Thursday, August 31, 2017

Will M-103 Pass Into Canadian Law?


The new politically correct BlasphemyKraut and Tea

Published on Mar 27, 2017

My take on the recently passed Motion M-103 in the Canadian house of commons and it`s potential legal implications as it tasks the Heritage Committee with bringing about suggestions to the government to "quell" what it consideres to be "islamophobia"

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Don't Get Sucked Into The Left-Right Divide!


David Icke Shatters The Antifa Left Alt Right Paradigm
Press For Truth
Published on Aug 30, 2017

Cynthia McKinney On The Left Right Divide And The Power Cell Solution #UNRIG
Published on Aug 25, 2017
Patreon Alternative ➜
America has reached a fork in the road where one path leads to freedom and the other to complete destruction. Our choices in the face of this left right divide are clear...we unite as a people against the oligarchy...or the oligarchy unites us all under a common collective global government. In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth interviews former congresswoman and activist extraordinaire Cynthia McKinney about the current state of the left/right divide and how her campaign #UNRIG the system, is actively seeking to restore integrity and truth to governance, with the informed will and wisdom of We the People at its heart.
Patreon ➜
Patreon Alternative ➜
Paypal ➜
Bitcoin ➜ 1A88c8x7Hza96WXwcM11oC639MfrEFtT1P
Ethereum ➜ 0xEce2AEf1F26373a00BDC7243d1201a98578CC67e
To learn more about #UNRIG visit:
For more from Cynthia visit:

For more info from Press For Truth visit:
Follow Dan Dicks:
TWITTER ➜!/DanDicksPFT ➜
Support PFT by donating ➜
Rock some PFT Gear ➜ 
Check out our sponsors:
One World Digital Solutions:

Get your digital content box and save $50 with promo code "PFT"

Skunk and Panda Shatter Shack
Visit them in Victoria or online by going here: 
And Liberty Farms: 

Left vs Right: Political Spectrum - Explained In 4 Minutes
The Life Guide
Published on Dec 29, 2016
In the modern political world, the terms ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ can often be heard and misunderstood. But what do these terms mean and where do they come from? The terms Left and Right were first used in an ideological context during the French Revolution of the 18th century. Those on the left were in support of the revolution and those on the right supported the monarchy. This idea of the left supporting change and the right wanting to keep the status quo continues today and is key in some of their philosophy. 
Thanks for watching! Make sure to LIKE and SUBSCRIBE and comment down below what video you would like us to do next! 

Support us on Patreon:


Political Ideology: Crash Course Government and Politics #35
Published on Oct 16, 2015
So today Craig is going to look at political ideology in America. We're going to focus on liberals and conservatives and talk about the influencers of both of these viewpoints. Now, it's important to remember that political ideologies don't always perfectly correspond with political parties, and this correspondence becomes less and less likely over time. So, sure we can say that Democrats tend to be liberal and Republicans tend to be conservative, but we're not going to be talking about political parties in this episode. It's also important to note, that there are going to be a lot of generalizations here, as most peoples' ideologies fall on a spectrum, but we're going to try our best *crosses fingers* to summarize the most commonly held viewpoints for each of these positions as they are used pretty frequently in discussions of American politics.
Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: 

The Left-Right Political Paradigm explained by G. Edward Griffin
Truth Zone
Published on Nov 10, 2014
In this excerpt of an exclusive 80 minute video, G. Edward Griffin focuses on the deliberately manufactured two party political system and the reasons why it came about, as well as its relationship with the CFR - The Council on Foreign Relations.
Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University Professor and mentor to former president Bill Clinton, explained in his books Tragedy and Hope and The Anglo-American Establishment, how the elite maintained a silent dictatorship while convincing people into thinking they had political freedom, by creating minor differences between the two parties in terms of slogans and leadership, while all the time controlling both from the top down and pursuing the same agenda.

Pointing out how Republicans and Democrats agree on the most important topics, such as US foreign policy, endless wars in the Middle East, and the dominance of the private banking system over the economy, Griffin lays out how the left-right hoax is used to convince the public that they have a choice and are the ones choosing - when in fact the reality is quite different.
Anthony Sutton: "It's Not Left or Right; It's Us or Them" (Freemasons)
by Jon Rappoport
(Abridged by
August 29, 2017
(Left, author and researcher, Antony Sutton (1925-2002), wrote about hidden men behind momentous events.)
It's not just the Jews. The whole Gentile establishment has gone over to Freemasonry (Cabala, Satanism.)
Anthony Sutton: "First we have to dump the trap of right and left, this is a Hegelian trap to divide and control. The battle is not between right and left; it is between us and them..."
"The horrible reality is that these little boys [Skull & Bones, Illuminati) have been dominant in their influence in world affairs. No wonder we have wars and violence. Skull and Bones is the symbol of terrorist violence, pirates, the SS Deaths Head Division in WW Two, labels on poison bottles and so on....THIS was a significant part of the so-called establishment. No wonder the world has problems!"
I recently came across a 1999 interview with Sutton, conducted by Kris Millegan, researcher and head of TrineDay publishers.
Millegan wrote about Antony Sutton in 1999: "Antony C. Sutton, 74, has been persecuted but never prosecuted for his research and subsequent publishing of his findings. His mainstream career was shattered by his devotion towards uncovering the truth. In 1968, his Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development was published by The Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Sutton showed how the Soviet state's technological and manufacturing base, which was then engaged in supplying the North Vietnamese the armaments and supplies to kill and wound American soldiers, was built by US firms and mostly paid for by the US taxpayers. From their largest steel and iron plant, to automobile manufacturing equipment, to precision ball-bearings and computers, basically the majority of the Soviet's large industrial enterprises had been built with the United States help or technical assistance."
"...Then, someone sent Antony a membership list of Skull and Bones and-- 'a picture jumped out'. And what a picture! A multigenerational foreign-based secret society with fingers in all kinds of pies and roots going back to 'Illuminati' influences in 1830's Germany."
Here are excerpts from the 1999 interview:
Millegan - Can you tell the story of how you learned of Skull & Bones? And how you felt?
Sutton - I knew nothing of S&B until I received a letter in the early 80's asking if I would like to look at a genuine membership list. For no real reason I said yes. It was agreed to send the package by Federal Express and I could keep it for 24 hours, it had to be returned to the safe. It was a "black bag" job by a family member disgusted with their activities.
For the benefit of any S&B members who may read and doubt the statement; the membership list is in two volumes, black leather bound. Living members and deceased members in separate volumes. Very handsome books.
I spent all night in Kinko's, Santa Cruz, copied the entire volumes and returned within the 24 hour period.
I have never released any copies or identified the source. I figured each copy could be coded and enable S&B to trace the leak.
How did I feel? I felt then (as I do now} that these "prominent" men are really immature juveniles at heart. The horrible reality is that these little boys have been dominant in their influence in world affairs. No wonder we have wars and violence. Skull and Bones is the symbol of terrorist violence, pirates, the SS Deaths Head Division in WW Two, labels on poison bottles and so on.
I kept the stack of xerox sheets for quite a while before I looked at them--when I did look--a picture jumped out, THIS was a significant part of the so called establishment. No wonder the world has problems!
Millegan - What did your study of elites, economics, secrecy and technology do for your career?
Sutton - Depends what you mean by "career"?
By conventional standards I am an abject failure. I've been thrown out of two major Universities (UCLA and Stanford), denied tenure at Cal State Los Angeles. Every time I write something, it appears to offend someone in the Establishment and they throw me to the wolves.
On the other hand I've written 26 books, published a couple of newsletters and so on...even more important I've never compromised on the truth. And I don't quit.
In material terms...hopeless failure. In terms of discovery...I think I've been successful. Judge a man by his enemies. William Buckley called me a "jerk". Glenn Campbell, former Director of the Hoover Institution, Stanford called me "a problem".
Millegan - Did any of Hitler's economic policies threaten the interests of the international bankers, and if so, did that play a role in his downfall?
Sutton - Hitler's economic policies were OK'd by the bankers right through the war...ITT, Chase, Texaco and others were operating in Nazi-held France as late as 1945. In fact Chase in Paris was trying to get [acquire] Nazi accounts as late as 1944. When we got to Germany in May 1945, I remember seeing a (bombed-out) Woolworth store in Hamburg and thinking, "What's Woolworth doing in Nazi Germany?" While we were bombed and shelled it was "business as usual" for Big Business. Try the Alien Custodian Papers.
...Union Banking [Corporation] is very important. I made a documentary for Dutch National TV some years ago. It got all the way through the production process to the Dutch TV the last minute it was pulled and another film substituted. This documentary has proof of Bush financing Hitler--documents.
Maybe my Dutch friends will still get it viewed, but the apparatus reaches into Holland.
Millegan - What is the story that was going to be told on Dutch TV? And what is the story of its censorship?
Sutton - Couple of years back, a Dutch TV production company from Amsterdam--under contract to Dutch National TV--came to US to make documentary on S&B [Skull and Bones]. They went to the Bones Temple and other places and interviewed people on East Coast. On West Coast, they interviewed myself and one other person.
I saw extracts from the original and it is a good professional job. They had documents linking Bush family and other S&B members to financing Hitler through Union Banking of New York and its Dutch correspondent bank. More than I have in [Sutton's book] WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER.
The first version was later upgraded into a two-part documentary and scheduled for showing this last March. It was pulled at last minute and has never been shown.
(This Dutch TV production is on YouTubein two parts: 
Part 1 and Part 2)
Millegan - What do you see for the future?
Suttton - Chaos, confusion and ultimately a battle between the individual and the State.
The individual is the stronger; and will win. The state is a fiction sanctified by Hegel and his followers to CONTROL the individual.
Sooner or later people will wake up. First we have to dump the trap of right and left, this is a Hegelian trap to divide and control. The battle is not between right and left; it is between us and them...
--end of interview excerpt--
If you think such traitorous actions could never have occurred, I point you to another researcher, Charles Higham, and his 1983 classic, Trading with the Enemy.
Higham focuses on World War 2. The men behind the curtain Higham exposed are in the same basic group that Antony Sutton exposed.
Higham, Trading with the Enemy:  "What would have happened if millions of American and British people, struggling with coupons and lines at the gas stations, had learned that in 1942 Standard Oil of New Jersey [part of the Rockefeller empire] managers shipped the enemy's [Germany's] fuel through neutral Switzerland and that the enemy was shipping Allied fuel? Suppose the public had discovered that the Chase Bank in Nazi-occupied Paris after Pearl Harbor was doing millions of dollars' worth of business with the enemy with the full knowledge of the head office in Manhattan [the Rockefeller family among others?] Or that Ford trucks were being built for the German occupation troops in France with authorization from Dearborn, Michigan? Or that Colonel Sosthenes Behn, the head of the international American telephone conglomerate ITT, flew from New York to Madrid to Berne during the war to help improve Hitler's communications systems and improve the robot bombs that devastated London? Or that ITT built the FockeWulfs that dropped bombs on British and American troops? Or that crucial ball bearings were shipped to Nazi-associated customers in Latin America with the collusion of the vice-chairman of the U.S. War Production Board in partnership with Goering's cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of them? Or that such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or deliberately ignored?"
Getting the picture?
War, what is it good for? It's good for business. It's good for creating chaos and destruction. It's good for launching new global organizations, in the aftermath; organizations that exert a level of control and reach that didn't exist before. It's good for launching organizations like the United Nations and the European Union and the World Trade Organization--dedicated to Globalism, which in turn is dedicated to planned civilization, in which the individual is demeaned and the group is All.
Freedom is demeaned, and dominance by the few over the many is hailed as peace in our time.
Thanks to Debra for the tip!
Related - YouTube-Sutton interview-CFR Just Public Face of Skull and Bones; Jews Just one side of Hegelian Dialectic
Sutton lecture Bankers Love Socialism
Our left-right media divide told through Charlottesville
How partisan Twitter users saw and shared different narratives of Charlottesville and the aftermath
By Tyler Fisher |
August 24, 2017
After violence erupted in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Aug. 12, media coverage differed on what aspect of the event to cover.
Using analyses from Cortico and the Laboratory for Social Machines at the MIT Media Lab, we looked at what partisan Twitter users shared during and after the events of Charlottesville. We found a clear split in the story as told through partisan sources.
Take, for example, the shared headlines following President Donald Trump’s news conference on Aug. 15 in Trump Tower.
After Trump press conference, Democrats and Republicans share different versions of the story
Headlines shared by the leftHeadlines shared by the right
Trump Gives White Supremacists an Unequivocal Boost
Donald Trump Blasts Reporters at Trump Tower for One-Sided Charlottesville Reporting
Trump: ‘Both sides’ to blame for Charlottesville
Trump decries ‘alt-left’ in Charlottesville: ‘Do they have any semblance of guilt?’
Trump again blames ‘both sides’ in Charlottesville, says some counterprotesters were ‘very, very violent’
Left Blames Trump For Charlottesville. Here Are 5 Murders The Press Didn't Blame Obama For
On each side, one publication dominated the conversation. The New York Times and Breitbart, represented 32 percent and 26 percent, respectively, of the top links shared by each camp.
Other stories broke through both sides, such as Vice’s viral documentary on the events in Charlottesville.
The data targets Twitter users with clear political allegiances — specifically, politically active users that exclusively followed either a Republican or Democratic 2016 presidential candidate. The top stories shared by both camps each day from Saturday, Aug. 12, through Wednesday, Aug. 16, show the political lines drawn between core supporters of Trump and the administration’s staunchest detractors.
Outside major media headlines, core Republicans were more likely to share videos, while Democrats were more likely to share petitions.
For example, Republicans widely shared a video conversation between Faith Goldy, reporting for Canadian hard-line conservative outlet, Rebel Media, and nationalist podcaster, Stefan Molyneux. In the video, Goldy describes violence by counter-protesters, “I saw some [Black Lives Matter] folks and just young black men throwing rocks at former veterans.” To date, the video has more than 330,000 views.
Democrats shared petitions targeting Steve Bannon and asking the Justice Department to file terrorism charges against the driver of the vehicle that killed Heather Heyer.
Despite the split narratives between Trump’s core supporters and Democrats, the effect on the voting base has been less conflicted. The latest POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows the administration bungled the response in the eyes of many Republican voters, where support for the president fell 8 points last week.
WAKE UP, People! Alt-Left And Alt-Right Are Run By The Same Forces… The Goal Is “Divide And Conquer”
By: Mike Adams
August 16, 2017
We’re all being played. The so-called “Alt-Left” and “Alt-Right” are all rooted in elaborate, deadly street theater being played out on the national stage with real consequences (such as killing innocents on camera).
If you have been swept up into the engineered hatred of all this, you’ve been suckered by the globalists who are running this entire show. In truth, most people in America aren’t filled with hatred for others of different skin color, races, religions or genders. Most people just want to get along. But the goal of the Alt-Left and Alt-Right movements is to divide and conquer America through hatred and media lies that push false narratives for political gain.
As evidence of all this, note that Jason Kessler, the organizer of the Charlottesville event, actually worked for Obama and the Occupy movement just a few months ago. This man is a professional activist and social engineer who whips up big events on the world’s stage in order to achieve highly visible outcomes that can be seized by the mainstream media to condemn Trump supporters by labeling them all racists and “KKK.”
Much of the organized Left is funded either directly or indirectly by George Soros, the same radical left-wing operator who undercut freedom and liberty across numerous European countries. He’s the funding source behind ThinkProgress and 200+ other radical left-wing groups that constantly lie, defame and smear conservatives in order to sow hatred and division. Radical Alt-Right groups, similarly, are led by operatives who are very often working directly for the CIA and FBI. Nearly all the KKK racism you see on the news is contrived, elaborate theater carried out by these operatives. Some of the racism is real, however, as actual racists follow the “leadership” of the contrived KKK social engineers who are merely acting. (The KKK, by the way, was founded and run by Democrats.)
The KKK leaders who were interviewed by Variety detailed how they were wooed with promises the program would capture the truth about life in the organization; encouraged not to file taxes on cash payments for agreeing to participate in the filming; presented with pre-scripted fictional story scenarios; instructed what to say on camera; asked to misrepresent their actual identities, motivations and relationships with others, and re-enacted camera shoots repeatedly until the production team was satisfied.
The production team even paid for material and equipment to construct and burn wooden crosses and Nazi swastikas, according to multiple sources including Richard Nichols, who is one of the featured subjects of the documentary series as the Grand Dragon of a KKK cell known as the Tennessee White Knights of the Invisible Empire. He also said he was encouraged by a producer to use the epithet “nigger” in interviews.
“We were betrayed by the producers and A&E,” said Nichols. “It was all made up—pretty much everything we said and did was fake and because that is what the film people told us to do and say.”
Meanwhile, the media is using the hatred and division to try to dethrone President Trump, and Antifa is using the chaos to push for its goal to terrorize America while overthrowing the government and installing communism. This has all happened before in Mao’s communist Cultural Revolution that mass-murdered liberty-oriented Chinese citizens to install a communist dictatorship that continues to this day.
Don’t be suckered into the emotional puppetry. You are all being played by the powers that be. You are nothing more than a pawn in their script. I say #ExitTheScript and rise above the programmed hatred and media lies that are attempting to divide and conquer America.


Free speech is at the core of the left-right divide. But what are we fighting over?
The suspect in the Portland knife attack, Jeremy Christian, has a long-held commitment to free speech. We should consider what he means by that
Jason Wilson
Friday 14 July 2017
Pro-Trump activists at a protest dubbed ‘Trump Free Speech’ were met by counter-protestors in Portland on Sunday. Photograph: Natalie Behring/Getty Images
Jeremy Christian, the suspect in the murders of two men in Portland, yelled remarks about “free speech” as he entered the courtroom where he was being arraigned last week.
According to an affidavit filed in court, in the minutes leading up to the deaths of Ricky John Best and Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, and the wounding of Micah Fletcher, Christian unleashed a torrent of racial abuse on two young girls, yelling racial and religious epithets.
Prosecutors say that in the squad car, after police they apprehended him, Christian said, among boasts about what he allegedly did, “get stabbed in your neck if you hate free speech”.
And on Tuesday, as he was walked into the courtroom, he yelled, “Get out if you don’t like free speech,” and, “You call it terrorism, I call it patriotism. You hear me? Die.”
His Facebook page also contains exhortations to “smash antifa” – anti-fascist activists – in the name of “free speech”. When he was filmed throwing Nazi salutes and racial epithets in a Portland park, he was 
attending a “free speech” rally put together by a local “alt right” activist.
From all the evidence we have, his thoughts over the longer term were disordered and unstable. Although more recent posts on his Facebook page increasingly emphasise far right images and concepts, there is enough ambiguity to give the “alt right” some room to disavow him.
The organisers of the rally he attended have been pointing out that Christian was ejected. And their supporters online, and in the media, have been calling Christian a “Bernie Bro”. His overall incoherence makes all that possible.
But, along with a virulent misogyny, his commitment to “free speech” is a constant over a long period. And we should consider what he meant by that.
When, allegedly, he knifed three men, Christian was violently asserting a definition of free speech that is not simply an absence of state interference in our capacity to speak our minds.
That kind of “negative” freedom from state coercion, as encoded in the first amendment to the US constitution, does not preclude a private stranger who hears you yelling on a train from disagreeing with you, or telling you to be quiet, as the first person who interacted with Christian apparently did.
Free speech in the Bill of Rights is not freedom from criticism or disagreement. But this was not what Christian appears to have had in mind.
Rather, the kind of “free speech” that Christian is alleged to have brutally asserted is of a kind that would allow a white American man, such as himself, to yell racial and religious epithets at two young women without any interference or constraint.
It is the kind of “freedom of speech” that would allow him to monopolise public spaces and render them utterly hostile to women, people of colour, Muslims, or whoever he might choose to make a target of.
It is the freedom for him to convert any challenge to this definition of freedom of speech into a boiling resentment, and to in turn, at a time of your choosing, convert that resentment into violence.
Christian’s alleged murderous actions set him apart. But his peculiar definition of free speech does resemble the one nurtured by members of the far right insurgency that has, in the last year, leapt from the internet to the streets.
“Free speech” is the alt right’s most treasured slogan. Almost every major rally they have held has been in its name. And in the major phases of the movement’s growth, they have shown that the freedom they are asserting goes well beyond resisting state interference.
But from gamergate, to the Trump campaign, to the “battle of Berkeley”, an increasingly aggressive, increasingly “IRL” movement has been primarily directed not at state interference. It has been directed at private citizens, groups (including antifa), and institutions who challenge the content of different forms of speech and culture, or protest the venting of prejudices in public spaces.
Portland knife attack: tension high as 'free speech rally' set for weekend
At the same time, we have seen several incidents of deadly violence just in the last week which allegedly happened in conjunction with racist speech.
The counterprotesters who opposed the alt right rally in Portland  this weekend should not be understood, I think, as illiberal opponents of free speech. Rather, we should understand what happens as a public contention between two conflicting versions, or models, of what free speech is.
One side wants to maintain a maximalist version of free speech for privileged groups, to be exercised without any interference or challenge, at the expense of everyone around them. The movement promoting it wants to convert any departure from that into a form of resentment it can wield as a political weapon. And it wants to use all of this as a way of making a sole claim on the spaces, online and off, which we currently share.
The other wants to extend the right to challenge privileged and bigoted speech to a broader range of people. Portland was ground zero for this conflict this weekend. But in coming years, it will be fought and refought around the western world.
The danger of our left-right political divide
By David D’Amato, Opinion Contributor
March 27, 2017
© Getty Images
For years a consistent refrain in American politics has bewailed an increasingly polarized political atmosphere.
As the Pew Research Center observes, for the first time in almost 25 years, “majorities in both parties express not just unfavorable but very unfavorable views of the other party.” Americans, the Pew study shows, now look across the aisle with fear, anger, and contempt, committed more strongly than ever to their respective teams. On college campuses, disagreements that might have been thoughtful, even friendly debates have erupted into violent melees, ending in injury and damaged property. Attacks and intimidation, it seems, have become a part of American political life.
But the conspicuousness of America’s political polarization belies a counter intuitive insight: the belligerents of the nation’s social and political war are actually very much alike. Culturally and aesthetically, the groups appear quite different, yet their political philosophies share a common heritage, rooted in the anti-Enlightenment ideas of the first half of the twentieth century.
Gripped by reductionist groupthink, a toxin generated by the United States’ acrid culture-war politics, left and right are moving — regressing, in fact — toward their most crudely authoritarian incarnations. Their declension recalls the totalitarian communist and fascist ideologies of the early twentieth century.
Classical liberalism effectively sidelined, the familiar battles of that period are reborn in the violent confrontations between the MAGA alt-right and black-clad antifascists, both groups equally enthralled by collectivism and intolerance.
President Trump, protectionism his gospel, has successfully conjured the old arguments for internal self-sufficiency, or autarky, so central to the rhetoric of the Italy’s Fascists and Germany’s National Socialists. The goal was to possess all that was economically necessary within the borders of the homeland.
If conquest and empire were essential to that nationalistic end, then they were the proper goal of the state, its right and destiny. History seems poised to repeat itself given the current political climate.
In the early twentieth century, the various socialist schools outstripped classical liberalism as the dominant idea on the Continent, their message capturing European hearts and minds. Communists and fascists fought each other for converts and for political power. As historian Mary Vincent observes, “[T]he battle for the streets was very real. In an age of genuine mass politics, street violence became the leitmotiv of interwar Europe.” Vincent explains that the “new politics,” divided between fascism and communism, “filled public space with disciplined, uniformed bodies,” ready to advance the collective goals of party and state.
These warring authoritarians, socialists all, shared a common disdain for the Enlightenment’s liberal conception of freedom, namely the freedom of the individual to live out her life autonomously, un-coerced and pursuing goals of her own imagining.
Modernity required something more of the individual — that she be absorbed into the body of the total state, the consecrated instrument variously of the nation, or the proletarian revolution, or even history itself, depending on the socialist school.
The new conception of freedom, deeply embedded in today’s politics, reflects this submersion of the individual, the Hegelian idea that the state precedes the individual in importance.
Superficial differences notwithstanding, both the leftmost and rightmost spaces of today’s political spectrum, as popularly understood, seem to have absorbed Hegel’s idea of the organic state, the state as “the Divine Idea” and source of the individual’s “spiritual reality.”
This wrongheaded way of thinking about the nature of political power has metastasized through the body politic. As before, both sides represent authoritarian populism, even as they vie for control of the governing apparatus.
Indeed, it may be that the family resemblance between the two sides is somewhat ironically to blame for much of their mutual hostility. Developing the work of the English anthropologist Ernest Crawley, Sigmund Freud labeled such antagonism the “narcissism of small differences” -- enmity based on the propinquity of two groups.
This theory offers a useful lens through which we can view and better understand the prevailing political conversation, “to explain,” as social psychologist Siamak Movahedi suggests, “the battle between in-groups and out-groups.”
At present, group identity and its insignia are an all-consuming obsession of both the left and the right, just as they were of the fascists and communists who marched in the streets, eager to spill each other’s blood. Both sides carry and carefully guard the kind of sustained righteous indignation that comes with certainty of the religious kind.
That kind of certainty is dangerous to a free society; once it takes hold, the virtues of the Cause, held beyond any doubt, seem to excuse any crime committed in their pursuit. Orders must be followed, because the ends justify the means.
A free and open society requires the round rejection of both left and right flavors of failed twentieth-century authoritarianism, the restoration of the classical liberal ideas that transformed the world and yet were never given their due.
David D’Amato, an adjunct law professor at DePaul University, is a policy advisor at the Heartland Institute.
The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.
Also See:

Tearing Down Statues, Blowing Up Mount Rushmore - What's Next?

19 August 2017

Take Another Look At What Happened In Charlottesville!

(Part 2)
18 August 2017
(Part 3)
21 August 2017

USA Civil War Could Start Anytime!

15 August 2017

Violent Left-Wing Extremism Increasing Around The World!

09 July 2017