Category Archives: Politics

The “War on Terrorism” Comes Home

Posted on by
Reply

Last week’s massive social media purges – starting with President Trump’s permanent ban from Twitter and other outlets – was shocking and chilling, particularly to those of us who value free expression and the free exchange of ideas. The justifications given for the silencing of wide swaths of public opinion made no sense and the process was anything but transparent. Nowhere in President Trump’s two “offending” Tweets, for example, was a call for violence expressed explicitly or implicitly. It was a classic example of sentence first, verdict later.

Many Americans viewed this assault on social media accounts as a liberal or Democrat attack on conservatives and Republicans, but they are missing the point. The narrowing of allowable opinion in the virtual public square is no conspiracy against conservatives. As progressives like Glenn Greenwald have pointed out, this is a wider assault on any opinion that veers from the acceptable parameters of the mainstream elite, which is made up of both Democrats and Republicans.

Yes, this is partly an attempt to erase the Trump movement from the pages of history, but it is also an attempt to silence any criticism of the emerging political consensus in the coming Biden era that may come from progressive or antiwar circles.

After all, a look at Biden’s incoming “experts” shows that they will be the same failed neoconservative interventionists who gave us weekly kill lists, endless drone attacks and coups overseas, and even US government killing of American citizens abroad. Progressives who complain about this “back to the future” foreign policy are also sure to find their voices silenced.

Those who continue to argue that the social media companies are purely private ventures acting independent of US government interests are ignoring reality. The corporatist merger of “private” US social media companies with US government foreign policy goals has a long history and is deeply steeped in the hyper-interventionism of the Obama/Biden era.

“Big Tech” long ago partnered with the Obama/Biden/Clinton State Department to lend their tools to US “soft power” goals overseas. Whether it was ongoing regime change attempts against Iran, the 2009 coup in Honduras, the disastrous US-led coup in Ukraine, “Arab Spring,” the destruction of Syria and Libya, and so many more, the big US tech firms were happy to partner up with the State Department and US intelligence to provide the tools to empower those the US wanted to seize power and to silence those out of favor.

In short, US government elites have been partnering with “Big Tech” overseas for years to decide who has the right to speak and who must be silenced. What has changed now is that this deployment of “soft power” in the service of Washington’s hard power has come home to roost.

So what is to be done? Even pro-free speech alternative social media outlets are under attack from the Big Tech/government Leviathan. There are no easy solutions. But we must think back to the dissidents in the era of Soviet tyranny. They had no Internet. They had no social media. They had no ability to communicate with thousands and millions of like-minded, freedom lovers. Yet they used incredible creativity in the face of incredible adversity to continue pushing their ideas. Because no army – not even Big Tech partnered with Big Government – can stop an idea whose time has come. And Liberty is that idea. We must move forward with creativity and confidence!

Ron Paul

The Wisdom of Ayn Rand on Statism

Posted on by
Reply

The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.

A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.

Nothing can ever justify so monstrously evil a theory. Nothing can justify the horror, the brutality, the plunder, the destruction, the starvation, the slave-labor camps, the torture chambers, the wholesale slaughter of statist dictatorships.

Government control of a country’s economy—any kind or degree of such control, by any group, for any purpose whatsoever—rests on the basic principle of statism, the principle that man’s life belongs to the state.

A statist is a man who believes that some men have the right to force, coerce, enslave, rob, and murder others. To be put into practice, this belief has to be implemented by the political doctrine that the government—the state—has the right to initiate the use of physical force against its citizens. How often force is to be used, against whom, to what extent, for what purpose and for whose benefit, are irrelevant questions. The basic principle and the ultimate results of all statist doctrines are the same: dictatorship and destruction. The rest is only a matter of time.

he ideological root of statism (or collectivism) is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases to whatever it deems to be its own “good.” Unable to conceive of any social principles, save the rule of brute force, they believed that the tribe’s wishes are limited only by its physical power and that other tribes are its natural prey, to be conquered, looted, enslaved, or annihilated. The history of all primitive peoples is a succession of tribal wars and intertribal slaughter. That this savage ideology now rules nations armed with nuclear weapons, should give pause to anyone concerned with mankind’s survival.

Statism is a system of institutionalized violence and perpetual civil war. It leaves men no choice but to fight to seize political power—to rob or be robbed, to kill or be killed. When brute force is the only criterion of social conduct, and unresisting surrender to destruction is the only alternative, even the lowest of men, even an animal—even a cornered rat—will fight. There can be no peace within an enslaved nation.

To be continued–A/D

The Great Socialist Mirage

Posted on by
Reply

As resurgent Democrats move to consolidate their hold over the national political apparatus – presidency, Senate, House – assisted by the corporate media and Big Tech, could their reputed, new-found socialism offer any kind of guide to the future? Could an American socialism, historically-marginalized up to the present, finally end up as a genuine possibility? Might the seemingly invulnerable capitalist behemoth be thrown into a state of siege by the likes of Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and their “progressive” squad, all ready for action after four excruciating years of the Orange Menace? Could the events of January sixth serve to heighten such prospects?

We know that something resembling a socialist fantasy has been circulating within leading Democratic circles for the past few years, accelerated by the arrival of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and other squad members, including Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Presley, and Cori Bush – three of whom (AOC, Tlaib, Bush) belong to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). With the 2016 ascent of Donald Trump to the White House, traditionally problematic references to a politics associated with Marx, Lenin, and Stalin in American political culture seem to have softened, no longer taboo. Nowadays “socialism” has reportedly become fashionable among cool millennials, though its definition remains elusive. A June 2020 Harris poll showed that 55 percent of women aged 18 to 54 would prefer socialism over capitalism, while a surprising four in ten Americans say they would be happy living under socialism.

Since 2015 the ranks of DSA have swollen rapidly (reaching 86,000 in December), mostly owing to the influence of Senator Bernie Sanders, who has always identified as a “democratic socialist” – that is, a leftist far removed from the nightmare of Soviet totalitarianism. We are not talking here about the dictatorial systems of the USSR or North Korea, or even the more recent social chaos of Venezuela. In fact a number of familiar Democratic proposals – Green New Deal, Medicare-for-all, free public higher education – could be integrated into Sanders’ reformist agenda, and that would require no overturning of the modern corporate oligarchy.

Elected in 2018 as a “democratic socialist”, AOC points out that “when millennials talk about concepts like socialism, we’re not talking about these kinds of ‘Red Scare’ bogeymen. We’re talking about countries and systems that presently exist that have already proven to be successful in the modern world. We’re talking about single-payer health care that has already been successful . . . from Finland to Canada to the U.K.” That model, of course, should not be confused with Stalinism — though some FOX commentators do just that. When viewed in Scandinavian terms, 76 percent of Democrats say they would vote for a socialist candidate (presumably with Sanders and AOC in mind), according to a recent Gallup survey.

Senator Ed Markey, co-author of the Green New Deal, appears scarcely bothered by the “socialist” label. Thus: “What I say is: give us some of that socialism for wind, and solar, and all-electric vehicles, and plug-in hybrids and storage-battery technology. And we will be looking at the fossil-fuel industry in the rear-view mirror of history.” Markey, it should be noted, has never been identified as any kind of socialist politician.

Conservatives, for their part, relish framing Democrats as fire-breathing socialists ready to carry out an American-style Bolshevik revolution. The Finnish and Danish models are, for them, largely irrelevant, part of an entirely different universe. Trump, many vocal Republicans, and some FOX pundits routinely claim Democrats want to take the country along the path of socialist (or Communist) catastrophe. Referring to the November election, Trump stated: “Despite all our greatness as a nation, everything we have achieved is now endangered. This election will decide whether we save the American Dream, or whether we allow a socialist agenda to demolish our cherished destiny.” Could the Democrats as we have come to know them, however filled with hateful self-righteousness, possibly manage to pull off something than no movement or party has ever pulled off in an advanced capitalist society?

At the Republican National Convention this past summer, Vice President Mike Pence said that “Joe Biden would set America on a path of socialism and decline.” Really, Biden – that most establishment and boring of pols? Others followed the same worn script. RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel announced that “Democrats have chosen to go down the road of socialism”, Lara Trump adding, ominously: “This is not just a choice between Republican and Democrat or left and right – this is an election that will decide if we keep America as itself, America, or if we head down an uncharted, frightening path towards socialism.” Now that Dems have accrued such oversized power, might the ostensible blessings of socialism be on the horizon? Could Biden and the squad improbably wind up the bearers of a new society? If so, I would argue, the guiding theorist will likely turn out to be George Orwell, not Karl Marx.

Judging from roughly a century of European history, ambitious reforms of the sort entertained by many Dems could in fact be adopted without even moderately altering the deeply-entrenched class and power relations of modern capitalism – even assuming party elites are seriously committed to such reforms. At best the outcome would be social democracy now familiar to several European countries – Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Holland, France, etc. From all indications, Sanders would be perfectly happy with that outcome.

A more conservative elite in the U.S. has long resisted this trajectory, a form of expanded social Keynesianism, opting instead for a more emphatically military Keynesianism. Historical socialism, on the other hand, has always meant opposition to capitalism as a system of economic and political power, replacing corporate interests (or “the market”) with public ownership; the main centers of power (transnational corporations, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, military-industrial complex, etc.) would accordingly be overturned. Alas, none of the Dems, including Sanders and AOC, envision a future beyond these centers of power; the best they could offer is reformed capitalism, that is, garden-variety social democracy.

At present the “leftist” (or DSA) strategy is to eventually transform the Democratic party in to something more radical by means of electoral politics, a rather naïve belief considering how wedded to the power structure the Dems have become. The DSA program, according to official statements, looks toward a “humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.” Whatever one thinks of this schema, it lacks the concreteness needed for a viable socialist politics. Put differently, it would easily coexist with requirements for maximizing elite wealth and power.

Problems loom. One of those goes to the heart of the matter: just how far can the Dems, fully aligned with every pillar of the American power structure, be pushed significantly leftward? Deep corporate attachments and dependencies will not be seamlessly pushed aside to satisfy a “more humane social order”, no matter how many enlightened videos are produced by AOC and her comrades of the recently re-labeled #fraudsquad. Decades of experience tells us that electoral activity inevitably dictates moderation, “centrism”. Meanwhile, the continued existence of a massive military-industrial complex – never questioned by any of these Dems — is by itself enough to turn hopes for socialism in to a distant mirage.

In the end there is nothing very progressive, much less socialist, about American Dems in their current incarnation, since we are dealing with a party that ritually gravitates toward oligarchy, authoritarianism, militarism, and, nowadays, intensified social and ideological controls. As the new 117th House was being seated in Washington, the warmonger Pelosi was re-elected speaker, her margin of victory furnished by AOC and other squad members. Pelosi and allies Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, and Eric Swalwell were driving forces behind the Russiagate scheme, the Mueller probe, and impeachment, while taking the U.S. closer to outright confrontation with a nuclear-armed state. With Schumer and Rep. Jim Clyburn, she worked tirelessly to destroy Sanders’ presidential bid. It was Pelosi, moreover, who orchestrated the CARES Act bailout, facilitating the largest upward transfer of wealth in U.S. history – a scandal later matched by the largely Democratic COVID-justified lockdowns.

The sad truth is that American Democrats now veer closer to fascism than to socialism, whatever their ideological pretenses. The power structure, embedded in many trillions of dollars in material resources and monetary wealth, will never be challenged by such bankrupt poseurs. Beneath all their talk of diversity and multiculturalism, all their wokeness, Dem elites are more than anything hellbent on single-party domination, at which point even mild deviations from establishment political norms will be verboten, indeed criminalized. Dissent will no longer be tolerated.

As the corrupt and easily-manipulated Biden enters the White House, the great COVID disaster offers further pretext for heightened authoritarianism and repression, surrounded as he is by a group of lockdown and hyper-partisan fanatics. The January 6th events will provide additional pretext, where needed. As for “democratic socialism”, its Orwellian character should be laid bare for everyone but the pundits at CNN, the New York Times, and Washington Post to fully grasp.

Carl Boggs, UNZ Review

Leftist Dictators: Turning Our OWN Constitution Against Us

Posted on by
Reply

We have an ILLEGITIMATE government claiming to rest on a LEGITIMATE Constitution. That’s the very thing nearly everyone now evades. It’s so EASY to say, “Oh, those bad guys who stormed the Capitol.” But it’s a lot harder to say, “Well, whether I agree with that tactic or not — our government is no longer legitimate.” We have a “President” and now a “Democratic Senate” elevated to high office based on counterfeit votes, attained with the excuse of coronavirus. In the coming weeks and months, they will preside over an unaccountable dictatorship, violate the spirit and letter of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights while hiding behind that very Constitution for legitimacy. As Democrats-turned-fascists will discover, a grotesque and morally inverted contradiction on that scale simply won’t stand. Not even the eradication of Facebook and Twitter accounts can make facts of injustice disappear.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Terrifying Times Lie Ahead

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been ranting for years about the perfidy of the left. At times I’ve been accused of exaggerating. On rare occasions I feared – or hoped? – that perhaps I was exaggerating. In fact I can now see that these people are worse than I ever imagined. Worse than most of us ever imagined.

Worse, even, than Donald Trump, with all his insight, imagined.

He went into office determined to clean up the swamp. He was tireless. But not tireless enough. No mere mortal could have been tireless enough. Trump had denounced the swamp in apocalyptic terms, but it proved to be even deeper and more extensive than he knew. It reached into the upper echelons of the intelligence community and the military, into cabinet departments and the judiciary.

Not only did the Democrats try to derail his campaign and then his presidency. Even people whom he appointed to White House jobs proved unreliable. Far from being too suspicious, he’d been too trusting. He’d appointed two-faced D.C. insiders. He’d trusted people who turned out to be snakes in the grass.

The news media, with very few exceptions, made it their task to thwart his progress and poison his name with a constant flow of disinformation. They said Trump had told people to drink bleach. They said he’d called neo-Nazis “good people.” They said many other outrageous things that they knew were outright lies. They relentlessly repeated the charge that he did nothing but lie, lie, lie, when in fact it was they, the media, who were constantly feeding us lies.

Trump thought he could rely on Fox News to report on his presidency with at least a degree of fairness. But no. They hired Donna Brazile, for heaven’s sake.

When enemies of Trump, and of freedom, created violence and mayhem in cities around the country, they were whitewashed, protected, and even praised by the media, by Democratic politicians, and by police officials. In a debate with Trump, Biden said Antifa was an idea, not an organization. Congressman Jerrold Nadler called it a myth.

Meanwhile Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey gave BLM $3 million. While the leftist gangsters went unpunished, citizens who tried to protect their homes and businesses from destruction by them were arrested by the police and demonized in the media. If you tried to spread the truth about all this on social media, you were shut down by Silicon Valley bosses who said you were lying.

And then the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. Republican officials in the states affected by the steal sat on their hands. State legislatures, ditto. Even the justices he’d named to the Supreme Court refused to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, absurdly maintaining that a state didn’t have standing to challenge the conduct of a presidential election in another state.

Trump’s supporters, ever civilized, waited patiently while every possible means of stopping the steal was dutifully exhausted. When it came down to the final vote certification in Congress, an army of MAGA folk gathered peacefully in Washington to show that they had Trump’s back.

Then a tiny percentage of them foolishly entered the Capitol building. And a tiny percentage of that tiny percentage – at least some of whom seem to have been Antifa goons – caused minor damage. Most of them appear to have milled harmlessly around the building, leaving paintings and statues untouched. The contrast with the conduct of Antifa and BLM insurgents during the previous year could hardly have been more striking.

In the 1970s, sit-ins in government buildings were a staple of protests by young leftists, many of them armed. Today’s left now celebrates many of the participants in those sit-ins as heroes. But nobody is cheering the people who walked into the Capitol.

One of those people, an Air Force veteran named Ashli Babbitt, was shot dead by a Capitol Hill policeman. She didn’t do anything to provoke the shooter. It was impossible not to think of George Floyd, the career criminal who, on May 25 of last year, died while resisting arrest after committing a crime. Floyd was black; the arresting officer was white. In the ensuing months, Floyd’s death was used to justify rioting, arson, and vandalism by Antifa and BLM agitators, none of whom ended up being killed by a cop.

But nobody’s making a martyr out of Ashli Babbitt.

I’m not saying anybody should. I’m just saying that after four years of reportage that routinely demonized Trump, sugarcoated his opponents, and cruelly mocked his supporters, and after an election that was blatantly stolen yet described in the media as eminently fair, those supporters could hardly be expected not to explode – especially since they’d seen, during the previous few months, one leftist explosion after another rewarded with praise.

On January 6, Biden, oozing faux solemnity, addressed the ongoing situation on Capitol Hill. After months of referring to Antifa and BLM thugs as “protesters,” he called the non-violent people who’d entered the Capitol a “mob” of “domestic terrorists” who, in an action bordering on “sedition,” had made an “unprecedented assault…on the citadel of liberty….This is not dissent, it’s disorder.”

He wasn’t alone. In one voice, people who’d spent months cheering leftist violence expressed horror at the breach of the Capitol building and blamed it on Trump. Once the Capitol was secured, the planned challenges to the vote steal were scuttled and the election of Biden and Harris duly certified.

Whereupon the left – and not just the left – moved with the swiftness of lightning.

Accusing Trump of having incited the Capitol breach, Pelosi and Schumer raised the possibility of using the 25th Amendment to deny him his last few days in office; this weekend Pelosi indicated that she would introduce a proposal today to impeach the president for a second time, and as of Saturday night articles of impeachment drafted by Rep. Ted Lieu, David Cicilline, and Jamie Raskin had 180 cosponsors.

Republicans who were never strong Trump supporters to begin with were quick to profess outrage at Trump’s purported provocation. Cabinet members Elaine Choi and Betsy DeVos quit. The Wall Street Journal called on Trump to resign. Senator Pat Toomey gave a thumbs-up to impeachment. Forbes warned companies not to hire anybody with a Trump connection.

Both Twitter and Facebook deplatformed Trump, and when he shifted from his personal Twitter account to the POTUS account, Twitter silenced that one, too. Other enemies of the left were also kicked off social media – among them Sidney Powell, Michael Flynn, and Steve Bannon. Facebook ejected the WalkAway movement, in the process deleting countless heartfelt posts by ordinary citizens explaining why they’d quit the Democratic Party. YouTube took down a video by Rudy Giuliani. Amazon, Google, and Apple removed Parler, a “free-speech” alternative to Twitter and Facebook, from their app stores. The CEO of Mozilla, developer of the Firefox browser, wrote an essay entitled “We Need More than Deplatforming.”

(Yet the social-media accounts of the Chinese Communist Party and Ayatollah Khamenei remained untouched.)

Pelosi tried to get the military to stop taking orders from the President. Rob Reiner, Bette Midler, John Cusack, and other celebs posted calls for Trump’s arrest, as did MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough. The director of ABC News spoke of “cleansing” the Trump movement after January 20, whatever that might mean. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, who’d taken the lead in challenging the vote steal, to be expelled from the Senate. Simon & Schuster canceled Hawley’s contract for a book about cancel culture. Biden likened Cruz to Goebbels.

For his part, Trump announced that he’d cooperate fully with the transition to a Biden presidency but that he wouldn’t be attending the inauguration – the first outgoing president since Andrew Johnson to skip the ceremony symbolizing the orderly transfer of executive authority. But how could he possibly do otherwise?

As all this happened, I tried to figure out what it reminded me of. It took two days to come up with the answer. It was the 1960 movie Spartacus. After his army has crushed the slave rebellion, Crassus (Laurence Olivier) promptly initiates the ruthless transformation of the Roman Republic into an empire, telling the republican senator Gracchus (Charles Laughton):

As the slaves died, so will your rabble if they falter one instant in loyalty to the new order of affairs. The enemies of the state are known. Arrests are in progress; the prisons begin to fill. In every city and province lists of the disloyal have been compiled. Tomorrow they will learn the cost of their terrible folly, their treason.

When Gracchus, the leader and hero of Rome’s deplorables, asks where his own name stands on Crassus’s list, Crassus shoves it in his face and shouts: “First!”

Yes, the author of the novel Spartacus, Howard Fast, was a Communist. So was Dalton Trumbo, who wrote the script. In Trumbo’s mind, Crassus’s list may well have been, at least in part, a reference to the Hollywood Blacklist, which had caused a brief hiccup in his own otherwise spectacular career. But for millions who saw the film, the idea of listing, arresting, and imprisoning “enemies of the state” would surely have brought to mind, above all else, the terrible reign of Stalin, who had died seven years earlier. Today it also recalls the brutal tyranny of Mao.

There’s no intrinsic magic about America that protects it from becoming Mao’s China or Stalin’s Russia. Only utopians believe in the perfectibility of man. People are people. And some of the people who are now, or are about to be, in power in the United States would, if accorded enough power, do far more to those of us who falter in loyalty than merely take away our social-media accounts.

Indeed, as scary as the situation may be right now, one thing’s for certain: worse is on its way. The Democrats now control both houses of Congress and are about to be handed the executive branch. The totalitarian-minded elements in that party are on the ascent, backed up by Silicon Valley, the legacy media, and much of corporate America. And they’re about to party like it’s 1793. In Paris.

The sky’s the limit. And therein lies our hope, long-term though it may well be. Without doubt, these people will overreach. Their lists will grow so long, their cancelations so widespread, that, as happened with the Reign of Terror, everyone who isn’t clinically insane will finally realize that things have gone too far and will, in one way or another, put an end to the madness.

But how far will things have to go before that happens? How long will it take? And how many lives will be destroyed before it’s over? These, alas, are the all too sobering questions that have yet to be answered. In the meantime, those of us who care about liberty will simply have to do our best to keep enduring the daily tsunami of evil ideology, fake news, and contempt for decent people, and to continue hoping that the true and good will yet prevail.

Bruce Bawer, Frontpagemagazine

The Wisdom of Ayn Rand on Capitalism

Posted on by
Reply

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

Capitalism demands the best of every man—his rationality—and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him. His success depends on the objective value of his work and on the rationality of those who recognize that value. When men are free to trade, with reason and reality as their only arbiter, when no man may use physical force to extort the consent of another, it is the best product and the best judgment that win in every field of human endeavor, and raise the standard of living—and of thought—ever higher for all those who take part in mankind’s productive activity.

The flood of misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion, and outright falsehood about capitalism is such that the young people of today have no idea (and virtually no way of discovering any idea) of its actual nature. While archeologists are rummaging through the ruins of millennia for scraps of pottery and bits of bones, from which to reconstruct some information about prehistorical existence—the events of less than a century ago are hidden under a mound more impenetrable than the geological debris of winds, floods, and earthquakes: a mound of silence.


Trump vs. The Establishment

Posted on by
Reply

The Biden Election Thief is not yet inaugurated, but the Democrat and Republican establishment has already closed ranks against President Trump and the American people.

The House and Senate, backed up by neoliberal Junk Economists Larry Summers and Paul Krugman and billionaire owned presstitute media, blocked President Trump’s effort to boost the Covid relief package from $600 per American to $2,000. The Democrat/Republican Establishment wanted the money for defense contractors instead.

The Lie Factory, a.k.a. New York Times, pretended that the issue was the popularity of giving a 3% pay hike to soldiers instead, but the real issue was about reestablishing the US budget as a piggy bank for the rich.

$2,000 would have kept Americans, left without income from the Democrats’ lockdowns, in their homes for another month by paying the mortgage or the rent. $600 might pay down their credit card debt enough to be able to use their cards one more time. As America’s leading economist, and some would say only economist, Michael Hudson, has emphasized, the only way the American economy can be put back on its feet is through debt forgiveness. This is too radical of an idea for a country in which all explanations are controlled in order to serve the Establishment.

I have said from the beginning that Trump stood for the people against the Establishment, and that every dumbshit complaining about Trump was strengthening the Establishment’s hold on the American people.

Success in the House and Senate comes from serving powerful interest groups, not from serving the people. This is why most Republicans in Congress are content for the election to be stolen. It gets Trump out of the way of the Establishment’s agenda.

The Establishment uses its presstitutes to keep the public brainwashed and befuddled. But such an obvious and blatant theft of a presidential election as we have witnessed might have awoken the insouciant American public. If not, perhaps Nancy Pelosi’s pandering to a handful of woke idiots and “transgendered” freaks will.

House Democrats are leading the charge to take our language away from us. We are not to be permitted to use traditional gender words. Instead we have to pretend that there are many genders and so many of these many genders that males and females must no longer be allowed to suppress and offend by the use of gender male/female words. https://www.theepochtimes.com/proposed-house-rules-seek-to-erase-gendered-terms-such-as-father-mother-son-daughter_3640653.html

The Democrats in the US House of Representatives are leading the way by establishing a “gender neutral” “rules package.” “Gender neutral,” of course, isn’t neutral. It discriminates against the traditional use of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, grandmothers, grandfathers, sons, daughters, and prevents us from knowing or identifying the gender of those of whom we speak. The Democrats’ new terms are: “parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, sibling’s child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepsibling, half-sibling.” So, are you speaking of brother or sister, mom or dad, grandpa or grandma? The new Democrat language doesn’t let you know. The dumbshit Democrats think that putting us in the dark makes us more inclusive.

Did you know that there are binary and nonbinary people? Do you know what these people are? Why is Pelosi restructuring the English language in the interest of people we have never even heard of, much less experienced? Who does Pelosi represent? Why does she not represent us? America has a Speaker of the House who represents who? Nonbinary people. What has that got to do with us?

A seaman becomes a non-word. A chairman becomes an inanimate object, “chair.”

Not knowing who is who or whether we are addressing a person or an inanimate object, say the Democrats, makes us more inclusive. If Republicans vote for this, we have more than one political party that needs extermination.

We can joke about having to introduce one’s danghter-in-law as one’s sibling-in-law, and a son or daughter as a “sibling,” and one’s half brother as a half sibling. But this destruction of language and meaning is being done in the name of a tiny minority who assert that being a minority gives them rights over the majority. Somehow it is the imposed on majority who are oppressive, not the tiny minority of freaks that are oppressing the majority by taking away their language. In a democratic society, why are Democrats representing a tiny minority against the majority?

Congress’ answer is: “That’s what we do.” Congress represents the military/security complex, pharmaceuticals, agri-business, Wall Street and the Big Banks, “preferred minorities,” the Israel Lobby, digital communication monopolies, and other interest groups rather than the interest of the American people in whose name Congress speaks. It is difficult to get any moral standing out of representing these money-grubbing interest groups, so Congress gains moral authority by representing nonbinary people and shemales. Why does representing sexual freaks convey moral authority?

So. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat House tells us that the House represents nonbinary people—people who are neither male nor female. Who then represents the vast majority who are male and female?

Why do dumbshit Americans vote for Democrats and Republicans who do not represent them?

Do these dumbshit Americans expect to survive?

Where are the leaders for these dumbshit Americans? They are going to have to fight for their lives. How are they going to do that without leaders?

Paul Craig Roberts, UNZ Review

America’s Worst Days Seem to Have Arrived. What Do We Do ?

Posted on by
Reply

We will soon live in an America where our government, our “news” media and the technology that millions of Americans rely on to communicate will be under the control of a single political party and viewpoint: The Left.

The people on the Left, from Nancy Pelosi to Jack Dorsey, hold us in contempt. Many of them literally hate us. The hate our nation. Many of them would be more than happy to throw the Constitution into a trash can. We have very little, if anything, in common with these people. They have been attacking the President of the United States non-stop since 2016. They conspired to steal the 2020 election from the American voter. We know they did this. But they control the media and the technology, hence they control the narrative that influences those Americans who don’t pay to the details of what is happening.

I don’t want to live in a nation that is effectively ruled by one political party and by a powerful, unelected technology oligarchy. It’s bad enough already that I live in state where I don’t have representation by my state senators or governor.

What are we supposed to do? There is no reason to believe that Joe Biden will make a sincere effort to unite us as Americans. Even if he did he would be overruled by the more extreme leftists such as Kalama Harris, AOC, Ilhan Omar, Hirono, Obama, etc.

Do we form a new political party? Do we attempt to create a red-state union so we can have some measure of independence from the DC swamp? Armed rebellion? Writing letters to our representatives seems pointless.

I don’t want violence but we’ve been pushed into that direction by the Left for some time now. There’s over 70 million of us. We need to unite and figure out something and we need to do it soon.

The Sickness Represented by Leftist Mask Obedience

Posted on by
1

Leftists LOVE wearing masks. They insist they’re doing it for others–not for themselves. But that’s absurd. If masks really help, they’re available to all who wish to protect themselves. All leftists become hostile (even violent) when they see someone not wearing a mask. “I’m protecting you. So you should protect me back.” But the very idea of a mask is SELF-preservation. The leftist is not smart enough to grasp this obvious fact. And the leftist isn’t honest enough to admit that his real motive for mask-wearing is SHOWING OFF. “Look at me. I have virtue.” Leftists wish to be seen as self-sacrificers, because they think self-sacrifice is the epitome of virtue. It’s all so SICK.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Rules for Revolutionaries in the 21st Century

Posted on by
Reply

Since George Floyd’s death, events seem to be spiraling out of control. For weeks, Americans were bombarded, almost on a daily basis, with reports of large protests in major cities, accompanied by rioting, looting, burning, assaults, and even murders.

Observing these events unfold, average U.S. citizens, watching TV from the purported safety of their home, might be bewildered by these transformative events, the purpose of which is nothing less than a “re-imagining” of America. To better understand exactly what is happening, let’s take a cue from my 21st Century Revolutionary Handbook. There are ten rules to explain what the radical left is planning.

#1: Inertia is fatal to a revolutionary movement.

The overtures of the late 60s movement are eerily similar to what is happening today. The problem for leftists was that, back then, the revolution centered around the anti-Vietnam War Movement. Once peace came, the revolution’s impetus died out. The 2008 Occupy Wall St Movement had the zeal, but cold winter months in New York were not conducive to this type of protest.

The lesson: choose your cause carefully. Today’s cause célèbre is “systemic racism” and its offshoots. Racism can be recycled perpetually. Recently, for example, the Mayor of Louisville, Kentucky, declared racism to be a public health crisis.

#2: Do not identify your ideology by name, nor state exactly what you will do after you are in power. Speak only in vague generalities and use simple two- or three-word phrases the public can identify with.

Terms such as “Socialist,” “Communist” or “Marxist” generally have a negative connotation and, while millennials like them, the population at large does not. Do not look to antagonize ordinary Americans more than is necessary. The revolution will need its army of “useful idiots” for the future.

Instead, use terms such as “progressive” or “social justice warrior” to describe yourself. These are far less threatening to the average American. Fidel Castro initially identified himself as a “humanist.” Only after he felt secure in his new position did he announce to the world: “I am a Marxist Leninist.”

#3: The revolution must get control over mass media and the education system.

Truth is defined by whatever the revolution says it is, and anyone who dares speak out is immediately silenced. Only information advancing the revolutionary cause may be heard and taught. Once the revolution gains control over mass media, it controls all the information that is disseminated, and once the revolution gains control over the education system, it controls the future.

#4: All the apparatus of the state: the ministries, civil service, justice system, military, and law enforcement must be brought under control.

This rule is simple. Whatever the revolution cannot control could eventually be used against it. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all dealt with the problem of possible anti-revolutionary activists through purges aimed at crushing all potential opposition, which extended even to family members. Stalin allegedly remarked that it was fine if innocents were punished along with the guilty, because “that sends an even stronger message.”

#5: All vestiges of the old must be destroyed in order to build the new. This includes all history, traditions, culture, and iconography that cannot be made to conform to the new ideals.

“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, 1984

In the late 1950s, Mao unleashed the cultural revolution on China. It repudiated what Mao called the “four olds”: old ideas, customs, habits, and culture. Estimates vary as to the number of people killed but it was most certainly in the millions. Coming as it did after the disastrous policies of the “Great Leap Forward,” China was left an economic and cultural wasteland.

#6: Conventional ideas about religion and family are anathema to a revolutionary movement.

Absolute loyalty to the revolution must come first; this extends to one’s family. Children are encouraged to inform on their parents if they hear anything that can be interpreted as “counter-revolutionary. Organized religion must also go. The revolution cannot have loyalty to God supersede loyalty to the state.

#7: The revolution can only succeed in times of extreme economic, political, and social unrest.

This is an important point. A generally content, gainfully employed, and prosperous populace is not likely to support a revolutionary movement aimed at overthrowing the government, party, or individual that has provided these benefits. For the revolution to be successful, the population must be brought low and kept in a state of abject misery. Years ago, former White House Chief of Staff and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel stated: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Activist/actress Jane Fonda brought this up when she noted: “COVID is God’s gift to the left.”

#8: Ultimate victory in the revolution will go to that segment of the revolutionary body that is the best organized, best financed, and most ideologically dedicated.

A revolutionary movement can be composed of many divergent groups, each of which has a peeve with the central government. In our country we have, among others, minorities, LGBTQ, and feminists all rubbing shoulders with liberals, socialists, anarchists, globalists, Islamists, and hardcore Marxist revolutionaries. The last group is the best organized and funded. They are completely devoted to the “righteousness” of their ideology and even have their own para-military group – Antifa. Their goal is the complete destruction of the American political and economic system.

#9: You don’t need a majority to force your will on an entire population.

Most people assume that any revolution must have popular support to succeed. This may have been true in some cases, but not all. The Bolsheviks swept into power in Russia in Nov 1917 with a simple slogan: “Peace, Land, Bread.” Although one cannot be certain of the precise number of hardcore committed Communists among the masses of disaffected citizenry, it would have been comparatively small. The Nazis, for their part, never got more than 38% of the popular vote.

#10: After victory, the revolution will turn in directions not initially anticipated.

In addition to exacting revenge on their opponents, revolutions usually turn on many of the very people who were their most ardent supporters. One only must look at Hitler’s “Night of the Long Knives,” Stalin’s “Gulag Archipeligo, and Mao’s “Cultural Revolution, for examples.

Some of the above rules already apply to America; others will soon. There is no doubt that as a society we have made enormous strides in the last half-century, yet we are still struggling to come to grips with our past.

Sixty years ago, electing an African-American with the unlikely name of Barack Hussein Obama to the highest office of the land would have been impossible. The same is true about the minorities and women now seated in the House, Senate, and even Vice President-elect’s position.

Do we now throw all that away and adopt the failed economic and political system of our former Cold War adversaries? I hope not.

There is no perfect economic or political system, but there are systems that generally work better for more people than others. As imperfect as it is, capitalism works better than communism. Capitalist systems encourage innovation, individualism, personal responsibility, and independence.

Marxist systems mandate conformity of ideas, thought, belief, and speech. As always, they admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-charges, and in the final analysis, double down on their ideology. Whatever our many problems, allowing the left to implement the Rules for Revolutionaries, overthrowing our entire system, is not the answer.

As for the revolution itself, George Bernard Shaw stated it best when he wrote: ”Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny; they have only shifted it to another shoulder.”

Caren Besner is a retired teacher who has written articles published by American Thinker, Sun-Sentinel, Dr Swier, News With Views, The Front Page, The Published Reporter, Washington Examiner, The Algemeiner, Jewish Journal, Independent Sentinel, Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva, San Diego Jewish World, The Times of Israel, The Moderate Voice, IsraPost, The Jewish Voice, Joo Tube, The Florida Veteran, and others.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/01/twentyfirst_century_rules_for_revolutionaries.html#ixzz6jAJQs3qp
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/01/twentyfirst_century_rules_for_revolutionaries.html#ixzz6jAJ9W4n6
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook