• Trump attacks core US values at Rushmore. Disagree with him, you're an

    From slider@1:229/2 to All on Monday, July 06, 2020 21:28:46
    From: slider@anashram.com

    As he tells it, President Donald Trump is fighting to deliver us from
    left-wing radicals out to destroy our history. That few if any such
    figures exist has not deterred him. Nor does it give him pause that
    destroying history — whatever that may mean — is not the same as
    protesting particular monuments. Most disturbing is not the illogic of the quest, but the presumption that anyone who disagrees with Trump’s version
    of the past is an enemy of the state.

    https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/06/trump-attacks-free-speech-right-to-disagree-rushmore-column/5380437002/

    Such intolerance in the presidency is much more dangerous, and
    un-American, than the threat Trump supposedly fights to contain. Also,
    Trump seems oblivious to the fact that the First Amendment is not designed
    to protect the president from people who disagree with him but to protect protesters against the repression of the state.

    His speech at Mount Rushmore this past weekend, attacking those out to “overthrow the American Revolution,” reminds me of the rhetoric of World War I: rhetoric weaponized against tens of thousands of people guilty only
    of opposing the war and President Woodrow Wilson.

    Echoes of a century ago at Rushmore

    Trump’s language, with its reference to government agents assigned to
    protect us against a sinister campaign of destruction and indoctrination,
    could have been lifted almost verbatim from the government’s
    anti-dissident playbook of over 100 years ago.

    In September 1917, the Justice Department indicted 166 members of the Industrial Workers of the World for interfering with the war effort. The
    U.S. District Attorney in Chicago, who handled the case, claimed union
    leaders were promoting “the most vicious forms of sabotage, particularly
    in industries engaged in furnishing war munitions.” The government also alleged that the IWW had blown up ammunition factories, tried to foment
    armed resistance, and torched forests and lumber mills.

    None of the ugly allegations was ever proven to be true. Most were never
    really addressed at trial.

    Even so, the establishment press blindly supported the government. As the marathon trial moved toward a conclusion, the New York Times published a wrap-up that read more like a prosecution brief than a news report. It
    praised the judge, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, as “one of the most able
    judicial officers on the Federal Bench.” (The Times’ assessment notwithstanding, in 1921 the Supreme Court tossed out a conviction of —
    and 20-year sentence imposed on — anti-war congressman Victor Berger
    because of bias Landis had exhibited at trial.)

    The Times portrayed the IWW as a band of dangerous outlaws: “American Bolsheviki” under the Soviet boot, and “a revolutionary society which has openly declared … that its purpose is unceasing warfare to exterminate the wage system and seize the industries of the nation.”

    In such an agitated atmosphere, impartiality was impossible. The entire
    IWW group (or what remained of it after various individuals had
    disappeared or had their cases dismissed) was convicted. Union leader Bill Haywood and his 14 top lieutenants were sentenced to 20 years. Haywood
    escaped imprisonment by fleeing the country, but numerous IWW members
    served hard time in federal confinement before President Warren Harding commuted their sentences in 1923.

    Out to obscure history, not defend it

    By then the Red Scare was over, along with the practice of arresting
    thousands of people just for speaking out. Also, Americans were beginning
    to understand — thanks in part to the efforts of the recently founded American Civil Liberties Union — that the point of the First Amendment was
    to protect them against such abuse.

    Few people are prepared to defend the notion of a mob tearing down any
    statue it happens to dislike. But Trump’s campaign goes much further than that. Protesters are not demanding “absolute allegiance” to anything. Nor are they attempting to “destroy the very civilization that rescued
    billions from poverty, disease, violence, and hunger, and that lifted
    humanity to new heights of achievement, discovery, and progress.”

    Trump’s dishonest characterization and vilification of people whose only crime is having inconvenient opinions takes us uncomfortably close to the rhetoric that justified the worst excesses of the World War I era.

    After weeks of defending monuments of Confederate war heroes, Trump has
    decided America needs a so-called statuary park honoring American heroes.
    Too timid, apparently, to commission new statues of Confederate officers,
    he proposes featuring such luminaries as Billy Graham, Martin Luther King
    Jr., Abraham Lincoln, and the Wright brothers.

    Never mind that no one is threatening to pull down statues of Abraham
    Lincoln and the Wright brothers. Never mind that a few more statues of
    such people would add nothing to anyone’s understanding of American
    history.

    In truth, Trump is not out to defend history but to obscure it — and to
    crush those who would bring it to light — while replacing reality with his fairy tale version in which he somehow ends up the hero.

    ### - oh the american people are hard on your case now mr-t hehe, the *majority* of which actually voted for the demos in the last election by
    around 3 million?

    'we the people' want Reality these days! not fairy tales! not bs! nor
    lies! and not war! they's sick to the stomach of ALL that!

    plus just as soon as they start calling people commies ya know exactly
    what they's up to innit heh, and trumpy's basically just accused the
    majority of america of being exactly that! (it's a cheap shot!)

    but they really wont like that ya know, they'll be very offended indeed!
    VERY! plus at this rate the right-wing may never get into government ever again! :D

    gud! and because THAT really WOULD constitute some real progress :)

    good stuff america! first get rid of trump, then get rid of the far right,
    then get rid of all the GUNS, must get rid of all the bent coppers! than
    get rid of all those weapons of mass destruction too!

    and who knows, maybe the world will be a far better place than it's ever
    been!

    you may say am a dreamer
    but am not the only one...

    ;)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)