardless, so the public reception to her changed. Nazi is a strong word. Stormfront was right -- people did like what she was saying, they were listening to her every word, up until she was slandered as a Nazi.

The Accusation that Stormfront Said A Racist Remark About Edgar:

In the finale, Stormfront and Homelander are privately discussing who they believe could be behind a recent terrorist attack that quite clearly was perpetuated by a Supe. Homelander suggested that it was planned by a man called Edgar, and Stormfront said “it’s possible, he is smart. For his kind.” A lot of people have slandered Stormfront further by saying “for his kind” was in reference to his ethnicity. However, with the audience already knowing her superiority complex around Supes, we can understand the remark was in terms of him not having any abilities (that we know of).

The Accusation That Stormfront Believes in The “Great Replacement” Theory:

In the finale, it’s found that Homelander’s son -- Ryan -- is having issues connecting with his powers and triggering them. Homelander says that he found it easy to use his powers by imagining an enemy, a person he hates. However, Ryan tries to do that too but finds that he really just doesn’t hate anyone.

Stormfront, being quick-thinking, delicately says that people are against them because of their skin color, “it’s called white genocide.” While it was tasteless and questionable for her to tell a child, she believed that Ryan needed a clear enemy in his mind and she was simply suppling him with a vague idea that would trigger his abilities for at least one time. No where does she actually say she believes in the outlandish theory; she was simply saying it because she believed it would help Ryan overcome an obstacle he was facing.

The Accusation That Stormfront is Named After A White-Nationalist Site:

There’s a lot of discourse over her name; a lot of people think a name is a valid reason to call someone a Nazi. I don’t believe I need to point out why that is insane, but I will explain the reasoning behind Stormfront’s name:

Stormfronts powers are based in electricity. They are bolts of electricity that come from the palm of her hand, and can light things of fire, burn people, throw them around, etc. They resemble lightening from a storm, hence her being called Stormfront.

#The Boys #Stormfront #The Boys Season 2

103 notes · View notes

monkytown · 4 years

Text

The movie ‘Irresistible’

Hi’.

I have to rant a bit about the movie and I’ll use that little lone corner of the internet to do that. Hopefully disturbing noone in the process.

For those who didn’t get the movie’s point, the US electoral system is insane. It is in eternal campaign mode and spends ~$5-6 billions dollars every two years just to promote a brand. People like Greg, from Dawn Somewhere, conclude from there that politicians are corrupt and disconnected.

But.

Try and put yourself in that consultant’s feet, but you want to help that town. What do you do?

I’m not talking about thanking Evan or remembering is name if it is his name, as the filthy viewer I am I quickly wrote him off as background prop. I’m not talking about being a good tourist and asking if the kitchen is still open and stuff. I am talking about how you would be the hero, not the villain, in that story.

What would it take to help that town?

The movie’s answer is to spend the election money on the town itself. A point Billy Bob from Mudpot hammers to the donors at the EvilRich mansion. So, how much money do you have? Around $1 million dollars. Which the movie tells you is a bit above the town’s target. Just spend that on the town and you get the shiny and green happy ending, job done.

Well, no.

All you have done is put a bandaid on a town that will still die. It was on life support with that military base (if I paid enough attention) and the private market ain’t gonna miraculously replace it. As, again, Billy Bob said, it ain’t coming back. You effectively gave charity to maintain it in an eternal state of poverty, good job. Be proud. Also, you have ten thousands other Mudpot needing that charity and that’s already above the ~$6 billions spent at the federal level. And then! You still have a whole other bunch of issues to solve. Pricetag for fixing the infrastructure? Above $1 trillion. To everyone’s shock, charity falls short.

So why would you, as the glorious hero even bother to go to Mudpot convince Billy Bob to challenge the beloved mayor? ‘Cause a mayor is powerless, the budget remains the same and poor people are trapped in poverty. Even if your Billy Bob wins, it will only let the other party say “see? see? You elected that brand and you are not better off, but now gay frogs are in your kitchens!” You are effectively shooting yourself in the foot here.

The reason is the ‘50 States strategy’.

That is the current democratic strategy, to compete everywhere possible. And it is a game of attrition as both parties, no matter what people think, have limited amounts of money. It is about outspending the opposite side where it counts. So what you are actually trying to do in Mudpot with your Billy Bob, by getting him elected, is get those same people to also vote for your brand upwards and therefore win Wisconsin, and other States, and have your brand in power. Why? Because without that condition filled you won’t be able to enact the $1 trillion infrastructure plan desperately needed (and insufficient by itself) to save Mudpot and its ten thousands other peers. And you are seeking to achieve that either by having Billy Bob win or by having the other party waste money in this irrelevant race so that you can win elsewhere. It’s math.

Now why can’t you simply elect Billy Bob and then work with the other party to get that $1 trillion infrastructure bill passed?

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN THIS PAST DECADE?!

And we go back to hyperpartisanship and what I call the ‘rush to the extremes’. You have problems and the status quo can’t solve them (some would say the status quo is causing them). So people move to more radical options. And more radical. And more radical. And “suddenly” you have Trump.

Understand that this hyperpartisanship isn’t something top-bottom. It hasn’t been evil corporations and corrupt politicians conspiring to brainwash 40% of the population. No. It has been far more bottom-up. Democrats were winning elections until they defended civil rights and suddenly they couldn’t get votes in the south / countryside anymore. So they started representing those who would vote for them: cities and such. Meanwhile republicans were losing elections until they realized the countryside was up for grab. So they started representing those guys and the 538 has a lovely article on that. Sure, you have Fox News and MSNBC and whatnot, and think tanks making talking points for people to use and all that. But. The Tea Party came from the base. Trump certainly came from the base. And all the pushes towards progressivism among democrats definitely came from the base. Parties move according to who is willing to vote for them.

The hyperpartisanship that has been gridlocking Congress isn’t coming from representatives. Those representatives are perfectly representing the will of their voters. Voters are intently gridlocking everything by trying to brute-force it.

And why are they? Because the status quo resulted from compromises across parties. You can’t rant about the status quo and ask for compromise in the same breath, it is nonsensical.

So.

Back to Billy Bob from Mudpot and his need for $700k to fix whatever ruin is left in his pit of poverty. What do you do?

You, as the republican/democratic hero, need him to forget gay frogs and vote your brand so you can break the gridlock and unilaterally pass your agenda. It might require a Constitutional Assembly, you don’t know and you don’t care ‘cause you have no alternative. You need to save that town. You need several bills passed at the federal level to save ten thousands Mudpot.

You will tell ten thousands Billy Bob to run in the hope to get the majority needed, not just on paper but in practice, to save Mudpot. And if you fail, what can you, as the hero, do for the town? Nothing. You can come back, say you failed, and that you can only retry two years from now. Because gay frogs. There you go. You, as the hero, are the villain, and everyone hates you for being so corrupt and disconnected.

Why do I feel the need to rant about it?

Because everyone knows the problem but noone can come up with solutions (because gay frogs) and so it’s easier to just scapegoat the leaders, say they are corrupt and disconnected when, even if they were innocent and in-touch, they would be just as powerless, and forced to act exactly the same way because otherwise Mudpot dies.

And yes, politicians profit from it. What would you do in their place, when you’re powerless and about to lose your job, other than give up? And yes, corporations profit from it. What would you do in their place, when you are told to make money at all cost or die? And yes, no matter what Jon Stewart says, even the poor would want to profit from it, that’s your Moira from Radio Skyline.

What is most frustrating however is that I am Swiss. I experience direct democracy. And while you might not like the result, direct democracy avoids such gridlocks. Brexit? Initiative, bam, done, a decade of decay spared. A wall? Initiative, bam, turns out the majority of the US isn’t racist after all. Trade war? Initiative, bam, now Joe Biden is forced to suicide the country to get an elusive deal. M4A? Initiative, bam, still not happening because Switzerland tried four times and it’s the middle of Europe and we still said no.

Politicians and corporations didn’t create this insane US electoral / political system. They sure adapted to it, but they had to adapt, because eventually it is just a collective suicide over gay frogs.

And neither you nor Billy Bob from Mudpot, with his $4.5mn scam, ain’t gonna change that.

#Irresistible #politics #Jon Stewart #gay frogs

1 note · View note

anthonybialy · 3 years

Text

Talking Replacing Doing

It's too bad smugness doesn't cure illness or poverty, as government fans might have actually accomplished something. Anyone capable of paying attention knows liberals are all talk, which is the natural result of never achieving anything. Note grandiose plans create the precise opposite of results to be called a bigot. Crackpot theories that constitute their ideology work perfectly in their heads. Announcing how much they care about their future victims is how they put principles into practice.

Unveiling super societal molds is especially popular now when breathing is lethal. The ceaseless pandemic has gotten government in their lives, only on meth. Tweaking governors spend 37 consecutive awake hours disassembling our toasters to fix them.

Making legislatures redundant should've brought uncontainable joy, according to statists who argue it's this dumb republic which halts progress. Yet states that were woeful pre-plague just grew even more deserted unless cemeteries count. Praising failed zombie hellholes is how liberals distract from their ideology in action. Pretending states where residents can take figurative and literal breaths of fresh air will kill us all just takes ignoring results.

The power of suggestion should alter human nature one of these decades. Practitioners feel orders to change life itself work on themselves. It's a nice way of saying they believe their own lies. Take claiming Florida and Texas are semi-eternally on the verge of becoming virus death zones. Sure, apocalyptic proclamations haven't technically become reality. But saying doom looms if humans are unleashed is the only way those who get scared on your behalf can win elections, and they're certainly not about to look for work.

Hyperventilating over the disaster they claim is pending while disregarding the actual Grim Reaper overtime shifts in Blue States has made the pandemic a perfect inadvertent illustration of ideology. By contrast, laid-back states are not only open for business but also don't have to worry about New York's teetering corpse mountains collapsing on the living. Raise buzzard meat by leaving Andrew Cuomo's dead victims in the streets. Worshiping an inept psychopath whose greatest achievement was concealing widespread death he caused from his cult for a few months shows the religion of progressivism's core creed.

Spreading what was supposed to be contained just served as the latest and most prominent screwup from an entity that ruins the lives it protects. Vigorous interdiction during an emergency turned an awful illness into the worst-case Dustin Hoffman movie. Shrieking as if every command health autocrats demanded weren't in place is a nice touch, especially if a seemingly ill-considered reflex was actually a planned distraction. Progressives were victimized by getting all they wanted. Success at suckering voters requires pretending they got nothing.

The greatest human mystery remains how one gets to the political philosophy based around government being super at everything. Name anything it's improved for the toughest Jeopardy! category ever. Glorious outcomes they pretend will occur doesn't count no matter how practitioners tally in their heads. Projections based on lunatic presumptions tend not to work out. Those constructing a blissful new world never factor in people responding negatively to, say, a tax hike, which is the same reason they're not into researching consequences.

It never occurs to those begging for a minimum wage hike to work for a raise. But we all win if someone is paid more, you mathematical ignoramus. Employees spend paychecks which helps the economy, no? Forget where money comes from, namely you if you're a customer.

Changing genders is the apex of science. Useless mandates that shut down autonomy weren't enough of an imposition. Now, the Woke Patrol ensures you're not allowed to think for yourself, as paying attention to biology infringes upon the personal authenticity of the wholly inauthentic. Recognize their confidence by how they damn anyone who dares dissent. Contemporary witch hunters work at Amazon and in Twitter's terms of service division.

The presumption their beliefs are humane shows how funny liberals are. Stifling dissent is even more hilarious. Those who hold that the government delivers efficient health care claim their takes are the only option, as anyone opposing their kind and thoughtful stances must be on the side of Satan. Such airtight logic could only be more charming if it kept failing constantly. I blame reality for rudely smashing their architecture.

Compassion junkies are hooked on ignorance. Noticing how much agony their policies inflict is the only way to exacerbate their preening. Outcomes are never as happy as their dreams.

Taking what's yours to fix your problems is like Cuomo trying to find the real grandma-killer. Reduction of government fixes the alleged cure. Please stop helping us. Any tax slashing alleviates strife.

Conversely, raising rates disrupts the chain from disincentivizing success to draining money that could be used on goods or wages. Speaking of which, people who think running a business means trading a soul demand cruel tycoons raise payment by law. Hmmm, maybe companies could increase wages if the compassionate government wasn't draining them. The difference between liberals and vampires is the latter possess enough sense to not consume too much blood from those upon which they feed.

There'd be fewer victims if taxes plummeted, and what fun would that be? Having fewer struggling humans to help denies others a chance to flaunt decency. Those fortunate enough to be doing okay could help with charity, especially since there's more capital not being gobbled up. But that whole voluntary business is as toxic to government aficionados as earning a raise.

Woke overlords demand diversity in every superficial category but not for ideas. Differing opinions frighten them as much as voluntary interaction. Check out their mandatory schemes for a glimpse of what they're sure is perfected life.

Anything where humans can make decisions without permission freaks planning junkies. They strive to make agreeing with them compulsory just like their policies. One beautiful day, they'll finally end pesky dissent from those who notice they're full of it.

0 notes

mcdouglecompany-blog · 5 years

Text

Prager University Part 34.

Preferred Pronouns or Prison

Ben Shapiro- Why Has the West Been So Successful?

The Left Ruins Everything

DivestU

The Chicago Fire: America at Its Best

Why the Electoral College is Essential

Is Denmark Socialist?

Who Are the Racists?

Preferred Pronouns or Prison.

Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/cn5opUFNs-I

PragerU

Published on Apr 15, 2019

“He.” “She.” “They.” Have you ever given a moment’s thought to your everyday use of these pronouns? It has probably never occurred to you that those words could be misused. Or that doing so could cost you your business or your job – or even your freedom. Journalist Abigail Shrier explains how this happened and why it's become a major free speech issue. Script: If you want to control people’s thoughts, begin by controlling their words. That’s totalitarian thinking. It was once completely foreign to America. Not anymore. Increasingly, Americans are forced to use language against their will or even their conscience or be prepared to suffer the consequences. And those consequences can be dire. Take, for example, the issue of transgenderism, the newest “civil rights battle” of our time. A decade ago, few people could even tell you what the word “transgender” meant. Today, expressing the “wrong opinion” on the issue can cost you your business or job—or both. Consider recent state and local actions punishing those who decline to use an individual’s pronouns of choice. In 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation threatening jail time for health-care professionals who “willfully and repeatedly” refuse to use a patient’s preferred pronouns. Under guidelines issued in 2015 by New York City’s Commission on Human Rights, employers, landlords and business owners who intentionally use the wrong pronoun with transgender workers and tenants face potential fines of as much as $250,000. That’s a steep price for saying “he” instead of “she” or “she” instead of “he,” or even “he” or “she” instead of “they.” What about the vast majority of citizens who hold the biology-based view that chromosomes determine your sex—male or female? Or those who have a deep-seated religious conviction that sex is both biological and binary—God’s purposeful creation? In December of 2018, Peter Vlaming was fired from his job as a French-language teacher in a Virginia school district because he refused to refer to a transgender student by the student’s preferred pronouns. Vlaming’s Christian belief prevented him from bowing before the notion that the student, who had been a “she” in his class the year before, was now suddenly a “he.” Vlaming was willing to use the student’s chosen new name, but he avoided using any pronouns when referring to this student. That wasn’t good enough for the school district; they needed to hear him say the words. You don’t have to be religious to believe that one person can never be a “they.” The Supreme Court has clearly decided that compelled speech is not free speech. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), the Supreme Court upheld the students’ right to refuse to salute an American flag. Justice Robert Jackson wrote, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, religion or other matters of opinion.” And, Jackson went on to say, the state can’t force people to say things they don’t believe. For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/preferr...

Why Has the West Been So Successful?

Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/RVD0xik-_FM

PragerU

Published on Apr 8, 2019

The Western world has produced some of the most prosperous and most free civilizations on earth. What makes the West exceptional? Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief of the Daily Wire and author of “The Right Side of History,” explains that the twin pillars of revelation and reason — emanating from ancient Jerusalem and Athens — form the bedrock for Western civilization's unprecedented success. Script: Western civilization. It’s been around for a while, but suddenly everybody is talking about it. Some are anxious to save it; others are happy to see it go. But what exactly is Western civilization? Is it the great cathedrals of Europe or the Nazi concentration camps? Is it the freedoms secured in the US Constitution or chattel slavery? Life-saving medicines or poison gas? The left likes to focus on the bad—genocide, slavery, environmental destruction. But those have been present in every civilization from time immemorial. The positives are unique to the West—religious tolerance, abolition of slavery, universal human rights, the development of the scientific method: these are accomplishments of a scope and scale that only the West can claim. These aren’t the only achievements that make the West special and uniquely successful. As Western thought evolved, it secured the rights of women and minorities, lifted billions of people out of poverty, and invented most of the modern world. Progress hasn’t been a straight line, of course. But the arc of history is clear. The obvious proof is that the world is overwhelmingly Western. And, with few exceptions, those parts of the world that aren’t aspire to be. Why? Why has Western civilization been so successful? There are many reasons, but the best place to start is with the teachings and philosophies that emerged from two ancient cities: Jerusalem and Athens. Jerusalem represents religious revelation as manifested in the Judeo-Christian tradition: the beliefs that a good God created an ordered universe and that this God demands moral behavior from His paramount creation, man. The other city, Athens, represents reason and logic as expressed by the great Greek thinkers Plato and Aristotle and many others. These two ways of thinking—revelation and reason—live in constant tension. Judeo-Christian religion posits that there are certain fundamental truths handed down to us by a transcendent being. We didn’t invent these truths; we received them from God. The rules He lays down for us are vital for building a functioning, moral civilization and for leading a happy life. Greek thinking posits that we only know truth by what we observe, test, and measure. It is not faith, but fact, that drives our understanding and exploration of the universe. Western civilization, and only Western civilization, has found a way to balance both religious belief and human reason. Here’s how the balance works. The Judeo-Christian tradition teaches that God created an ordered universe, and that we have an obligation to try to make the world better. This offers us purpose and suggests that history moves forward. Most pagan religions taught the opposite: that the universe is illogical and random, and that history is cyclical. History just endlessly repeats itself—in which case, why bother to innovate or create anything new? For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/why-has...

The Left Ruins Everything.

Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/JXbR3oADwaM

PragerU

Published on Mar 25, 2019

From the Boy Scouts to literature, from the arts to universities: the left ruins everything it touches. Dennis Prager explains. Script: If what I am about to tell you is true, almost everything we most treasure – freedom, beauty, reason, the family, economic well-being, and even goodness – is in jeopardy. Who or what poses this threat? The answer is the most powerful ideology of the last hundred years: leftism. Not liberalism; leftism – or, if you prefer, “progressivism.” Leftism destroys everything it touches. Here are a just a few examples: 1. The universities Perhaps the most obvious example – one that many liberals acknowledge – is the left’s near destruction of most universities as places of learning. In the words of Harvard professor Steven Pinker – an atheist and a liberal – because of the left, “universities are becoming laughing stocks of intolerance.” At almost every university – and now high schools and even elementary schools – students are taught to shut down – not debate – those who differ with them. And to rely on feelings rather than reason. 2. The arts Throughout history, the primary purpose of art was to elevate people – through beauty, artistic excellence, and emotional depth. To the left, the primary purpose of art, sculpture, and music is to shock. That’s why so much contemporary art is meaningless, and involves the scatological, meaning urine and feces. Yes, urine and feces. To give one of countless examples, in 2016, the Guggenheim Museum in New York featured a pure-gold working toilet, which visitors were invited to use. The name of the exhibit was “America" – so one could literally relieve oneself on America. 3. Literature The English department at the University of Pennsylvania replaced the portrait of the greatest English-language writer who ever lived, William Shakespeare, with a picture of a black lesbian poet. Why? Because he was a white European male. Leftist professors have replaced the pursuit of excellence with the pursuit of diversity. 4. Late-night television In America, late-night television shows were completely apolitical. The hosts believed their role was to entertain viewers and offer them relief and laughter after a difficult day. No longer. You cannot watch late-night television if you just want to be entertained. Late-night TV is now left-night TV. 5. Religion The left has ruined much of mainstream Protestantism and Catholicism, and non-Orthodox Judaism, which are now little more than left-wing organizations with religious symbols. In many churches and synagogues, one is more likely to hear the clergy talk about political issues than about any other subject, including even the Bible. For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/the-lef...

DivestU

Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/AcD5YVg9Z1Q

PragerU

Published on Mar 18, 2019

It’s no longer a secret that many college campuses today are nothing more than leftist indoctrination camps. But what can we do about it? Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, offers a simple and effective solution. This video was made possible by a generous grant from Colorado Christian University. Script: Year after year, Americans pour billions of dollars into colleges and universities. I'm not talking about the outrageous tuition costs, living expenses, and fees – the debt pit students fall into. And I'm not talking about the tax money – our money – colleges and universities get from federal and state governments. I'm talking about the money Americans are handing over to these institutions of their own free will. In 2017, that number was $44 billion. $44 billion in donations in one year from alumni and other donors. And for what? To enhance the education of America's youth? Do you really think our college graduates are better educated, more literate, more versed in classical philosophy and American history than they were ten, twenty, or fifty years ago? If your child goes to college and spends four years partying, skipping class, and playing video games, consider yourself lucky. It's when they actually listen to their radical professors that you're in trouble. So what have our institutions been doing with all this money? Well, the University of Michigan's Vice Provost of Equity and Inclusion makes $400,000 a year. The university spends close to eleven million dollars annually on diversity and inclusion staff and programs, according to a recent report. What do you think Vice Provosts of Equity and Inclusion (and almost all schools have one now) do all day? They, and the small armies they supervise, spend all day, every day, looking for racism, sexism, classism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia and any other phobias they can dream up. If they don't find some bias somewhere, they're out of a job. So, guess what? They find it – even where it doesn't exist. The University of California at Santa Cruz now has an "activist-in-residence." His job is to mint new leftist activists – as if we have a shortage. Why are we voluntarily giving billions and billions of dollars to hopelessly corrupt institutions that overcharge, underdeliver and undermine the most basic values of Western Civilization? We should be starving this beast. Instead, we're feeding it. Are there exceptions to this rule? Colleges that are actually dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom? Of course, there are – and they are worthy of your financial support. But you can count them on two hands. The rest have a different mission. And they have more than enough coin to carry it out. The aforementioned University of Michigan has an endowment of 12 billion dollars. But that's small potatoes compared to Yale's $30 billion or Harvard's $40 billion. And donors keep giving them more. It's time to stop. You'd be better throwing your money into a bonfire. That's just a waste. But when you donate to your average university, you're actually hurting your society. For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/divestu

The Chicago Fire: America at Its Best.

Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/RYulzUPHqOY

PragerU

Published on Apr 1, 2019

The most famous fire in American history happened in Chicago on October 8, 1871. But it’s not the fire that was so remarkable; it’s what happened afterwards. Lee Habeeb, host of the nationally syndicated radio show “Our American Stories,” explains. Script: The most famous fire in American history happened in Chicago on October 8, 1871. But it’s not the fire that is so remarkable. It’s what happened afterwards. To understand why, we first need to know something about the city’s history. In 1840, Chicago was a small town of forty-five hundred souls. It ranked 92nd in population in the United States. Yet, only three decades later, by 1870—just a year before the great fire—Chicago was closing in on a population of 300,000, making it the fifth-biggest city in America and the fastest-growing city in the world. What led to all this rapid growth? In three words: location, location, location. “Chicago was near the center of the country, and near where the waterways and railways met,” city historian Tim Samuelson notes. “It was a perfect place for anything and anyone to get anywhere…” Timing had a lot to do with it, too. America was moving from a rural to an industrial power. Chicago was right in the middle of the action. Ironically, its rapid growth was almost its undoing. “[Chicago] had to build, and build quickly, and so they built it out of wood,” explained Sarah Marcus of the Chicago History Museum. “It was quick, it was easy, and it was cheap.” And, as it turned out, very flammable. By most accounts, the fire started on the city’s West Side, near the De Koven Street barn of Patrick and Catherine O’Leary. No one is sure of the cause, but it could have been anything, from vandals to a drunken neighbor to that clumsy cow of urban legend. Within minutes, the blaze roared out of control, tearing through Chicago’s business district. The fire was so hot, it created its own tornado of flame. By 3:30 a.m., all hope of saving large parts of the city was gone. Nearly 30 hours later, the fire finally died. The reason? There was nothing left to burn. The losses were staggering: The fire claimed nearly 300 lives, destroyed over 17,000 buildings covering almost 3.5 square miles, and caused damage of over $200 million–about 3.8 billion today. Roughly a third of the city lay in ruins, and one out every three people living in Chicago—nearly 100,000 residents—became homeless overnight. “All the law offices were destroyed, all the major hotels were destroyed, all the major department stores were destroyed, and all the major banks were destroyed,” Chicago weather historian Tom Skilling notes. In those days, there were no national or state agencies to help. Chicago was on its own. What was to be done? To most of Chicago’s citizens, the answer was obvious: Rebuild. Make the city better than ever. Yes, there were many victims of the fire, but there was no sense of victimhood. Even before the bricks stopped smoking, the people of Chicago went to work. First, the damage had to be assessed. The death and destruction were obvious. But there were some major pluses as well. The stockyards and meat packing plants had been spared. Two-thirds of the grain elevators survived. And most importantly, the railway and rail stock escaped major damage. This was critical because it would allow shipments of building materials and private relief aid to come pouring in from across the country and around the world. To view the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/the-chi...

Why the Electoral College is Essential.

Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/RYulzUPHqOYhttps://youtu.be/JFGhX0hLy6E

PragerU

Published on Apr 30, 2019

The Left wants to get rid of the Electoral College. However, the Electoral College is necessary to preserve our republic. Watch our video "Do You Understand the Electoral College?" here: https://www.prageru.com/video/do-you-...

Is Denmark Socialist?

Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/RYulzUPHqOYhttps://youtu.be/tzEPKrHalaY

PragerU

Published on Apr 22, 2019

Socialism has failed across the world – from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to China, Vietnam, North Korea and, most recently, Venezuela. So now the left references countries like Denmark as “proof” that socialism works. Otto Brons-Petersen explains why they’re wrong: Denmark is just as capitalist as the United States. Script: I am a citizen of Denmark, the Disneyland of socialism, where everybody is happy and healthy. Forget the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela and all those power-mad Marxists who got it wrong. Denmark is the model to follow. There’s just one problem. It’s a fantasy. For it to be true, Denmark would have to be a socialist country. But it’s not. If it were, it would have gone “Venezuela” a long time ago. Sorry to bring all the new fans of socialism the bad news. But that’s the reality. Yes, it’s true that Denmark has high taxes and a high level of government spending—key features of a socialist mentality. But in almost every other respect, Denmark is a full-on free market capitalist country. And it has some of the strongest protections of individual property rights in the world. And it’s a particularly easy place to open a business. According to the World Bank, there is less bureaucratic red tape in Denmark than in any other country, except for New Zealand and Singapore. And the labor market is less regulated than in most countries. Here’s something you probably didn’t know: there are no minimum wage laws in Denmark. It’s not surprising then—or maybe it is surprising, given all the misinformation out there—that Denmark ranks consistently as one of the top-ranked free market economies in the world by The Fraser Institute in Canada and The Heritage Foundation. So, if Denmark is not a socialist country, what is it? The answer is pretty straightforward: it’s a small capitalist country (about the size and population of Maryland) whose citizens pay oodles in taxes in exchange for oodles in benefits. Well, what’s wrong with that? you might ask. Only this: for the government to pay out such benefits, you need citizens to make enough money to pay the necessary taxes. And that’s only possible through a free market economy. Let me explain—with some Danish history. Denmark, like its Scandinavian neighbors, Sweden and Norway, made a remarkable economic recovery after the Second World War. The combination of a highly productive work force and—get this—low taxes created a lot of wealth. So like every other wealthy welfare state, Denmark became wealthy before it created the welfare state. Relative to Europe, Denmark’s economic high-water mark was in the 1950s; relative to the US, it was the early ‘70s. It was then, in the late ’60s and early ’70s, that the country’s ruling elite became preoccupied with wealth redistribution. But the price paid for this social experiment was steep and swift. The expansion of public spending led to a severe economic crisis. The national debt skyrocketed. It took decades of consolidation, structural reforms and curtailing of welfare schemes to straighten out this mess. This is the stuff you never hear about from the “Danish model” crowd. The sharp tax hikes and spending also sparked a widespread popular revolt and led to the emergence of the “tax protestors” party, Fremskridtspartiet. Even though the party no longer exists, the widespread desire to cut taxes remains. For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/is-denm...

Who Are the Racists?

Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/RYulzUPHqOYhttps://youtu.be/MpToEILMnA4

PragerU

Published on Apr 29, 2019

To call someone a racist is a serious charge. Conservatives are accused of racism by the left on a daily basis. Are the accusations fair? Or is something else going on? Derryck Green of Project 21 provides some provocative answers.

Script: Every single day someone of prominence on the left—a politician, a cable news host, an entertainment figure—accuses someone on the right of being a racist. Here are typical examples: MSNBC host Chris Matthews said this: “The age of Jim Crow managed to find a new habitat in the… 21st-century Republican Party." Comedian Seth Meyers told his late-night audience that Republicans traffic “in open racism.” Tennessee state representative London Lamar, a black woman, announced that the entire state of Tennessee is “racist. Period.” This was just after she was elected… in Tennessee! And almost every criticism of President Barack Obama was labelled racist. The left calling the right racist isn’t new. It’s been going on for decades. Republican Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, his son, George W. Bush were all accused of being racists. And, of course, from the left’s perspective, “racist” is essentially Donald Trump’s middle name. To call someone a racist is a very serious charge. A racist is a person who believes that one race is inherently superior or inferior to another. It’s not intelligence, character or values that determine an individual’s worth; it’s his or her skin color. To say that racism is foolish and stupid—not to mention evil—is to understate the case. But according to most Democrats, Republicans are that stupid and that evil. So, let’s examine some conservative policies to see if they are, indeed, racist. If they are, then the left has a valid complaint. And if they’re not, then the left is lying. The longstanding conservative opposition to Affirmative Action is a good place to start. It was Democratic president John F. Kennedy who, in 1961, first used the term “affirmative action.” But Affirmative Action in the way we think of it now wasn’t implemented until 1970, during the administration of a Republican president, Richard Nixon. The theory was that, because of historical discrimination, blacks were at a competitive disadvantage to other races and ethnicities. To erase that disadvantage, standards that most blacks presumably couldn’t meet had to be lowered. One could make the case that this policy had some utility when it was first put in place. But that was a long time ago. The conservative position is that blacks have repeatedly proven they can compete with anyone without the benefits of lower standards. There are countless examples of black success in every field, at every level. The policy is no longer necessary. But the conservative argument goes further. Study after study shows that, in the case of college admissions, affirmative action hurts more blacks than it helps. By lowering admissions standards for blacks (and some other minority students), colleges set many of these students up for failure. They get placed in schools for which they are not prepared. And high black dropout rates confirm this view. For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/who-are...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For a great archive of Prager University videos visit-

https://www.youtube.com/user/PragerUniversity/featured

Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h

Get PragerU bonus content for free! https://www.prageru.com/bonus-content

Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips. iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e

Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys

Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru

Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.

VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com

Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru

Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/

PragerU is on Snapchat!

JOIN PragerFORCE! For Students: http://l.prageru.com/2aozfkP

JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9

Click here to download the episode

0 notes