silence7Trump Finally Drops the Anti-Semitism Pretext | The latest letter to Harvard makes clear that the administration’s goal is to punish liberal institutions for the crime of being liberal.
“like hiring the captain of the Titanic to teach navigation”
I have to refer to this podcast, which is brilliant, and puts the ill-fated journey of Titanic in terms I hadn't heard before. There were so many things that went just the right (wrong) way, and it's pretty clear that up until the point of impact, nobody did anything wrong, considering the conventional wisdom of the time.
They called it unsinkable.
They said it was Great.
Everyone’s — many people are saying it. And you look at these icebergs, they’re these little ice cubes floating, and then “global warming” — the lying media — we’ve got all these ice cubes! Unbelievable.
It’s very bad what’s been done to these captains. It used to be, you could drive your boat and if you were a good captain they would go “yes sir” and you were all set. Horrible. They’ve got all these, we have to hire DEI now, and suddenly these ice cubes are a problem for these big beautiful gorgeous boats. Horrible.
How do you think the unthinkable?
With an itheberg.
With an itheberg.
CosmicTurtle0 [he/him]It was hubris. Just like the US on September 10, 2001. We never expected or even imagined someone attacking us here.
Until it happened.
It was indeed hubris, but 9/11 wasn’t expected. Anyone at the time with half a brain and access to the intelligence apparatus knew an attack was coming. Sadly, that left out then President George W. Bush due to his grey matter deficiency. Two months before 9/11, Gee Dubya was handed a Presidential Daily Brief with a clear warning about it and that wasn’t the first warning he ignored.
“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The CIA’s famous Presidential Daily Brief, presented to George W. Bush on August 6, 2001, has always been Exhibit A in the case that his administration shrugged off warnings of an Al Qaeda attack. But months earlier, starting in the spring of 2001, the CIA repeatedly and urgently began to warn the White House that an attack was coming.
They knew that the World Trade Center towers. were a prime target for terrorists because of the last attack on them. Fortunately the 1993 terrorist attack failed to knock the towers down and the law enforcement was able to track down the attackers before they could try again.
We later learned from Yousef that his Trade Center plot was far more sinister. He wanted the bomb to topple one tower, with the collapsing debris knocking down the second. The attack turned out to be something of a deadly dress rehearsal for 9/11; with the help of Yousef’s uncle Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al Qaeda would later return to realize Yousef’s nightmarish vision.
We knew that Yousef’s uncle was working with Al Qaeda and we knew they wanted to knock down the towers. Bush was warned but he, as you say, could not imagine anyone attacking here. That is indeed hubris because everyone else in a position to do anything about it knew an attack was coming in some form or another.
It was never about antisemitism and always about control. The Trump administration wants to control all the “W’s” and how at all levels of education.
lol, as if Harvard were liberal
they’re infamously, thuggishly conservative
By Nazi standards, conservatives are too far left.
huppakeeActually, nazi comes from national socialist which is pretty left but also pretty conservative (nationalism and anti-globalism is quite right), but I would agree with conservatives being too far left for maga standards
Nazis were not socialist lmao
During the years that led to WWII, the word “Nazi” was used as a derogatory term against the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP, translated in English as National Socialist German Worker’s Party
They called themselves socialists, the word changed meaning over time so you might argue they wouldn’t be considered socialists right now, but they sure as hell were considered socialists then. From the same source:
Opponents of NSDAP also used the word “Sozi” prior to “Nazi” as a derogative representation of the word Sozialist or “Socialist” in English.
It’s not that the meaning of “socialist” changed but that the Nazis were never actually socialist despite their deliberately misleading name, and Hitler had anyone in the party with any socialist tendencies killed off. You seem not to be hearing what everyone in the thread is trying to say to you. The Nazis were straightforwardly fascist, far right, and never anything to do with socialism or the left.
Right, the Nazis were socialist in the same way North Korea is democratic.
Goldmage263This is a fascinating conversation to follow. The Nazi’s absolutely were not left nor socialist, but there might be a history class difference. American hatred of socialism is soo deep and history textbooks are so useless (since most are made in Texas and cater to those politics) I remember a HUGE emphasis on Nazi being National Socialist and another example of why socialism never worked. It starts early here man. I think we’re seeing a lot of the effects these days.
Wow, I have come across this inaccurate talking point from right-wingers on many occasions, but I never realized that Americans were being taught these lies in school. Well, we are really seeing the effects of all this propaganda now the fascists are in power.
It is especially bad in the deep-red states. The Tulsa race riots are still often lied about in Oklahoma depending on the school. Basically they said, “it worked on Native American history, so just do that for everything we don’t agree with.”
They appropriated the term “socialist” as a marketing mechanism.
The word socialist very much had a very well established meaning at that point (definitely more established than it currently is in the US).
Everything you’re saying is ahistorical. Why aren’t you at all interested in the reality of what happened?
Literally the next sentence from your source:
Headed by Adolf Hitler, the NSDAP was a party which rode to power on the wings of far-right politics.
Emphasis mine.
Yes is the article written in present day, but I’m saying they called themselves socialists not that they aren’t right. Nazi politics are not easily put on the left-right spectrum. Which is why I say conservatism and nationalism is usually right
Hitler hated that term but the party was already formed. Put the emphasis on the National part of national socialism.
Socialism was also popular at the time and they were using that to increase their appeal.
They hated socialists and beat them up in the streets.
Yep. Hitler also hated Christianity IIRC, but allied with the church for their financial aid and the support of religious voters. They definitely weren’t above using the name of something that they hated and actively attacked to allow them to grab more power, and it makes them neither socialist nor Christian to have done so.
Seriously? They didn’t start street brawls with the church and kill them. They did that with socialists. There was no teaming up, there was no alliance, there was no marketing trick. You’re making up revisionist history and you seriously need to learn what happened.
What the fuck are you on about? I never said that they started street brawls with the church. I agreed with you about them hating and attacking socialists, added that they only kept the name for the party because of the recognition factor/popularity of socialist policy at that time in Germany, and then said that if I remember correctly, Hitler made agreements with the church for funding and support despite his personal feelings on the matter. Nowhere did I say the Nazis beat up Christians or members of the Church.
You’re an asshole and can go fuck yourself.
Seriously? What the fuck are on about. I said they didn’t start street brawls with the church. Me. I said that. Ok? Me. Myself. Not you. Me. Got it? Me.
You were talking about an alliance with the church, you said that. You. Ok? You. You said that AFTER talking about the Nazis trying to market to socialists, as in: You are trying to make a parallel between an alliance with the church and recognition/popularity/marketing/aligning/something with the socialists, on a similar line as they did with the Church.
AND I am the one say NO, they didn’t. I am the on saying the following: The Nazis didn’t start street brawls with the church. Notice that I am the one saying that. Me. Myself. Not you. Me.
And I am the one saying the next part: The Nazis DID start street brawls with the Socialists. And killed socialists. Because the hated socialists. This was WIDELY known, because it was literally in the streets with roving, essentially, gangs. They are not marketing to socialists, they are literally killing them openly, happy about it, and bragging about it.
See the difference in how the treated the Church and how they treated the socialists? Said by me. So no, your discussion of alliances with the church to draw a parallel to recognition/popularity/marketing/aligning/something with the socialists is wrong, revisionist history, and frankly absurd.
I’m bowing out of this conversation, I’m getting dumber with each reply to you. You seriously need to stop with revisionist history, this is right wing BS misinformation that you fell for.
Socialists (and trade unionists and yes, communists) were among the first groups the Nazis targeted.
Do you think the Democratic Republic of North Korea is an actual democracy?
It’s right there in the name…
Which wing of parliament did the NSDAP sit on, the right or the left?
If we’re gonna play bullshit word games, at least sitting on the right is relevant to the original definition of right wing.
Yeah dude, we know what the word means.
A couple of articles debunking the claim that Nazis were socialist:
No, the Nazis Were Not Socialists
The idea that the Nazis were socialists is transparently absurd. Unfortunately, it’s also an idea that prominent figures on the Right like Sen. Rand Paul have taken up. So let’s all say it together now: no, the Nazis were not socialists. They were, in fact, committed anti-socialists.
It was in the name of the party, north-korea’s official name is Democratic People’s Republic of Korea it happens more often that countries and parties choose a name that’s not representative for what they really are
JollyBrancher Aye. “Democratic Republic.”
And North Korea is obviously democratic!
Oh, wait, no that’s fucking retarded.
True. This is exactly why they complain about liberalism and just added another slimy definition.
I see plenty of people covered the whole nazis =/= socialist thing already, so I’ll abstain there. I didn’t see anyone mentioning that left-wing nationalism CAN be (but usually isn’t) a thing too. Nationalism is not inherently a conservative thing. Vietnamese nationalism would be a form of left-wing nationalism - pretty much for them, just the idea that the Vietnamese people should be the ones in charge of Vietnam, not some other country.
That sounds more like self-determinism than nationalism.
From an extreme right viewpoint, everything is left.
Yep.
thenation.com/…/harvard-university-palestine-soli…
But no matter how “tough” they were to appease Biden’s admin and their own donors, it’s not enough for the rightwing.
It’s the base reason you can’t meet fascists halfway.
They fought against free speech and watched their students be abused, and now they’re getting shit for not going further.
It’s literally the plot to First They Came For
Its the students themselves who are criminally conservative, in addition to the schools administrative hierarchy promoting far-right neo-feudalism and calling it capitalism.
Rape, assault, and battery are the accepted norm among the Harvard student body.
For example:
Today, a university-wide email went out from Harvard President Drew Faust detailing the initial results of a survey completed by Harvard students which asked about individual experiences with sexual assault and campus perceptions of sexual assault.
You find things where you look for them…
Of all the schools surveyed, Harvard had the highest participation rate: 53% of all degree-seeking students across Harvard schools responded. This was significantly higher than the 19% average across all the schools surveyed.
And you only find them when people feel confident and safe enough to speak up.
You seem to be arguing for the trump/RFK method where you don’t count things and then deny they happened…
Ty for grabbing the context for me. Yeah, I think it’s also fair to say there are literally criminally conservative ideals in some of the student body based on the survey. Not enough to condem the entire student body, but I think their point is that those ideals already exist within Harvard, so the point of political repression/reprogramming is moot. At least, that’s how I look at it.
American conservatives are supposed to be liberals, as in people that believe in ideological liberalism.
If someone tells you they hate liberals and socialists, believe them, and recognize what that means they are.
In a 2021 speech titled “The Universities Are the Enemy,” then–Senate candidate J. D. Vance declared that universities, as left-wing gatekeepers of truth and knowledge, “make it impossible for conservative ideas to ultimately carry the day.”
Yes - universities are by their very nature in opposition to irrational positions borne of ignorance, hatred, greed and fear.
That is as it should be.
It's always "liberal indoctrination" to them. Because they can't understand that being more exposed to more ideas tends to make you less conservative.
Also, it feels like a tacit admission that their own "education" was really indoctrination. That's probably one reason why they think all education is such.
Also, it feels like a tacit admission that their own "education" was really indoctrination. That's probably one reason why they think all education is such.
Because they can’t understand that being more exposed to more ideas tends to make you less conservative.
Vance is Yale educated and the professor who set him up with his wife also got her SC clerkships… He and his wife were literally groomed to be a political power couple similar to the Clintons.
Stop acting like hes stupid and uneducated.
He 100% know what he’s saying is bullshit, hes a liar not an idiot. trump is an idiot, and believes it.
That’s why Vance is so much more dangerous, it’s like comparing HW to Reagan. Both evil, but an evil elderly person with dementia does less damage than an evil intelligent person.
ѕєχυαℓ ρσℓутσρєHe’s not uneducated, but he still seems pretty stupid. Brother can’t give a single public speech without seeming like a complete idiot.
Same with HW bush…
Didn’t stop him from becoming president on Reagans coattails.
And HW not only caused just as much damage as Reagan, he was smart about it so still gets a fraction of the blame. His name is almost never brought up anymore.
People just talk about the idiot fall guys, because the whole reason they’re there is to be the lightning rod of criticism so no one looks at the ones calling the shots.
It’s a shell game, but at least when it’s an idiot they’ll get caught and some things will be stopped, or at least noticed.
tomenzggMostly out of curiosity but what’d HW do? I think we can squarely put more of the war on drugs on his shoulders than Reagan’s but, outside of that, I can think of so many more concrete things Reagan did to worsen and destabilize America (even if the effects were much later) than I can for the 1-term HW (but that may just be unfamiliarity, on my part).
CharlesDarwinAgreed. He’s probably trying to mainstream Curtis Yarvin style insanity. Thing is that “JD” “Vance” and Curtis are a lot more educated than the people they are pitching this shit to.
clonedhumanIt’s an Ivy League school.
Years ago, an ex-girlfriend was proctoring a course at an Ivy League. She had a billionaire’s daughter, a legacy admission, in one of her classes. The billionaire’s daughter never showed up to class. My ex-gf failed her. Later, when she looked at the recorded grades, the billionaire’s daughter who never showed up for class had a ‘C.’
George W. Bush graduated from Yale with a C average.
Ivy League schools educate many people. But they often just give degrees to the legacy admissions, to the wealthy, and to the politically connected.
Knowledge is the cure to conservatism.
You cannot simultaneously hold right-wing views and know enough about the world to have any valid opinions about policy.
I am not a right-wing voter and don’t consider myself a centrist, but discarding all right-wing views as faulty isn’t gonna help to bring about a healthy democratic conversation. I would argue it is in the benefit of everyone to make a distinction between extreme/far-right views and ‘regular’ right-wing views.
Knowledge is a cure for a lot of things, no argument there.
Right wing politics is ultimately about concentrating power in the hands of the aristocracy of the day or distracting the public whilst the former goal is furthered.
These goals are to the detriment of modern society and should be wholly resisted. The goals of modern society are to create the rising tide to lift all ships.
There is zero value in the right wing school of thought beyond the warning to not pursue it we all got ~80 years ago.
That’s like saying everything left is bad because look at how the Sovjets ended up