Leftism Cannot Be Reasoned With — It’s Dictatorship

Leftism is mental illness merged with evil. No cure or reasoning will help. The only solution is total, decisive DEFEAT.

If you don’t think leftists are totalitarians on the scale of those we fought in past wars and the Cold War, then you must have been asleep in 2020 and now in 2021…and you are in for a big surprise when the regime in power eventually reaches your own front door.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The Ugly American Left is Now Ruling America

Maxine Waters, a member of Congress, has openly called for violence against dissenters. Not for the first time. To leftists, she is bold, enlightened and progressive. She’s nothing more than an old-fashioned thug. Communism is thuggery. It advocates and practices the use of armed force to achieve all its ends — the redistribution of wealth, the suffocation of dissenting ideas and the disarming of the population. Communists were advocating this in the late 1800s. Today’s elites think they have hit on something new.

Nothing this woman says or does should surprise you. It is 100 percent consistent with the actions of every member of her party (as well as the RINOs) every day of the week. The FBI will not hold her accountable for her open advocacy of violence against unarmed people whose only offense is to disagree with her. The FBI is not on the side of individual rights; our government agencies only wish to protect the guilty, not the innocent. Any anti-Communist who stated or implied one-tenth of what Waters has stated would be under arrest, on the spot. Joe Biden, the nominal head of our federal government, is an open ally of the Chinese Communist Party and a member of a criminal family. Sadly, our government is now on the side of the bad guys — and Maxine Waters is an ugly reminder of this fact.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The Left’s War on Free Speech

The Claremont Institute’s DC Center for the American Way of Life is a new initiative for actively counteracting the Left’s ceaseless attacks on America. Founded earlier this year with Arthur Milikh at the helm, the DC center is focused on taking legal and cultural steps to fight the full onset of the woke regime. This series of articles puts into perspective what the Left is doing and intends to do to traditional American mores and customs.

The Left wants to ban “hate speech” using the powerful national institutions they now govern. They do not hide this intention but say so openly. Powerful tools—like Big Tech, a nearly unified press, and the national security state—give speech restrictionists the impression that this goal can and should be pursued. But exactly what kind of speech do they want to ban, and exactly how would this ban transform America?

“Hate speech,” on the surface, seems to mean racial epithets, slurs, or Holocaust denial. But such speech has already disappeared from America’s public square. There is no “hate speech” in any recognizable form anywhere in America outside of the bowels of the Internet or in rap music. If anything, America’s public square is governed by exactly the opposite tendency: corporate, media, educational, and social powers fiercely punish such utterances. The N-word is the only word in the English language which is forbidden from being uttered. And yet, calls to ban “hate speech” only increase.

The American Left is not interested in or concerned about racial epithets. In reality, “hate speech” is the words, thoughts, and judgments of the oppressor group, which marginalized groups claim harms their self-respect. The oppressor group, in virtually every case, is whites—especially white males, though white women also are carriers of “whiteness,” the original sin.

Banning or criminalizing hate speech means silencing the speech of oppressor groups, while amplifying the speech of marginalized groups. The marginalized must be to speak against, calumniate and malign the alleged oppressors and their institutions, for their self-respect comes to depend entirely on this. It is not only permissible, but required to state that the “greatest terrorist threat in this country is white men.” Every single sector of society amplifies such sentiments in varying degrees.

You Can’t Handle the Truth

Protecting the self-respect of the marginalized requires banning certain facts. As explained by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, professors of law at the University of Alabama Law School and leading advocates of speech criminalization, factual speech that calls into question a marginalized group’s self-respect is “deplorable” and constitutes “hate speech.”

For instance, all statistically supported analysis of how inadequately the recipients of affirmative action are prepared for higher education relative to their peers should be banned—no matter how true. This extends to any number of issues that threaten the self-respect of the marginalized, like speaking of factual disparities in crime rates. Other leading advocates of speech criminalization, like Mari Matsuda of the University of Hawaii Law School, maintain that “racist” scientific findings, even if true, may well fall within “the doctrinal space for regulation.” One sees this conflict already underway between medical doctors and transgender activists.

Furthermore, since the marginalized have been denied an identity, this theory goes, they must create one. This means that they must mythologize themselves—for their own sake, and for the sake of the oppressors’ respect for them. Thus emerge claims that all of history was male patriarchal oppression over women; or that America was founded on the principle of the preservation of slavery as described in the New York Times 1619 Project; or that most of America’s scientific and economic progress was made by people of color. These myths cannot be convincingly perpetuated without silencing the oppressor group’s judgements, questions, and doubts, no matter how sensible or factual.

Banning criticism, of course, does not produce self-respect. In a pluralist society, the prospect of criticism establishes certain civilizational standards. Yet preventing the defense or enforcement of such standards has become a major goal of restrictionists. A striking recent example was provided by the Smithsonian’s taxpayer-funded African American History Museum. Its website featured an infographic, now deleted, that identified tools of white supremacy such as “objective, rational linear thinking,” “following rigid time schedules,” “plan[ning] for the future,” “be[ing] polite,” working hard, and the nuclear family. In other words, criticizing fatherlessness, rudeness, irrational thinking, sloth and/or incompetence would be “hate speech.”

All healthy societies maintain moral and behavioral standards. But undermining such standards in oppressor minds, so that the marginalized are not held to them, is the goal. Since scientific discoveries, bridge building, flying planes, commercial success, and enforcing the rule of law all depend on competence and “objective, rational linear thinking,” one wonders how quickly these American achievements will stall once allegedly “white supremacist” standards are viewed as hateful and legally or informally banned.

The Narrative Regime

To further lionize marginalized groups, dominant cultural images must be reshaped. According to Delgado and Stefancic, during the civil rights era, the marginalized were spoken of “respectfully,” portrayed as “unfortunate victims” and “brave warriors.” Today, society must regain these images—both for the self-respect of the marginalized and as a form of psychological warfare against the oppressor. The latter must be made to view the former as “decent,” “good,” “nice,” “precious,” and “worthy of respect.” All of society’s images should depict the marginalized as heroic, while portraying the oppressors as either irrelevant or outright harmful. Every Disney movie, comic book, sitcom, commercial, textbook should follow this model—and basically already does. At bottom, the oppressors’ mind must belong to the marginalized.

Free speech is essential for a republican people’s political deliberation about the issues that concern it. “Hate speech” regulation makes self-rule impossible. Essential political discussions are removed from the political sphere. Public debate about immigration, the nature of biological sex, defense of traditional family structures, or the black crime rate must end, because they all harm the self-respect of the marginalized. Even serious discussions of apparently race-neutral subjects like budgets, taxes, and zoning policy—standard governmental functions—would be stopped. Academics write that seemingly “race-neutral [political] campaign themes” like welfare policy “carry demonstrably racially loaded undertones.”

The project of limiting the range of permissible speech and thought requires several preconditions, some of which are already halfway in place. The nation’s main press and educational organs are already largely unified behind the premises, while attacking and harming any objectors. Yet people can still form independent judgements when they have access to alternative information. Thus, the next step requires elimination of those sources. Just under 90% of the world’s Internet searches go through Google; a recently leaked document revealed that Google is interested in manipulating its search so that the results reflect the restrictionists’ moral worldview. “Imagine that a Google image query for CEOs shows predominantly men,” muses an internal memo. “Even if it were a factually accurate representation of the world, it would still be algorithmic unfairness.”

America’s security state is becoming the most powerful element of this vast censorship apparatus. The FBI, National Counter Terrorism Center, and the Department of Homeland Security recently declared as a new goal plans to “detect, prevent, preempt” the thoughts and actions of U.S. citizens engaged in “conspiracy theories” about, among other things, “corrupt ‘global elites’ and ‘deep state.’” U.S. citizens engaged in such speech may now be labeled “Domestic Violent Extremists.” Moreover, former commander of force in Afghanistan, and now president of the Brookings Institution, John Allen, stated that “we must fight violent, hateful ideologies at home.” This includes what he calls “white-nationalist ideologies and organizations”—for it is their “disinformation” that causes “polarization.” A government which prevents criticisms of itself and polices speech is either already a tyranny or is becoming one.

Your Mind is Not Your Own

Lest Americans think that the courts will save them, there are at least two ways the Left can use current law to ban “hate speech.” The first is rooted in civil rights law. As has been elaborated by authors like Christopher Caldwell and Thomas Powers, federal interference on the grounds of discrimination has and will continue to expand into the sphere of speech—for once discrimination no longer exists in public accommodations, housing, or employment, the last frontier is oppressors’ minds.

The second avenue originates in the Supreme Court’s definition of “dignity.” If “dignity,” as former Justice Anthony Kennedy argued in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), means the capacity to choose one’s own identity coupled with the corresponding demand that others recognize this identity, then speaking (even indirectly) against a protected identity could constitute “hate speech.” Both avenues will likely be pursued in the coming years.

The attempt to ban “hate speech” will destroy what remains of political liberty in America. Attempts will be made to replace it with a caste-based ideological tyranny whose actual purpose is vengeance against the oppressor group. Its goal will be entering the inner recesses of the mind to root out and punish impurity, which will deploy the powers of Big Tech, anti-discrimination laws, and the security state to do so. This will mark the decline of America’s economic prosperity, scientific progress, and political liberty.

Freedom of speech plays a central role in forming the habits of character necessary for republican government. Through it, citizens develop the habit of speaking and thinking freely about all matters of public concern. In doing so, they are trained in forming sound judgements. As such, citizens are capable of skepticism about romantic, revolutionary, and impossible undertakings to which democracies are often vulnerable.

Perhaps most importantly, freedom of speech cultivates in citizens the mental habit of persuading fellow citizens through reason. This habit, correspondingly, cultivates an openness to being persuaded by reason. The opposite of persuasion is force. Persuading one’s fellow citizens rather than compelling them becomes the primary mode of political interaction. As such, the strong, natural passions of pride and anger are moderated by the demand to speak rationally, to persuade others, and to defend one’s views, rather than act on violent impulse. The end of freedom of speech is the beginning of barbarism.

The One-Party State

The left may or may not comprise a majority among professed supporters of the Democratic Party, though among elected officials in the federal government, the left is now in complete control. There are 50 Democratic Senators, almost all of whom at one time or another supported the filibuster in the US Senate. The Senate was established to be a deliberative body, one less subject to current passions, and purely majoritarian impulses in one party. The Electoral College was another feature of both the founders’ belief in federalism, the importance of states and a role for different geographic regions, and interests. Now, at most a handful of Democrats in the Senate (probably fewer), are willing to preserve the only remaining rule which provides a meaningful role for the minority party. Should America’s political future ride on the disposition of one West Virginia Senator? If Joe Manchin is turned, then we will have new states in the union, permanent Democratic majorities in the Senate, Supreme Court packing, and immediate passage of every bit of radical legislation in the left’s dream box including assaults on the principles of federalism, which provides for states to exercise power in various areas, such as voting rules. The recently passed stimulus bill prevents states from reducing taxes if they accept federal stimulus money. The assault has begun.

Those on the left are certainly a minority among all adult Americans. But the Democrats now control the presidency, and both Houses of Congress with very small majorities, and the left controls the elected Democrats and are pressing their advantage. In the meantime, the opposition party, the Republicans, seem unable to focus their effort on the great challenge ahead to slow down the express train of new policies, and spending and rules. These initiatives are designed to reward and enrich those who are part of the governing coalition, to make the minority party a permanent minority and to make published opposition to the new “progressive and anti-racist” vision, unavailable to readers, and socially unacceptable if not criminal.

Barack Obama’s decisive win in the 2008 Presidential race was believed by the left to be the signal that their day had come. Obama won the popular vote by 9.5 million and picked up more than two thirds of the Electoral College votes. Democrats won an 80-seat margin in the House, and 59 Senate seats, which soon became a filibuster proof 60 after Arlen Spector switched parties. Obama himself said his election would change America. The conventional political wisdom was that demographic changes in America would allow Democrats to build their majorities and continue to win going forward. Mostly non-white legal immigrants, and higher birth rates among non-white groups would drive down the white share of voters, the only group among whom Republicans were still a majority.

Things did not turn out that way. An unpopular health care bill led to big GOP gains in 2010, and control of the US House, plus big gains at the state level in governors and state legislators, leading to redistricting advantages. In 2014, Republicans won back the Senate. Then came Donald Trump’s stunning victory in 2016. Democrats were supposed to have a blue wall that virtually assured a win in Presidential contests in the Electoral College. Instead Trump broke through in states that had not gone Republican in nearly 30 years, attracting many former Democrats in rural areas, small towns, and once thriving industrial cities. Most Democrats (not just the left) seemed unable to process Trump’s victory and certainly did not accept it. No president in recent history has faced the kind of sustained attacks personally, and on his programs, that Trump did.

At the start of 2020, Trump seemed destined to win re-election. The economy was strong, job and wage growth had advanced broadly through the population, including among Blacks and Hispanics, and the President had reversed some of the perception of a country in decline with one sector of the population, the highly educated, doing very well, and many more struggling and falling back. The President had survived a Russia collusion hoax perpetrated by a hostile media and many Democrats in Congress, and a party line impeachment vote in the House, losing but one Republican Senator on one of two charges at his trial for an offense that had never been viewed as impeachment-worthy before. And then came the Wuhan virus.

Certainly, the Trump administration made serious mistakes, just as prior administrations had with other new health issues when they arose. But the coverage of Trump and his policies to address the virus were unremittingly negative. The left was convinced the virus could defeat Trump and it did. Make Americans miserable, and they will throw out the incumbent. Many states, most of them leaning or heavily Democratic, chose harsh lockdowns which threw people out of work, and closed schools, which led to increased isolation, alcoholism, drug abuse and mental illness, and untreated health issues since people feared going to hospitals or doctors’ offices. Democratic Governors and the current Vice President were among those who argued that vaccines would be unreliable if they were produced by the Trump administration. Of course, the vaccines would not come from Trump, but from drug companies doing miracle work in record time, encouraged by the Trump administration to take risks and by his agreement to pay for vaccines once they were available and received authorization.

Then came the late May death of George Floyd in police custody. Suddenly, America needed a racial reckoning and a toxic dose of it was received. Critical race theory and other anti-racism initiatives were implemented everywhere and quickly at great expense. Corporations made contributions in the billions to groups like BLM, which are anti- white, anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-nuclear family, and anti-Semitic. Otherwise, the group was pretty mainstream.

The infectious disease people who had told their state officials to keep people at home, now thought it important for tens of thousands of people to be out on the streets in close quarters to scream at and harass police, or to “break away from the largely peaceful demonstrations” to set buildings and shops on fire, loot stores, and attack police and others in their way. Practically every major professional organization, non-profit organization, corporation, social media platform, university and media company pledged to do their part to fight racism, since obviously what happened in Minneapolis was evidence of the country’s systemic racism. LeBron James offered his wisdom that Black men felt like they were being hunted by the police.

The reality of course was that about a dozen unarmed Blacks are killed by police in an average year. But nearly 10,000 Blacks were killed by other Blacks in 2020, a more than 25% increase over 2019, virtually all of the year-to-year increase occurring after George Floyd’s death. Heather MacDonald provided all the numbers and analysis one would need to look at crime rates, and police shootings but Google’s You Tube thought it too hot to handle, making it difficult to access her presentation. The attacks on police produced BLM demands to defund the police or eliminate the police, and led to a pullback from active policing in some cities. Gangs and other criminals had more freedom to operate, creating near state of nature conditions in some cities, such as Chicago.

The attempt to de-platform MacDonald, was just a prelude to the major social networking companies’ effort to prevent Trumps’ re-election. This included hiding the New York Post’s Hunter Biden/China connection story just before the November election. The Capitol riots of January 6th made it easy for Silicon Valley to try to destroy the Parler website, ban President Trump from Facebook and Twitter, take down posts which challenged the election results, and treat those who believed fraud had occurred, including US Senators and House members, as insurrectionists, expanding the universe of a few hundred people who behaved horribly on January 6th at the Capitol to include most of the 74 million-plus Trump voters.

The events since President Biden’s inauguration are more evidence of how the left is acting in concert to radically change the country before too many people wake up and notice. Send a stimulus check to people, and they will spend it and think better of the government and its policies. Meanwhile no one outside of a small number of conservative media voices will honestly convey the chaos created by the President’s reckless open borders policy, or the reality that the President may not be all there and others are pulling the strings and using Biden as the moderate, calming cover for a radical playbook.

The Enemy Within is the latest in Horowitz’s long string of books that provide a continuing theme on the attempts by the left to create a new America. What you see is what you get, and Horowitz remains committed to allowing us to see what is really going on, despite the censorship and cancel culture which are thriving. For if we see, we can also commit to engage in the struggle to preserve and build a different America than the one sought by the left.

David Horowitz

Leftism Is a Form of Psychological Disorder … Here’s Why

Leftism is a form of psychological disorder. To be a leftist, you must evade facts — even obvious ones. That’s unhealthy. The evasion is a form of self-deception. That’s bad for your self-esteem. The lack of contact with objective reality leads to delusion. Delusion can lead to thought disorder. The resulting warped sense of reality leads to leaning on like-minded, fellow delusional comrades for validation and reinforcement. In turn, this leads to a pervasive sense of anxiety, fueled by an unacknowledged sense that something is wrong. It also leads to isolation from others with opposing views — the exact opposite of being “liberal minded” and “inclusive”. The isolation from dissenters eventually leads to hostility and an inability to see one’s opponents as human. As a result, you have no problem condemning them, ostracizing them, advocating government force to censor them and restricting their income. The end of the road? Concentration camps, gulags, or whatever the 21st Century version of those horrors will be.

What starts out as a self-congratulatory bid to be “progressive” and enlightened morphs into psychological malevolence and, in the final stages, downright evil. It has happened in prior civilizations, and now it’s happening in what was once the freedom-loving, mostly rational and tolerant American republic. And the poor, mentally disturbed leftist twits think they’re unique and unprecedented. What a joke on them. Leftists are as unenlightened as the Dark Ages and as tyrannical as their predecessors in the Marxist and National Socialist movements. They ARE 100 percent of the malevolence and insanity they project onto their fellow man. We have seen their kind many, many times before.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The Ultimate Betrayal

Western Christians commemorate Jan. 6 as Epiphany, the day Jesus Christ became known to the world through the Three Wise Men, according to tradition. One definition of “epiphany,” per the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is “an illuminating discovery, realization, or disclosure.”

So the timing was perfect for Americans to receive just such a powerful revelation about their government. It is a revelation both nauseating and frightening.

What is that revelation? The people Americans elected and trusted to run their government are incorrigibly and irredeemably corrupt.

Congress certified Joe Biden as President in the dead of night Jan. 7 with the rest of Washington, D.C. under curfew and despite massive evidence of electoral fraud in his favor.

Congress thus wrote the latest act of a two-month drama that featured judges in starring roles. Those judges – including Supreme Court justices — arbitrarily used technicalities to deny President Donald Trump the chance to make his legal case as an aggrieved party victimized by fraud.

The only reason — the only reason – for those authorities’ behavior was their own contempt for Trump.

The implications are stunning, and go far beyond any one man or Presidential election. Now, every American — regardless of race, creed, class, gender or any other category — can become a target for the capricious disregard of due process if that American is unpopular with the powers-that-be.

Americans have seen this before. They saw it in Judge Emmet Sullivan’s unprofessional behavior during Gen. Michael Flynn’s trial. They see it now in the lockdowns and mandates issued solely by executive fiat and based on medical quackery, despite scientific evidence showing that masks and social distancing create more harm than good.

But the events of Jan. 6 in Washington drained the last remaining drops of formaldehyde from the nation’s political corpse.

As Congress met to decide Biden’s fate, as Trump rallied thousands of supporters to demand a fair hearing, several protesters breached Capitol security. As a result, Congress had to be recessed and Congressional offices evacuated.

Many entered without resistance because Capitol security — which Congress directly oversees — allowed them to enter. Protesters walked through passages marked by security cords and acted with carte blanche in the empty building.

Regardless of who these protesters were or what cause they represented, people with local experience believe the episode was an inside job — especially given the heavy security normally protecting the Capitol.

“My dad worked for both DOD and Homeland Security,” Chris James tweeted. “You can’t just take over a federal building, and do what we saw today without some help from the inside. This was orchestrated by members of the Senate and members of the capital police.”

“Cosign,” Lisa Edouard tweeted in response to a different comment. “Worked on the Hill. I barely remembered where my Member’s hideaway was located. Total inside job.”

If it was an inside job, it had its desired effect.

At 2:40 p.m., about two hours after the incident started, Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser ordered a 12-hour curfew starting at 6 p.m. The overwhelming majority of Trump’s supporters dispersed without incident.

At 6:55 p.m., Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, announced Congress would continue certification. At 8:10 p.m., Sen. Mitch McConnell announced the Senate resumed debate.

Conducting such activity during a curfew meant that not only legislators received special dispensations. So did their staff members, security guards, journalists and any required support personnel.

Besides, the Constitution does not demand that Congress certify a Presidential election in one day. The situation warranted an audit, regardless of any protesters’ behavior.

Though the Electoral Count Act requires Congress to start tabulating electoral votes on Jan. 6, the counting “need not end that day,” said Michael Thorning, the Bipartisan Policy Center’s associate director.

“The statute recognizes that this process could be lengthy and imagines the process could take in excess of five days in some cases,” Thorning said. “The statute does not provide a deadline to complete the counting but requires that the joint session not be dissolved until then and until the results are announced. Even if the counting went beyond January 20th, when a president and vice president’s term would end, the presidential line of succession would be activated.”

But once Congress reconvened, several Republicans who planned to challenge electors from six states where fraud dramatically influenced the results announced that they changed their minds. Only electors from Arizona and Pennsylvania received challenges, and Congress rejected both challenges decisively.

Under such conditions did Congress certify Biden as the winner at 3:41 a.m. Jan. 7.

But reporters failed to examine the suspicious circumstances surrounding Biden’s certification. Instead, they followed the lead of many officials and blamed Trump for supposedly inciting violence.

Reporters also failed to note two disturbing similarities. It was also in the dead of night when Biden received a sudden vertical spike in votes during the Presidential election. The two Democratic candidates in Georgia’s Senate runoff Jan. 5 also received similar nocturnal spikes.

Such extended subterfuge proves Trump’s assertions about the “deep state” and its allies in the boardroom, the newsroom and the classroom.

Americans now can see that this collection of politicians, bureaucrats and judges is an entitled, professionally-inbred caste of grifters who will suck money and power from lobbyists, foreign nations, corporations, foundations and anything else — and try to preserve their privilege at all costs.

If doing so means sabotaging the Constitution or enslaving their fellow Americans, so be it.

That point became even more apparent immediately after Biden’s certification. Congressional leaders desperately want to remove Trump through impeachment or the 25th Amendment, and to prevent him from seeking office again. Social media corporations rushed frantically to de-platform Trump and his supporters, and suppress any views that contradict the prevailing narrative.

Why the panic? Because the powers-that-be fear that Trump will use any information he might have to expose and destroy them.

The next move is Trump’s. What he might do remains unclear. But one thing is certain:

Unless radical surgery is performed — and soon — the metastasizing cancer of unfettered corruption will kill the American republic.

Joseph Hippolito, frontpagemagazine

The “War on Terrorism” Comes Home

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 Great Socialist Mirage

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

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

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