I first noticed them on a visit Stateside last summer, and had to ask some locals what they meant.
Saw them again recently, including blended variants with both red and blue combination lines…
I thought State-worship (by which I mean government-worship in general, especially federal, nothing to do with sub-national political entities called states per se) among the Toby-Keith-loving neo-con set was off the charts in the Dubya era.
But in the Trumpian era, it’s even worse…
An internet acquaintance told me that a commentator named ‘Mr. Regular’ said “line flags are gender-identity flags for the Establishment”; I can’t find that quote, but it’s brilliant, and so true…
But not just for the Establishment, but all who find their identity in the Establishment, who live vicariously through servicemen, police, firemen, etc.
Part of the idea comes from Steve Sailer discussing (in relation to mass immigration) how he was taught at business school the board of a corporation has a duty to *current* shareholders, not hypothetical new ones.
The thought strikes: this idea of Sailer’s, which I infer from the above comment refers to wide-open immigration enthusiasts being more interested in prospective future ‘shareholders’ (i.e. immigrants) rather than current ones, i.e. old-stock real Americans (and Canadians, up here), has even wider application:
Not only is this true of progs and the woke business class, but also the neo-con Republicans who betray the white Republican base in favour of hypothetical potential black and Hispanic voters (and thus, due to going after the latter desired new voter group, going along with progs / the woke business class in wanting wider immigration, ignoring that such clashes with the interests of the former desired new voter group), ignoring their loyal white voters. (Ditto with Canada’s political class, and the pro- wide-open immigration stance of our entire political establishment, across all Canada’s main parties, alas…)
Also, one sees a parallel in evangelicalism: always with the altar calls, and invitations to come to faith in sermons, thus milk for newcomers rather than meat for old believers; always trying to be seeker-sensitive, focused too much on creating converts while ignoring the needs of the loyal regular long-term members.
I guess America’s business culture impacts politics and faith, innit? (Both down there and up here in Canada, too, naturally, given our close cultural and business ties…)
Consume products / consumers / citizens then get excited for next products / consumers / citizens!
Conservative ads in Chinese that say the Liberals will legalize all hard-drugs. ‘Previously, Trudeau legalized marijuana, he now intends to legalize hard drugs! If you want to receive latest information in Chinese, please like our Facebook page.’
HANDOUT
The federal Conservative Party has been running Facebook ads on its Chinese-language page falsely accusing the Liberal Party of planning to legalize hard drugs, rhetoric the Conservatives have pushed aggressively in Chinese but have made little reference to in English.
The page has run a total of six ads, according to Facebook’s advertising transparency library. Of those, two are still active. One ad says, “Previously, Trudeau legalized marijuana, he now intends to legalize hard drugs!” Another ad, similarly saying the Liberal Party intends to legalize “hard drugs,” was also purchased in October but was taken down by Facebook for violating the platform’s advertising policies. That ad depicts a hand using a razor blade to divide a white, powdery substance sitting on a mirrored surface.
The Liberal Party denies planning to legalize hard drugs if re-elected and calls such ads “disinformation.”
“This is yet another example of Conservatives copying the American right-wing playbook, spreading false information to scare and mislead voters,” Liberal Party spokesperson Joe Pickerill wrote in an e-mail.
Mr. Trudeau has said on the campaign trail that his government is not considering decriminalizing any currently illicit drugs.
The Conservatives, however, are not backing away from the ads’ content. In a statement in English earlier this week, the Conservatives referred to “Trudeau’s not-so-hidden agenda: Legalizing hard drugs.”
Besides the ads, the Chinese Facebook page has also featured videos with the same accusation. Two videos were posted on Thursday – one with a narrator speaking in Mandarin and the other in Cantonese. Over a backdrop of debate footage, a voice warns, “In the French-language debate, Mr. Trudeau was asked whether he would legalize hard drugs, and he replied ‘not right now.’ Doesn’t such statement admit that Trudeau’s Liberal Party is planning to legalize hard drugs?”
Conservative spokesman Simon Jefferies said Mr. Trudeau keeps saying he has no plans to legalize hard drugs like heroin, crystal meth, and crack cocaine “right now.”
“If Justin Trudeau tells us precisely when he is going to legalize dangerous drugs, we will amend our ads to reflect the new information.”
The Tory press release mentioned in the Globe article is here.
There is a difference between not ruling out doing something and planning to do it.
I have no doubt that if Justin Trudeau thought it would be popular, he’d consider doing it.
However, I’m reasonably certain that his handlers are smart enough, even if he isn’t, that they know Canadians aren’t interested.
What the Conservatives are doing even in English, conflating ‘refusing to rule out’ with ‘planning to do’, is bad enough, but they don’t even bother qualifying their remarks in the Chinese language Facebook print ads, and they spin it in the Chinese language Facebook video ad with that ‘Doesn’t such a statement admit that…’ accusation.
A commenter on the original Globe page repeated the accusation that the Tories under Harper did this in South Asian community newspapers; I seem to recall the usual plausible deniability spins, ‘an outside agency did this without our knowledge’, etc.
This time, though, no such claims of being misquoted.
I hope Max Bernier makes hay of this. This is to what multiculturalism policy and unlimited immigration / third-country ‘refugee’ acceptance leads.
As much as the Liberals deserve to lose, the Tories don’t deserve to win.
Most national voting-preference polls still show a virtual tie between the Liberals and Conservatives. Even after last week’s bombshell photos and videos of Trudeau in dark makeup on three separate occasions, both main parties remain in the low 30s. The Conservatives have not pulled ahead, the Liberals have not fallen behind.
It may be less likely now that the Libs win a majority. Yet a Liberal minority still seems the most likely outcome on Oct. 21.
As much as I am skeptical about polls, seeing them as all too often in the business of manufacturing consent, and putting their thumbs on the scales, so to speak, nevertheless I find this entirely believable.
You have to offer a true alternative to change people’s minds; if you’re seen as no different, nobody will change their minds.
And Scheer has spent his entire Tory leadership failing to distinguish himself and his party and its policies / platform in any meaningful way from that of Trudeau and the Grits.
/arc-anglerfish-tgam-prod-tgam.s3.amazonaws.com/public/KP7TRABENZCV5L27TR5NKN7IEA.png)
