I have never understood why — when under attack or pushing their agenda — the political leadership of the American Left, as well as their supporters, always seem to act in lock-step. No matter what the issue, or how clearly they may be in the wrong, they simply cannot be broken. Even when it appears as if they are eating their own, their focus on their ultimate objectives never falters. The leadership and supporters always but always work together to achieve their goal of control.
At the same time, even if the accused has done nothing wrong, the American political Right will turn on their own in a heartbeat. Neither can they agree on anything, be that agenda or tactics for achieving the same. Trying to get the American Right to agree to work together on anything is like trying to herd cats. Have you ever tried to get three cats to go in the same direction at the same time? Try it with 30 or 40 and see how that goes. It is the same way with trying to get the American political Right to stick together on any issue.
I have never understood why this seems to be the case — until now. I was doing some research for another post I am contemplating when I found the following page. I have copied and pasted it in its entirety. As you read it, keep in mind that ‘leader’ can be a single person, a leadership body, a Party or even an ideology. With this in mind, try to think of some examples you have seen in American politics that illustrate each characteristic. As you do so, look for trends in those examples. Above all, be honest as you go through this exercise. Otherwise, it will do you little to no good. If you do this — think of the best possible examples while being sincere in your search for trends — I believe you will arrive at the same answer for my question about the difference between the Left and Right as I did. Oh, and one more thing: it might be helpful to know that the FBI considers cults to be religious in nature and/or its affect on its members:
Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a “cult scale,” or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult; this is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.
The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader, and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, or debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (e.g., members must get permission to date, change jobs, or marry—or leaders prescribe what to wear, where to live, whether to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and its members (e.g., the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
The group has a polarized, us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders, or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (e.g., lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and control members. Often this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
The group is preoccupied with making money.
Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave—or even consider leaving—the group.
Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may be manipulated, exploited, or even abused. The following list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments may help you assess a particular group or relationship.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel.
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and its members.
The group has a polarized, us-versus-them mentality.
The leader is not accountable to any authorities.
The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence members. Often this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave— or even consider leaving—the group.
How are people who left the group treated? What is said about them? Will the group give you names of people who left? Both those who were satisfied and those who were not?
Are former members willing to speak about their experiences? How do they evaluate their time with the group or person?
What is the process for filing complaints? Is there a feedback mechanism that is real and honored? Are complaints made public? Is there a money-back guarantee?
Are your questions answered directly? Are you told time and again to listen to your heart and not your head? Are you told that you are too new, too uninformed, too nosy, and so on, and shouldn’t be asking such questions?
Is there a leader who appears to be the ultimate authority, spokesperson? Are his or her views challenged by others? Must the leader’s opinion be accepted without question?
What is the attitude of the followers toward the leader? Are there checks and balances to hold the leader accountable?
Is more than one point of view presented? Are other points of view recognized? Are other points of view seen as valid but different?
What kind of commitment is expected? In time, money, lifestyle changes?
Does it appear that there are secrets? Is information restricted in any way? Is there some information that you are told must not be shared with outsiders? Is there information that you’re told you can’t get until you’re a member of the group or reached a certain level?
Now, I have no doubt that there will be those who read this and arrive at the opposite conclusion from the one I drew. That’s fine. However, after reading this, I will confess that I will have a difficult time believing that anyone who arrives at the opposite conclusion from mine may well be…. Well, I’ll leave the Reader to finish my sentence for themselves and draw their own conclusions.
NOTE: I want to start by making a statement of fact: the U.S. ‘media’ deliberately and purposefully lies to all of us on a daily basis! Again, this is a fact, not my opinion. And they do it because they are no longer ‘news,’ but the propaganda arm of the American Progressive movement. Now, let me argue my case by using the example of how the media has knowingly and intentionally deceived you in their latest attack on Trump for calling the impeachment farce a ‘lynching.’
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
— George Orwell
Keep those words in mind as I give you a short history lesson. First, let’s start by understanding that the plain meaning of the word, lynching, has nothing to do with race:
The Montgomery adviser, a division of the USA Today home network
“The Negro Holocaust: Lynching and Race Riots in the United States, 1880-1950” states that, contrary to present-day popular conception, lynching was not a crime committed exclusively against black people. Between the 1830s and the 1850s the majority of those lynched in the United States were whites. From 1882-1968, some 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States (not all lynchings were recorded). Of these, 3,446 or 73 percent were black and 1,297 (27 percent) were white. In other words, whites were the victims of more than one-fourth of all lynchings in the United States.
Did you notice that 27% of those lynched during the period between 1880-1950 were white? Now, let me share another little piece of history with you. Did you know that the majority of those whites were Republicans who were lynched by Democrats/KKK members for opposing racism? This is because the Democrat Party and KKK are historically linked to the history of lynchings in America:
Wait! What? The KKK worked with the Democrat Party? YES! This is historical fact, and all the people who are trying to tell you it is not are lying — period! Why are they lying? Remember Orwell’s quote above? They are lying because they cannot afford to let you know the truth:
But the Parties switched sides in the 60’s and early 70’s, right? I mean, it was part of Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy,’ wasn’t it? NO! Again, the people telling you this are lying!
OK, now that you know the history of lynchings in America — that they included whites, that they were racist as well as political, and that it was primarily Democrats lynching blacks and Republicans who opposed racism — let’s go back to ‘the media.
The media knows everything I just shared with you. THEY KNOW IT! Yet, they are not telling you about any of it today. Instead, they are intentionally and deliberately deceiving you about the whole history of ‘lynching.’ Why? Well, to understand why the media is lying to you about the history of lynchings in America, we need to review a some more recent history:
In an appearance on CNN in October 1998, however, Biden said the impending impeachment proceedings against then-President Bill Clinton could be viewed as a “partisan lynching.”
“Even if the President should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that in fact met the standard, the very high bar, that was set by the founders as to what constituted an impeachable offense,” Biden said.
Now, you need to understand that the Democrats called the impeachment of President Clinton a ‘lynching’ because they were trying to stop the impeachment. But President Clinton was actually guilty. Not only did he commit perjury, but he did it to subvert a legal investigation into his Presidency. That is the very definition of obstruction of justice! Understand what I just said:
President Clinton was impeached for actually doing the exact same thing for which the Democrats are claiming they need to impeach President Trump!!!
Back then, it was permissible for the Democrats to invoke ‘lynchings’ to protect a man who was clearly guilty (and he was guilty on several counts — this is a fact), but, today, President Trump cannot invoke ‘lynching’ to defend himself over unsubstantiated allegations. Why?
Let’s bring this all home:
Remember when I told you to remember that ‘lynchings’ are an act of lawlessness? Well, this is exactly what is happening with the ‘impeachment’ of President Trump. While it is true that the Constitution allows for the impeachment of the President, and that the details of how that is to be done are not specified in the Constitution, it is equally true that there are established precedents for the process. It is also true that, under Pelosi, the Democrats in the House not only refuse to follow that precedent, they are changing the House rules as needed to allow their secret impeachment investigation. They are not even allowing the Republicans in the House the right to participate in these proceedings. Nor are they allowing the President to: face his accusers, to cross-examine those witnesses; to subpoena evidence in his defense, to present his own witnesses and evidence; nor are they following the U.S. Treaty that requires President Trump to do exactly the thing they are claiming is an impeachable offense — to work with Ukraine to prosecute corruption. Furthermore, the Democrats are totally ignoring clear evidence that points to corruption in Ukraine by both the Obama Administration and DNC.
Now, it may be that all of this is technically ‘legal’ (though that is highly doubtful), it is definitely a violation of the rule of law, due process and the very spirit of our Constitution. In short, this ‘impeachment’ is a lawless attack on a duly elected President based entirely in unsubstantiated accusations for purely political purposes.
Dear Reader, that is the definition of a ‘political lynching!’
BTW: this has happened before, and also based on un-substantiated allegations (later proven to be made up):
If you will remember the Kavenaugh hearings, you might be detecting a trend here by now: make up a charge, use it to politically and personally destroy your opponent, then move on with your agenda. Well, this is what they did with Bork, Thomas, Kavenaugh and — now — Trump.
If we stick to logic, the historic and legal evidence we know to be factual and the principles upon which this nation was founded, I contend that I have made my case: the media is deliberately lying to you to protect its political agenda, as well as its political allies in government. I further contend that my argument is based in fact, not opinion. But then, that is all contingent upon one being able to recognize and accept ‘fact’ and ‘truth’ when one encounters it.
I started with an Orwell quote, and now I will end with another:
“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.“