Glen Greenwald on Brazil's descent into Fascism

🚨 Brazil's Censorship Regime Becomes Even More Despotic

Monark, "Brazil's Joe Rogan," is now being criminally investigated and fined ~$75,000 for online conduct—fully silencing the once mega-popular podcaster without any due process.

This is what's coming for everyone.

The… pic.twitter.com/tHUAv8pDgP

— System Update (@SystemUpdate_) August 3, 2023

Author of the Mega-Viral Thread on MAGA Voters, Darryl Cooper, Explains His Thinking

By Darryl Cooper

I quit Twitter last August. Quit for good. Other than posting links to two new episodes of my podcast, I stayed away for eight months and didn’t regret a thing. Around mid-June I let myself  be persuaded that social media engagement was part of having a podcast, so I dipped back in, promising myself I’d avoid being pulled into politics. Things haven’t gone as planned.

The temptation was disguised cleverly as a conversation with a friend’s mother. She was visiting from upstate New York and we got to talking while my buddy was in the house tending to my goddaughter. She’s a hardcore Trumper from a less cynical generation that believes what she hears from sources she trusts. She’d been hounding her son about the stolen election all week, and he’d been trying to disabuse her of various theories involving trucked-in ballots and hacked counting machines. Now she had me cornered and put the question to me: “Do YOU think the election was legit?” So I told her the truth: I don’t know.

By the time my friend had put the baby to bed and rejoined us, we were waist-deep in a discussion about what happened last year, and she was satisfied that I was on her side. “See?!? He (she meant me) knows what’s going on! I’m not crazy. He’s smart, and HE knows!” My friend pulled the Captain Picard facepalm, and said, “Darryl, what the f*ck are you telling her?”

What I told her was some version of the Twitter thread Tucker Carlson read on  air Friday night and which President Trump, using my name, then explicitly promoted in his speech to CPAC on Sunday, which has blown my inbox, and my promise to stay away from politics, to smithereens.

I told her I didn’t know much about the ballots, or the voting machines, or some company that she’d heard had ties to Venezuela. I didn’t follow Sidney Powell, or Lin Wood, or the details of the cases proceeding through the system. I think it was around the time Rudy Giuliani chose a landscape and gardening emporium as the location for a press conference on what would have been the greatest political scandal in American history that I made the conscious decision to stop paying attention. Or maybe it was the dripping hair dye, or something about a kraken — it’s all sort of blended together these days.

But I felt for her. She wasn’t the first person with whom I’d had the discussion, and I felt for all of them. I’ve had the discussion often enough that I feel comfortable extracting a general theory about where these people are coming from.

RUSSIAGATE: THE ORIGINAL SIN

Democracy dies in darkness, but stealth editing thrives there.

 We are in a literally Orwellian world now. Until a couple of days ago the headline on this Washington Post story from February 2020 read:

Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked.

Now it reads:

Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus fringe theory that scientists have disputed.

Democracy dies in darkness, but stealth editing thrives there. That's Orwell 101 - although one assumes whichever of Bezos's woeful hacks was ordered to do it was unaware of his literary antecedents, or self-respect would have required him to seek alternative, less pitiful employment. Nevertheless, as you'll know if you heard my serialization of Nineteen Eighty-Four, that was literally Winston Smith's job - to go into the archives and rewrite past editions of the newspapers to conform to the needs of the present. And to ensure that versions of the past less helpful to the regime get, in one of Orwell's many brilliant coinages, "memory-holed".

Our chaps haven't been memory-holing quite as long, so they're not as smooth and assured about it as Winston Smith's Ministry of Truth. Commissar Zuckerberg's Facebook will now permit you to suggest that the ChiCom-19 may have "escaped" from a lab - in contrast to the rules a week or so back, when so much as raising the possibility got your account vaporized. Wikipedia isn't quite so quick on the uptake: as I write, the lab-leak origin of the WuFlu still comes under "Covid-19 misinformation" as a theory used "to stoke anti-China sentiments". But presumably the lads are modifying even as I speak.

For the media to use "Democracy dies in darkness" while stifling, erasing, and outlawing any opinion but their own is Gaslighting.   Someone at the Washington Post was given the job of rewriting past editions of the paper to conform to the needs of the present.  It doesn't get to be more Orwellian than that.

The only question is: who is Big Brother?  We know who that the Party is the Democrats.   

"... that intellectually debilitating article of libertarian faith, namely that “the government” poses the only real threat to liberty"

I'm paraphrasing, but it's generally true: "Libertarians seem to be OK with Google, or Facebook, or Twitter rigging the next election, as long as they are not "The Government."

To grasp the affinities between administrative governance and algorithmic governance, one must first get over that intellectually debilitating article of libertarian faith, namely that “the government” poses the only real threat to liberty. For what does Silicon Valley represent, if not a locus of quasi-governmental power untouched by either the democratic process or by those hard-won procedural liberties that are meant to secure us against abuses by the (actual, elected) government? If the governmental quality of rule by algo­rithms remains obscure to us, that is because we actively welcome it into our own lives under the rubric of convenience, the myth of free services, and ersatz forms of human connection—the new opiates of the masses.

To characterize this as the operation of “the free market” (as its spokespersons do) requires a display of intellectual agility that might be admirable if otherwise employed. The reality is that what has emerged is a new form of monopoly power made possible by the “network effect” of those platforms through which everyone must pass to conduct the business of life. These firms sit at informational bottlenecks, collecting data and then renting it out, whether for the purpose of targeted ads or for modeling the electoral success of a political platform. Mark Zuckerberg has said frankly that “In a lot of ways Facebook is more like a government than a traditional company. . . . We have this large community of people, and more than other technology companies we’re really setting policies.”

When you are able to influence what people think and how they think, what is allowed and what is out-of-bounds you have the mechanism of tyranny, no matter if the influencers are government employees or private citizens.  And these citizens are totally unaccountable via the ballot.

Liberals, like Hitler, are finally telling us what they plan to do.

Liberals are now open about shutting Trump up. Washington Post:

I wouldn't suggest, for a moment, that network television and the rest of the mainstream media should ignore what the president says. That would be irresponsible, not to mention impossible....
But broadcasting him live and unfiltered -- whether in an Oval Office speech, or an impromptu news conference, or at a campaign rally -- has been a bad idea for quite some time.
Instead, whatever news is produced can be presented in context with facts woven in from the start: Truth first.

In other words, we'll tell you the parts of Trump's speech we want you to hear. Trust us, we know best.

CNN also wants to censor Trump and are quite open about it:

Yesterday, Ed wrote about CNN's Don Lemon who wondered aloud whether Trump's speech should be delayed. That idea didn’t come from Lemon. He was probably borrowing from CNN's Senior Media Reporter Oliver Darcy who published a story last week under the headline "Cable news networks air Trump’s comments in real-time. But should they? If you know anything about CNN or Oliver Darcy you can probably guess which way the story was slanted.

Ace of Spades:

For some time, the conservative movement has been divided between liberals who don't really mind liberal rule because they like liberals because they are liberals, and actual conservatives, who feared, correctly, that the left was as serious as Hitler when it has repeatedly told us exactly what it intended to do, which is to punish and suppress any speech they think is "wrong." They have repeatedly told us that all issues are now "beyond discussion," and they have repeatedly proposed methods of punishing/criminalizing those who engage in such wrongthink.

Many of us said that there could be no compromise with this. Liberal Bill Kristol doesn't need to fear the liberal censorship state, because he's a fellow liberal and is useful for fighting their current political fight, but anyone who is actually opposed to leftwing hegemony and speech criminalization does need to fear them-- as they fear us.

Well, we're now at the point where the left has agreed (funny how they're always so swift to agree about revolutionary proposals in such a short window of debate, almost as if they have been deciding these things behind closed doors before introducing to the public) that even The President can no longer be permitted to offer his unfiltered arguments to the public.

Just like the leftwing decided that no longer would any Wrongthinkers be allowed to speak on college campuses.

John Sexton either noted or quoted someone to the effect: "We will all be living on the Evergreen State campus before long."

Now, between the claim made endlessly by so-called "reasonable Republicans" (actually: moderate liberals) that "My good friends on the left can be trusted and do not wish to criminalize you for your speech" and the radical firebrands who have been shouting, "The left, like Hitler, is telling you exactly what they intend to do, and you're determined not to believe them," who's right?

Should we all continue listening to David French and Jonah Goldberg?

Declination: "Purity Spirals Into Evil"

Leftists often compare Rightists to Nazis. It’s beyond cliche, these days. It is tiresome and it hinges on the most flimsy of rationalizations. Yet it begs the question: how do you know if you are becoming a tyrant? How do you know if your ideology has slid into evil? ...

If you analyze tyrannical ideologies and the sort of mass mob insanity behind them, you will see a common thread: purity. Nazis obsessed over purity of race. Stalinists obsessed over purity of political beliefs. Jihadists obsess over purity of religious belief. But purity is always there. And purity can twist good into evil, or render a lesser evil into a far greater evil.

What is purity? The dictionary tells us that it is “freedom from adulteration or contamination.” For our purposes, we may use the synonym ‘perfection’ with some utility. The point of purity is to identify impurities and eradicate them. The Nazi will eradicate the racially impure, the Communist will eradicate the impure Capitalists, and so on.

The utility of quests for purity to a tyrant should be obvious. For what is more impure than man? A quest for purity is carte blanche for never ending power over others. Progressivism itself admits this even in the content of its own name. Progress toward what? Purity. Progress toward the perfect society, in which poverty, disease, war, and a thousand other such ills have been eradicated.

Never will you hear the Progressive say “this is good enough, we can stop now.” For them, there is always a new impurity to eradicate. The movement is like the terminator of movie fame:

Kyle Reese: Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

Social Justice is like the terminator in other ways, too. It cloaks itself as one of us. It wears the skin of our institutions in an effort to disguise itself. But always, its mission is to eradicate us. We are the impure. We cannot be permitted to exist.

And when a round of impure are disposed of, new impure are found. Today, it is Rightists. Tomorrow, Centrists. The day after that, Trotskyite Leftists. The terminator never stops. Ever-greater demands of purity are made. Like the Third Reich, the gas chambers never stop. The ash falls from the skies, forever. At least until someone puts a stop to it all at gunpoint.

Read the whole thing.

Hogg Hitler! The little dictator in the making.

MARK STEYN: Speakers Cornered

[F]ree speech is now so imperiled in much of the "free world" that simply scheduling a debate on a controversial subject will attract the attentions of the mob - and by "controversial subject" I don't mean Islam or abortion or gay marriage or climate change; a debate on the subject of free speech is now so provocative that, as I noted the other day, the "progressive" thugs will descend to break it up, throw smoke bombs, smash the windows of ancient listed buildings, and put the security guards in hospital.

As repulsive as these goons are, the reaction of officialdom is worse: They take the side of the mob, and thereby incentivize them. For example, Martin Sellner (of the Austrian wing of the European "hipster-right" movement Generation Identity) was originally scheduled to speak at a British free speech conference organized by UKIP's youth branch. However, this was canceled "due to security threats from the far left".

That's disgraceful: the heckler's veto turned pre-emptive and given official sanction.

So, instead, it was arranged for Herr Sellner to give a speech at Speakers' Corner at Hyde Park in London. Speakers' Corner has been a global symbol of free speech for a century and a half: Marx and Lenin both spoke there, and George Orwell and Marcus Garvey, and the first generation of African nationalist leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah. If I recall correctly, the only form of speech prohibited there was "insulting the Queen", but in a 1999 court decision Lord Justice Sedley removed even that genteel restraint.

Nevertheless, flying in from Vienna to give a speech on the very subject for which Speakers' Corner is famous - freedom of expression - Herr Sellner and his girlfriend Brittany Pettibone were detained upon the arrival of their flight on Friday. After twelve hours of separate detention at Luton Airport, the UK Border Force then moved them at 1am on Saturday to the main detention facility at Heathrow.

Austria is a member of the European Union, as is (almost two years after the Brexit vote) the United Kingdom. There is supposed to be freedom of movement between EU member states - Austrians, for example, have the right to work in the UK. Yet the same "Border Force" that breezily waves through the family of the Ariana Grande bomber, and the Parsons Green Tube terrorist, and the jihadist loon who killed a Japanese man in Dundalk will not even permit Mr Sellner and Miss Pettibone to set foot on UK soil to give a speech on free speech for fear that such an exercise of free speech might be too provocative to those who revile it.

So much for freedom of movement within the EU. What about freedom of movement within Her Majesty's Dominions? Lauren Southern, formerly of The Rebel and a Canadian subject of the Queen, has just been denied entry to the UK by Home Secretary Amber Rudd on the grounds that she represents "a threat to the fundamental interests of society and to the public policy of the United Kingdom".

Those are not legal concepts in a free society: they're all-purpose control mechanisms. A government that's entirely incompetent when it comes to keeping out people who want to bomb and stab and decapitate you is suddenly "the most competent Border Force in the world" when it comes to keeping out people who talk and interview and argue - people whose only weapons are words. This will not end well for English liberties.

Twitter bans conservatives and they don't realize it.

• 
  
• 
  
• Steven Pierre, Twitter engineer explains “shadow banning,” says “it’s going to ban a way of talking”
• Former Twitter software engineer Abhinav Vadrevu on shadow banning: “they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it”
• Former Twitter Content Review Agent Mo Norai explains banning process: “if it was a pro-Trump thing and I’m anti-Trump… I banned his whole account… it’s at your discretion”
• When asked if banning process was an unwritten rule, Norai adds “Very. A lot of unwritten rules… It was never written it was more said”
• Olinda Hassan, Policy Manager for Twitter Trust and Safety explains, “we’re trying to ‘down rank’… shitty people to not show up,” “we’re working [that] on right now”
• “Shadow banning” to be used to stealthily target political views- former Twitter engineer says, “that’s a thing”
• Censorship of certain political viewpoints to be automated via “machine learning” according to Twitter software engineer
• Parnay Singh, Twitter Direct Messaging Engineer, on machine learning algorithms, “you have like five thousand keywords to describe a redneck…” “the majority of it are for Republicans”

Democrats for fascism

Don Surber:

Barack Obama's refusal to lead his party to a peaceful transition of power a year ago has inspired an increasingly violent "resistance" both within and without the government. The best example is Sally Yates who refused a legal order as acting attorney general. That act of insubordination should disqualify her as a lawyer. But we no longer have a rule of law in this country. Witness Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin not being tried for their national security breaches.

Now Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison, the No. 2 man in the DNC, has embraced the Antifa fascists.

In so doing, he makes the Antifa black shirts the brownshirts of his party.

How alarming it is that the mainstream press has become a platform for these fascists.

Since electing Barack Obama president, Democrats have seen their party decimated nationally and at the state level.

Those remaining are bitter radicals. Ellison's embrace of violence is alarming. Americans rejected Obama's Marxism.Let's hope it rejects Ellison's Muslim Marxism -- especially as he has no problem promoting an increasingly violent movement.

The Google-Facebook Duopoly Threatens Diversity of Thought

Because of their power to censor the way people communicate, these media monopolies must either be broken up.  The idea that individuals have the power to control how we communicate on the Internet, whether they are in government or private individuals smacks of fascism.

In a November speech, Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, argued that “edge providers” like social-media websites and search engines “routinely block or discriminate against content they don’t like.” Mr. Pai cited YouTube’s decision to place age restrictions on and pull ads from videos by conservative commentator Dennis Prager’s Prager University, including a video by Alan Dershowitz on Israel’s founding.

He also pointed to Twitter’s suspension of a pro-life campaign ad from Rep. Marsha Blackburn, an action that would have been illegal if done by a TV or radio station. Twitter has refused sponsored tweets from immigration opponents, saying its hate-speech policy is triggered by messages such as “the fiscal cost created by illegal immigrants of $746.3b compares to total a cost of deportation of $124.1b.”

Google, Facebook and Twitter place stricter content policies on advertisers than general users. There are legitimate reasons for this. The tech companies are sensitive to accusations that they not only profit from controversial content but also fund it by giving its creator a slice of the ad revenue.

When virtually all online advertising goes through two companies, however, they have the power to harm websites arbitrarily. One political blog that posted an article trying to distinguish the “alt-right” from white nationalism received a warning email from Google’s AdSense team. An editor took the article down, explaining to readers that the blog “needs revenue from the Google ad platform in order to survive.” You needn’t agree with the editorial decision to publish the article to be troubled by Google’s vetoing it.

In his 2014 book “Zero to One,” Peter Thiel notes that because Google “doesn’t have to worry about competing with anyone, it has wider latitude to care about . . . its impact on the wider world.” If executives at a Silicon Valley monopoly believe that censoring certain content will push the world in a positive direction, market pressures cannot sufficiently restrain them.

Journalists also argue that tech companies are pushing media toward the lowest common denominator. Social media rewards clickbait—sensational headlines that confirm readers’ biases. Google and Facebook’s advertising duopoly bleeds traditional publishers of the revenue needed to produce high-quality news. At the same time, Google’s search engine is biased against subscription content, depleting another source of funding.

The bottom line is that Google’s and Facebook’s advertising policies and algorithms make it less profitable to produce high-quality journalism from any perspective. Their duopoly also gives tech executives the power to defund and block content they personally object to without taking a major hit to the bottom line.

Andrew Klavan: "Lina Dunham Thought Police"

Lefty Comic Al Franken uses British fake news provider to urge government censorship of news Americans are allowed to read

Advancing the Democratic Party’s new-found McCarthyism over the theme of “Russian Collusion,” Sen. Al Franken authored an op-ed piece in the Guardian last week asking for government censorship over Internet media content giants Google, Facebook and Twitter.

But what is fake news? One bit of fake news is the denial of Hillary's illness.

Michael Snyder, a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District:

During the presidential election, there was a lot of talk about Hillary Clinton’s health. The mainstream media insisted that she was just fine, and they accused those of us in the alternative media that were questioning her health of engaging in “propaganda” and “misinformation”. Well, it turns out that we now know that Clinton’s health was so bad that Donna Brazile was actually considering replacing the nominee, and so it was actually the mainstream media that was putting out “propaganda” and “misinformation.”

Other major pieces of fake news:

• Fast and Furious was just a botched gun tracking program
• Obamacare would save every family $2500
• Benghazi was caused by a video
• Harvey Weinstein supported women's rights
• ISIS was the JV team
• “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because you know, the Cold War has been over for 20 years."

CNN especially is now indistinguishable from a Democrat propaganda machine.  If we want the end of Fake News we need to start with CNN and then go through the major media before we start to censor the American people on the Internet.  

Le Corbusier: Liar, Cheat, Thief, and Plagiarist

The French fascist architect Charles-Édouard Jeanneret, better known as Le Corbusier, was another of this charmless ilk, though cleaner than Brecht (a Marxist, the latter’s decision not to wash was his tribute, albeit not a very flattering one, to the proletariat). Jeanneret’s inhumanity, his rage against humans, is evident in his architecture and in his writings. He felt the level of affection and concern for them that most people feel for cockroaches.

Like Hitler, Jeanneret wanted to be an artist, and, as with Hitler, the world would have been a better place if he had achieved his ambition. Had he been merely an artist, one could have avoided his productions if one so wished; but the buildings that he and his myriad acolytes have built unavoidably scour the retina of the viewer and cause a decline in the pleasure of his existence.

One of Jeanneret’s buildings can devastate a landscape or destroy an ancient townscape once and for all, with a finality that is quite without appeal; as for his city planning, it was of a childish inhumanity and rank amateurism that would have been mildly amusing had it remained purely theoretical and had no one taken it seriously.

Mr. Millais is able to prove not only that Jeanneret was a liar, cheat, thief, and plagiarist in the most literal sense of the words, a criminal as well as being personally unpleasant on many occasions, but that he was technically grossly ignorant and incompetent, indeed laughably so. His roofs leaked, his materials deteriorated. He never grasped the elementary principles of engineering. All his ideas were gimcrack at best, and often far worse than merely bad. To commission a building from Jeanneret was to tie a ball and chain around one’s own ankle, committing oneself to endless, Sisyphean bills for alteration and maintenance, as well as to a dishonest estimate of what the building would cost to build in the first place. A house by Jeanneret was not so much a machine for living in (to quote the most famous of his many fatuous dicta) as a machine for generating costs and for moving out of. In the name of functionality, Jeanneret built what did not work; in the name of mass production, everything he used had to be individually fashioned. Having no human qualities himself, and lacking all imagination, he did not even understand that shade in a hot climate was desirable, indeed essential.

Read the whole thing.

D'Souza: the Democratic Party, of Obama but also of Bernie [Sanders], of Elizabeth Warren is fascist in the classic meaning of the term, in the dictionary meaning of the term.

If you look up fascism, the economic part of it, it basically says state-run capitalism, state-directed capitalism, that’s the meaning of fascism,” D’Souza said at the Young America’s Foundation National Conservative Student Conference on Friday.

“We often accuse the left of being socialist but in reality these guys aren’t socialists, because what do socialist countries do? Socialist countries nationalize industries. The government takes over the energy industry, the government takes over the banks. Now, notice under Obamacare we still have private insurance companies, we still have private hospitals but the government is directing them. The government is fixing the price. The government is telling them what to do,” he added.

D’Souza said government “direction and control” expanded under President Obama in the health, energy and education sectors.

“That’s why Bernie and Hillary wanted free college. Their idea was the government now gets to direct even private colleges in telling them what to do. So my point is this is not socialism: if it was socialism the government would have taken over all this stuff. This is actually fascism, state-directed capitalism. That’s what fascism means and, in that respect, fascism is with us now,” he said.

D’Souza: Trump Joins Gandhi, Churchill, Mandela, Founding Fathers as Nationalists

The truth of it is nationalism is not a defining feature of fascism; that’s a lie and it can easily be shown to be a lie by simply looking at people around the world who

were or are nationalists. So, for example, I’m originally from India; Gandhi was a nationalist. Mandela was a nationalist in South Africa. The American founders were nationalists. Winston Churchill was a nationalist, so was de Gaulle in France,” he said. “All the anti-colonial leaders were nationalists. Now, obviously all these men were not fascists. So it’s simply if ultra-nationalism were to define fascism, then they would be so the notion that fascism is nationalism is clearly erroneous.”

Alan Dershowitz: Russia Probe Sounds Like Stalin's Secret Police

Violating Our Conscience: 12 Ways The MSM And Left Keep Us Divided

John Nolte itemizes the way that the media is keeping the nation divided by forcing conservatives to violate their conscience. read the whole thing.)

Everything listed above is not only an unreasonable demand made by the left and their media, it is an immoral one and one intentionally designed to take away our right to be left alone, to be indifferent, to live and let live.

Because the left and their media now target our children, our personal space, our religious conscience, and how we express ourselves through speech -- we are forced to care, forced to take a side, forced into a toxic debate we would prefer to avoid.

You see, now that America is for the most part colorblind and indifferent to cultural and lifestyle differences, these phony controversies, these criminal martyrs, and absurd demands are all manufactured and ginned up as a means to keep the Jenga Tower scared, feeling victimized, outraged, bitter and voting against their own interests -- a bigger welfare state, worse public schools, more illegal aliens taking their jobs, and more poorly vetted refugees.

Good grief, these toxic freaks are now demanding married men invite their female subordinates out for a private dinner.

It is not that we are being told we cannot do something, which is easier on the conscience. Rather, we are being forced, coerced, and bullied into actions and attitudes that wound our conscience.

This is the stuff of police states.

If two women get married, which one is getting sexually exploited?

Why All The Hippies Morphed Into Campus Fascists

Over on the legal battleground, the Supreme Court recently decided that marriage, which, we will recall, is a form of institutionalized misogynist sexual exploitation, is also a fundamental human right, and should be available to any two humans who want to get matrimonial. That’s okay with me: I believe our society will benefit from more stable relationships, whomever the participants.

But that’s not good enough for sore winners. Now clergy will be forced by law to perform marriages for same-sex couples. While it’s still perfectly legal for a Presbyterian minister to decline to marry a couple of heterosexual Methodists simply because they aren’t members of the congregation, he will be committing a crime if he refuses to perform nuptials for two dudes who are shopping for a ceremonial backdrop. Here’s another loose end: If two women get married, which one is getting sexually exploited?

Chris Mathews calls Christians Fascists

Chris Matthews called Christians opposed to abortion fascists.

In all the controversy about Trumps responses to Christ Matthews badgering about abortion, what has been overlooked is that Matthews actually called people who oppose abortion Fascists.

Let's go to the transcript:

TRUMP: So you're against the teachings of your Church?

MATTHEWS: I have a view -- a moral view -- but I believe we live in a free country, and I don't want to live in a country so fascistic that it could stop a person from making that decision.

There is no getting around it. Oppose abortion and, according to a leading member of the media and Democrat - but I repeat myself - opposing abortion is fascistic.

Let there be no question about it: Democrats not only celebrate abortion, demand abortion on demand up to - and after - delivery of the child - but believe that Christians who are apposed are Fascists.

A Blizzard of Special Snowflakes

From my vantage point, this is not the behavior of people who’ve been oppressed; these are convenient and dictatorial temper tantrums from post-pubescent infants who have been spoiled beyond all reason. Maybe they aren’t fragile at all—perchance they’re tyrants hiding behind a facade of weakness in order to acquire power and bludgeon others with it. One is tempted to really give them something to cry about.

When they are disgorged like fetal cannonballs from the warm womb of modern college life, one would hope they quickly learn the meaning of real pain and suffering. I would like nothing more than to peer out my window one day and watch all these special snowflakes melt the moment they hit the ground.