These People …

Mandatory Credit: Photo by AP/REX/Shutterstock (8467748e)

In a recent tirade on Faux News, Tucker Carlson made the following comment. Considering the source, there is little doubt who he was referring to …

These people actually hate America. 

He then goes on to say:

And yet paradoxically, at the same time, they desperately want to control America more than anything.

Am I missing something here? Who is trying to control America … ???

Did Tucker forget the role of that person sitting in the Oval Office at the White House? Has he not been paying attention as this individual has done everything within (and without) his power to “control America” by molding it into a country that only a Confederate flag-waving, gun-toting, immigrant-hating, Jesus-loving, MAGA hat-wearing individual can love?

While people in this country might not agree on how things should be run, I daresay few, if any, actually “hate America.” We may dislike the direction America is heading at any given time and we may be frustrated with those in charge, but this is far, far different that hating America.


Sidenote: In case anyone was wondering, I do not watch his program. I read about his comments in a article. He was actually demonizing Sen. Tammy Duckworth, but as is typical of the breed, some of his comments included the usual bashing of the “other side.”

61 thoughts on “These People …

  1. Who is trying to control America … ???

    He means us. Liberals. Democrats. You know, people who voted for Hillary. The majority of the voters. The people who are supposed to control the country.

    And of course we don’t hate America. We hate the ghastly, authoritarian, oligarchical caricature which Cucker Tarlson and the rest of the wingnut gang are trying to turn it into. The haters of America are those who defend and make excuses for an incompetent puppet of a foreign dictator who has trashed democratic norms, trashed our relationships with other democracies, bungled the response to the worst pandemic in a century, and done everything he could to stir up division within the country. At the very least, they hate everything that makes America a decent and livable country.

    Liked by 7 people

  2. This demonizing is old but effective. Who wants to part of that bunch that hates America? Heard it for years. At work one day (surrounded by my vocal right wing workmates) I interrupted a tirade to ask each of them, “What is a liberal?”
    The only definition any of them could provide: “people against family values” (this was back when that topic mattered to them), and of course the “haters of America” (flag burners all). They could not tell me what a liberal was or define it. They just knew they hated them. No thought beyond that.
    I said, “So, you’re really more anti-liberal than you are pro-conservative, right? Yet you’re not sure exactly certain of what it is you hate. Right?”
    And we all know about Tucker.

    Liked by 5 people

    • I have a confession. My adamant Miso-theism HAS expanded to a serious lack of faith in the tropes of American patriotism. It is HARD to be a patriot as one learns the full history of this country. My primary response to the “you hate America” charge is “I am suspicious of almost ALL group think, demands for obedience, blind faith, and “love for country” as very, very narrowly defined largely by the right.

      So…by their standards, I guess I do “hate God” (at least the horrible God in Abrahamic theology). I do “hate America” (at least the America of real history, eternal wars, slavery). I can live with that charge. And throw it back at them: you claim to be a moral Christian who believes in a mythical America of freedom. Your blind faith and beliefs and politics and behavior utterly belies your claim.

      And any such “hatred” does not negate the reality that I AM an American citizen. This is my home and where I will die. I do care about my home…but not enough to engage in the worshipful, blind obedience they demand.

      I guess I DO love a vision of what “America” COULD BE. But that vision has nothing to do with the vile Gilead envisioned by the right wing.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oh, that we could be what we claim to be. Telling someone that they hate America (or anything) because they have a different point of view or opinion is manipulation, not opinion.


      • I think you nailed it, Brian!

        We don’t “hate America” per se, but we do have a strong dislike for its history and the faux-Christian principles that are being advanced as the “standard.”

        And the America that “could be”? I think it’s pretty much up to those of us who see its potential to bring it into fruition. It won’t be easy because we’re fighting an enemy that’s had the upper hand for quite some time. But with resolution and resilience … hopefully our offspring will enjoy the benefits of our labor.

        Liked by 2 people

        • I think your comment exactly describes what happens when a particular negative narrative is taught over successive generations. News, for example, usually talks about problems, about unusual happenings, and often shows violence. Stuff that is newsworthy. But ask yourself if any news program accurately reflects the common values and the common lives of people? Nobody makes a film that has a predictable plot and the general happiness of the characters. It’s too boring. So when we are inundated with mostly these newsworthy and exciting elements, it’s not a surprise people begin to assume the specifics we hear about every day in the form of news are an accurate reflection of the general. And this is why I say I do not think this popular negative and damning belief about the US is either accurate or helpful in toto because it emphases the negative, the newsworthy and fails to grasp the vital importance of the positive, the boring.

          The positives are worthy of great respect because the country as the Untied States of America has shown the world – wrinkles and setbacks and propensity to violent conflict included – how to do more to advance the welfare of people everywhere than any other. The US, in spite of its many newsworthy faults and awful history of slavery, is deserving of high accolades and pride of ownership not because of what it has done wrong – and there are many things in this category – but because of the values and principles its founding documents provide that allows it to constantly reshape itself and rebound and do better, to become more, to strive to be the best. These are good qualities. Admirable qualities. And I see these qualities demonstrated not in the news but every day on almost every street, every community, every youngster falling and getting up to give it another try. Just this ability alone raises the US to a fairly rarefied field of countries where failure is a means to learning how to do better. And the reason the country as a whole can do this is is what is currently under attack: respect for individual autonomy in equality law. You have the right to fail, the right to make mistakes, the right to improve and strive and struggle. That’s the sure path to becoming more. And this law built on Constitutional principles is the process necessary for productive and corrective change. But it has to be respected to do this job where failing is allowed and not a final judgement. All of us need to step up and defend these rights rather than going along with tearing it all down and replacing it with an ideology we KNOW doesn’t work. Because the process has worked, is working, and we have every reason to assume it shall continue to work, we are the first generation since WWII to be able to threaten this inheritance for the next generation not from an external threat but an internal one. There’s a reason why military personnel and government officials take an oath not to an institution or a person or an ideology but to defend the Constitution, and why their job is to defend it from enemies foreign AND domestic. This movement threatens the Constitution by seeking to remove the rights and freedoms laid out in it and fundamentally alter individual autonomy in equality law to group-based rights in <i.equity law. That’s not a small threat. It’s a call for socialist revolution and getting rid of oh-so-terrible Constitution.


          • tiledb: I am sorry, but…you make some good points, but I would argue that the negatives you claim are emphasized really are not at all emphasized in most places, versus the patriotism and barely disguised religion that the right demands is a reflexive, obedient patriotism. That is what I am reacting to. It’s a reflexive refusal to obey and just mouth the platitudes that are still what we are told we must believe. And even now in many Red States there are ACTIVE efforts to whitewash history even more blatantly.

            I also think you are being rather hysterical here in your dark imaginings of “socialist revolution” and “getting rid of the Constitution”. Sure, there are people out there who may state these wacky ideas. But to claim everyone opposing the right’s agenda is some kind of Maoist Red Guard is verging, yes, on hysteria. And this comes from someone who actually agrees with you someone that the group identity purity policing can go too far.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. I’d like to think that Fox News, Right Wing Evangelists, and the Republican Senate will all follow Trump into the muck and mire of total and humiliating defeat in November. As the economy worsens, joblessness increases, and the pandemic keeps killing Americans, the reality of our situation will begin to dawn on MAGA folks. It already has. Trump’s numbers keep falling as the infection rate keeps rising.

    Trump blinded by his own narcissistic mentality will keep having rallies and the idiots will keep attending until finally it dawns on them that attending a Trump rally is playing Russian roulette.

    I’ve been holding out for hope that Trump’s niece’s book will be the breaking point but MAGA supporters, like Trump, don’t read. Tucker, Sean, and Rush–they thrive on hate, lies, and ignorance.

    Liked by 5 people

  4. In my opinion there are fewer and fewer truly objective news-reporting networks with high quality journalism and investigative journalism. Why? Because many/most of the major networks in the U.S. are owned by private interests and media corporations or are heavily manipulated by them… as this 2017 film “Truth” accurately portrays:

    According to a Gallop and Knight Foundation poll, only PBS News, the Associated Press, and perhaps NPR at a distant 3rd are the least biased news networks in America. I agree with the two polls. FOX News, including Tucker Carlson’s drama-ratings show, fall horribly low for least biased. 😄 Imagine that.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Nan, until you understand this – really understand it and appreciate why this claim has real merit and appeals to tens of millions of fellow citizens – you will not grasp how these voters could select Trump not just in 2016 but especially in 2020… except by ridiculous accusations of colossal stupidity and moral bankruptcy which is simply not true and I would argue willfully blind.


  6. Who are these people?

    When the leader of BLM Toronto actually believes stuff like this – a person who helped organize and lead a demonstration by tens of thousands of supporters, through downtown Toronto and in front of the Legislature, defacing statues along the way, you begin to grasp the scope of the disconnect between those who support BLM with oh-so-much moral superiority and those who do not. These people.

    Why is it okay for someone in a position of authority and leadership to call all whites subhuman and defective and no one in media pays much if any attention to the blatant racism but seems quite willing to go along and nods sympathetically while telling us that to stay silent is violence.To disagree is racist. To criticize is bigotry. To support justice, one has to march and demand others to ‘Do Better’ by joining in. These people

    Can you at least begin to see why this entire social justice movement chanting these slogans can legitimately be considered some of these people who are implementing a very real effort to control others? And succeeding? These people

    Now add Evergreen. Now add Oberlin. Now add burning and looting. Now add censorship. Now add Twitter mob vilification and public calls for cancelling certain voices accused of racism and bigotry and discrimination and maintain the systemic racism of slavery. People like Steve Pinker and JK Rowling and Jordan Peterson. Alt-Right wingnuts! Now add successful attempts for defunding,. deplatforming, disinviting, successful calls to boycott places like libraries and rape centers that implement their bigotry by addressing actual concerns by people with differing opinions. These people. The ones who successful demand administrators and managers and owners to fire people, expel students based on accusation alone, demand that they advertise how woke the business or school or institution will be, to go along with tearing down statues for disagreeable context rather than virtuous content they are known for, demand renaming, demand history be purified and even rewritten in a national publication and so on and so on and so on, every day, day after day. Get rid of Washington. Get rid of Jefferson. Get rid of Yale. These people Can you see a trend that millions upon millions of people are seeing unfold before them?

    The right question to be asking one’s self is HOW did we ever allow this kind of struggle session demands to get so out of hand that citizens are not only attacking the foundations of the country but demanding a complete overhaul. An overhaul that aligns with the utter contempt and intolerance and racism and bigotry of the social justice movement. These people.


      • Ah yes, the few bad apples response. The extreme, the fringe, yet somehow able to cause such massive social disruption and nationwide damage. And , of course, the ‘whataboutery’ defense, as if the excesses here are no worse than the excesses there. Then there’s the constant partisan framing of Us versus Them (Them being terrible people) and how to bring about ‘healing’ and ‘coming together’ by damaging others and attacking those with a position or voice or even stating facts who steps out of line.

        Look, these people may be really nice, compassionate, caring, earnest, honest people but they are supporting a malignancy regardless of which side of the political divide they self identify. So did all those nice and concerned and caring German and Italian citizens who just wanted less civil strife, government that worked for the people, less violence, the trains to run on time. Good intentions do not excuse toxic action.

        These people are the ones who have forgotten that the basic principles of their own liberty, their own civil and legal rights, requires vigilance and active support over and above all other social policies and feel good causes. These people really are a significant threat to keeping a liberal democracy alive and functioning.

        I have argued that Trump’s administration is the first post-modern administration where narrative is supposed to replace reality. This is what it looks like in action. Replacing this administration with another post-modern administration but with a different narrative is not going to fix anything. And that is not an extreme or fringe movement sweeping down so many main streets on a global scale but an ideological tidal wave that will wash away YOUR rights claiming it’s the right thing to do.

        Liked by 1 person

        • No. This is not a “few bad apples” argument. You are being very, very disingenuous here, tiledb. The craziness on the right affects POLICY. It dominates the platform and candidates of the dominant political party in this country. It gives us people like Betty DeVos. The wacky left gives us an Associate Professor of African American Studies at Northeastern Connecticut Suburban Community College-Western Branch Campus. Which is REALLY the biggest threat here?

          Plus, you keep harping on some Canadian wacko. Sorry, but we are talking rather specifically about American politics. I could care less about a TORONTO BLM spokesman.

          Liked by 2 people

          • I am not disagreeing that the Right has been just as guilty over many years manipulating and maligning and often trying to block people for speaking engagements. What I keep harping about is that the Left’s woken movement is driving middle-of-the-road voters to support someone theythink is going to stand up to the growing ability to cancel people and implement policies that entirely ant-American like at Evergreen and Oberlin. What I have seen is a rise from the Left using tactics that are the same as the Red Guard: denouncing people for ‘wrong’ thinking, accusing people of being racist and bigoted and discriminatory and ‘alt-right’ when they are not, condemning people who speak facts, advocating to fire people, to harm careers, to punish anyone and any institution who dares not follow these demands but sticks to principle, who are willing to listen, who actually try to have dialogue, who are experts in their fields. They pay. Their bosses retreat and won’t support their right to free speech, their right to express their expertise, their right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Nope. Out the door with you… based on accusation alone, which is all the Red Guard needed to do to justify their judgement of guilt. It’s the same thing. It’s not American and it really does stand incompatible with legal rights laid out in the Constitution.

            I see the same tactic as struggle sessions with people giving in to social media demands to apologize for saying something legitimate but grovelling because they have caused ‘offense’. THAT’S the big crime: causing offense. That is what’s socially intolerable. Causing offense is usually a greater crime than any crime being criticized. That’s the vulnerability of opinion columnists who all too often will not seek what’s true and report on it but write the correct narrative… like the fiasco with the Covington high school students at the Washington memorial. The entire Press corp reported the narrative and not the facts; that’s how powerful this movement was becoming and almost no one said diddly squat about it because – like the effect of the Red Guard on Chinese society – it’s easier to self censor and that has reach its own pandemic level in this ‘free and open’ society. Nothing to see here, folks, just move along.

            Then there are a few who have actually stood up to the same kind of social bullying the Red Guard exercised that today’s Woke use to great effect. Think of some of the latest people vilified as bigots and racists and transphobes and so on: JK Rowlings vilified for called biological females female, Steve Pinker for citing studies, James Bennett of the NYT for approving an opinion piece by a senior government official. Look at this week’s Princeton Faculty Position paper. The list isn’t growing any smaller; it’s gaining momentum. And so many people just go along with it, keep their mouths shut, say and do nothing. This isn’t from the Right; it’s from the Left. The most LUDICROUS example was Biden’s climate policy last week involving – you guessed it – social justice concerns. Climate policy regarding the looming global problem of a warming planet is an atmospheric chemical problem that requires systemic change to the energy we use. It has exactly ZERO affect dependent on social justice issues. But hey, we gotta include that because…! What better way to bring the population together than inserting a divisive social policy guaranteed to piss off a fair number of people. So unifying.

            Go forth and find say, a 10% conservative faculty at any public university today. Not going happen because the purge has already been undertaken and implemented. That is what’s coming our way through not just the public domain but already searing its way through business. It’s a growing problem and, like not addressing climate change when it was a small problem but waiting until natural climate disasters caught the attention of the typical voter, not addressing this malignant anti-American social movement by people of principle will cost us all dearly.


    • Just looked at the quote on the referenced Twitter link … the guy obviously doesn’t know the difference between melanin and melamine … so right away one can tell the level of intelligence.

      Having said that, I didn’t intend for this post to be about the current issues related to race. It was about Tucker’s idiotic reference to people (obviously Democrats) hating America.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hating America I take to mean protesting and wanting to remove some of the fundamental values enshrined in the Constitution upon which the country will stand or fall. And, yes Nan, there are many people of good intentions who are helping to do exactly that.

        Note that the ‘opinion’ held by the BLM leader isn’t about some level of intelligence; it’s a stark revelation: it shows a lack of criticism from those willing to criticize the non-aligned people, shows a lack of calls for removal and/or censoring and/or deplatforming and/or disinviting this OBVIOUS racist comment. I raised it because it shows the OBVIOUS double standard here by those who claim a moral high ground ‘fighting’ racism, shows the blatant hypocrisy we’re currently facing by those who are demanding these anti-American changes in the name of American values. I raised this BECAUSE it show you the extent of who these people really are… and they are all around us. It’s not fringe and it’s not extreme but is a growing segment of mainstream people. THIS is how civilized countries descend into totalitarianism… for really fine sentiments! That’s the clear and present danger and not the sentiments themselves.

        Liked by 1 person

        • The danger is US – you AND me – going along and self censoring any and all criticism of exactly that which we we’re trying to reduce and eliminate… at a time when the intolerant movement is growing. The danger is us – you and me – going along with this descent into totalitarian intolerance and vilification of critics. We have intentionally stop ourselves becoming one of these people and regain our footing on liberal principles. We won;t find those anywhere in the manifesto of BLM… should anyone care enough to actually read it.


          • tildeb does make some good points here. Myself, I AM worried by the purity policing on the left. And some of the ideas expressed by the left are a bit scary themselves. And I don’t share the left’s emphasis on Group Identity Over All.

            Liked by 2 people

        • “Hating America I take to mean protesting and wanting to remove some of the fundamental values enshrined in the Constitution upon which the country will stand or fall.”

          Speaking only for myself, this is utterly FALSE. Why does recognizing the reality of American history have to be so legalistically defined as the goal of any modern movement? Especially when American history contradicts repeatedly the values you claim to admire. Especially when so much of the protest is a demand for these very values to be upheld

          I am sorry, tiledb. The more I read your stuff in this thread, the more I realize that you suffer from a breathtaking degree of strawmanning, deliberate misreading, and your biggest sin…hypocrisy. Funny…I came back to this thread with a quote that SUPPORTS your long standing complaint about the purity policing and excessive focus on group identity by elements of the modern left. Then I started reading or rereading some of these screeds and…

          Liked by 1 person

          • Recognizing the reality of American history? There’s your problem… if you are referring to, say, the 1619 NYT project rewriting of history or Jefferson’s all men are created equal confusion or the call to tear down stautes of Washington and Jefferson and, yes, even Darwin! Probably the best example of today’s dismissal and disregard of historical fact and its replacement by today’s woke narrative is with the call to pull down the ‘racist’ Boston Emancipation Memorial statue. This call reveals the utter lack of understanding of meaning history provides us – nor any real desire to know anything other than the racist narrative being promoted – and shows the callous disregard of even wanting to find out any facts whatsoever – especially if any facts are contrary to the narrative assumed to be the ‘reality of American history.’ These calls are nothing more than virtue signalling and the tearing down of statues its public display.


    • Where was it actually reported, that “the leader of BLM Toronto actually believes stuff like this”?

      Your link to Titania McGrath twitter is not a very reliable, nor valid source for this. Is it? The person does not even exist, and is a creation of a comedian AND has been suspended for hate speech several times over. Perhaps you have some better source for this alarmingly stupid comment? Could it be fabricated?

      Liked by 2 people

      • I don’t think you grasp the severity of the irony that the satirical (and gay) comedian Andrew Doyle has been labelled as a purveyor of hate speech by so many woke advocates and adherents… for only repeating what so many woke advocates say! It’s too funny! But then, that’s the nature of satire… like religious believers defending their scripture by accusing those non believers who quote is as blasphemers! It’s really quite absurd.

        As for the BLM Toronto leader of BLM, Khogali has not only has a long history of deep racism and bigotry against whites but this latest is absolutely typical of the embedded racism Khogali spouts and acts upon. This particular screed has been widely known and reported… but without any equivalent criticism or damnation from the rank and file of BLM supporters and sympathizers busy, busy, busy decrying ‘systemic’ racism. and demanding change, demanding that everyone else can ‘do better’, demanding political leadership do their part to end racism by implementing the BLM’s version – and ONLY the BLM version – of its anti-racist call to arms… or be labeled as the white supremacists and racists and bigots all white are and shall ever more be, of course.


        • Tildeb, by so many words, you have only managed to tell me, that you know (like a religious person simply knows, there is a god) that this quote on a sarcastic(albeit politically motivated) twitter feed of a nonexistant person is accurate and that the entire BLM movement is racist, because you know that this one person is a racist, but you have not managed to produce any reliable source, that would support your belief, so that I could become a believer also.

          Liked by 2 people

          • rautakyy, if this concerns you, why don’t you check out Koghali yourself? Lots of articles have been written about this person. And Khogali is hardly quiet about these views.

            To try to claim the tweet was inaccurate and based on ‘belief’ of the religious kind is very silly. It is quite accurate and the satire – as usual – difficult for believers – aka these people – to handle.


            • Tildeb, what do you mean by “if this concerns you”? Why else would I ask you for specifics about the claim you made? You have written lengthy comments, but do you not assume that we who read your comments appriciate them enough for them to concern us? You seem to be the only dissident here, on a topic that concerns the world and you have made long reaching conclusions seemingly very much based on this one quote of dubious origin. Even if there are more to be found, this is the one you chose to use and it is not from a reliable source, so do I not have the right to point that out? Does it not make your case seem weaker, even though you – like me – use a lot of words?

              To be fair, you did not mention the name of the BLM leader you referred to in your original comment, but only linked to a twitter feed of an imaginary satiric version of a possible BLM supporter. A kind of strawman character, if you please. You still have not verified the accuracy of the alledged claim made in the name of this Khogali person, whom now that I have looked up for them, has made some seemingly stupid comments.

              The sources about the comments I have so far found are not very accurate on the comments of Khogali. Some are attempts to diminish the entire importance of the BLM, by childishly claiming that the entire BLM movement is just as racistic as the KKK, or they are by people closer to the BLM movement complaining that the movement should let this one person go, because she is doing more harm than good. It is difficult to assess these comments by her, because from my perspective they are lifted from the context.

              Here in Finland one of our Somali born politicians, who once said in an interview, that all of the members of the True Finns Party are racists. It is a serious allegation and the members of that party screamed foul for him having said that, but it was mostly lifted from context. Because what this politician was actually saying, was that how would they feel, if they would be all called racist, just like many of the members of that party have called all Somali lazy rapists. By this I mean, that a comment can be seen in a completely different light, if it is taken out of context. And that is why I asked for you a more reliable source. You have not yet produced any.

              I was asking you, since you seemed to care about this issue, and I thought I could get some more precise info on wich you base your wide ranging criticism of the BLM movement. Especially since most of the news on the American BLM movement we get here is fairly overt. It was you who referred to symptoms of religious belief practiced by people who believe to the importance of the BLM movement. Yet, I found no resemblance of that sort of behaviour, because to me it seems this Khogali person has met criticism from within the movement. However, you posted a link, to a text by an imaginary character and because you allready knew, that the person on whom the wild quote in that text had been attributed, had made something of a similar comment, you appeared as if you had believed this quote to be accurate, because it fitted your narrative and preassumptions about them and somehow the entire movement. Does that not resemble religious behaviour to you? To me it looks exactly like the path how a religious person comes to believe in Biblical quotes to be accurate descriptions of reality.

              Sarcasm is a difficult form of humour, to me at least. I do not find the SNL schetches of Donald Trump especially funny, because what ever Alec Baldwin says or does, the REAL Donald Trump has already superceded, or will within the next 24 hours and because the character is ultimately only a strawman. The same applies to characters like this Titania McGrath.

              As for control. I find the topic quote funny, in the sense, that Tucker Carlson seems to be totally confused about things. Political parties and movements DO try to controll countries and the lives of people. That is their job. Some political parties and movements try to get people to have more equal standing within the society some try to achieve better standing for their interrest groups and some try to maintain the priviledges of their interrest groups. I share your concern, that liberal ideals may get drowned in the process, I just do not share your notion of how it happens and the way you present it, at the moment, does not convince me.

              Liked by 1 person

            • The quote matters because it is from one of the two recognized ‘leaders’ of BLM Toronto – a person who helped disrupt Toronto’s Gay Pride Parade and demanded the polic contingent in the Parade be removed before the parade could continue, who received much media attention over the past 5 years for many equivalent tweets, who has repeatedly made presentations and demands to City Council on behalf of the membership, who helped organize and lead the latest BLM demonstration. And this leader is well known on Twitter for exactly these kinds of racist quotes and calls for all kinds of censorious actions be taken against specific people he declares are racists and urges followers to threaten places that rent space for presentations like Massey Hall and Toronto Libraries and is often leading disruptive protest in all kinds of events. And to effect! The organizers of Gay Pride told the Police contingent in the Parade with a float they had to leave and the parade was held up for about 5 hours if my memory serves me. People cave in to this leader ALL THE TIME.

              So my point here is that blatant racism by a leader in a movement that is supposedly about reducing racism has not received the kind of censoring and cancelling and vilification THIS LEADER CALLS FOR from its own membership. There’s the hypocrisy… not just of the leader but every single follower of the movement who has not acted on principle and not treated this leader as this leader has asked them to do to others. Presuming racist rants by people of color cannot be racist by some weird woke definition versus anything and everything a white person says and does – steeped as ‘they’ are in protecting, promoting, and sustaining systemic racism’ – is part and parcel of this social justice movement. This is why I say it’s not social, it’s not justice, but is a movement to promote division in the name of unity, demand identical results in the name of respecting diversity, allow racism in the name of tolerance, insist on public polices and law that grant recognition and special treatment based not on the quality of one’s character but by the color of one’s skin. In other words, what does it take to start setting of alarm bells that this movement is not as advertised… when even a leader of an anti-racist movement is not held to account but granted special dispensation to be racist?


            • I hope Nan will not disapprove us continuing this discussion here, even though we have veered a bit off the topic. In any case my sincere apologies for that.

              Anyway Tildeb, you seem to ignore, or somehow totally miss what I am trying to say, so I’ll try once more. Perhaps it is the cultural or language barrier between the two of us, but we have managed to understand each other and even agree on great many things before, so I am hopefull. Of course, we do not need to agree on anything, but it would be good if we at the very least understood each other.

              I can see your point about the movement against racism becoming corrupt, if it does not react to equally racistic ideas put forth by one of their leaders or anybody at all, for that matter. Nothing of the sort has appeared in the Finnish BLM movement. They act in accordance with the local police, arrange peacefull rallies appriciated by most people regardless of their origin. They have not tried to topple down statues and especially so, they have not made any even remotely racistic claims. From the articles I have read about Khogali (not that many seemed reliable sources at all, but some like the Huffington Post came close) I gather, that Khogali had said something controversial before she became one of the leading figures in the Canadian BLM movement. She defended by saying that when she said those things she was not an official of anything and not even a member of any movements, that she would have represented by saying those things. It is curious that she was lifted to a position of authority to speak out in the name of the movement, even when they knew beforehand, that she has a tendency to spout out something like that. Looking at the situation from outside, I would say, that this sort of “radicalization” is a result of generations of promise, that things will become better, when the change – when and if there has been any – has been so slow, that it would seem like nothing has changed. Frustrated people are subject to all sort of radicalization.

              You literally ask for sencorship from the movement leaders, but is freedom of speach not one of the most holiest and untouched concepts of liberal values in the Americas? I personally believe, that there should be consequences for any sort of hate speech. We have seen the results of political hate speech in history. The travasty of Natzism was based on hate speech against the jews. Generations of hate speech by the various Christian churchess in Europe, as you know, that just culminated during the great recession after the “Great War”.

              However, this is not what I wanted to discuss with you at all, and I am merely responding to the issues you pointed out, again and again as you already had elswhere in this comment section, instead of answering my actual question. I was and I still am asking you, if you think that lambasting imaginary characters created for satiric purposes, such as Titania McGrath are reliable sources for accurate information on what anybody has said? Do you have any outside verification, that what you specifically linked as representative of the BLM movement is actually a real quote from anything what they have said? For the sake of you not having provided any, it could seem like there were none. I mean, you could have linked a news article of what Khogali has actually said, instead of what Titania character claims her to have said. Humour stories may be fun to share, but in a serious matter such as this, presented as if they were the genuine thing, are not a very good method of forming your own worldview, nor especially so, to try to influence others, if you, or the others are not aware of the sarcastic nature of the linked story. But perhaps I was the only person reading this, who did not know beforehand, that the character of Titania McGrath is not real, and that quotes by “her” should be seen more as humouristic, than as actual quotes from real people.

              Now, unless there is an outside reliable source, that verifies Khogali as the person who has said what Titania McGrath character presented as her words, I would not rely on a satiric lambast of her words any more than I would rely on the SNL to provide accurate report on what Donald Trump has said. Do you now see my problem, or are we done here?


            • What Doyle does is have his woke character Titania McGrath – a stereotype of the social justice students he has encountered at high school and university – make woke statements and comments that refer to actual events and news and articles that are always included in his Twitter satire. This is his method to reveal the unbelievable idiocy of this movement. And it’s quite funny because it is almost impossible to tell the difference anymore between satire and real events, real commentary, real opinions, real claims. That’s why he does it.

              So the reference Titania makes to Khogali’s Twitter comment is business as usual. yes, Khogali tweeted this and it is perfectly consistent with a never-ending stream of racist stuff Khogali has said in the past. The point isn’t whether Titania is a legitimate ‘source’ (this character’s tweets always reference published stuff); it’s why isn’t there hue and cry from those CLAIMING to be all about reducing and eliminating racism when they encounter it in people supposedly ‘aligned’ with doing just that? This is the richness of the hypocrisy that is endemic to BLM and fundamental to both critical theory and race theory upon which the movement is based. That’s why it’s a deep well of satire because how else do you respond to this movement when its followers believe that narrative trumps facts, continue to believe when this anti-racist narrative excuses and promotes racism?


            • Tildeb, do you mean to say, that you rely on Doyle so much so, that you think it is unnecessary to check out wether if the quotes by Titania are actual quotes? Do you think Doyle is enjoying similar respect from others? If not, then why link one of these satirical tweets as if it were representative of the BLM movement or even Khogali? I am assuming you were not trying to be in any way dishonest, but at the same time I am not sure if people always realize, that such politically motivated satire is not necessarily accurate or honest, even when it seems to us by our biases to be on the spot. Is it, that the Titania tweets fit so well in your preassumption about the BLM and other more or less leftist activists, that you do not even care if they are actual quotes? You still have not provided a reliable source as to wether the quote you linked to in the Titania twitter feed was actually something that was said by Khogali. Why? Is it nowhere to be found? I have tried and failed, but that may be because of my poor skills with search engines.

              Why do you think that some (or at leas one) of “these people” who presents themselves to actively move against racism in the public are racist themselves? Her being racist does not remove racism from the society, but it sure is there. There is plenty of evidence of it being there and the change and promise for more equal society has been suspended for generations now. No wonder people are becoming desperate and angry. I think, that the stupid comments by Khogali (the verifiable ones) are a fairly obvious indicator of just how racist the northern American culture at large is. Such comments are the product of racial thinking, and in her case a desperate attempt to turn around herself from the recieving end to the other end of the stick. That does not absolve them, but it explains where they come from. They are the product of racist culture. Yet, racism is no more inherent to humans than religiosity.

              If there are some individuals like Khogali within the BLM movement, I agree with you, that they should face criticism from within the movement. I do not know, if that is the case with her and what exactly criticism has she met with, but it would be essential for the movement to clear itself from any form of racism even while respecting the liberal value of free speech. At the moment, because like I already said, I do not know the context where these comments were made in, as it seems they were mostly taken with joyfull glee by the right-wing pundits who would prefer racism as a word was never even mentioned and everything would just simply go on as it ever were, as nothing about racist culture seems so very wrong, or problematic from their priviledged positions.

              Yet, there needs to be a solution to cultural, structural and constant racism as it appears in the western countries at the moment. Agreed? Protests are not the solution in themselves, and I doubt very few people even think they are, but they are a clear sign, that something is very seriously wrong. The BLM may make headway for change that needs to come, but when democracy has not served it’s purpose and equal rights have not met with everyone, the protests are the result of not dealing with this issue through the mechanism of government.

              Let us be honest, people in the right-wing parties of the western world in general are not so much appalled by some individual in the BLM movement making possibly racist comments, as they are of the fact, that the BLM movement is demanding change. I would even go as far as to say, that they are not appalled at all, rather recieve them with joy. The Khogalis of this world only act as sad strawmen (and propably do not even realize it themselves) for the right-wing people who either are racists, or who simply would not want the culture to change in any direction, out of fear of losing priviledges or from primal fear of change itself. The Khogali type of racist is not a typical, or very representative of racism inherent in the western culture at the moment. These sort of comments she makes do not get a big cheer from a very large crowd and especially not from the BLM. It seems the biggest and happiest crowd to meet such comments are infact the people who already opposed the BLM. At least, that is how it is represented by any search engine, when most people sharing her comments are right-wing pundits, who want to proclaim the entire BLM cause to be hypocritical and false.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Rautakyy glossed over my criticism about categorizing these people as presumably ‘bad’ or morally suspect as the OP implied in the form of Tucker Carlson criticizing people who do not stand on principle against racism but go along with the mob. He wondered if my ‘source’ for my example of supporters not criticizing one their own who wrote and said and acted with racist intent was dubious and so my criticism itself was therefore about fringe stuff and not particularly worrisome.

              Here’s another example where followers do not criticize blatant racism from BLM supporters and spokespeople in their pursuit of being on ‘the right side’ of history but go along with it. (I didn’t know but perhaps others do that “compassion comes from melanin.” That’s a really good point and something the scientific community can agree on, said no one ever. Perhaps like I am you were unaware that whites HAVE to be racist because they are “acting out of a deficiency so the only way they can act is evil?”)

              There are a couple issues at play here that I think offer us some keen insight into what’s going on. For example, from those who SAY they are against racism, who SAY they think we need to be anti-racist, my question is where is the SAME level of outrage from Twitter and social media used on people who say ‘unforgivable’ racist and bigoted stuff based on racist and bigoted belief – to the SAME extent used on JK Rowling who insisted we already had a word for adult females and now is widely described as a bigot and a transphobe for doing so – when a BLM spokesperson says stuff like this?

              More importantly, why is this outrage almost entirely absent? Surely absence of criticism this should be concerning for anyone who SAYS they are against racism, who claim ‘we’ need to be actively anti-racist! Okay, I say, let’s…

              I think this lack of outrage, this lack of response for those who see themselves as strong advocates against racism by going along with racist claims, shows us a window into those who are going along with this social movement who CLAIM it’s all about social justice: could it be that people are widely self-censoring and not speaking out about racism when they encounter it if it comes from an ‘allied’ source to AVOID being vilified? That’s not a fringe feeling, I suspect, but a strong mainstream effect. And I find this chilling because isn’t that unspoken demand for self-censorship far, far more dangerous to public discourse than being so morally craven as to call an adult female a ‘woman’?

              Is it wrong to be one of these people who are willing to stand up and speak out against RACISM, against BIGOTRY and DISCRIMINATION, no matter where it comes from? Is that willingness to be vilified for speaking truthfully in public and on principle actually a lack of moral character?


            • OK … I think I’ve discovered the reason why your comments have bugged me so much. You wrote: in the form of Tucker Carlson criticizing people who do not stand on principle against racism .

              While racism may have been the undercurrent of Tucker’s tirade because of Tammy Duckworth’s remark (on another network) that there should be a “national dialogue” on the removal of monuments, he broadened it to include “these people,” and went on to say they “hate America.” To me it was quite obvious he was referencing Democrats in toto, not just Duckworth.

              But beyond that, I wanted to point out that it’s a serious charge to claim that Duckworth —or anyone else— “hates America.”

              What you did (and continue to do) is rant about racism and bigotry. Since this was NOT the point of my post, I have tried to reign you in … without success. 🙄 So once more, tildeb, while I appreciate your stance and your measured arguments, PLEASE STOP!


            • Okay, I will stop but I urge you to revisit what the ‘something’ is that I think is under attack, the ‘something’ that Carlson thinks is quintessentially American, ‘the ‘something’ that he thinks is being pulled down and trampled by those motivated to do so which he then calls “hating America” in their zest to elevate the idea that black lives matter with necessary support for the Marxist principles for BLM as an organized political ideology being imposed on all.

              And the main reason he thinks this is because when actual racism is enunciated, when actual racist acts are done, only one political side gets opprobrium and a free pass to the other, while the sustained attack against ‘something’ receives crickets.


      • No one currently enamored by the anti-racist social justice movement including BLM seems aware of just how craven is this ideology in practice, just how reminiscent it is of China’s struggle sessions carried out by the naive and young Red Guard. Yes, it’s really happening here to real people. The movement is designed only to destroy.

        Margret Wente was a long time columnist at the Globe and Mail. If one wished to read an opinion critical of the Liberal and Conservative governments and their never-ending advance into promoting versions of social justice, she was the daily writer who could usually put her finger on the major drawbacks. Although I rarely agreed with her in toto I did read her opinion all the time not because it was right or correct but because her dissenting opinion offered me another way to see stuff. Her recent cancellation demonstrates just how much this movement’s purity demands have gone, and it’s not so much about the people it maligns for causing offence but the very principles of rights and freedoms upon which these offenses could be uttered without social punishment (as if losing subscriptions were insufficient):

        “As a columnist, I had strong editors to back me up. And I wrote at a time when you could speak your mind. In the last few years, by contrast, the window for even mildly controversial opinions has shrunk dramatically. It has shrunk the most at places that have traditionally prided themselves as champions of free expression. As ideological correctness becomes the modern currency of spiritual virtue, rational dissent has been cast as heresy.”

        This is why I call the social justice movement as it really is, as it really operates, a cult… because it contains all the hallmarks to accurately describe it this way. Those who grant it power with their uncritical support are culpable… as culpable as any member of the Red Guard or Nazi Youth or Soviet Pioneers. Believing in some shiny and righteous ideology is not an excuse for actively supporting the undermining our fundamental liberal values. It is a capitulation of principle.


        • If I remember correctly, the “racial/social justice” issue was thoroughly discussed/argued on another one of my posts. THIS post, as I previously indicated in another comment, is to point out the idiocy of Tucker’s remarks about “these people,” i.e., the Democrats.


          • It is from the ranks of the Left – the Democrats, as you say – that these people come. And it is as a push back against these people I have long argued (as you know) is a major reason for Trump to be the President today. In no way is criticizing these people and the destructive movement they populate a claim to justify Trump or to promote his reelection. That reelection would be disastrous to the health and welfare of humanity. But so, too, is empowering this totalitarianism aspect of the Democrats, of the Left, of the Woke as an alternative. Remember, please, this anti-enlightenment movement is international and not just the US. It is a problem that is growing everywhere because these people are everywhere. I have said before and will say again, there is a vast swath and need for radical centrism based on liberal values. It’s time – past time, really – for people to stand up and defend them. Aren’t you curious why this seems to be so difficult for so many people of good intentions?

            Liked by 2 people

            • Just in case peopleactually think I am exaggerating the scope and power of these people to further this cancel culture for the anti-Woke amongst us (or, as is usually the case, those considered not woke enough), at least there is this database… although that small sampling doesn’t even begin to touch the vast numbers of people forced out of education, business, committees, councils, administrations, managerial positions, and so on by.


  7. Hello Nan. Seems dog whistles are being replaced by bull horns in an attempt to rally the maga base. Yet I think the effect is waning outside of the cultist base. This may be one time tRump can not just talk reality into be what he wishes it to be. Hugs

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Tucker Carlson always has a look on his face as if he’s sitting on rusty 12″ knife that’s slowly working its way up his rectal cavity. He really outta get that checked out by a doctor. It’s painful to watch that little boy squirm around like that whilst talking on TV.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Nan, you might like the brief piece I posted last night called “Really, Tucker Carlson.” I do not like labeling and name-calling as they are lazy shortcuts. While Carlson has the right to disagree with Senator Duckworth, the name-calling of moron, fraud, coward and she hates America, is inappropriate.

    Calling a double-amputee, helicopter pilot veteran who won a Purple Heart a coward and saying she does not love our country is beyond the pale of poor form. Anytime I hear name-calling by the president, Carlson or any politician, it makes me automatically look at the argument of the person being labeled. This is especially true when heinous labeling is thrown out. I encourage others to do the same. Keith

    Liked by 3 people

      • Nan, well said. Fear sells. The president is a classic narcissist, so he often projects his weaknesses onto other folks as a defense mechanism. Carlson may be doing the same as you note. Keith

        Liked by 2 people

  10. If you look at the totality of that interview, Tucker Carlson was apparently interviewing himself because nothing he referred to had anything to do with what Duckworth said. Mostly it was an incoherent diatribe.

    Liked by 4 people

  11. The US has a two party system, wich rallies all sorts of people under just two competing banners. This leads people to both support a leader, they would not otherwise subscribe to and to see the other party in the light it’s most vocal and often most radical members presenting it, while they see their own party in the light of their own personal (and often fairly moderate) values.

    In a multiparty system as we have in European countries, it is typical, that the most extreme people of any party sooner or later form their own party. This of course means, that it is very difficult to predict what sort of government shall arise after elections, as the different smaller parties have to form alliances. It even leads to parties of completely different political alignment to form coalition governments. Yet, it also means, that they watch their backs while in power and the changes (both for better and for worse) are slower, than if a single party would hold all the power and would realize their dreams and ideologies. Here in Finland most parties have declined all government co-operation with our currently biggest opposition party, because they are right-wing populists, who all too easily fall for the temptations of racist values.

    Liked by 2 people

      • I thought the country is called USA short for the United States of America. America is the continent on wich this one country is located on. Calling just the one country America is like calling Germany Europe, because it is located in Europe, or calling China Asia because that is where China is located. There are other countries on these continents. Calling Australia Australia seems fair, because there are no other countries there. If the name of your country is too much of a mouthfull, you should come up with a shorter name, not start calling your country by the name of the entire continent…

        Yes, I know there are historical reasons how the name of the continent was adopted for the one country, but to be fair it is rather presumptious and gives a very self important image of the nation.


          • Thank you. That is an interresting article for why nation and country are not exactly the same, but I fail to see the relevance to our previous conversation.


            • The first line of the article: It is common to see people using the words nation and country interchangeably is the reason I referenced it. I felt it addressed both Mr. Martin’s comment as well as yours.

              Beyond that, I thought it was a rather interesting article. 🙂

              Liked by 1 person

            • I thought so too and thanks again for it. The article was interresting, but the question is far more complicated than that. I used the word nation in the context of the people who call themselves American when what they really mean is US citizens. Sometimes the two words are interchangable, even if not always. It depends on the situation. Some countries are national states based around one nation. Some countries are more like legistlative constructs. Finland is basicly a country that is based on a national state, but even though it is small, it has several “nations” within it’s citizenry. We even have a couple of official languages and a third well on it’s way to be recognized as one. Yet, for example even if some Finns are ethnically from the Sami nations, the nationality of these people is still Finnish as long as that is what their passport states.

              However, even though American may be what the US citizens (possibly including you) identify as, there are other countries in the Americas. Brazil has a population of 202 656 788 people, Argentine has 44,938,712, Chile has 17 363 894 people, not to mention all the other countries in the Americas. Mexico has 128,649,565 people and the biggest city in not only in all of North America, but in the entire world. All of these people are Americans in the true sense of the word. As a citizen of the US you are every bit as much American as they are, yet not one bit more. In addition to that a Mexican is not only an American, but also a Mexican. A Nicaraguan is not only American, but also a Nicaraguan. What is the US citizen, exept for being one of the Americans? One is a Texan, the other is a Floridan and so on, but those are not nationalities or countries, they are not even nations.

              The USA is only one country among all the other American countries and altough it is has the biggest population in that group some of the others are not so far behind. Certainly the amount of Americans, who are not US citizens far surpasses the number of US citizens.

              Then there are the Native Americans and the African Americans and whatnot. If a person is African American, does it mean, that they are less American, than somebody who is only and just American? What about the Native American, does that extension make anybody more American, than those who are native, but not Native Americans? Such divisions may have a very negative effect on how people percieve themselves or others. Ethnicity is a thing to be celebrated, but when it is in conjecture to racist thinking the pointing out of differences may be very detrimental.

              The USA has a lot of economic weight, because of it’s historical position during the industrial revolution, but especially because of the two world wars as it was at the time the one and only industrial country, that did not suffer from these wars on it’s own soil and all the other industrial countries were indebted to it. The US economic empire was built on that. The notion of capitalism as a moral and ideological system for wealth has been built to the most highest esteems in the USA because of that possibility to spend. The debt from other industrial countries has allowed for the USA to spend a lot of money on all sorts of social experiments, that have mostly failed. It has spent a lot on military might, including the worlds most extensive nuclear arsenal. Yet, such things change and they do so in relatively short periods of time. The Soviet Union was the second most powerfull military might in the entire world not so long ago. What happened? Great Britain was the most powerfull military empire less than hundred years ago, but no longer poses much threat to anybody despite having nuclear weapons (even though Donald Trump may not know it). The significance of GB as an economic power has diminished from the most extensive empire in the world to a whisper on the fringes of the EU. Russia, The EU and the USA are mighty empires, but in comparrison to military might and population potential of China and yet emergent India and Indonesia, the western empires are midgets. It is high time, the western empires learn their lesson and while they still have some power left try to make the world such a place where the strong should, nor could oppress or exploit the weak, because it is only a matter of time, when these minor western empires are the weak ones to be exploited by others. That is, if the world survives the most acute threats of climate change, possible nuclear holocaust, or simply the current mass extinction of species.

              I guess the problem of confusing American with a US citizen is, that the USA as a country bears such a horribly complicated name. I mean, I identify as a Finn, or rather as “suomalainen” because that is what it is in our own native language (well, one of them, the one I speak as a mothers tongue). I also identify as an European, not so much because my country is part of the EU (447.7 million people), or coming from that geographical area, and especially not because of my pale perplexion, but as a person having that cultural heritage. I would not go about calling myself EU citizen to others, even though it is a fact. The Finnish version of European cultural heritage may differ from the Spanish version of European cultural heritage as much as the Canadian version of American cultural heritage differs from the Columbian version of American cultural heritage and indeed Canadian and Finnish cultural heritages may be closer to one another, than they are to the respective cultural heritages of other abowe mentioned countries on their own respective continents. We are all on the same planet and dependant upon it, there is only one human race and it needs all the other species, because it is all too stupid to even try to assess wich species are not key species for our own survival and especially happiness.

              Yet, if I were to identify as an European and I would try to exclude Russians right over the border as not Europeans, because they are not Finns, or even because they are not part of the EU, it would be ridiculous of me.

              So, who are you? What is your nationality? It is not American any more than mine is European. Is it?

              Liked by 1 person

  12. Here is what I think is the scariest part of all of this:

    The Trump administration is the mirror image in deeds of what a social justice government would be like. Because of that, I think of the Trump presidency is the first Woke presidency in that it operates as if its narrative can and should and does create a reality. The same dedication to a narrative is what makes the Woke movement so dangerous. If you think the Trump administration has been, is, and shall continue to be a threat to the Constitution, then I think you’ll find no difference by any other Woke administration. I am the first person who fervently wishes I will be proved wrong. But I don’t think I am.


Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.