Normally, I read comments to articles on various news sites including those to articles I have penned for other sites to which I have contributed. Of course, it was advised by one of my editors not to read comments to articles I pen; but, that advise was not taken which lead to experiencing hours of frustration and anger not needed nor wanted. However, I still find myself reading comments to articles because every now and again, one finds a “gem” so to speak that can help one garner insight into some of the thinking taking place on the opposite opinion side.
Take the Daily Caller article on Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, offering to accept European refugees. Orban calls the “real refugees” those Europeans from Germany, France, Italy and Holland, as well as “scared politicians and journalists.” He reaches out to Christians who have had to flee their own country in search of a Europe they lost in their own home. But, while many seem to think Hungary is not accepting migrants, in actuality, Hungary is but not Muslim migrants.
The decision by Orban is based in history, specifically the conquest of Hungary by Islam jihadis from 1541 to 1699, where Christian persecution and terrorism was rampant. According to Orban, he believes that each country has a right whether or not it wants to entertain large numbers of Muslim people in its borders. Isn’t that what immigration is about — a country of people determining who should be allowed to live within its borders when those individuals come from outside their borders? Of course it is. He further stated that “we do not like the consequences of having a large number of Muslim communities that we see in other countries, and I do not see any reason for anyone else to force us to create ways of living together in Hungary that we do not want to see….” In speaking of large Muslim communities in other countries, one sees enclaves of “no go zones” where Shariah is enforced by the Muslim population anathema to the laws of the nation in which they reside.
Now, when one reads the comments at the Daily Caller article, one comes to the comment by a Mark Wood that reads:
Apparently not. This guy is an authoritarian and a dangerous demagogue. There is a reason he is called the Vikinator, as in dictator. When people start imaging ‘they’ are a danger to “us” trouble is brewing. I am constantly amazed that the right , who claim to be all for the rights of the individual are leading the charge to destroy the rights of the individual. I wonder where the 1st civil war will break out, the U.S. or western Europe.
On the left we have watched as you people have developed opinions, based on lies spread by vanity media like info wars , totally baseless in reality. And we don’t know what to do, you don’t respond to facts.
Completely obsessed with Soros, a billionaire who supports left wing ideas, versus the hundreds of billionaires that support right wing policies. He has been demonised with absurd allegations. And you are not the least bit suspicious if almost all of the mega rich are on one side, whose interests do you think the people they support care about?
This is a mouthful of “whatever” all over the place. Is Orban authoritarian and a dangerous demagogue? Possibly; but, that is a danger of any individual who gains political power. It is up to the people to keep it in check. In looking at Barack Hussein Obama, one could classify him, as president, an authoritarian and a dangerous demagogue. And, one could classify Donald Trump as the same. It never fails that when one gains power, that power seems to “go to their head” producing authoritarianism and demagoguery. It is a danger faced by citizens of all nations.
Wood goes on to say, “when people start imagining ‘they’ are a danger to ‘us’ trouble is brewing. Well, the statement is true, but it is not within the imagination where it is rooted, but reality. When there are those who pose a danger to others, that is trouble in itself. Murderers, rapists, thieves, and scammers pose a danger to others. That is fact. But, we are talking about Islam — the pseudo-religion condoning murderers, rapists, thieves and scammers. Anyone would say it poses a danger to others, particularly those who do not share their beliefs and specifically those who speak against them. What is dangerous is when ideology is upheld over law. So, when it comes to Islam, it is definitely a “them” versus “us,” meaning trouble is there; it doesn’t need to be brewed like tea.
He then goes on to express his amazement claiming, “the right, who claim to be all for the rights of the individual are leading the charge to destroy the rights of the individual.” Now, for the love of chocolate, to whom on the right is he referring? Similarly, this “right” to whom he refers could say the same thing about “the left.” But, just who is the left? There are only two types of individuals — constitutionalists and anti-constitutionalists. An individual either supports the Constitution for the united States of America or not — there is no picking and choosing like a Chinese buffet. The sooner the labels of right, left, conservative, liberal, et. al. ad nauseum are rejected and replaced with the correct identifier, the better off we will all be. It boils down to lawfulness versus lawlessness, constitution versus anti-constitution. And, what rights of the individual are being destroyed by this “right” claiming support for the rights of individuals? That’s not identified to be able to address.
A question Mr. Wood should ask is “who is the most egregious violator of individual rights in the republic known as the united States of America?” One would hope Mr. Wood could recognize that it is the government, all levels, that have levied war against the inherent rights of the individual. But, when one supports ideology of “left, right, etc,” it becomes increasingly difficult to see that government, composed of “right” and “left” ideologies, have perpetuated divisiveness in order to further eradicate individual rights, usurp power not authorized it by the Constitution, and move evermore toward oppression and tyranny to maintain their unauthorized power.
Well, the first civil war in the united States occurred in 1860. Subsequent hostilities in France and Russia were called “revolutions” but amounted to the same internal struggle, when talking about western Europe. The 1917 Russian revolution was thrown in for good measure. The correct postulation would be, “where is the next civil war to occur?” A question Mr. Wood should answer is, “what was the outcome for the collective united States as a result of that civil war?” One could guess he would answer from the standpoint of ideology.
While Wood accuses those not on the left of “developing opinions based on lies spread by vanity media like Infowars, totally baseless in reality, …,” one could say the same for anyone who watches the alphabet news media. When one is only receiving part of the truth, it all becomes “vanity media” and totally baseless in reality for the entire reality is not being relayed. He then states his side doesn’t know what to do since the other side doesn’t respond to facts. Well, exactly which facts would that be? No media is giving all the information and certainly not all the facts are known. Government definitely doesn’t dish out all the facts. So, whose facts are to be relied upon as “fact?” As we all know, the victors write the history or exclude portions of history; and, if that isn’t enough, eradicate any remnants of it altogether as was done in Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia and now in parts of the republic when it comes to Confederate Memorials. Some individuals on Mr. Wood’s side has made a decision on action — they engage in lawless rioting, violence and violation of others’ rights, which he accuses the other side of doing.
History is history, both good and bad. To eradicate parts of history that offend or remind of atrocity is a disservice to those who lived it and those in the future the opportunity to learn about it.
In his last paragraph, Mr. Wood claims someone is completely obsessed with George Soros, “a billionaire who supports left wing ideas, versus the hundreds of billionaires that support right wing policy.” Again, the problem is ideology — left, right, etc. The issue is lawfulness versus lawlessness; constitution versus anti-constitution. It is imperative to understand that supporting ideology is not supporting lawfulness or the Constitution. He claims Soros has been wrongfully demonized with absurd allegations. But, it is no secret the former Hungarian who sold out his own people, the Jews, to the Nazis of Germany has financed lawlessness, movements based on falsehoods, and other activities damaging to this republic. By the same token, those billionaires supporting ideology known as the “right” have financed activities damaging to the republic. But, Mr. Wood claims that “you are not the least bit suspicious if almost all of the mega rich are on one side, whose interests do you think the people the support care about?”
In answer to Mr. Woods rhetorical question, those who are “mega rich” are on the side of the mega rich. They care not about the common working individual, the poor, the weak, the sick or the republic in which they live. They only care about what will garner them more money, more power, more assets… more, more, more. And, they will use any means, any person or group of people, or any issue to garner what they want to the detriment of everything and everyone else. Now, there are possibly exceptions to that generalization. Unfortunately, one does not spring to mind. Again, the support of “ideology” over law and lawfulness is a danger to any people living within the boundaries of a country, nation or republic.
But, his comment provides insight into the wrongful identification of sides — left versus right. There is only one side — the Constitution and upholding of its tenets. Any other side is detrimental to the maintenance of this republic.