Posted on 05/21/2016 12:05:47 PM PDT by Maceman
1) "Leftsplaining" -- what Progressives/Leftists/"liberals" do all the time when condescendingly telling the rest of us what we can or cannot say or think, and what we MUST say and think.
2) The "Uncle Tom Party" -- the new name for the Democrat Party. The Uncle Tom Party's long villainous history of enforcing slavery, Jim Crow, segregation and all that goes with it is well documented and well-known.
But now, more than ever, the Uncle Tom Party is the engine of opposition to the very concept of liberty for all American citizens.
The truth is, Progressive Leftists are opposed to individual liberty as defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The only real complaint they have about chattel slavery in America two hundred years ago is that the slaves were privately owned.
But they get orgasmic over the idea of slavery to the state.
Democrats never pass up on opportunity to leftsplain to us why enslavement by the state is for our own protection and our own safety, because life under the anarchy that conservatives want to impose is just too risky and dangerous. We can't have any of that inhumane "on-your-own economics" that conservatives advocate.
Thereby proving that you no longer have to be black to be an Uncle Tom.
That's why they leftsplain to us that "you didn't build that" and that success is due only to luck, as Obama recently did.
That's why -- contrary to more than 200 years of core American values warning Americans that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" and that "freedom is only ever one generation away from extinction" -- Obama now leftsplains to reject the voices who warn of tyranny.
It has been said that "the slave dreams not of freedom, but of being the master." Well, that hasn't been true of all slaves, but it sure is true of the Uncle Tom Party descendants of slaves -- those that self-identify as slaves (like the SJWs and BlackLivesMatter supporters) who now actively advocate blatant anti-white racism and unashamedly call for the elimination of individual rights -- including the ones listed in the Bill of Rights.
* * * *
So let's follow Trump's example but directly taking on Political Correctness, and bravely use labels to confront the totalitarian leftists who are waging outright war on our nation, our liberty, our history and our core American values.
So let's use their own terminology against them, and call them out whenever they try to leftsplain to us why we have to abandon what we know is true and right in favor of their delusional totalitarian visions.
And let's never refer to them as anything but The Uncle Tom Party from now on.
It's always been a mindless insult thrown at African-Americans who weren't radical enough.
It's one of those slurs we could all do without.
What the heck is he wearing? Did he borrow one of her dresses?
Pterodactyillary...........
Yes I did and I know derisive remarks make someone look bad.
I disagree. We're not the Uncle Toms, and if they want to throw it back at us, let 'em. I think it's about time we had that dialog. ,P>The fact that we stop being afraid of it and use it with its right meaning is very powerful.
Exactly what I was going to say. Too many don't even know what weapons to use.
That said, I love “left-splaining”, and would love to see that thrown up across the board to all the progressive insanity spouted everywhere. Good original post!
Whenever someone talks about being pro choice, I say oh you mean pro abortion, and it infuriates them.
Let's just ban the word "gender" anywhere in the USA.
Along with "diversity", "multicultural", and the leftard phrase "That's not who we are."
We could call them "Durr's".
Plus, what is the original or "right" use of the phrase? Neither your definition nor the one you condemn would have been shared by Harriet Beecher Stowe back in the 1850s. She thought she was creating a strong positive character.
Strangely, in spite of the way the phrase is thrown around lately, Wikipedia takes what might be Stowe's positive view of Uncle Tom. I doubt they'll change the way things are now.
Uncle Tom was actually a good guy.
“The worship of the state is the worship of force. There is no more dangerous menace to civilization than a government of incompetent, corrupt, or vile men. The worst evils which mankind ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments.” ~ Ludwig von Mises
“It’s very simple, really. There are two ways people can relate to each other: voluntarily or coercively. The government is pure coercion, and sociopaths are drawn to its power and force.” ~ Doug Casey
“To blindly trust government is to automatically vest it with excessive power. To distrust government is simply to trust humanity - to trust in the ability of average people to peacefully, productively coexist without some official policing their every move. The State is merely another human institution - less creative than Microsoft, less reliable than Federal Express, less responsible than the average farmer husbanding his land, and less prudent than the average citizen spending his own paycheck. “ ~ James Bovard
Redistributionist “government is inherently regressive: It tends to distribute power and money to the strong, including itself.
Government becomes big by having big ambitions for supplanting markets as society’s primary allocator of wealth and opportunity. Therefore it becomes a magnet for factions muscular enough, in money or numbers or both, to bend government to their advantage.” ~ George Will
“The state is about privilege. It is about power. It is about class stratification, redistribution of wealth from the many to the few, war, torture, tribalism writ large, prisons, police, borders, and control. The state is the negation of liberty, as Mises said. For this reason the libertarians have always opposed statism. For the same reason, the monarchists, theocrats, mercantilists, and feudal lords always favored statism.
The state socialists want the state to be something it cannot be—an engine of humanitarian equality, a bulwark of peace, a tool of worker’s liberation, a break on corporate and religious privilege, a tribute to the international brotherhood of man. Insofar as the state expands its power, liberal ends become more elusive. So the state socialist continues pushing for more interventions, more crackdowns, more taxes, more regulations, more penalties. It never works. The harder you try to turn the state into something it isn’t, the more you will see it for what it really is.
Achieving monarchism or fascism through the state is a much easier project than achieving liberation and equality with it. Propping up unearned wealth is an expensive political program, but states have managed to do it for centuries. Dismantling privilege and leveling the playing field are another matter. When the state only needs to please the elite, there is some limit to its rapaciousness. When it is allegedly geared toward supporting the masses, it must maintain all the costly and vicious apparatuses of the conservative state—taxes, armies, police, borders, and bureaucrats—but it must do even more. To trick the people into thinking it rules on their behalf it must adopt a welfare state. To put in a more earnest attempt it needs to utilize even more violent means. The more people try to turn the state into something it is not, the worse it becomes. This is not always because state socialists have abandoned their ideals and become corrupted by power, although that is a large part of the story. But even if they remain true believers, statists acting out of genuine conviction in an impossible plan can do just as much damage, refusing to give up on their fantasy and making the problem worse with every expansion of power pursued in the guise of empowering the powerless. Whereas the conservative authoritarians must only go so far to get their way, the state socialist gets further from her goal the more she sees conservatives means employed to achieve her liberal ends. This is because conservative means can only yield anti-liberal ends.” ~ Anthony Gregory
The belief in society as the rightful ruler of those who live in it is a religious belief: It's effectively a belief in a super-human entity which cannot be seen, and which has rights and authorities that no individual human being has. And it's a belief that it's a sin to disobey the will and/or commands of this invisible entity. And of course, those who believe in its authority speak for this entity, and you do not.
Ask yourself: to the average black voter, who's more of an "Uncle Tom?" Barack Obama or Clarence Thomas?
The truth is that Obama is much more of an "Uncle Tom," as is demonstrated by his many public comments. But this Google search makes pretty clear that most black people mistakenly think that Clarence Thomas deserves the title.
It has often been observed by conservatives that the Democrats want to keep black voters on the "plantation."
So all I'm advocating is that instead of just using the making the accusation among ourselves, we should use the short-hand appellation and then challenge them to defend against it.
If, for example, Donald Trump were to address black voters by citing the disastrous impact that Democrat policies have had on black people since the Civil Rights movement, and then say: "Who is the party of Uncle Toms," it would be yuge.
Encouraging black voters to ask themselves that very question would would do more to further increase the number of black voters who are question their allegiance to the Democrat Party.
It's pure Alinsky and, I believe, would be very effective.
The problem is actually rooted in allowing the government to "constrict immoral behavior". That power is not and NEVER WILL BE used as intended. Instead it is sold to the highest bidder to write the legislation to favor them.
Expect greed. It is an immutable fact of life. It will never be eliminated. It will never be effectively banned. It is inherent to human nature. Some of us are better at containing it than others, but it is always there. Those who become the most wealthy or powerful likely got there by being more greedy and better at it. That points directly at Fortune 500 and politicians.
Given that, what can we do?
Option 1 - Laws and regulations giving authorities the ability to restore "fairness"
Will this work? If I give Joe Bob the power to take money from one person and give it to another, what does it accomplish? The motive, I'm sure, was good; expecting a "fair" distribution. The method is immoral, however. I just "justified" theft. Did I at least get a good outcome? Do the ends justify the means? Remember, power draws the greedy too. Politicians are worse than the wealthy. That power we just gave them is now for sale to the highest bidder. Who will that be? The wealthy. You just created a result the opposite of your intent. You just gave more power to the wealthy in your attempt to restore "fairness" to the rest.
Option 2 - Limit all authority
But, but...the wealthy will just run rough-shod over us!!!1!1! Not so fast. How will they do that? They currently can force you into a lot of things, but ONLY because they paid to have that government legislation written to shut down their competition or reduce your choices or increase their profits. So take away the ability to create legislation that favors them. Now, they cannot force anyone to do anything. Without unfair legislation in the way, there will be a lot of smaller competition for you to choose from. If you don't like their prices or policies, spend your money elsewhere. If enough people agree with you and do the same, big bad corporation will have to change or die. This can't happen when capitalism has been corrupted by government legislation that creates mega-corporations through protective policy and "too big to fail". Remove the government power and you have taken corporate power with it because corporations don't have power without government backing.
Here's an article with a summary of a Mises lecture that thorough debunks the left's reversed cause/effect logic: https://mises.org/library/mises-four-easy-pieces
The left is parroting the rhetoric of the rich who are trying to reclaim tyrannical authority. They're just too naive to realize it.
Gaffegasm: when a liberal accidentally ejaculates the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.