Ted Cruz finally CONFRONTED at restaurant after NRA speech

BREAKING: Ted Cruz was just confronted TO HIS FACE at a restaurant after his NRA speech.

Comments

When a “free man” in America can’t voice his opinion to a politician that is supposed to represent him -he and we are living in a tyranny .

 

We have to elect officials that don’t have security manhandle someone wanting an explanation as to why 19 babies had to be killed and why he attended an NRA rally a day after the shooting and refuses to pass gun laws.
Good to know that the First Amendment doesn’t apply when someone is talking about something Republicans don’t like.
If he doesn’t like being confronted in a restaurant or anywhere, he needs to find a new job. We the people need to confront and question the people that we elect to represent us.
This man was respectful and calm up until he was manhandled for daring to question a PUBLIC SERVANT. I can’t say I could’ve kept my composure as well as he did. Ty to the people whom thought to record this interaction.
So, the man isn’t allowed to even talk to an elected official? Ridiculous. Come on, Texas, vote this coward out.
He just sent his goons after one of his constituents. How disgusting.
I love how well orchestrated this was. He approached with the pretense of being a supporter who wanted a picture then went into his motive in a line of questioning. Beautiful, absolutely beautiful
 @Peter Cross  he didn’t raise his voice till the clowns thugs literally grabbed him and forcefully moved him
Here’s the thing about the GOP vs Dems, they won’t listen to their constituents. They argue with them or remove them. They never just quietly listen and show compassion. This behavior is what we do not need in our government.
He should press charges against those guys that assaulted him and pushed him. If Cruz didn’t like what he was saying, he should have left.
I don’t believe I have ever seen a smile disappear as quickly as the one that left Ted’s face when he realized that guy wasn’t a supporter.
That man has a right to speak to Ted Cruz, an elected representative without being dragged away by burly thugs.
I can’t believe (but I can) how quick those men were to assault and PUT THEIR HANDS ON a guy that was no threat – like, zero-percent. Craven, the lot of them.
It’s amazing that he can’t defend himself for more than a minute before he cowers and backs away. If he’s so confident, why does he run away at the first chance he gets?
This is what happens when the wrong people have power…..
Isn’t it assault when the bodyguards physically move the man who was practicing his first amendment right?
I love how Cruz didn’t say “I’m with my family” until after he learned the guy wasn’t going to kiss his ass or praise him.
The fact Cruz is trying to get away from a local constituent and not even try to listen is really so sad…
THE FACT THAT THEY THREW HIM OUT, AND ALL HE DID WAS ASK HIM WELL DESERVED QUESTIONS.
His goons had no right to touch him. It was Cruz who should have walked away with his goons simply maintaining a perimeter around him.
As Brian pointed out in another video… Its more dangerous to be a student in america than it is to be a police officer.

 

 @Pietro Jenkins  citing data from the national gun violence archives in 2020, 611 children were killed or injured in mass shootings. That same year a total of 45 police officers were killed in the line of duty by gunfire. Considering the amount of protection law enforcement officers have I’m not surprised by the disparity.
God forbid a public servant is confronted by the public about their lack of service.
He HAPPILY stopped what he was doing for a photo with the man, he’s only upset when he finds out the man isn’t a die hard fan
More effort was put into getting that guy away from Ted than Ted puts into anything to prevent mass shootings.
Poor Teddy had his lunch interrupted by a man with a question. What a terrible inconvenience he had to suffer. At least it wasn’t from a gunman, and they didn’t have to haul out 21 patrons afterwards, like another lunch a few days ago.
I hate how smug he looked with his bodyguards coming in. He gets off on the power he has and I hope it’s stripped from him.
Since when does someone get to put their hands on a person just talking. So Ted’s good with the second amendment but not the First?
The only time Republicans are lightning fast to fix a problem it’s when something is a mild inconvenience for them personally.
That wouldn’t have happened to Senator Cruz if the restaurant only had one secured locked door.
I love how politicians always have dinner parties with supporters for hours but never have 15 minutes to listen to a constituent that disagrees. Yes, this man bothered his dinner, but when else can voters that want him to represent their perspectives share their thoughts? And in a nutshell that is why America is fucked up and unrecoverable. Group think and echo chambers are all we have left.
I love how when someone uses their First Amendment right, the Republicans wanna run.
Clearly it’s never the time to have a conversation about this.
Take all of the police protection from politicians, reassign them to protect schools. Watch the politicians change laws to protect themselves.
I’m actually surprised Ted Cruz goes out in public.
Why not?! At least his secret service had enough balls to protect him from an unarmed constituent wanting answers; Unlike the Uvalde police who stood around while 19nchildren and two teachers were being gunned down just a short distance away!
1st of all, that guy should have asked Cruz why he was attending an NRA rally and not meeting with parents, family and friends of the murdered children. Next, the owner or at least the manager of that business should have intervened and told those thugs to take their hands off of him and request they and Cruz leave the resturant. Those thugs have no right to escourt anyone out of a public resturant
Why was he thrown out of the restaurant? By what authority did Ted Cruz’s security remove this man from a private premise? They seemed very quick to act as if they had authority to do just that. Is this a standard standing arrangement Ted has with all private premises? Just seems really weird to me.
The Second Amendment States …”A Well Regulated Militia..” No background checks is unregulated. They know this!
Love that the minority security was willing to let him keep talking until that other security came over to protect Cruz
Funny how he has security but regular people don’t get that privilege like the kids in school
Why did Cruz’ goons assault this guy when all he was doing was exercising his first amendment right which clearly says he has “the right to petition the government for redress of grievances”?
Why did Cruz’ goons assault this guy when all he was doing was exercising his first amendment right which clearly says he has “the right to petition the government for redress of grievances”?
He’s a punk trying to hide behind his secret service. What a coward
How many bodyguards does poor Ted need to protect him from his constituents?
I can’t believe Cruz even has the gall to show his face in public after what he has done, much less take his family to a public restaurant.
His job is to hear the concerns of his constituents and address them…. Why is he refusing to listen to this man’s pleas?

Rogan, The Right’s Masculinity Obsession and “Muscular Christianity”

What is muscular christianity and what does it have to do with Joe Rogan? We were joined by Derek Beres & Julian Walker of the Conspirituality podcast who are working on this very issue.

Christian nationalism has always been extremely obsessed with masculinity and extremely “muscular” for over two centuries. How prevalent it is in mainstream American culture ebbs and flows as times change, but especially during periods of crises (say a pandemic) it has historically tended to reemerge as a dominant political force. A lot of folks truly want to take us back to the Dark Ages.

Joe Rogan, in all of his 5’8” glory, is apparently the archetype of the kind of figure prized by this political and cultural movement. He professes self reliance, is already extremely wealthy, juices all the supplements all wrapped up in the American flag. If Flat Tummy Tea influencers are the people who attract women to these conservative cultish ideologies, Joe Rogan and folks who model themselves after him are the male equivalent. And while he used to have more left leaning guests on, lately under Covid-19 he’s made a hard and sad right turn.

Derek Beres is a fitness and yoga instructor and author based in Los Angeles. He is the Senior Editor at Eco & co-host of the Conspirituality podcast. Follow him on Twitter: https://twitter.com/derekberes

Julian Walker has been teaching yoga in and around LA since 1994 . He is co-host of the Conspirituality Podcast. Julian also writes extensively on the intersections of cults, trauma, new ageism and yoga. Follow him on Twitter: https://twitter.com/embodiedsacred

Recorded January 02nd, 2021

How to Spot a (Potential) Fascist

An introduction to The Authoritarian Personality study.

Timestamps:

0:00 Fascisticus Potentialicus
01:51 Introduction
05:07 Defining Fascism / Ur-Fascism
07:03 Antisemitism and Ethnocentrism
11:31 Fascism, Conservatism and Religion
16:09 The Authoritarian Personality
23:18 Conclusions

This month’s episode of What the Theory? is an introduction to the Authoritarian Personality study, carried out by T.W. Adorno (a key member of the “Frankfurt School” and central force in the development of Critical Theory), Else Frenkel-Brunswick, Daniel J. Levinson and R. Nevitt Sanford at the University of California, Berkeley in 1950.

Following the end of World War 2, these four psychologists were interested in finding out what had motivated so many supposedly ordinary citizens in Germany (and elsewhere in Europe) to participate in the awful designs of the fascist regimes that had taken hold there.

Eventually, they laid out what they called The Authoritarian Personality, a set of personality traits which they argued might make some people more susceptible to fascist ideology than others.

This is what they found out…

How to tell what the Republicans are going to do next.

Published: Nov 8, 2021

 

Question:

I’m a small-government conservative ..

How are you (a non-Republican) so good at consistently predicting what the Republicans will do next?

I’m a Republican and I can’t guess what they’re going to do next!

Could you please send me whatever method you use to make your predictions?

 

Scroll down to see video about 14 characteristics

Ur-Fascism

1 2 3 4

abc bcd cde def

Suppose there is a series of political groups in which group one is characterized by the features abc, group two by the features bcd, and so on. Group two is similar to group one since they have two features in common; for the same reasons three is similar to two and four is similar to three. Notice that three is also similar to one (they have in common the feature c). The most curious case is presented by four, obviously similar to three and two, but with no feature in common with one. However, owing to the uninterrupted series of decreasing similarities between one and four, there remains, by a sort of illusory transitivity, a family resemblance between four and one.

Fascism became an all-purpose term because one can eliminate from a fascist regime one or more features, and it will still be recognizable as fascist. Take away imperialism from fascism and you still have Franco and Salazar. Take away colonialism and you still have the Balkan fascism of the Ustashes. Add to the Italian fascism a radical anti-capitalism (which never much fascinated Mussolini) and you have Ezra Pound. Add a cult of Celtic mythology and the Grail mysticism (completely alien to official fascism) and you have one of the most respected fascist gurus, Julius Evola.

But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.

1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counter-revolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but it was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of them indulgently accepted by the Roman Pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages—in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little known religions of Asia.

This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, “the combination of different forms of belief or practice”; such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and whenever they seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all are alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.

As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.

One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements. The most influential theoretical source of the theories of the new Italian right, Julius Evola, merged the Holy Grail with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, alchemy with the Holy Roman and Germanic Empire. The very fact that the Italian right, in order to show its open-mindedness, recently broadened its syllabus to include works by De Maistre, Guenon, and Gramsci, is a blatant proof of syncretism.

If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled as New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge—that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.

2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. Both Fascists and Nazis worshiped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon Blood and Earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of course). The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement (“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” “universities are a nest of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

4. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.

6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.

7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the US, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson’s The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.

8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such a “final solution” implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.

10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler. Since the group is hierarchically organized (according to a military model), every subordinate leader despises his own underlings, and each of them despises his inferiors. This reinforces the sense of mass elitism.

11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Falangists was Viva la Muerte (in English it should be translated as “Long Live Death!”). In non-fascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.

12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons—doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.

13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view—one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.

Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. One of the first sentences uttered by Mussolini in the Italian parliament was “I could have transformed this deaf and gloomy place into a bivouac for my maniples”—“maniples” being a subdivision of the traditional Roman legion. As a matter of fact, he immediately found better housing for his maniples, but a little later he liquidated the parliament. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in 1984, as the official language of Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show.

On the morning of July 27, 1943, I was told that, according to radio reports, fascism had collapsed and Mussolini was under arrest. When my mother sent me out to buy the newspaper, I saw that the papers at the nearest newsstand had different titles. Moreover, after seeing the headlines, I realized that each newspaper said different things. I bought one of them, blindly, and read a message on the first page signed by five or six political parties—among them the Democrazia Cristiana, the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, the Partito d’Azione, and the Liberal Party.

Until then, I had believed that there was a single party in every country and that in Italy it was the Partito Nazionale Fascista. Now I was discovering that in my country several parties could exist at the same time. Since I was a clever boy, I immediately realized that so many parties could not have been born overnight, and they must have existed for some time as clandestine organizations.

The message on the front celebrated the end of the dictatorship and the return of freedom: freedom of speech, of press, of political association. These words, “freedom,” “dictatorship,” “liberty,”—I now read them for the first time in my life. I was reborn as a free Western man by virtue of these new words.

We must keep alert, so that the sense of these words will not be forgotten again. Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. It would be so much easier, for us, if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, “I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Black Shirts to parade again in the Italian squares.” Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances—every day, in every part of the world. Franklin Roosevelt’s words of November 4, 1938, are worth recalling: “I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land.” Freedom and liberation are an unending task.

Let me finish with a poem by Franco Fortini:

Sulla spalletta del ponte
Le teste degli impiccati
Nell’acqua della fonte
La bava degli impiccati.

Sul lastrico del mercato
Le unghie dei fucilati
Sull’erba secca del prato
I denti dei fucilati.

Mordere l’aria mordere i sassi
La nostra carne non è più d’uomini
Mordere l’aria mordere i sassi
Il nostro cuore non è più d’uomini.

Ma noi s’è letto negli occhi dei morti
E sulla terra faremo libertà
Ma l’hanno stretta i pugni dei morti
La giustizia che si farà.

 

* * *

(On the bridge’s parapet
The heads of the hanged
In the flowing rivulet
The spittle of the hanged.On the cobbles in the market- places
The fingernails of those lined up and shot
On the dry grass in the open spaces
The broken teeth of those lined up and shot.

Biting the air, biting the stones
Our flesh is no longer human
Biting the air, biting the stones
Our hearts are no longer human.

But we have read into the eyes of the dead
And shall bring freedom on the earth
But clenched tight in the fists of the dead
Lies the justice to be served.)
poem translated by Stephen Sartarelli