“Hiding power levels” is an extremely useful concept. At this point, I won’t engage on controversial topics IRL without establishing first principles. If I’m talking to a commie, I want to know it before I waste my time - and I want everyone listening to know it, too.
It's that simple, they got everything right. Particularly about the ACLU, which demonstrated that they were Socialists who were prepared to engage in false flag attacks against public figures in order to defame JBS. Even their point about a whole swath of the Civil Rights movement existing to promote black nationalism and secessionism in the US to sew discord, demoralization, and violence at the behest of the Soviet Union to promote a socialist revolution in the US.
Civil Rights and communism were inseparable in the 60s. It was a fifth column absolutely promoted by the Soviets who lasered in on multiculturalism as a weakness of the US that could be exploited. "Sow discord" by the way; as in sow a seed rather than sew a stitch.
I'm still on the fence about that. When I watch some media from the 90s or 80s that would be considered "Progressive" at the time (example: Sliders), I find I mostly agree with it. Then there's others that are Progressive but clearly Marxist idealism (example ST:TNG).
Not all that long ago, the ACLU defended Nazis. They were a principled organisation at one point.
I don't know, maybe Progressivism itself was infected by Marxism early on like many subcultures have been recently.
The ACLU didn't defend Nazis because of free speech or some such, although many supporters and employees of the ACLU did believe in that. Skokie strengthened federal civil rights laws and destroyed local communities' ability to defend themselves from outsiders. Now, everyone has to tolerate pedo shows on the basis of civil rights using the same logic.
Law professor poisoning young minds to distort the law, apply principle based solely on the color of someone skin, and lie so that criminal minorities are free to offend and law abiding whites are jailed.
The criminal system is generally biased against defendants and in favor of prosecutors. Nonwhite defendants are, uh, overrepresented so it becomes "racist." It's a case of only caring about injustice happening when it happens to people you favor more than others -- namely blacks in the case of so many progressives. It would be simpler and more accurate for them to state that they don't care for poor white men.
since Trump’s election, according to The New York Times, the organization’s annual budget has grown threefold and its lawyer staff has doubled—but only four of its attorneys specialize in free-speech issues, a number that has not changed in a decade. Instead, the ACLU has expanded its services—and filled its coffers—as it takes partisan stances or embraces dubious causes. Meanwhile, when it comes to the red-hot culture-war issues squarely within its wheelhouse, such as the right to free, albeit hateful, speech on campus, the ACLU has stayed largely on the sidelines.
In short, the ACLU was another victim of TDS. An entire institution did an about-face and sided with totalitarianism against its alleged "core values" simply because they became deranged by media propaganda demonizing the Orange Bull in the China Shop.
No. The ACLU fueled that propaganda. They turned against their “core mission” because it was a lie; like all leftists, they only ever believed in power, and they were willing to say and do whatever granted it to them.
That case was one among many that established the primacy of Federal Civil Rights law over local law and custom. You may happen to agree with that ruling, but the end result of it and others was that a local government today has difficulty doing things like banning Drag Queen Story Hour at the local library. They may not have to fund it, but they can't stop it if someone else does. At least not without risking a lawsuit from this same ACLU.
Hell it used to be a trope in 90s television where police and right-wing characters would blame the ACLU for not being able to do something, either because they'd fought it in court or would fight it in court. A powerful position to be in.
To answer your question, they do it the same way they override freedom of association to combat "racism". Liberal principles are vague, so they promote some and subordinate the others to get whatever pre-determined outcome they want.
The ACLU setting up Federal Civil Rights as a precedent to break Federalism is consistent with a long-term aim to change the fundamental character of the nation from the top-down, which is consistent with leftist aims.
Changing one set of Federal laws vs. a patchwork of State and local laws-- which one do you think is the easier way to force broad permissiveness?
Trick question! You ram it through the highest courts you can as precedent, so the legislature doesn't even vote on it!
That case was one among many that established the primacy of Federal Civil Rights law over local law and custom
Never considered this angle. The power of the federal government is out of control. I think we really do need an actual secession movement . . . with teeth.
How come nobody can come up with any other cases of the ACLU defending free speech, if they supposedly are, or used to be, absolutists? They sure as shit did not come to the defense of the Unite the Right free speechers. They sure as shit, as the article notes, do not come to the defense of free speech at Universities.
To be fair, the organization still goes to bat for some causes that are associated with conservatives and free-speech absolutists, including the right to bear arms
Name one example (hint, you can't). From the ACLU's own website:
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.
Hey, it's only been 14 years; how's that review coming?
Happy to say management dropped the ACLU from the company employee match charity roster about 6 years ago. They've gone from mildly useful to outright harmful to society.
The ACLU hasn't been compromised. It has simply progressed and stopped hiding its power level.
“Hiding power levels” is an extremely useful concept. At this point, I won’t engage on controversial topics IRL without establishing first principles. If I’m talking to a commie, I want to know it before I waste my time - and I want everyone listening to know it, too.
Do you have some advice on that? Or you just ask "are you a commie?"
Just mention Trump in a neutral context i.e. gas prices were better, etc.
If they fly into a rage at the mere mention of Sunkist Hitler then they are a commie.
If they get nervous, they might be on the fence.
If they get enthusiastic about him, they're at least smart enough not to fall for MSM propaganda.
I think you're right. They've always been staffed by "progressives" and leftists. they're showing their true color: Red.
The John Birch Society was right.
Like MAGA today, the John Birch Society didn't go far enough.
about everything.
explain further
It's that simple, they got everything right. Particularly about the ACLU, which demonstrated that they were Socialists who were prepared to engage in false flag attacks against public figures in order to defame JBS. Even their point about a whole swath of the Civil Rights movement existing to promote black nationalism and secessionism in the US to sew discord, demoralization, and violence at the behest of the Soviet Union to promote a socialist revolution in the US.
Civil Rights and communism were inseparable in the 60s. It was a fifth column absolutely promoted by the Soviets who lasered in on multiculturalism as a weakness of the US that could be exploited. "Sow discord" by the way; as in sow a seed rather than sew a stitch.
Son of a bitch.
Yeah, Gizortnik's posts are so well thought out that seeing 'sew/sow' was a bit jarring. With anyone else I probably wouldn't have noticed.
i've never heard of this john birch society.
Welp, watch the video from the beginning. It's literally a presentation on JBS from one of them.
I'm still on the fence about that. When I watch some media from the 90s or 80s that would be considered "Progressive" at the time (example: Sliders), I find I mostly agree with it. Then there's others that are Progressive but clearly Marxist idealism (example ST:TNG).
Not all that long ago, the ACLU defended Nazis. They were a principled organisation at one point.
I don't know, maybe Progressivism itself was infected by Marxism early on like many subcultures have been recently.
The ACLU didn't defend Nazis because of free speech or some such, although many supporters and employees of the ACLU did believe in that. Skokie strengthened federal civil rights laws and destroyed local communities' ability to defend themselves from outsiders. Now, everyone has to tolerate pedo shows on the basis of civil rights using the same logic.
Bullshit.
Hard to fight against "racism" when you have 13%... well, we all know the rest of that statistic.
It's probably true.
Law professor poisoning young minds to distort the law, apply principle based solely on the color of someone skin, and lie so that criminal minorities are free to offend and law abiding whites are jailed.
Yeah, I was about to reconsider my approach, because "it's likely true, but in THE COMPLETE FUCKING OPPOSITE way she imagines."
The criminal system is generally biased against defendants and in favor of prosecutors. Nonwhite defendants are, uh, overrepresented so it becomes "racist." It's a case of only caring about injustice happening when it happens to people you favor more than others -- namely blacks in the case of so many progressives. It would be simpler and more accurate for them to state that they don't care for poor white men.
In short, the ACLU was another victim of TDS. An entire institution did an about-face and sided with totalitarianism against its alleged "core values" simply because they became deranged by media propaganda demonizing the Orange Bull in the China Shop.
No. The ACLU fueled that propaganda. They turned against their “core mission” because it was a lie; like all leftists, they only ever believed in power, and they were willing to say and do whatever granted it to them.
I like to think they were on the ball when they defended the Nazi march in Skokie, IL back in the '70s.
How can they go from there to defending the suppression of so-called "hate speech"? something happened along the way to flip them.
That case was one among many that established the primacy of Federal Civil Rights law over local law and custom. You may happen to agree with that ruling, but the end result of it and others was that a local government today has difficulty doing things like banning Drag Queen Story Hour at the local library. They may not have to fund it, but they can't stop it if someone else does. At least not without risking a lawsuit from this same ACLU.
Hell it used to be a trope in 90s television where police and right-wing characters would blame the ACLU for not being able to do something, either because they'd fought it in court or would fight it in court. A powerful position to be in.
To answer your question, they do it the same way they override freedom of association to combat "racism". Liberal principles are vague, so they promote some and subordinate the others to get whatever pre-determined outcome they want.
This type of context is most useful.
The ACLU setting up Federal Civil Rights as a precedent to break Federalism is consistent with a long-term aim to change the fundamental character of the nation from the top-down, which is consistent with leftist aims.
Changing one set of Federal laws vs. a patchwork of State and local laws-- which one do you think is the easier way to force broad permissiveness?
Trick question! You ram it through the highest courts you can as precedent, so the legislature doesn't even vote on it!
Never considered this angle. The power of the federal government is out of control. I think we really do need an actual secession movement . . . with teeth.
How come nobody can come up with any other cases of the ACLU defending free speech, if they supposedly are, or used to be, absolutists? They sure as shit did not come to the defense of the Unite the Right free speechers. They sure as shit, as the article notes, do not come to the defense of free speech at Universities.
Name one example (hint, you can't). From the ACLU's own website:
Hey, it's only been 14 years; how's that review coming?
Happy to say management dropped the ACLU from the company employee match charity roster about 6 years ago. They've gone from mildly useful to outright harmful to society.
They were communist from the start.