I decided to take on one of the lies being spread on social media today and found myself bumping up against the Facebook censorship regime once again. And what they allow or disallow is purely about the partisan narrative they’re pushing. Leftists can post memes all day long showing Elon Musk with his hand raised, claiming that he is a Nazi, but you can’t even post a plain old picture of Democrats with their hands in an apparent salute without that “misleading” blackout being slapped on it.
InDePeNdEnT fAcT-cHeCkInG
This is the kind of protection those left of center can expect. They’re never held to the same standard as those on the right. If you are conservative any soundbite can ripped out of context and disseminated without a fact-check. Republicans are guilty until they prove themselves innocent. By contrast, the corporate media mouthpieces do not confront the left for their hypocrisy and require Democrats to denounce the left-wing violence. And Billionaire’s like Mark Zuckerberg play interference for them by not even letting us make a comparison to show how ridiculous their claims are.
This is what I posted on Facebook with the image above:
What happens when you put a conservative guy with Asberger’s syndrome in front of an audience of leftists?
Bullying.
The left is about conformity.
You march to the beat of their drum or they will ostracize and belittle. Name-calling is a leftist invention. They love their categories, white and black, haves versus have nots, and it is always about pigeonholing people into tribal groups and robbing all people of their own unique identities.
But turning Musk’s awkward movements, as a guy clearly on the Autism spectrum, into a Nazi salute—even the ADL said that’s taking it too far. Unfortunately this misinterpreting of his hand motion has become that moral justification the far-left wanted to unleash a terror campaign of vandalism and violence—a Krystalnacht redux.
Why did Nazis hate the Jews? Well, there was the same envy of wealth and influence then that the left is now directed at public figures like Musk. To the left a billionaire’s money should belong to them, the ‘fasces’ or their elite managerial class, whereas an American vision is that people should keep their lawfully acquired gains.
Patriotic Americans believe in free markets and rule of law. In stark contrast, the Antifa left (deceptively named) believe in central control (in their hands) and rule by mob if anyone dares to resist their ‘progressive’ regime. They are everything un-American bundled into one ugly package, unforgiving, anti-freedom, big government, collectivist (you do what ‘we’ demand or else) and do not believe in civil rights—starting with that of respecting property and persons.
As I travel in Asia there are Swastikas all the place. If we judged their usage by our own narrow interpretation and understanding we would issue travel warnings to Jews. But it is not the symbols or gestures that matter—it is the attitudes and actions behind them. Musk wants taxpayers to keep more of the money they’ve earned. While the left, along with their Democrat enablers, want to scare you away from choosing the best EV brand there is because they’re control freaks.
The left totally lacks empathy. Sure, they claim it, like they claim everything else on the planet they didn’t earn with their own work. It’s all about them, their Narcissistic small-minded worldview, that is why they can only ever project, accuse, self-deceive and destroy the success of others. They’re an organism that thanklessly destroys their host and condones hate, theft, arson, and murder of anyone who does not lockstep with their cult agenda.
Musk’s “my heart goes out to you” gesture…
The problem isn’t only that the left has a clear double standard, it is that they think they’re the worthy judge when they’re clearly as biased as they come. A little humility would go a long way for this lot. At the very least they could let us be free from their grip to spend our own money and live our own lives—but then that would be too democratic for their tastes.
When I was in elementary school we sang a song with lyrics, “Martin Luther King, Martin Luther King, was a great man.” Looking back it was even strange then. Why were we, in a rural Pennsylvania public school, instructed to heap such adoring praise on this man? It was a weird indoctrination.
One explanation is that this was atonement ritual. Dr. King was murdered. Thus maybe the weight of guilt on the generation of the Civil Rights Era was just that high that this was a way they try to correct the injustice. And it is sufficient to explain why the rank-and-file liberals, such as Mrs. Lawrence, my elementary music teacher, would promote his legacy or turn him into a legend.
But was it all well-intentioned?
I don’t have a black and white view of MLK Jr. I think he was a complex character, he advocated for peaceful protest and yet was also a sexual deviant despite his status as a Baptist Reverend. He’s probably as worthy of honor as any other figure in the American pantheon. However, the big question is why is he there? Why was there a holiday put on the calendar to celebrate this man?
The answer to how is that there was a bipartisan effort, after a significant campaign, to put him there. Everyone, except a few racist hold out Democrats, supported this move. Jimmy Carter endorsed it, and Ronald Reagan signed it into law, lauding King as being “a drum major for justice” in a Presidential proclamation. So it is a reminder to carry on the mission of the man who preached a brotherhood that goes beyond race and reconciliation.
As a child of the 1990s, I was indoctrinated into an ideal of a colorblindness—a society that made the dream of Dr MLK Jr a reality:
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
It had worked. Racial tensions had dropped off and it had really felt then like a new post-racial epoch had begun.
Unfortunately, since then the progress has been backwards. Or at least as far as sentiment. Many are convinced that race relations are worse than before. And that what MLK had preached is impossible, that we must see color, and many advocate that we discriminate in favor of racial minorities—or against them. Both the far-right and far-left agree with racism. They both refuse the multi-variant analysis, one which considers factors like fatherless homes apart from race, and have decided that race determines all.
The left claims that the content of character speech is misused and that we must force equal outcomes or we are disingenuous—while the right uses disparity in outcomes as the proof of inferiority at a genetic level. It is truly amazing how the same data can be read so differently. However, I disagree with both sides and put far more weight on culture and messaging than they do. Telling people they need our help in order to reach their full potential is disempowering and the worst kind of political opportunism.
Which does make me wonder if this is the real reason why we celebrate MLK? Would we ever turn him into an immortal figure if he were alive to speak for himself?
No, I don’t believe so. I believe that MLK Jr. became much more useful to the political establishment in his death. No matter what side you’re on, Republican or Democrat, you can make use of his words. And the reason they recognize him is to use his legacy as a tool for their own ends. This is the beauty of all those made maytrs for a cause, they always get turned into whatever the current owners of their image want them to be. I would contend the holiday is intended as a way to co-opt his legacy—both as a way to pacify and to bend it to their own agenda.
MLK was silenced. His legacy of words and of speeches are now open to interpretation. He’s a national hero only because he’s dead and cannot oppose those employing his name on all sides of the debate. Those who made his birthday into a holiday were likely doing it as a virtue signal, a way to prove (to those who cared in the voting public) how they are better than his killers.
These same people would likely have destroyed him—for his sins—if he were alive and opposed them. Only dead heroes are useful in politics.
Colorado courts are inconsistent. Either it is discrimination for a baker to refuse to provide a product that goes against their own moral conscience or it is not. The courts have ruled two different ways and this seems to reflect the mixed logic (aka hypocrisy) of the general public.
Last year Masterpiece Cakeshop was effectively sued out of the cake making business for refusing to make a cake that was morally offensive to them. But last week the courts ruled in favor of a bakery that refused a religious customer who wished for a cake to celebrate his own views that offended them. In both cases an intolerant customer and an intolerant business person clash over services, but only one was ruled as discrimination.
The Right To Moral Conscience
It should not become a lawsuit if a Red Sox fan refuses to bake a “I love Yankees” cake. It not discrimination against a person to refuse to make anything but pro-Boston cakes.
It is not discrimination against a person to refuse to endorse a personally offending message. A gay placard maker should have every right to turn away Westboro Baptist if they ask for a “God loves Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson” sign. An atheist book printer should not be legally pressured into printing Bibles or other Christian literature either.
The idea that a business must provide any service that a customer demands is absurd. It would be plain ignorant for me to go into a Jewish or Muslim restaurant and tell them they must serve me pork. It would be even more ridiculous if I were to take them to court accusing them of discrimination against me. But that is essentially what is happening in these various cases.
True Love and Tolerance is Respectful
Tolerance needs to be a two-way street. If we do not wish to be forced to do things against our own moral conscience, then we should be tolerant of those who refuse to go against their own moral conscience and not force them.
Another blogger, a religious business owner who abstains from drinking alcohol, shared a story about how they dealt with a brewer that wanted their services. The conflict between desired services and moral conscience was solved amicably without legal fees and any unnecessary drama. That is the model of tolerance more people should copy.
I believe everyone has a right to their own views (offensive, unpopular or otherwise) and should have freedom to share them. That, however, does not mean anyone has the right to force another person to violate their own moral conscience. Love and tolerance means respecting those who disagree with us enough to not force them against their will.
“Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that.” (Luke 6:31-33 NIV)
Those are some words that apply equally to all people. If you are against intolerance don’t be intolerant. If you love greater then love enough to not offend those who offend you. Love by the example you want others to follow and not by force of law.
Irregular Ideation 