Concerning
https://donmoynihan.substack.com/p/make-america-hungary-again
Discussion
Sounds like he learned well from the leftists tactics durring the long march.
Almost every description of his activities sounds like the leftist of the US.... except they don't hate their people and call them Nazis, terrorists, or a threat to their country and wish them dead, like the left does here.
Curious, do you advocate what the press and pundits advocated for that resulted in the assignation attempt?
That q was to the substack author btw.
I have no idea what you’re talking about that Press his job is to call what they see. You can’t not report the news because somebody might get mad.
Reporting news and advocating action are two different things. Trump is Hitler is not news. It isn't even true. Maga means Nazi is not news. It isn't even true. Yet it was reported on over and over again for years. They chose which pundits to give air time to. They choose which of the things they say to feature. Perhaps they 'call what they see'. If so, they are part of the problem.
Ethics discussions for decades have often centered around the question, "If you could go back and kill Hitler in the cradle would it be ethical to stop what happened?" The overwhelming answer is usually, 'of course. It seems to even be a moral imperative.'
Who does not know what we are being told when people call someone Hitler or a Nazi or a Fascist. "Punch a Nazi", meaning any political conservative (of which I am not one). When 'news' shows aired pundits who wished the knife attacker (assassination attempt) openly and publicly wished he had succeeded. Who does not know what we are being told when simple normal people are referred to as 'domestic terrorists' because they like a political candidate.
These things are not news. They are advocacy. Saturday someone did what they've been suggesting for YEARS. They killed one heroic father in the process. They, the reporters, the pundits, the leftist mud slingers.
I'm old enough to remember when "right wing radio" was criticized for talking as they did because it 'could' cause violence. Shoes on the other foot except it DID cause violence and death. Even though a heroic father is dead, and a president shot, pundits are still lamenting he didn't kill Trump and "news" is still giving it air time. That's advocacy.
Leftists want their political and cultural opponents dead. They talk this way for a reason. They don't get airtime if 'the news' doesn't think it's a good idea.
Maga's president is shot and look at all the riots in the streets. Oh wait..... there were none. While on the other hand the rhetoric leads to violence, riots and murder and the left calls it 'mostly peaceful' and some openly call for more of it. "Take it to the streets." "Get in their face." "They must be given room to destroy." Knowing full well that 'destroy' includes killing people. It's okay, the dead are folks they hated anyway.
Of course you have no idea what I'm talking about. Because it's the truth.
You’re basically arguing against the first amendment which is close enough to Fascism that I have no compunctions about suggesting you’re probably a fascist.
The complete otherization of “the left” and “they” also a tell.
Turns out the question should be for you too. But, I found my answer, "If Elon Musk is your idea of a sovereign individual, then our goal as a society should be to eradicate all sovereign individuals." You too are a murderous hater of those you disagree with.
If I try to describe a society without aspiring trillionaires who control the communication systems and throw power around like a sledgehammer and you immediately think “murder” that’s on you dude not me.
Cute. "try to describe" vs what you actually said which is how to get there, by eradication.
How exactly do you think the average person thinks the eradication of humans you hate happens?