The Left Has No Values Other Than the Struggle for Power

Shakespeare’s King Lear shows the subversion of the most fundamental of all relationships, that of parent and child, by the corrupt and unbounded lust for power. It is a painful and horrifying play to read. We follow first how the old king preferred his older daughters’ insincere flattery to his youngest daughter’s selfless honesty. Valuing obedience over truth, he failed a parent’s most important duty: modeling for one’s children the moral courage necessary to have a decent life and a decent world.

As the play proceeds, Lear’s moral failing, common enough and seemingly limited in effect, turns out to have opened the gates of hell. The flattering daughters conspire against their aged father and their honest sister, turning Lear from his throne and executing the true daughter.

As darkness triumphs, Lear verges into insanity as all hope is quashed. The Earl of Gloucester, angered at the King’s daughters’ horrific betrayal of their father, seeks justice, but he is in turn betrayed by his own illegitimate son and is punished by having his eyes put out.

Yielding in despair to the darkness that is now physical, the blind Gloucester seeks to kill himself. He asks a peasant to direct him to the edge of a high cliff, where he intends to end his life.

But here at this darkest of moments, when death is about to cement its triumph over light, Shakespeare allows a redemptive ray to shine into the gloom. The peasant is really Gloucester’s true heir and loyal son, Edgar. Edgar tricks his father into thinking that he had indeed jumped off the cliff, but that his life had been miraculously spared. Edgar persuades the confused Gloucester, telling him, “Thy life’s a miracle!”

This is a redemptive moment in a play filled with unremitting pain. Everywhere else in the play, destruction has been let loose and its demons howl triumphantly. Yet here is the still, small voice, invoking a miracle in the face of it all. We cling to it, for all else is lost.

Life is a miracle. Its sacredness is the first of the self-evident, unalienable rights that a newborn America declared to the world. It is the basis on which all other rights depend, for without life, any and all political rights are meaningless.

Many in this benighted age want to affirm all kinds of rights of children against their parents — just survey the rights given by school boards, legislatures, and courts to children to free them from parental supervision even before they come of age. Yet they will not affirm the most basic of rights. They do not hold life itself miraculous and sacred, but subject it entirely to the power of someone else.

It is consistent with other aspects of the modern anti-human agenda. Behind the concerted attack of critical race theory, for instance, is the idea that all of life is merely a power struggle and that our ideals are merely clever propaganda to deceive the non-white races from grabbing power themselves.

This in turn is consonant with the Marxist-Leninist approach, which derides conscience and transcendent truth, and reads all reality as being nothing more than the struggle of one class to take power away from the other.

It is consonant with Nazism because Nazism not only reads everything as a power struggle and rejects transcendent moral truth, but it also sees all things in racial terms.

In all these systems, there must be no other loyalty than to the struggle for power. Life itself is meaningless without power. Therefore, children must be removed from their parents’ control and placed in indoctrinating schools and youth organizations. Ultimately, they are used to police their parents, sometimes happily turning them in to be executed. And children who do not serve the ends of those in power are expendable and worth no less than their parents. The only meaning left is the pursuit of power, and life is a war of all against all and nothing more.

And in the triumphs of these terrible systems, there remained only the little rays of light of those who still see the miracle – Natan Sharansky and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in the Gulags, Anne Frank and Viktor Frank in the hell of Nazi Europe, and the others like them whom we may never know. And though Russian communism and German Nazism may have been defeated in the end, their toxic beliefs morph slightly and find new faithful again and again. Always, they subordinate life and meaning to the pursuit of power.

The issue before the Supreme Court now is not the large moral question. The Constitution specifies that those questions are settled politically by the people following the ways and methods that they have agreed upon by ratifying that basic law. The Court will be deciding only whether the Constitution in fact establishes the right of a woman to abort a fetus and grants the fetus no rights at all, not even that of life.

But one cannot dismiss the rights of either mother or fetus without joining ranks with Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and the older daughters of King Lear in embracing the will for power over even the most fundamental and primordial bonds, without rejecting the miracle of life.

The moral issue was stated with stunning clarity by someone most unlikely — the author and psychedelic pioneer, Ken Kesey. In a 1971 interview with the late left-wing political satirist Paul Krassner, Kesey put the issue this way:

You are you from conception, and that never changes no matter what physical changes your body takes. And the virile sport in the Mustang driving to work with his muscular forearm tanned and ready for a day’s labor has not one microgram more right to his inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than has the three months fetus riding in a sack of water…How can abortion be anything but fascism again, back as a fad in a new intellectual garb with a new, and more helpless, victim?

For Kesey to say this was not really so unlikely if we look beyond the stereotypes. His core insight was the ability to heal the mind from the abuses of power, a theme that stretches from his great One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest through his fostering of deeper consciousness through psychedelics and performance art. For Kesey, life was a miracle, and he believed his life’s work was to raise the consciousness of life’s miraculous reality hidden so often behind the power games that people take for an end in themselves.

They aren’t.

Subordinating the helpless to the powerful can lead to monstrous consequences. The granting of a right to dispose of life, especially life at the stage in which it is utterly powerless, has consequences. It is time to act in the light of that truth.


Samuel Klatzkin

Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.

Why Is the Left Suddenly Worried About the End of Democracy?

What is behind recent pessimistic appraisals of democracy’s future, from Hillary Clinton, Adam Schiff, Brian Williams and other elite intellectuals, media personalities, and politicians on the Left? Some are warning about its possible erosion in 2024. Others predict democracy’s downturn as early as 2022, with scary scenarios of “autocracy” and Trump “coups.”

To answer that question, understand first what is not behind these shrill forecasts.

They are not worried about 2 million foreign nationals crashing the border in a single year, without vaccinations during a pandemic. Yet it seems insurrectionary for a government simply to nullify its own immigration laws.

They are not worried that some 800,000 foreign nationals, some residing illegally, will now vote in New York City elections.

They are not worried that there are formal efforts underway to dismantle the U.S. Constitution by junking the 233-year-old Electoral College or the preeminence of the states in establishing ballot laws in national elections.

They are not worried that we are witnessing an unprecedented left-wing effort to scrap the 180-year-old filibuster, the 150-year-old nine-person Supreme Court, and the 60-year tradition of 50 states, for naked political advantage.

They are not worried that the Senate this year put on trial an impeached ex-president and private citizen, without the chief justice in attendance, without a special prosecutor or witnesses, and without a formal commission report of presidential high crimes and misdemeanors.https://80fdac5353547fe625b2f75ee4769930.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.htmlCARTOONS | AF BRANCOVIEW CARTOON

They are not worried that the FBI, Justice Department, CIA, Hillary Clinton, and members of the Obama administration systematically sought to use U.S. government agencies to sabotage a presidential campaign, transition, and presidency, via the use of a foreign national and ex-spy Christopher Steele and his coterie of discredited Russian sources.

They are not worried that the Pentagon suddenly has lost the majority support of the American people. Top current and retired officers have flagrantly violated the chain-of-command, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and without data or evidence have announced a hunt in the ranks for anyone suspected of “white rage” or “white supremacy.”

They are not worried that in 2020, a record 64 percent of the electorate did not cast their ballots on Election Day.

Nor are they worried that the usual rejection rate in most states of non-Election Day ballots plunged – even as an unprecedented 101 million ballots were cast by mail or early voting.

And they are certainly not worried that partisan billionaires of Silicon Valley poured well over $400 million into selected precincts in swing states to “help” public agencies conduct the election.

What then is behind this new left-wing hysteria about the supposed looming end of democracy?

It is quite simple. The Left expects to lose power over the next two years – both because of the way it gained and used it, and because of its radical, top-down agendas that never had any public support.

gaining control of both houses of Congress and the presidency – with an obsequious media and the support of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, higher education, popular culture, entertainment and professional sports – the Left has managed in just 11 months to alienate a majority of voters.

The nation has been wracked by unprecedented crime and nonenforcement of the borders. Leftist district attorneys either won’t indict criminals; they let them out of jails or both.

Illegal immigration and inflation are soaring. Deliberate cuts in gas and oil production helped spike fuel prices.

All this bad news is on top of the Afghanistan disaster, worsening racial relations, and an enfeebled president.

RecommendedBiden Says the Quiet Part Out Loud About Election LegislationLeah Barkoukis

Democrats are running 10 points behind the Republicans in generic polls, with the midterms less than a year away.

Joe Biden’s negatives run between 50 and 57 percent – in Donald Trump’s own former underwater territory.

Less than a third of the country wants Biden to run for reelection. In many head-to-head polls, Trump now defeats Biden.

In other words, leftist elites are terrified that democracy will work too robustly.

After the Russian collusion hoax, two impeachments, the Hunter Biden laptop stories, the staged melodramas of the Kavanaugh hearings, the Jussie Smollett con, the Covington kids smear, and the Rittenhouse trial race frenzy, the people are not just worn out by leftist hysterias, but they also weary of how the Left gains power and administers it.null

If Joe Biden were polling at 70 percent approval, and his policies at 60 percent, the current doomsayers would be reassuring us of the “health of the system.”

They are fearful and angry not because democracy doesn’t work, but because it does despite their own media and political efforts to warp it.

When a party is hijacked by radicals and uses almost any means necessary to gain and use power for agendas that few Americans support, then average voters express their disapproval.

That reality apparently terrifies an elite. It then claims any system that allows the people to vote against the Left is not people power at all.

Victor Davis Hanson

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