30% of Republicans say VIOLENCE may be the only way to save the U.S. from its mounting problems
If the Left steal yet another election, there will be no more point in voting. Voting is a substitute for armed conflict but it only works if people accept that it reflects a real majority
Three out of every 10 Republicans believe the United States is so far gone that violence might be the only way to save it, according to a new poll released late last month.
The national survey taken by the Public Religion Research Institute shows that the fallout from January 6 Capitol riot may still be polarizing Americans more than nine months after it occurred.
Out of the 30 percent of Republicans who agreed that 'true American patriots might have to resort to violence in order to save our country,' 39 percent also held the belief that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump.
Republicans who back baseless election fraud theories are about four times more likely to call for 'patriotic' violence than those who don't.
And 40 percent of those calling for uprising get their news from 'far-right' sources such as OAN and Newsmax.
Nearly one in 5 Americans - 18 percent - agreed with the need for violence in general, with 11 percent of Democrats and 17 percent of Independents saying so as well.
'Democracy is at a perilous crossroads right now. And I think that these poll results should be a further wakeup call to everyone,' Mike Sozan, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told DailyMail.com.
'One of the big challenges here is one of the nation's two major political parties is accepting dangerous disinformation about the 2020 election, even though our elections are safe and secure.'
Among religious groups, the poll found that 26 percent of white evangelical protestants believed violence is necessary to save the country, more than any other faith identity.
Next was people who follow non-Christian religions, of which 23 percent believe 'American patriots' need to take action to save the US.
PRRI CEO and founder Robert Jones said the findings are 'a direct result of former President Trump calling into question the election.'
'I’ve been doing this a while, for decades, and it’s not the kind of finding that as a sociologist, a public opinion pollster, that you’re used to seeing,' he told Yahoo News.
Even before he left office, the ex-president began promoting conspiracy theories that the election was rigged in favor of President Joe Biden.
On January 6 he channeled the furor created by those claims to rile up hundreds of supporters at his White House Stop the Steal rally, encouraging them to march toward the Capitol to put pressure on lawmakers who were readying to certify the election results.
Jones said he originally believed that the enthusiasm for violence would be highest 'in the heat of the moment' immediately after the riot.
But PRRI's findings on the question remained relatively steady in similar surveys conducted since March when 28 percent of Republicans, 13 percent of Independents and 7 percent of Democrats believed American patriots would have to 'save the country' with violence.
'One might hope cooler heads would prevail, but we really haven’t seen that' in the aftermath of January 6, Jones said.
'If anything, it looks like people are doubling down and views are getting kind of locked in.'
It appears the beliefs that pushed people to insurrection that day are still alive within Trump's party. Nearly 70 percent of Republicans either somewhat or completely agree that the election was stolen from Trump.
'That's a very unfortunate and dangerous result,' Sozan said.
About one in seven Republicans who believe so trust 'far-right' news sources, while only 19 percent of GOP voters who watch 'mainstream' media think the same.
'Donald Trump continues to repeat the lie that the election was stolen from him and that there was widespread election fraud - sadly, what we see is that Trump repeating that for over a year makes his followers believe it,' Sozan said.
The survey also shows that other beliefs that overlap with QAnon conspiracy theories still maintain a presence as well, despite repeatedly being disproven.
Roughly a quarter of Republican respondents to the survey identify as QAnon believers, which PRRI notes is 'significantly higher' than the 15 percent of Independents and 10 percent of Democrats who believe in it.
But nationwide, PRRI identified two QAnon beliefs along with the idea that 'true American patriots' need to rise to violence that hold true with about one in every five Americans.
Twenty-one percent of all respondents believe that 'There is a storm coming soon that will sweep away the elites in power and restore the rightful leaders.'
And 18 percent agreed with the statement, 'The government, media, and financial worlds in the U.S. are controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who run a global child sex-trafficking operation.'
The alarming rise of extremist ideals also comes with a growing nostalgia for the 20th century, when America was at the height of its power on the global stage following World War II - and still behind on critical social and civil rights reforms.
A majority of Republicans believe life has changed for the worse since the 1950s, while a majority of Democrats believe it's changed for the better.
The share of Republicans who think life has gotten better since then is 29 percent - down from 46 percent the year before.
'Many people in the Republican party are holding very deeply-held views on race and religion, and wanting to harken back several decades when they thought things were better in this country - and so all of that together becomes a very toxic brew,' Sozan said.
Americans who've said the country has changed for the worse since then are more likely to believe in violence the change its path than those who think it's gotten better.
The survey polled a random sample of 2,508 American adults from all 50 states, between September 16 and September 29.
*********************************************
Aggressive Leftist hate of conservatives goes back a long way
It's much more than mere disagreement
**********************************************
Revenge of the Donald: Nostalgia and resentment could be enough to catapult Trump back into the presidency
This is NOT a sympthetic article about Trump. Writer David Frum is vaguely conservative but of the George Bush kind
Losers don’t usually get a second chance in modern U.S. presidential politics. Back in the days of nominating conventions and party bosses, an Adlai Stevenson or a Thomas Dewey could gain two consecutive nominations. Richard Nixon actually won the presidency in 1968 after losing in 1960. But since the coming of primary contests, it’s win—or retire. Even Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000, was debarred in 2004.
Donald Trump, who upended so many previous presidential precedents, now seems likely to upend one more. Trump has to be considered the massive front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination. He’s already running hard, and he’s already dominating the field. Fox News’s intense promotion of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as an alternative to Trump is not working out any better in 2024 than its similar effort on behalf of then–New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in 2016. Trump dominates in the polls. He has the lead in fundraising. Down-ballot races turn on loyalty to Trump. Potential rivals vow they will not run for president if Trump does.
It’s an amazing spectacle, because Donald Trump was no ordinary political loser. He was a huge political loser. He lost the popular vote in two consecutive presidential elections, the second time by a margin of 8 million votes. He led his party to a brutal midterm defeat in 2018 amid the strongest economy since the late 1990s. He was the first president to have been impeached twice, the second time for inciting a mob to invade and attack Congress to overturn a national election result. He now faces more criminal and civil jeopardy than Richard Nixon did ahead of his presidential pardon in 1974.
David Frum: Trump may not have to steal 2024
Trump is campaigning on two themes: nostalgia for the strong pre-pandemic economy, plus resentment over the outcome of the vote in 2020. It’s not much, but it’s enough—enough to force DeSantis, the would-be Trump replacement, into desperate stunts to prove himself Trumpier than Trump: handing out $5,000 rewards to cops who refuse vaccination; identifying himself with a state surgeon general who advises anti-vaxxers to trust their “intuitions.”
But nobody is Trumpier than Trump. There’s no Trumpism that’s bigger than Trump. “It’s about a movement, not a man” is a venerable cliché applied to populist politics. In this case, though, it’s about a man, not a movement. In 2016, Trump endorsed allowing transgender people to “use the bathroom they feel is appropriate.” In 2017, he crammed through a huge tax cut for the rich. On the eve of the coronavirus pandemic, Trump was negotiating a giveaway trade deal with China. Those are all supposed populist no-no’s. Trump followers paid no mind. If Trump does it, it’s okay. They don’t much care about the content of his politics. They care about its mood.
Anybody who follows politics even casually can see the Trump comeback emerging. Well-sourced reporters carefully detail the comeback’s mechanics. But almost nobody is prepared for the malicious destructiveness of what is to come.
In a 2011 speech, Donald Trump explained his single top rule in life: “Get even with people. If they screw you, screw them back 10 times as hard. I really believe it.” He’s repeated the same idea over and over again in speeches, tweets, and books published under his byline. In 2024, the targets of Trump’s revenge are American law and American democracy. At a September 25 rally in Perry, Georgia, Trump excoriated state Republican officials who failed to subvert the state election for him. In Iowa two weeks later, Trump delivered more attacks on the 2020 election process, focusing this time on state Republicans who failed to steal Arizona for him.
In 2016 and through the early part of Trump’s presidency, there was often an edge of Friars Club comedy to Trump’s rally performances: not very nice comedy, a little out of style in tone and sensibility, but comedy all the same. Not in 2021. Now it’s all dark and bitter.
David A. Graham: America is not ready for Trump’s second term
Here’s video from a Georgia television station of the entirety of Trump’s Perry rally. Trump’s own speech starts at 1:37:38. Watch as much as you can stand and tell me if you detect even a moment of humor, Friars Club or otherwise. The most quoted bit—Trump’s quasi-endorsement of the Democrat Stacey Abrams as a better governor for Georgia than the Republican Brian Kemp—is not any kind of joke. It’s a deliberately delivered challenge, lower jaw jutting beyond the upper teeth, eyes slitted with anger.
That’s the guy who wants to return as the 47th president.
In Trump’s first term, the country was protected to some degree by his ignorance and ineptitude. He kept trying to do bad things, but it took him a while to figure out how the controls operated, where the kill-switches were located. By the time of his attempt to extort the Ukrainian president, in 2019, Trump had achieved a higher degree of mastery. But by then it was too late. Then the pandemic struck, and Trump bumped into a new wall of failure. In a second Trump presidency, however, the burglars will arrive already knowing how to bypass the alarms and disable the locks. He’ll understand that it’s not enough to install an ally as attorney general—he must control the secondary and tertiary ranks of the Justice Department too. He won’t allow himself to be talked into another chief of staff with an independent sense of duty, such as John Kelly, who averted much harm from the middle of 2017 to the beginning of 2019. It’ll be Mark Meadows types from day one to day last. And he’ll bring with them a new generation of Republican officeholders whose top priority will be rearranging their states’ election laws so that Republicans do not lose power even if they lose the vote.
That’s the future Trump is preparing.
Be ready.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/trump-running-president-2024-election/620502/
***********************************************Enthusiastic consent - more feminist fantasy than real world sex
Bettina Arndt comments from Australia:
Ivan is 74 years old. He has been making love to his wife, Suzie for thirty-five years. Their foreplay starts early, sometimes at the breakfast table. He writes:
“Remember the song, Come on Baby, Light my Fire? That can mean starting the mating dance hours before....
If the signals are faint, I’ll gently see if I can strengthen them … with a lingering kiss or a touch here and there. If there is no obvious inclination, then I won’t push it. I’ll back off. I look for tacit communication that she is in the market—or could be. The communication is in the eyes—and the way they look into mine. I can feel instantly if we’re on the same wavelength”.
He knows what to do if he senses she is interested:
“I can then be emboldened to make suggestions, like ‘How’s your skin at the moment? Does it need to be creamed?’ We both understand the code. We are both averse to being obvious and blunt. We prefer innuendo and teasing.”
This long-married couple like to keep things subtle. He’s aware she doesn’t want him to ask for consent. He’s spent decades learning to decipher her desires:
“This is a woman who has real trouble talking about sex and whose main method of communication is a whispered yes, a small groan, a tensing of her leg muscles, so it was a difficult process.”
Ivan’s lucky. He lives in West Australia where their lovemaking is still legal. But in NSW it is now a different story. Enthusiastic consent legislation has been law for the last two months.
According to NSW Attorney General Mark Speakman it is all “very simple”. Consent now has to be communicated by the other party “saying or doing something." Subtle interpretation of long-established codes is not enough to let the accused off the hook. “A reasonable step has to be an act or something said to ascertain the complainant's consent."
That’s it, you see. Most people don’t seek consent before and during lovemaking and nor do they have any interest in doing so. But that means we are all now prospective complainants or alleged perpetrators.
Consent is certainly not “very simple,” Mr Attorney General. It’s obvious you and all the other people making these laws don’t have a clue about what goes on beneath the dancing doona. There are many, many women like Ivan’s wife who’d be appalled if their husbands asked them for permission for sex. They expect their men to be able to tell if they are receiving a green light... or not… and sometimes to work hard to achieve it.
I’ve had people talking to me about these complex interactions for much of my adult life, having started my career as a sex therapist using the media to encourage more open conversations about sex. It recently occurred to me that I’m sitting on just the evidence to show why this simplistic talk about consent makes no sense.
I have diaries I collected from hundreds of couples during a 2007-9 research project about how they negotiate differences in sexual desire. I’ve already used this material for books about the gender desire gap and why sex means so much to men. But these revealing his-and-hers diaries offer clear proof as to why enthusiastic consent laws are totally barking mad. And whilst they focus mainly on people in long-term relationships, the research did include some very young people who’d only just met and believe me, here the communication is even more dense and bewildering.
Let’s have a look at another of my diarists – I called him ‘Anthony’ (unsurprisingly most of the participants preferred their names withheld from this revealing project). This 47-year-old man just couldn’t get his wife, Adele, to be open about her desires. He was yearning for her to admit that she wants him:
“To just say she felt like sex and wanted me to do it to (or with) her. I would like to see her wanting sex the way I want her to want it (now there’s a selfish, unrealistic thought!). I would really like her to verbalise her sexual thoughts. Over the years I have tried to move toward that point but have been frustrated by her apparent difficulty in finding the words or willingness to share them. Tactile is OK but it’s so damned ambiguous. I don’t want to imbue her touch with my meaning, I want to know what she’s been thinking to want to touch me. I want to know how she wants sex. I want to be inside her head.”
Now, see here, where he describes one of their interactions:
“Before I get out of bed, I pick up my book for a half hour of reading. Adele usually wakes before me, and she is reading already. She rests her hand on me and from time to time strokes my skin with tiny finger movements. The movements themselves and the places being touched don’t carry any overt sexual overtones at all but the persistence of them tells me she probably wants something. Whether it is to please me or to please her I don’t know. I don’t trust my judgement about that anymore. After a while I begin to think about the possibilities—imagining she wants pleasure and I feel a slight sexual response developing.
“Adele persists. She treads a narrow path so well—lots of practice, I suppose. She makes no overt sexual move and thereby avoids making the exchange unambiguous, ie with the potential for rejection. I put my book down and cuddle up to her. I can’t see her face but I’d bet anything that she is smiling.”
Look at this, Mr Speakman. She is touching him but deliberately making her approach ambiguous, so she won’t be seen to be asking for sex and won’t risk rejection. She’s ensuring it is up to him to make the next step.
This is classic of the complex dance of desire playing out in even the most harmonious of couplings. What makes you think you can go stomping into this delicate arena using your brand new, glistening legal jackboots and work out who is raping whom?
I have hundreds of such interactions I could trot out here, all showing why today’s sexual thought police are on the wrong planet. Clearly today’s 4th Wave feminists never bothered to read the classic 70s sexual works that educated and enthralled many of their mothers. Like Nancy Friday’s famous collection of real women’s sexual fantasies, My Secret Garden, full of steaming rape scenarios and women who want men to take charge. They are still well and truly out there, Mr Speakman.
Here’s another of my diarists, Anthea, describing a fling she had with an American guy, who was ten years her junior:
“From the outset it was aggressive, hard, powerful and incredible, so much so I cannot really begin to do it justice with a description. During our second day together, I gave him my vibrator to do what he chose with. His response was to throw me to the bed, tie me up with a tie that happened to be hanging on my bedroom door and then use the vibrator on me to get me to reach multiple orgasms. He said nothing before we did this, there was no discussion, he took charge, and it was incredible.”
She wanted him to take control, not ask for permission to throw her on the bed, to tie her up, and use the vibrator to drive her crazy. It was a perfectly straightforward, mutually advantageous transaction.
But imagine this scenario was happening now and the younger man tired of her attractions. What if this wonderful fling ended badly and Anthea decided to take advantage of this open invitation from the government inviting her to rethink? To retrospectively withdraw her consent and claim he’d overwhelmed her. The man was a marine after all, a big burly aggressive toxic male. Who’d believe him in a she-said, he-said legal battle if she decided to play the aggrieved victim?
It’s a simple fact of life that most love-affairs, most hook-ups end leaving one party disappointed. When the wounded party is a woman, she is now presented with a new legal weapon targeted to destroy the man who has let her down. Oh yes, in theory the legislation is gender-neutral but the reality is that women are rarely charged with such crimes, even though our most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey found almost one in three people claiming to be victims of sexual assault were male (28.4%). Men rarely take action over such crimes, knowing that if they do, they are unlikely to be believed.
Men are the ones in the firing line – primarily because their stronger levels of sexual desire mean they are usually the ones pushing for sexual consent. “Men want sex more often than women at the start of a relationship, in the middle of it and after many years of it,” reports Roy F Baumeister, psychology professor at University of Queensland and a world expert on gender differences in desire. And as my diarists proved, most women still prefer men to initiate, partly because the female psyche seems to struggle more with sexual rejection.
The new sexual consent laws are all about encouraging women to rewrite the history of their sexual relationships in order to find more men guilty of sexual assault.
These laws willfully ignore women’s own ambiguity and confusion which means men face a lethal guessing game.
For one final example of these complexities, here’s a his-and-her version of one couple’s lovemaking session:
Terry’s diary - Wednesday, 26 September
“Last night she was drawing on my back. This is unheard of—her touching me like that. So, I lay there for a bit and enjoyed it. Then she ran her finger down my side and it tickled so I laughed and she rolled over, so I turned and cuddled her and we were having a good moment together gently stroking each other and cuddling. But then she pushed me away, saying ‘You always reject me!’ I protested and said I was enjoying our time together but she had made up her mind, ‘No, you rejected me. That’s why I don’t make a move on you, it hurts me to be rejected.’ I tried to say sorry, but it fell on deaf ears.”
Megan’s diary - Wednesday, 26 September
“We got into bed, he turned his back to me and I started stroking his back. He said it was nice. Then I tried to reach around to touch his penis and he started being really silly, saying that it tickled. I felt rejected so I pulled away. He then came over to my side of the bed and cuddled me but it was too late. I was lying there thinking mean thoughts about him. Then I said to him ‘Why did you do that? You could tell I was making an effort to initiate sex with you and you knocked me back.’ To which he responded, ‘What? What? I didn’t knock you back.’ He didn’t make an effort to make moves on me (it probably would have been unsuccessful), and he fell asleep shortly after.”
He says, she says. Two totally different versions of who did what, written within days of the actual event. Go figure….
Now we are expecting juries to sort out what actually took place years after a confusing liaison which one person claims took place without consent. In our current climate there’s a very real risk that such contradictions and confusion will be just swept aside, and those twelve ordinary men and women will step up, conform to the zeitgeist and believe-the- woman.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment