Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

90 Views

The recent Antifa attack on Andy Ngo has opened up a number of interesting questions. Is violence necessary to bring about political and societal change? What responsibility do the police have to protect people? How many Antifa members still live at home with Mommy and Daddy?

One of the more intriguing questions is what constitutes a journalist. Leftists can’t seem to define what a journalist is in this case, but they know for sure Ngo isn’t one of them. According to them, he’s a hack, little more than a provocateur for a radical alt-right website who defends Nazis and President Donald Trump. Instead, they think people like Jim Acosta are “real journalists” when he’s little more than a provocateur with a CNN press pass. (Actually, I take that back. It’s far too insulting to compare Ngo to Acosta, so I apologize…to Andy Ngo.)

So, let’s take a moment to delve into what a journalist is…and isn’t.

journalist

What the Left thinks it means – a hard working person charged with the task of revealing the truth

What it really means – an overworked individual charged with the task of revealing the truth, even if his or her colleagues don’t agree with it

As a former/recovering journalism student, I have my own perspective on what constitutes a journalist today, but I will save my thoughts on the term for later. Right now, I want to get at the Left’s concept of journalists and journalism in general. And it starts with a favorite phrase of theirs: “Facts have a liberal bias.” The Left believes they always have the high ground when it comes to factual discussions, so naturally they treat any reporting that supports their ideology or personal biases as the truth. Granted, we all do that to some extent, but this is confirmation bias on steroids.

Remember that old chestnut that 97% of climate scientists agree with the hypothesis of manmade climate change? The Left throws that out like candy at a parade run by the National Tooth Decay Association. Yet, when you dig a little deeper, you find the 97% is just a little overinflated by…oh, I don’t know…a factor of two. Going from almost certainty to a coin flip should take the steam out of the argument, but it doesn’t to the Left. They repeat the debunked 97% claim as though they get paid by George Soros to do it. Then again…

Anyway, the point is the Left is perfectly willing to ignore, cherry-pick, or out and out deny facts if they clash with their ideology and talking points. Apply that same logic to the news, and you have the Left’s approach to journalists and journalism. That’s why you’ll hear Leftists continue to bow at the altar of Dan Rather as a credible reporter/commentator in spite of the fact he and some of his CBS cohorts got fired for…making up a news story out of whole cloth in an attempt to discredit and possibly defeat George W. Bush in 2004. It’s also why the Left champions the cause of people like Jim Acosta, who is little more than a pimple on the late Edward R. Murrow’s ass.

By now, you might have noticed a trend. Leftists’ positive examples of journalists tend to be…Leftists themselves! Why, that’s…completely expected! In reality, Leftist news sources merely reinforce what Leftists already believe because they never take off their ideological blinders to see else is going on out there. They still can’t figure out how Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton even though the facts are right in front of them.

Ahhhhhh! I think we’re onto something here! To borrow a line from Ben Shapiro, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” The Left thrives on emotions, and their truths are deeply rooted in what they feel to be true. Hmmm…I swear I’ve heard that articulated by a Leftist darling of recent memory, but I can’t remember exactly who…oh well. Good thing she’s not a Congresswoman who represents a district in New York City or anything because that would be really embarrassing, right?

Speaking of embarrassing, the modern journalist falls into one of two categories: Leftist stenographer, or relatively unknown person who has a nose for digging up truths, no matter where they are. While the former get awards and recognition for merely repeating the tired refrain Orange Man Bad, the latter rarely get noticed until they find themselves within the stories they cover, as Andy Ngo did. Then, the “real journalists” come out in droves to mock and/or discredit the real journalists for daring to do what they do (at least in their opinion). In truth, the latter group is doing what the former group used to do and fail to do now.

It’s been said there is more real journalism going on in cyberspace than there is in editorial boardrooms across the country, and I tend to agree. What passes for journalism today wouldn’t have gotten past my Journalism 101 professor’s desk without being returned with a failing grade and a request to rethink journalism as a profession. Regardless of who is putting in the legwork and where their work is getting published, the derided reporters are the ones carrying the torch for the profession, not the perfectly quaffed talking airhead who makes Ron Burgundy look like a MENSA candidate. For the Jim Acostas of the world, hitting a beat means having to walk to get to the open bar at a party. And for those of the current journalism field offended that I am taking their jobs less seriously than a paper on atomic energy written by Cardi B, suck it up because you have been doing the journalism profession a grave disservice for decades, and to claim you’re on par with firefighters and are in danger because President Trump says mean things about you is the height of narcissistic cluelessness. Andy Ngo had to go to the hospital because he dared do what you Brooks Brothers-clad bores wouldn’t do: report on actual news as it was happening at risk to his own life to cover Antifa after they targeted him.

You know, I really need to learn how to open up a bit more on certain subjects. I hold back too much.

Seriously, I don’t envy those who hold true to the principles of good journalism. Not only do you have the usual grind of fleshing out stories, building trust in sources, and finding good leads and story ideas, but you have people who wouldn’t last 10 minutes on a beat telling you that your work isn’t journalism because they say so. And those of you who are out there in the field risking life and limb on top of all that? Nothing but respect.

The sign of a real journalist is not what they report and how it’s reported, but what they don’t report or deem as newsworthy. The fact the “real journalists” haven’t bothered to do even a little research on Antifa being violent Leftist thugs should tell you loads about how disconnected they are to reality.

And that should tell you everything you need to know about their judgment on what real journalism is and who is doing it.

Mob Injustice

48 Views

The Leftist Democratic party thugs in Antifa are doing exactly what former Secretary Hillary Clinton and Congresswoman Maxine Waters have told them to do. This is bullying, harassment, and inciting a riot. And this is illegal.

Not only should the assailants go to jail for their individual actions but so should the Democratic party leadership that encourages these actions. Inciting a riot is a crime and those responsible need to be held accountable. Congresswoman Maxine Waters and former Secretary Hillary Clinton need to be arrested, charged, and prosecuted for inciting a riot after each incident that takes place.

If this is not stopped it will only get worse. And someone will eventually be murdered by the angry Democratic party mobs.

157 years ago the Democratic party caused a war between the states. And it looks like they are on track to do it again.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

63 Views

If you’ve been following this weekly column for a while, there are two things that become clear. One, there’s a legitimate reason I don’t get paid to do this. And, two, the Left loves to play around with the definition of words. And, boy, do I have an Inception-level entry for the Leftist Lexicon for you this week.

When you think of violence, what do you envision? Rioting? Arson? A typical day at UC Berkeley when someone to the right of Lenin decides to express an opinion? Well, according to the Left, you’re right and wrong. (I told you this was Inception-level. You might want to get a stiff drink before continuing. Or fifty.) You see, the Left both loves and hates violence depending on the circumstances, and have even included the purposeful misgendering of trans people as an act of violence.

Come to think of it, I might need a stiff drink or fifty.

Strap in, kids, and keep your drinks close.

violence

What the Left thinks it means – an act or thought that causes physical or emotional harm

What it really means – an act that causes actual physical harm

As you may have noticed, the Left’s definition of violence includes thoughts and emotions, not just actions. By extending the definition in this way, the Left is attempting to expand the intellectual battlefield to include an area where it can get a foothold. And when you give the Left an inch, they’ll whine until they get a mile. And then they’ll whine until they get two, and before you know it, they’ve overrun the property, the property value goes down, and you have to move to the suburbs to get some peace and quiet.

Let’s be clear here. Violence isn’t anything you can think or feel. It requires action that causes actual harm to someone or something. Calling a trans person by his/her wrong name doesn’t quite meet that standard. Making you feel bad isn’t the same as making you feel bad because you were hit in the head with a bike lock.

That brings us to the Left’s other opinion on violence: it’s totes cool as long as it’s done for the right reasons. Meaning, as long as the Left agrees with the violence being committed. That covers everything Antifa does because they’re fighting fascists or people they can call fascists. Funny how that works out, isn’t it? Meanwhile, any violence committed by the Right is a complete no-no. After all, they don’t agree with the Left, so their violence is totally bad, man.

We shouldn’t be surprised by this partisan double standard, considering it comes from the Left. They can justify anything, including illegal activity, by invoking the “it’s the right thing to do” argument. Need to justify abortion? It’s the right thing to do to prevent overpopulation! Diverting federal funds to needless programs with no actual benefits to the world? It’s the right thing to do to keep jobs in America or to advance scientific knowledge! So, when it comes to causing mayhem, property damage, and various injuries to others, the Left has their ready-made excuse handy. After all, isn’t it the right thing to do to punch a Nazi?

Not so much.

The problem with violence is it encourages more violence. Sure, Antifa can come with baseball bats, pipes, and any number of hand weapons, and it will work out for a time. However, there comes a time when the victims of violence may respond with violence. And given some of the particulars opposing Antifa, such as…oh, I don’t know…white nationalists/supremacists who already have a history of having more of a hair trigger than a .45 in an unkempt barber shop…well, let’s just say it’s only a matter of time before that violence winds up with a body count.

And let’s not forget there were Leftists saying there would be injuries on both sides after Donald Trump was elected. Yeah, it’s one thing to say it, but another thing to experience it. Antifa may think they’re Chuck Norris dressed in black and wearing masks, but once bullets start flying, I guarantee they’ll be closer to Chuck Todd than Chuck Norris.

The sad thing? It shouldn’t come to this. Violence, politically motivated or otherwise, should be a non-starter for anyone wishing to change the political landscape. You want change? Make a better argument, don’t make a fist and start swinging.

And redefining violence so non-violence is no different than what Antifa is doing doesn’t help matters any, either. What you’re doing is diminishing actual violence. When misgendering a trans person causes the same physical damage as a bike lock to the head, then we’ll talk. Until then, take a long look at what you’re advocating and see it through to its logical extreme. If you think violence is okay for purely partisan ends, you cannot complain when others use that same approach against you. Oh, I’m sure you will, but you won’t have a leg to stand on when you do.

And in this case, it may not just be figuratively speaking.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

35 Views

Remember the riot…I mean peaceful protests at UC Berkeley a few weeks ago? It seems what we saw (protestors destroying property, lighting fires, and generally being asshats) wasn’t what we saw, at least according to the Left. Yes, dear reader, the rioters weren’t part of the protests, but were a separate group that call themselves antifa, short for anti-fascist. They wore masks so they couldn’t be identified, but they were totally not with the protestors…even though the protestors cheered them on as seen on
video.

The Left has been trying to create a distinction between the protestors and antifa without much success. Apparently it takes more twisting than a yoga master making pretzels to make that distinction real. But at least we have a new entry for our Lexicon.

antifa

What the Left believes it means – a violent anti-fascist group

What it really means – rebels without a clue

Whenever Leftists try to distance themselves from activities they support but know would hurt their narrative, they create distinctions without a difference. After all, these are the same people who think it’s okay to punch Nazis (or people they think are Nazis like Richard Spencer), so it’s not too much of a stretch to think they might be totes cool with antifa’s tactics. So, instead of accepting their baser nature, they hold antifa at arm’s length with a wink and a nod.

So, is antifa truly anti-fascist? That depends on which definition of fascism you use. If you use the Left’s version, the answer is yes. If you use the actual definition (as noted in a previous Leftist Lexicon entry), the answer isn’t as clear. But for the purpose of cutting to the chase, let’s just say antifa needs to brush up on its dictionary usage because they’re employing the tactics fascists use.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s because they’re both Leftist groups. Make no mistake, there is very little difference between the Berkeley protesters and antifa as far as ideology goes. Antifa is just a bit more willing to act on the rhetoric, even if it’s behind a mask. That takes a level of courage most Leftists will never achieve, as wrongheaded as it is.

Having said that, what exactly does antifa wish to achieve by acting like a fascist Lone Ranger? Striking a blow against fascism comes to mind, but as we’ve seen, they’re not going to accomplish that by being fascists. It’s kind of like using napalm to take care of an ant problem. Besides, everyone knows the best way to take care of ants is to use a magnifying glass on a sunny day…

I did a little research on antifa (because, dammit, I care) to find out more about their movement, and not surprisingly, they are also anti-capitalism according to NYC Antifa’s blog site. Hmmmm… now, why would that be? Could it be they’re using Mussolini’s definition of fascism as corporatism? Why, yes, yes it could. In fact, I’m willing to bet my entire paycheck from this blog that they subscribe to his definition, as wrongheaded as it is. (Editor’s note: We are not paying Mr. Lindaman for his contributions, so he’s getting exactly what he’s worth.) And if they are, they are using a fascist’s definition of the term as their reason to be anti-fascist. There’s a term for that kind of cognitive dissidence…oh, yeah, dumbassery.

Let me put forth a radical idea: Antifa is merely Astroturf Wall Street 2: Electric Boogaloo. Before you Leftists start writing angry emails (fraught with misspelled words, capital letters, and more vulgarity than Lisa Lampanelli with Tourettes), take a look at what these groups advocate and do. Both are anti-capitalism (odd considering how dependent they are on technology made by capitalists). Both have been moved to act based on their perception of the world. Both are not above violent means to achieve their ends. Face it, kids. Antifa is one rape circle away from turning UC Berkeley into Zuccotti Park West.

Let me make one thing clear, though. I am anti-fascist, and I would think most people would feel the same way. Fascism on paper and in practice is a horrible totalitarian mindset that stifles freedom and leads to violent disruption of any and all opposition. Think the global climate change cult with heavy artillery.

Where antifa and I part company is that I don’t feel I need to burn down the marketplace of ideas to compete in it. You can try to dress it up like civil disobedience (as the Left is wont to do), but it’s definitely not a good look for you, even if everyone else is wearing it. And you Leftists trying to play both sides of the antifa fence, you need to realize you’re not that different from antifa, and by saying they’re not like you, you are giving them the ammunition to attack you sooner or later. To them, you are
poseurs trying to fit in with the cool kids, and that never ends well. Unless you’re willing to strap on a mask and burn down your local Starbucks, you’re the enemy and need to be defeated.

Good luck with that.