Why do senior politicians across the Western world systematically engage in this and other similar sorts of newspeak? Here, I suggest, Obama and Clinton (and their peers) believe millions of otherwise ordinary American citizens are deplorables. They believe that if they were to discuss the reality of world events with their fellow citizens, and do so without dissembling, then any number of our fellow citizens would organize communal violence, mayhem, and murder—on a mass scale.
5 thoughts on “Seth Barrett Tillman: <i>Why Obama and Clinton Described the Sri Lankan Victims as “Easter Worshippers†and not as “Christiansâ€: A Friendly Amendment for Dennis Prager</i>”
Comments are closed.
Seth is far too charitable. They have no interest in curbing violence, either real or whatever he thinks they fantasize they are stopping. Not identifying Christians as victims is a deliberate choice to promote the association of ‘Christian’ with ‘right-wing’, ‘extremist’, and ‘terrorist’ now that believing Christians are not generally allies of the Left.
After comparing the indictment in Declaration of Independence to our federal government, I have concluded that nothing will rouse the deplorables to violence.
This is probably correct. The Democrats encourage civil unrest and rioting on their side, so they’ve probably convinced themselves that chaos and disorder are just everyday occurrences.
Adam Housley, is noting of a former army vet who converted to islam, who was planning on detonating a ied in long beach,
fwiw,
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/authorities-disrupt-alleged-terror-plot-in-southern-california/ar-AAAHU3t?ocid=spartandhp
the new Yorker quotes anonymous source re mattis, which are plausible, since he surrounded himself with many democratic advisors,