Dictators’ First Steps

 

by

A Follower of Thucydides:

One who hopes to not only adhere to Thucydides’ standards of history using evidence gathering and analysis of cause and effect without interference by the gods (or media) but to also use that history to educate people when the gods (or media) cloud their vision of the truth

Read and Study History!!!!!!!

     Look up the first things every dictator from Lenin to Maduro did upon gaining office.  They changed voting procedures to ensure they would stay in power and they called out the military to protect their stay in power which is tenuous as they start their “reforms.”  As time wears on, the military is corrupted by new “training” that is a thinly disguised indoctrination to weed out non-supporters of the revolution.  This “new and improved” military supports the Administration and its stranglehold on what was a Constitutional Republic against their fellow citizens who remember what it was like as a Republic.  At this time, there is little chance of a peaceful vote due to the early changes to voting procedures and may result in an open rebellion. 

     If you have any doubt about my statements above just read the historical timelines of Communist USSR, Cuba, China, Venezuela, or Fascist Italy and Germany before the true stories are erased by this Administration.  For your convenience, here is an article about Venezuela.  If one cannot see or refuse to consider the parallels, he or she is either a committed Communist or Fascist; a person who hated the media’s distorted version of President Trump so much he or she was willing to go into Venezuelan Hell to get rid of him; or a partisan ideologue, which now is equivalent to number one in this list and its “oppressor versus oppressed” ideology.

     In 1936, Harvard Professor George Santayana forewarned: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (Reason in Common Sense, p. 284).  

     Are Americans doomed to repeat Communist and Fascist atrocities--already manifesting in terms of media censorship, social media deplatforming, and "cancel culture"?  Where is the left in denouncing any of these developments?  The absence of any pushback speaks volumes about intentions and motivations.

It Can Happen Here

by

Gadfly

           A close friend sent to me a book review by Cass Sunstein, published in The New York Times.  The title of the review was, “It Can Happen Here.”  The implication of the article is that President Trump is like Hitler in his authoritarian tendencies.

Sunstein’s review includes books by other authors from a personal, “lived experience” perspective.  In my opinion (based on years of research), whether deliberate or accidental, presentations such as Sunstein's distract from a more sinister development in America.  He writes well and his arguments are compelling in an ideographic sense—that is, plausible analysis of a phenomenon within a very narrow scope.  In this case, the scope is a set of memoirs of ordinary people who lived during the rise and reign of Hitler.  These arguments become incidental, merely anecdotal, and diminished from a nomothetic perspective—that is, an understanding of a phenomenon within a much broader context.  In the more comprehensive nomothetic case, it is important to understand the conditions that enabled Hitler’s rise to power.

Simply put, the conditions that enabled the Hitler phenomenon were quite apparent.  First, Germany was a democracy.  Democracies allow for the manifestation of mob behavior and natural transition to socialism (and eventually the more extreme fascist form of national socialism).  Second, the signatory nations of the Versailles Treaty isolated, alienated, and shamed the German population.  Third, economic conditions agitated the population.  The population was ready for hope and change, and Hitler promised it.  He rose to power democratically.  Hitler and the German population sought reparations—that is, payback.  In other words, German lives mattered.  The Nazis and the SS were a minority of the overall population, they controlled the public narrative and the political agenda, not unlike what we see playing out in America.  A major difference of note:  Germany and Poland have not torn down residual physical remains of concentration camps.  To the contrary, they keep them to remember important lessons from history.

  

My friend is a decent and honorable man, and certainly not an outlier in the population of concerned Americans.  I have read many opinion pieces with similar implications advanced by Sunstein, even a booklet by Yale historian Timothy Snyder:  On Tyranny:  Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.  These authors seek evidence to support their belief that Trump is an authoritarian.  Yet, the evidence is normative in that what they present are unwarranted assertions about what they want to believe.  For example, in Sunstein’s review, he states:

If the president of the United States is constantly lying, complaining that the independent press is responsible for fake news, calling for the withdrawal of licenses from television networks, publicly demanding jail sentences for political opponents, undermining the authority of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, magnifying social divisions, delegitimizing critics as “crooked” or “failing,” and even refusing, in violation of the law, to protect young children against the risks associated with lead paint—well, it’s not fascism, but the United States has not seen anything like it before.

           Let us unpack this statement.

 

Constantly lying.  The left has been constant in their accusation that President Trump lies.  Sunstein provides no examples.  No need to.  If the left says it enough, it becomes true (Germany’s Goebbels was fully aware of this maxim).

 

There is no doubt that Trump exaggerates and says bold things, but this does not rise to the level of lies.  Trump may truly believe the things he says, even if they turn out not to be true.  We often hear politicians say, “I misspoke,” even when they lie.

 

Did President Obama lie when he repeatedly told the public, “you can keep your doctor” or that families would save $2,500 a year in health care premiums?  Now we know from Jonathon Gruber and Ben Rhodes that the Obama Administration deliberately lied to advance its agenda—in particular, Obamacare and the Iran Nuclear Deal, respectively.

    

Independent press is responsible for fake news.  Does any reasonable person believe the press is independent?  The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, the wealthiest man in the world and a leftist progressive.  The New York Times fired an editor for allowing Senator Cotton’s op-ed to be published.  Except for Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and a handful of radio programs and other digital news sources, the mainstream media is leftist, progressive, and anti-Trump.  ABC’s Nightly News with David Muir has yet to cover any of the news related to exculpatory evidence in the Lieutenant General Michael Flynn case or the dozens of Congressman Schiff’s committee transcripts finally made public.

Calling for the withdrawal of licenses from television networks.  This was mere frustrated rhetoric.  No licenses were withdrawn.  Yet, under the Obama Administration, there was an attempt to place government monitors in news rooms.  This would have put a real damper on an independent press.

        

Publicly demanding jail sentences for political opponents.  This is true.  One individual who was singled out was Hillary Clinton.  The “exoneration” effort by FBI Director Comey was a gross violation of our legal system.  Comey not only delineated federal crimes committed, he circumvented the normal process for prosecuting them.  As Comey, Clinton, and others like to repeat, “no one is above the law,” unless you are a member of the political left.  How many prosecutions of criminals who happen to be political opponents have taken place under the Trump Administration?  Zero . . . so far.  Meanwhile, Obama holdovers have viciously prosecuted Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and several others who happened to be political operatives with the Trump campaign.

The Obama Administration put journalists under surveillance and censored conservative groups using the IRS.  The Obama Administration spied on the Trump campaign and orchestrated a silent coup through the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane operation, transitioned to the Mueller investigation, and then an impeachment.

    

Undermining the authority of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  It was the senior leaders of the DOJ and FBI that undermined President Trump’s authority. DOJ’s Yates issued a directive to DOJ officials not to enforce one of President Trump’s Executive Orders (a federal judge later placed an injunction on the Order and the Supreme Court ruled the Order constitutional); Rosenstein appointed Mueller as the Special Prosecutor and illegally authorized FISA warrants; and Ohr violated department protocols in advancing the fallacious Steele Dossier.  They were not loyal to the Office of the President; more accurately, they were seditious.  The FBI’s Comey, McCabe, Baker, Strzok, Page, and others were actively involved in illegally delegitimizing President Trump, but worse, targeting Trump’s political circle for manipulated prosecutions.  Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and other socialist leaders knew how to silence political opposition.  Yes, it can happen here—it already has.

Magnifying social divisions. Calling people racist, misogynist, xenophobic, homophobic, and so forth does not make them so.  It is the left that magnifies and celebrates social division with its emphasis on diversity, multiculturalism, and social justice.

Delegitimizing critics as “crooked” or “failing.”  If anyone is criticized based on false or fabricated information, then what is an appropriate response?  After millions of taxpayer funding spent over two years of the Mueller investigation and the extraordinary partisan impeachment fiasco, it is understandable that President Trump would consider these efforts to be crooked and failures.

Even refusing, in violation of the law, to protect young children against the risks associated with lead paint.  This allegation was good for generating political capital for the left’s agenda.  However, the same news sources advancing this narrative have not reported Trump Administration efforts to the contrary.

Sunstein and his like-minded cohort may not realize that they are members of America's intelligentsia.  The word “intelligentsia” originated in Russia about the time of the Bolshevik Revolution.  It describes an educated group that feels superior in its theories about progress and an imagined future utopia.  Their intentions are noble within the context of their self-proclaimed moral superiority.  They represent an echo chamber that is socially and politically isolated from the general population they seek to control.

    

           Ironically, the title of Sunstein’s article was inspired by Sinclair Lewis’s novel, It Can’t Happen Here.

 

Lewis’s wife was a journalist who followed Hitler’s rise to power in Germany.  So, Lewis wrote about the possibility taking place in America.  The lead character was modeled after Louisiana Governor Huey Long, a democrat, who wanted to defeat Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1936 presidential primary.  Long did not think FDR’s policies were left (socialist) enough.  Here is a sample of Long’s Share the Wealth movement and political agenda.  Sound familiar?

The left complains that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.  This would have sufficed in a democracy.  America is still a republic (founded as such because America’s Founders feared the extreme manifestations of democracy)—unless and until sufficiently destroyed by the left’s current deliberate and well-funded mobocracy.  That is why the Electoral College still determines the winner, to prevent large, government-centric metropolitan areas from dominating rural areas.

 

The fact that Trump advances a political agenda that is contrary to the left’s is a matter of values (i.e., personal liberty and responsibility, self-governance through a Constitutional Republic, truth and justice, religious freedom, freedom of speech, equal protection and due process, etc.) reflected by the political faction that supported his election.  Trump believes in personal responsibility and a government that protects individual rights, not a government that compels individuals to assimilate into a collective group (e.g., political identity groups) subsidized by the government.

 

In 2016, the Trump and Clinton campaign slogans said a lot: “Make America Great Again” (for all Americans) versus “I’m with Her” (appealing to one political faction).  This Trump campaign video (you will not find this on YouTube; and Facebook and Twitter will not allow it to be “shared”) was candid about the political landscape and his intent to preserve America’s republic.  One of his important arguments was about corporatism and the unholy alliance between large corporations and the media—one of the central features of fascism in Germany and Italy).  Clinton’s slogan and comprehensive litany of policy proposals spoke to an authoritarian perspective.

 

Trump’s message appeals to hard working, law abiding citizens.  The left’s message appeals to the power elite and those looking for government-provided (taxpayer funded) free lunches.

 

While Trump’s approach and language may be out of the ordinary, they are an attempt to restore republican statesmanship to an environment infested by democratically-corrupt politicians, from the deceitful to the feckless.  With eyes wide open, Trump does not bring an olive branch to a knife fight.  As Teddy Roosevelt understood in his day, Trump has fully embraced his duty as the man in the arena:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

The Power Elite

by

Gadfly

       During my Doctor of Philosophy course work, I discovered the writing of C. Wright Mills, a Columbia University sociology professor.  One of his books was The Power Elite, published in 1956.  According to Mills, the "power elite" are those that occupy the dominant positions in the dominant institutions--military, economic and political.  Their decisions have enormous consequences, nationally and globally (this explains why we hear about globalists—Obama, Clinton, Soros, etc. in the public narrative).  The evolving institutions (e.g., succeeding weaker predecessors), which they head are a triumvirate of groups -- two or three hundred giant corporations, a strong federal political order that "now enters into each and every cranny of the social structure," and the military establishment.

Importantly, Mills explains that the elite themselves may not see their elite status, "often they are uncertain about their roles" and "without conscious effort, they absorb the aspiration to be ... The Onecide" (e.g., on the right side of ideology; thus, they tend to be intolerant of other views and values).  Mills sees them as a quasi-hereditary caste, often entering into positions of societal prominence through educations obtained at eastern establishment universities like Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, and to a certain extent the older Service Academies of West Point and Annapolis (examine the resumes or biographies of Cabinet officials, the judiciary, and Congress; you will find Mills’ assessment is on target).  In this manner, the mantle of the elite generally passes through families.

According to Mills, the resulting elites can be generally grouped into one of six types (quoted from Wikipedia):

·        the "Metropolitan 400": members of historically notable local families in the principal American cities, generally represented on the Social Register

·        "Celebrities": prominent entertainers and media personalities

·        the "Chief Executives": presidents and CEOs of the most important companies within each industrial sector

·        the "Corporate Rich": major landowners and corporate shareholders

·        the "Warlords": senior military officers, most importantly the Joint Chiefs of Staff

·        the "Political Directorate": "fifty-odd men of the executive branch" of the U.S. federal government, including the senior leadership in the Executive Office of the President, sometimes variously drawn from elected officials of the Democratic and Republican parties but usually professional government bureaucrats

       One of the motivations for Mills’ book, The Power Elite,  was Franz Leopold Neumann's book Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism in 1942.  Neumann explained how a democratic state like Germany provided the conditions for Nazism.  Mills claimed that Behemoth had given him the "tools to grasp and analyze the entire total structure and as a warning of what could happen in a modern capitalist democracy."  This should explain why America is in turmoil today—the left’s push for democracy has provided similar conditions for the chaos and turmoil preceding socialism (and the violent tension between the communists and fascists) in Germany.

       The Power Elite received significant criticism, not surprisingly from members of the various “power elite” institutions.   Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. said, "I look forward to the time when Mr. Mills hands back his prophet's robes and settles down to being a sociologist again,” cited in a New York Times essay, “The Deciders,” by John H. Summers, May 14, 2006.

 

Summers went on to say:

The historical value of "The Power Elite" seems assured. It was the first book to offer a serious model of power that accounted for the secretive agencies of national security. . . ..

Much of "The Power Elite" was a tough-talking polemic against the "romantic pluralism" embedded in the prevailing theory of American politics. The separation of powers in the Constitution, the story went, repelled the natural tendency of power to concentrate, while political parties and voluntary societies organized the clash of interests, laying the people's representatives open to the influence of public opinion. This "theory of balance" still applied to the "middle levels of power," Mills wrote. But the society it envisioned had been eclipsed.

The two key points in Summers’ analysis relate to national security institutions and “romantic pluralism.”  Already in the 1950s, Mills saw the corruption taking place in the national security institutions of America:  The National Security Council, the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and so forth.  This corruption grew to the point that we now face a crisis in which the national security regime attempted to remove a duly elected President of the United States.  Comey, Clapper, Brennan, the generals and admirals singled out below, and a host of other members of the power elite, spied on Trump and his coterie, deceitfully pursued prosecutions, impeached the President for a fabricated crime, distorted Trump’s response to the COVID-19, induced fear in the public to shut down a booming economy, and now demonstrate the same Behemoth tactics spawned by the George Floyd folklore that are creating the necessary conditions for socialism, as in fascist Germany and a communist Russia.

 

There are credible reports (Note this link has since been removed by YouTube) that a Floyd-type incident was the basis for planning the type of rioting that took place in Minneapolis (and in other Democrat-controlled metropolitan areas).  Floyd was just a pawn in their strategic effort to “fundamentally transform America.”  Obama and his Organizing for Action enterprise play a critical role in this effort.  They have teamed up with Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and the Communist Party USA.

Mills’ treatment of “romantic pluralism” is what the left calls diversity and multiculturalism.  The original understanding of American pluralism was an appreciation and tolerance for different views and values that joined in a common purpose as American citizens.  Academic institutions at the time, such as Harvard, Princeton, and Yale were primarily focused on preparing Americans as religious clergymen and public servants.  Today, those same institutions have evolved (“succeeded weaker predecessors”) into secular humanistic elite production centers.  Their emphasis on diversity and multiculturism have nothing to do with uniting America—just the opposite.  So to hide this ideological push, the left accuses President Trump of dividing the nation.

  

When I first read The Power Elite, I rejected Mills’ arguments that included the military as one of the three “power elite” institutions.  After all, as a Service Academy graduate (the USAF Academy), I had ascended to the rank of a senior officer in this institution and considered myself a true public servant.  I still do in my role as a private citizen, patriotic to the flag, our republic, and one nation under God.  I pity those who do not.  Based on cowardly performance of National Football League celebrities who surrendered to the politically correct narrative, I may not be watching the NFL for a while.

       So, when I now read about retired generals and admirals speaking contemptuously about the President of the United States, I see why Mills wrote what he did.  Here are recent examples: generals (Mattis, see here and here; Kelly, see here, here, and here; Allen, see here and here; Powell, here, and here; and Honoré, see here) and admirals (Mullen, see here; and McRaven, see here).  There are others as well.  Do they not see what a dangerous example they set for other members of the armed forces?  One of the Articles of the UCMJ prohibits contemptuous language such as theirs.  If they gave up their military pension and rank, reverting to a private citizen, then perhaps their sacrifice would justify their impulse—but then they would have no credibility.  To use their rank to justify their credibility and message is a gross ethical violation, and potentially a criminal action (see Victor Davis Hansen’s recent article here).  Shame on them.

       These generals and admirals rebuke a duly elected President with assertions backed by no facts.  They also demonstrate their own lack of understanding of what America’s Constitutional Republic is all about.  For example, William Cummings in a USA Today article states:  “Former Secretary of State Colin Powell says that he will once again not vote for Donald Trump, calling the president's approach to politics ‘dangerous for our democracy’ and asserting that Trump has ‘drifted away" from the Constitution.’”

 

A properly educated American would know that our Framers feared the extremism of democracy and the extremism of autocracy (see Federalist Papers 10, 14, 26, and 63).  A republic was the “golden mean” between the extremes of autocracy and democracy.  This understanding helped make America the most unified, peaceful, and prosperous nation in the history of the world, at least until the Progressive Era when Americans drifted from the history of our founding and the power elite pushed for democracy.

 

In Powell’s defense, Americans are no longer being taught these distinctions because the left controls education (as mandated by Marx and Engels in their 1848 Communist Manifesto), and they push for democracy while celebrating diversity, multiculturalism, and new norms that violate the Judeo-Christian tradition; all of which divide our nation.  They believe the majority rules, even if it is only perceived thanks to the media’s amplification of a minority voice (as in the very public protesting and rioting we keep watching on the news).  This is the fruit of democracy:  mobocracy.

       The danger at this critical point in our history is that polling and voting tend to follow public sentiment.  Public sentiment is shaped by the media, Hollywood, and academia.  All are far left of center.

       For over three and a half years, President Trump has been viciously attacked by the left.  His political agenda is consistent with the fundamental concept of a republic, which is intended to constrain autocratic and democratic impulses and passions.  His agenda is a threat to the left’s design to fundamentally transform America.

Soviet, Chinese, and American communists have been hard at work to influence the ideological leanings of America’s media, Hollywood, and academia.  While there is a growing body of literature to confirm this assertion, this interview by Soviet KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov, provides an explanation about who is behind the George Floyd riots.  The left is working overtime to produce Soviet- and Chinese-style propaganda such as this recent article by Adam Serwer in The Atlantic Magazine.  Despite outright falsehoods, Serwer somehow believes it is expected not to be nice (more so hateful) to people who are not part of your ideology.

       An Italian Archbishop, Carlo Maria Viganò, who has courageously addressed corruption in the Roman Catholic Church, understands President Trump’s motivations, agenda, and dilemma.  He calls out a fellow American Archbishop, who criticized President Trump for his visit to and photo op at the National Shrine of Saint John Paul II.  Viganò reminded the Archbishop and other clergymen and citizens that we are experiencing a battle between the children of light and children of darkness.  See his recent letter to the President here.  Bravo for his courageous letter.

       The generals and admirals were trained to fight enemies of our Constitutional Republic and American way of life.  Yet, they align themselves with the children of darkness who strive to destroy the American way of life.  Archbishop Viganò clearly sees this and knows the children of light have truth and prayer for their weapons.  

       The generals and admirals likely were honorable men at earlier times in their lives.  Perhaps there is hope for a return to those times.  As Mills pondered, “elite themselves may not see their elite status, ‘often they are uncertain about their roles’ and ‘without conscious effort, they absorb the aspiration to be ... The Onecide.’” Until then, shame on them.

Knock It Off

by

Gadfly

            This essay addresses the recent exchanges between President Trump and four Congresswomen, collectively known as the squad. The exchanges sound petulant.  However, before we treat the two parties with moral equivalency and tell both to cease and desist, let me begin with a story.

Training for combat operations in fighter aircraft is dangerous business.  High speed, three-dimension maneuvering, with high g-force loading on the aircraft (and bodies—five Gs makes 10 pounds weigh the equivalent of 50 pounds), and a variety of tactics employed to defeat an enemy pilot characterize the flying.  It involves split-second decision making and extreme physical exertion.

            One of the safety measures during such training operations is the “knock it off” call.  If any pilot (or weapons systems officer in two-crew fighters) sees a situation developing that could easily spiral out of control, then they are to shout out, “knock it off, knock it off, knock it off.”  This basically reboots the training.

            On one of my missions near Stuttgart, West Germany in the early 1980s, I heard over Guard frequency (all aircraft must monitor Guard frequency on UHF—ultra high frequency), “Antar one eight, knock it off, knock it off, knock it off!”  Less than a minute later, I heard the same call, with the tone of voice sounding more urgent.  About five minutes later, Stuttgart Control announced over Guard frequency, “All Antar aircraft, RTB [return to base] immediately.”  I knew something tragic had happened and led my formation back to base.

            Antar was the call sign for members assigned to the 20^th Tactical Air Support Squadron based at Sembach Air Base, West Germany.  We were all checked out as forward air controllers, flying the OV-10 Bronco.  Each member then had a number assigned.  For example, Antar 18 (Antar one eight) belonged to a pilot named Chris.  The pilot in a different aircraft, another Antar, was assigned to fly as the Red Baron on this day of flying.  His mission was to fly into the vicinity of the various Antar training missions to measure their vigilance awareness (clearing for other “enemy” aircraft that were closing in on their position).  The procedure was to make two ninety degree turns and then to rock your wings to signal that you noticed his presence.  The Red Baron would then proceed to another Antar training area.

            Antar 18 did not follow the procedure.  Instead, he became aggressive and maneuvered against the Red Baron as though he was an actual enemy aircraft.  Because of the high G-loading, airspeed and altitude were rapidly depleting, becoming dangerously low and slow (approaching stall speed).  This is why the Red Baron was calling knock it off.

            Antar 18 stalled out and, because the aircraft was too low, was unable to safely eject from the aircraft.  Antar 18 had a passenger in the back seat.  Both died in the crash.

            Safety, legal, and flying evaluation boards were convened.  The Red Baron was exonerated by all three boards.  Yet, by an authority at a higher level, the Red Baron had his wings taken away, as if he was just as guilty for the crash as Antar 18.  He believed someone should be punished for the aircraft loss.  Antar 18 and his passenger were already dead.  Could not punish them.  This was assigned guilt through moral equivalency . . . not based on evidence but personal opinion and a tit for tat moral reasoning paradigm.

            The knock it off call that is needed in the case of Trump versus the squad exchange is not for Trump or the squad.  It should be directed at the anti-America faction in America, the cancer that is symbolized by the squad.

            “The squad” is openly socialist in their political orientation, which is extremely contrary to the idea of America.  Whether they are tutors or mere unwitting champions of the ideology, understanding the ideological “formation process” is enlightening and disturbing.

            For those who follow my blog entries, you are familiar with some of the evidence I have provided as it relates to the socialist (communist and fascist) infiltration of American institutions.  We can learn a great deal from those who “drank the Kool-Aid,” such as Whitaker Chambers, Bella Dodd, and Douglas Hyde.  In his book, I Believed, Hyde tells his story about becoming a prominent Communist in Great Britain.  In his book, Dedication and Leadership, Hyde explains how Communists are recruited and developed to be very active in the movement.  Here is a lengthy excerpt from Dedication and Leadership:

 

. . . In Communist hands the subtle method [in non-totalitarian societies] may take on an almost sinister quality, as ideas which would otherwise be unacceptable are skillfully got into the heads of those who attend the classes.

            Such instruction leads those who are indoctrinated in this way to abandon and repudiate practically all their past thinking and, indeed, to abandon the very things which first brought them to Communism.  For example, the man who joined because he was at heart a pacifist comes in time quite naturally and ‘logically’ to accept the need for violence [think Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, and Antifa], for civil war and insurrection (even though anyone who has experienced civil wars knows that these tend to be much nastier and bloodier even than ordinary ‘imperialist’ wars) and to sit up till midnight studying Lenin on the art of insurrection as a means of establishing a system of society in which war will evermore be impossible.

            The man with a liberal past comes believing that by joining the Communist Party he is somehow putting himself on the side of liberty, freedom, equality.  After attending a few Marxist classes he has come to ‘realise’ that these are but ‘bourgeois concepts’ which must be not only abandoned but also combated, since they are all part of the means by which an inhuman social system is made acceptable, in the guise of being tolerant and democratic, to those who suffer at its hands (pp. 86-87).

Based on this formation process, is it hard to understand the ideological motivation for sanctuary cities and states, open borders, and the claims about inhumane detention centers and concentration camps by members of the squad and other leftists?

There is no moral equivalence between Trump and the squad.  Like Trump, Americans need to protect the idea of America and be bold enough to tell the squad and those they symbolize to “knock it off!!!!!!”  America is our home.  “Home is where the heart is.”

 

When President Trump tells members of the squad to go home, he means they should go to where their heart belongs, which is not America.  The truth may hurt; but it can set us all free from the brutal chains of illusions and delusions.    

Defining America’s Democrat

by

Gadfly

Announcing her candidacy for President of the United States on Sunday, United States Senator Kamala Harris (Democrat, California) claimed, "We are here because the American dream and our American democracy are under attack and on the line like never before. And we are here at this moment in time because we must answer a fundamental question: Who are we, who are we as Americans?" she said. "So, let’s answer that question to the world. To each other. Right here. Right now. America, we are better than this."

Harris’s assertions are slogans, reminiscent of the slogans heaped upon a non-discerning public by communist propagandists in the early part of the 20th century.  While these slogans emphasize a political enemy to justify a class struggle (oppressed identity groups versus a greedy 1%), Harris and her leftist cohort also employ euphemisms to disguise ugliness (same sex unions instead of mutual sodomy, reproductive rights instead of genocide of unwanted children).

What is the American dream?  How is the American dream under attack?  What is American democracy?  What is an American Democrat?

 

Despite her sloganeering, Harris is right that we must answer these questions.  Unfortunately, the “truth” can be debatable.  After all, when Jesus was handed over for crucifixion by members of the Sanhedrin, even Pontius Pilate pondered, “Quid est veritas?” (“What is truth?”; John 18:38).  The significance of this biblical passage is that Jesus was the witness to truth and was rejected.  This behavior reflects the current progressive lens that focuses on the frame (i.e., the narrative) and only acknowledges facts if they fit the frame.  Modern Pilates still believe the “hands up, don’t shoot” meme from the Ferguson, Missouri episode; and more recently, that Justice Kavanaugh remains guilty despite an uncorroborated allegation against actual evidence to the contrary.  To progressives, like their Marxist cohort and Sanhedrin, facts don’t matter when the frame is more important.

 

Douglas Hyde even admitted this framing imperative in his autobiography, I Believed:  The Autobiography of a Former British Communist:

But invariably when I tried to get people actually into the Party I came up against the deeply-entrenched nonconformity of the North Wales workers.  I searched for ways of “breaking through,” believing that its hold was mainly an emotional one and calculating that if I could once get recruitment to the Party started it would quickly grow.

Then, in line with Lenin’s words, “morality is subordinate to the class struggle,” I thought of a way of getting them on their own ground.  I was, in theory at least, still a lay preacher.  I would exercise my right to preach, so paving the way for Party recruitment and at the same time obtaining an audience for the message which I burned to get across” (1952, pp. 46-47).

How is Hyde’s experience similar to Senator Harris’ tactic?  Without defining the American dream and how it is under attack, Senator Harris employed a “virtue signal” when she said: “America, we are better than this.”  Douglas Hyde attempted a “virtue signal” through his “preaching experience” to convince Brits that they were better than their capitalist counterparts. Here is another excerpt:

  As I looked down on row upon row of well-fed, smug faces, I felt that the ragged, desperate men marching on the capital might have belonged to a land a thousand miles away.  I felt angry and contemptuous, and made no attempt to conceal my feelings.  On the spur of the moment I recited to them some verses of Joe Corry, the rebel poet, which compared the unemployed agitator with “one named Christ two thousand years ago,” and which had some harsh things to say about the bankers, parsons and police who were His enemies.

As I recited the poem the faces before me became less blank.  But at its end a number of people got up and went out.  I announced the last hymn.  By the time it was finished the chapel was almost empty” (p. 47).

Unlike Hyde, Senator Harris obviously made her presidential announcement to a friendly group:  that is, Americans who agree with her that the American dream is under attack.  How do we know if it is under attack?

What is the American Dream?

 

            The American dream has evolved over time.  Some historians might position the first iteration on November 11, 1620 when the Mayflower Compact was signed aboard the Mayflower while anchored in Provincetown Harbor near Cape Cod, Massachusetts.  The intent was very clear:

Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience.

In other words, the dream included advancing the glory of God and the Christian faith for a unified, civil body politic defined by a system of laws and for the general good of the colony.  Subsequent founding documents such as the Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, and Constitution reinforce this original intent.

A second iteration of the American dream had its political philosophy seed planted in 1789.  The year 1789 witnessed two major political philosophies.  In America, the Bill of Rights were ratified, culminating a political philosophy known as classical liberalism:  individual liberty, private property, limited government, and a free market grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.  The Constitution, ratified in 1787, combined with the Bill of Rights ratified in 1789, was designed to protect the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness endowed by a Creator.

 

But, one might say equality is one of those inalienable rights.  Equality is a condition, a given.  Once created, all men (and women) are then endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.  Conditions of inequality are then created by humankind, either through personal choice or through coercion.  Justice allows inequality based on personal choice.  Injustice results from coercion.  The left’s weapon of social justice is a euphemism for coercion.  Unfortunately, even Christian denominations have been coopted into this practice because they conflate charity with social justice.  This discussion in equality and inequality is an important segue to the other political philosophy spawned in 1789.

The other political philosophy, socialism, was spawned by the French Revolution. As societies were evolving from agrarian to industrial economies, concepts such as labor and property became central to an emerging construct called capitalism.  Socialist theories began to suggest that the proletariat (laborers) were oppressed by the bourgeoisie (capitalists:  owners of factories, banks, etc.).  They called this a class struggle.  It was in 1848 that Marx and Engels published their Manifesto of the Communist Party, which was all about “liberating the oppressed” in a revolution by the proletariat to transfer ownership of capital (private property, factories, banks, etc.) to common ownership of the people or to the state (similar to what recently happened in Venezuela).  Marx and Engels preached socialism was the mere transition from capitalism to communism and religion was a threat to this development.  In the 20^th century, atheistic communism led to brutal regimes in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, and other countries.  Millions died.  Do Americans who claim to be socialists really understand what socialism is all about?

How did socialism infiltrate America?  One possibility is that it was advanced by different names: “liberalism” and “progressivism.”  Liberalism in this case was a different form from classical liberalism.  Modern liberalism swung to the left and delved into the social dimension.  Conversions to this political ideology can be seductive.  As Bella Dodd (a former American communist and member of the National Committee) explains in her book, School of Darkness, it emphasized “love of humanity, a vision of a better society, and wider social justice” (a quote from the back cover of School of Darkness).  When Dodd discovered how vacuous its promises were and how brutal and immoral its tactics, she tried to leave the Party but was refused.  On June 17, 1949, the Associated Press called her, saying “We have received a statement from the Communist Party announcing your expulsion from membership.  It says here that you are anti-Negro, anti-Puerto Rican, anti-Semitic, anti-labor, and defender of a landlord.  Have you any statement to make?” (p. 220). Stunned, she had no comment.  The next day the story was printed in all the New York papers.  The recent New York Times article “outing” Representative Steve King (he should have known he was walking into an ambush) had a similar fragrance and has apparently gotten away with it.  While Democrats were totally silent on the blatant propaganda about the Covington High School episode, Republicans were quick to throw King under the bus and in the process further embolden the left’s future propaganda.

Progressivism has been more seductive and insidious.  The father of American progressivism is Herbert Croly, whose book The Promise of American Life, even impressed Theodore Roosevelt as evidenced by his “Square Deal” legislative program.

 

Most “progressives” I know claim they are for progress.  What they will not admit, possibly because they ignore or are oblivious to this notion, is that the progressive movement is coercive in advancing values toward a future undefined utopia:  hope and change is an example.  Progressive elites tell a sovereign American people that life can and must be better, even though they live in the most prosperous nation in the history of humankind. And change?  From what to what?  Answers here are irrelevant.  What matters is that the non-discerning take their word for it.  So, for progressives, such as Kamala Harris, their idea of the America dream is some future utopian state that they, the political elite, guide us toward.  In their mind, the effort to get us there is being blocked, or in their mind, attacked by conservatives or Republicans.  In their mind, Republicans are “unAmerican” and “unpatriotic” because they still respect the thinking and foundational documents that created America’s Constitutional Republic.

 

Interestingly, Douglas Hyde explained how he indoctrinated Brits to become members of the Communist Party. Here is an excerpt:

The third lesson was entitled: “England, whose England?”

The aim of the lesson was to show that although men, women and children were being called on at the moment to die for Britain, it was not their Britain in any case.  I examined the distribution of wealth and gave a long explanation of the Marxist definition of the State as an instrument of coercion on behalf of the ruling class.  From this the lesson was drawn that the first thing a revolutionary working-class must do is to seize that instrument and use it for the coercion of the erstwhile rulers” (I Believed; pp. 76-77).

Unless the left-wing socialists (progressives, modern liberals) are successful in imposing their version of the American dream, in today’s America the rulers are the citizens, as in the first three words to the Preamble to our Constitution: “We the People.”  Today’s American dream still believes in the rule of law, not the rule of men.

         

How Is the American Dream under Attack?

To the left, their progressive vision of the American dream is under attack.  Consistent with Marxism, it is important to convince people that they are involved in a “class struggle.”  Who are the classes?  Blacks, women, the LGBTQ alphabet, illegal aliens, and so forth, against the greedy top 1%.  The left’s political elite promise to liberate the oppressed through redistribution of wealth as a form of social justice.  This was Marx and Engel’s promise in achieving communism.  This is the left’s vision of the American dream.  When an individual argues for legal immigration, he is accused of being anti-immigration or a xenophobe and thus an attacker of the American dream.  When an individual argues for the sacredness of life in a mother’s womb, he is a misogynist an oppressor of a woman’s reproductive rights, and thus an attacker of the American dream.  When one believes marriage is between a man and a woman, he’s a homophobe, and thus an attacker of the American dream.  When one expresses respect for the nation’s Founders and Framers, he’s a racist because they were white men, and thus an attacker of the American dream.

Today’s Democrat would consider President Kennedy’s aphorism (October 3, 1963), “a rising tide raises all boats,” as anathema to advancing the class struggle narrative.  If the old American dream was so ugly, then why is America the most peaceful and prosperous nation in the history of human kind?  Why do so many storm our borders to come to America?

A blatant example of the left’s obedience to Lenin’s maxim, “morality is subordinate to the class struggle,” is their passion for sanctuary cities (and now the sanctuary state of California) while also promoting “reproductive rights.”  The irony here is that people who chose to break the law are protected by the same individuals who support the murder of children who made no choice.  Talk about slogans.  Reproductive rights?  You mean the right to reproduce?  How does abortion fit into this notion?  And of all the sanctuaries that protect the human being, is not a mother’s womb the most sacred?

So, what is the left’s strategy to achieve their version of the American dream?  By updating Lenin’s maxim to “the class struggle is morality,” they are pushing for a popular democracy, where majority rule (shaped and guided by political elite) dictates the values for America.  This also explains how Speaker of the House Pelosi seems to get away with calling President Trump’s border wall immoral because it feeds into the left’s mantle of leadership in liberating the oppressed (except for the unborn).

 

Our old white male Framers wrote about the dangers of popular democracy (and its inevitable factions as currently manifested in the various identity groups celebrated by the left) in the Federalist Papers.  Tocqueville even wrote about the inevitable despotism and tyranny of democracy in his book Democracy in America.  Since the old white males were privileged, the left demands that the ideas and institutions they bequeathed upon us must be destroyed.

   

What is American Democracy?

Till around the 1960s, America was a classical liberal democracy, protected by a viable Constitutional Republic.  As noted political scientist Francis Fukuyama wrote in The End of History and the Last Man, it was liberal democracy that defeated the threat of communism and fascism, two siblings of tyranny born of the same mother:  socialism.  His thesis was that the contest between competing political philosophies was over:  liberal democracy was a superior political philosophy in advancing peace and prosperity.  Of course, the critics of his thesis were predominantly Marxists.  Before Fukuyama, Nikita Khrushchev predicted Americans would become socialists because they did not understand how progressive socialism is.  This may explain the left’s preference now to be called “progressive” as opposed to “liberal.”

Ignoring for a moment that George Friedman is a white male, the reasoning in his article, “Nationalism and Liberal Democracy,” provides important clarity regarding the role of nationalism, classical liberal principles, and a constitution as the moderating instrument between the tensions of classical liberal principles and the human passions of a democracy.  Nationalism simply represents values held in common within a nation and thus the means for achieving the common good (as in the Mayflower Compact; and in the Constitution’s Preamble “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”).

 

Competing with Friedman’s explanation is clear obfuscation by people, such as British historian and Marxist E. J. Hobsbawn.  In his book, Nations and Nationalism since 1780:  Programme, Myth, Reality, Hobsbawn claims the concepts of nation and nationalism are modern concepts, even though a casual reading of the Bible reveals a common understanding of these concepts centuries before Christ.  As an apologist for Soviet communism, Hobsbawn essentially argued against the threat of German nationalism, manifested as National Socialists, or Nazism, or fascism.  As in typical family love-hate situations as far back as Cain and Able, the two siblings of socialism hated (and still do) each other.  Does this help to explain why American leftists are so inclined to call Trump a fascist, or to label Republicans in general with spin off slurs of fascism such as racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and so forth?  Leftists claim President Trump “manufactured” the southern border crisis; yet, they have no problem manufacturing America’s class struggle crisis.

We are now in a contest for a liberal democracy versus a popular democracy.  Popular democracy is the type of “new democracy” Tito boasted of when he said they, the political elite, “were imposing what amounted to the classical dictatorship of the proletariat on their peoples as a necessary precondition of communism . . . that under the peculiar conditions obtaining there it would be possible to go forward to communism by using the democratic forms of organization (sic)” (as reported by Douglas Hyde in his book, I Believed, p. 221).

While somewhat feckless in their convictions and courage to protect a liberal democracy, Republicans are clearly on the defensive against those who fight for popular democracy.  The 2018 midterm election results in the House of Representatives are evidence.  Of all those who might claim credit for the outcome, the Communist Party USA (CPUSA; www.cpusa.org) is one of them as in an article, “Lesson from Midterms:  A United People Can Win,” by John Bachtell (current Chairman of CPUSA) published on November 26, 2018.  Hiding in the open, the CPUSA even published a guide for its 50/3000 (50 states/3,000 counties) grassroots model in advance of the 2018 elections.

 

It is ironic that months before “anti-communist” President John F. Kennedy’s assassination (November 22, 1963), another Democrat, Congressman A.S. Herlong, Jr. read into the Congressional Record, on January 10, 1963, the goals of communism in America.  Goal number 15 of 45 reads: “Capture one or both political parties in the United States.”

       

What Is America’s Democrat?

At a recent social gathering, I was approached by a younger gentleman, a successful businessman, who began the conversation with “I understand you are a staunch Republican.”  I responded that while I generally lean toward Republican candidates, I would not say that I was a “staunch” Republican.  Avoiding the temptation to be “defined” by a complete stranger, I offered to explain how I would politically define myself.  I explained that I was in fact a “liberal,” but a “classical liberal” in its original meaning—a proponent for individual liberty, private property, limited government, a free market, and undeniably grounded in our Judeo-Christian tradition.  I vote for political candidates that more closely align with these principles, and they generally turn out to be Republican.  He patiently and politely listened to my explanation.  Then, I asked, inferring from the nature of his questioning, “are you a Democrat? Not that being one is good or bad; just asking.”  He was silent.  “What is it about the Democrat Party that attracts you?”  Again, silence.

 

This encounter, I want to believe, represents the vast majority of those who claim to be a Democrat. Many of my very well-educated friends are Democrat.  Do they really know what today’s American Democrat is?  Do they understand what Democrat political elite are advancing in the name of the Democrat Party?

Let us begin with the Democrat Party political platform: it emphasizes people and the environment while demeaning wealth creators.  The tagline at CPUSA’s website is “People and Planet before Profits.”  While I recall reading but cannot now locate a source, CPUSA claimed in 1984 (ironic since a book has the title Nineteen Eighty-Four) that they no longer needed to support their own presidential and vice-presidential candidates because the Democrat Party had completely integrated their own political platform.  Gus Hall and Angela Davis were their last official candidates in 1984.  Given Davis’ background, is it any surprise that she found a sanctuary in the American university system, an environment now producing an “educated new American” that significantly leans left and is more atheistic?

The Party for the People?  Let’s look at data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as depicted in the Figure below.  In 2006, Democrats, known to be very anti-business, took control of both Houses of Congress, and the labor participation rate began its descent.  Then, President Obama was elected bringing with him his signature campaign promise for healthcare for all, thanks to the pit bull tactics of Speaker of the House Pelosi (and not a single vote from Republicans; passed by simple majority vote unlike the super majority needed for Trump’s wall).  While reported unemployment rates have significantly improved under the Trump regime, mostly for minorities, the real economic impact is realized in the stagnant labor participation rate because this is made relatively stable by government subsidies that politically favor Democrats.  Is this not a form of slavery?

The Party for the Environment?  Presidential candidate Harris (and other political socialists) is now emphasizing “green new deals.”  So is CPUSA Chairman John Bachtell.  See his article, “Demand for Green New Deal Rocking the Nation.”  There are staunch political activists who push man-made causes for climate change, even though they do not understand the science behind it, let alone able to explain it.  Despite the ideal notion that reasonable people can disagree, those on the left consider skeptics to be climate change deniers and thus not as educated and immoral.  Yet, what is certain is that there is a clear political agenda that fuels the left’s climate change position.  Money is the driver.  For a well-investigated report on this dynamic, see Paul Driessen’s December 29, 2018 article, “Let’s Do Follow the Climate Change Money!”

   

Destroying institutions—the Electoral College.  Democrat-controlled states are now actively pursuing state legislation to eliminate the Electoral College.  Abraham Lincoln would not have been elected without the Electoral College.  Advocates (dare I say, Democrats) for the institution of slavery enjoyed the popular vote.  The Electoral College, as a critical institution of our Constitutional Republic, allowed the necessary reconciling, at the incredible cost of over 600,000 casualties, for the sin of slavery.

Destroying institutions—the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Beginning in 1948, the Gallup Poll has annually surveyed the American population on its religious affiliations. In 1956, 99% of those surveyed affiliated with the Judeo-Christian tradition (96% Christian; 3% Jewish).  Today, that number is at 69% and appears to be on a downward trend.  Atheism is a necessary element of socialism (and communism or fascism).  The left even now experiments with a secular inquisition in their attack of religion and religious institutions.  The left now makes it a “hate crime” to even disagree with behaviors that are contrary to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

In Jonathan Cahn’s The Harbinger:  The Ancient Mystery that Holds the Secret of America’s Future, protagonist journalist Nouriel Kaplan had this exchange with a prophet:

“On 9/11 people were asking, ‘Where was God?’”

“Where was God?” he said, as if surprised by the question.”  We drove Him out of our schools, out of our government, out of our media, out of our culture, out of our public square.  We drove Him out of our national life, and then we ask, ‘Where is God?’”

“Then He wasn’t there?”

“Still, He was there.  He was there with those who lost their loved ones and is still there to heal the broken and comfort those who mourn.  He was there with those who gave their lives so others could live, shadows of Him.  And He was there, as well, with all the countless others who would have perished that day if not for the countless turns of the details and events that saved them.  And for those who perished . . . those who were with God in life are now with Him in eternity.  For these, it was not a day of national calamity but of release.  He was with them and is with them.”

The lesson being taught by the prophet is that America’s 9/11 was similar to the attack of Israel in 732 B.C.  The Israelites had drifted away from their Covenant with God that involved, among other acts, the sacrifice of children to pagan gods.  In America millions have been sacrificed to the pagan god of “reproductive rights.”

  

Who defines today’s American Democrat?  In the public narrative, the left has defined Republicans and Democrats.  The left defines Republicans as bigots, labels them with the whole set of related slurs; and thus are to be hated and held in high contempt.  Republicans are the enemy: not for their conservative (classical liberal) political philosophy but because they are in the way of the left imposing its political philosophy of socialism.  This is how the left turned Colorado into a blue state.  The left’s mission and strategy are now in the public domain.  They openly recruit through their website.  Just yesterday I saw an elderly white woman get into a car with bumper stickers: “resist,” “Green New Deal,” “Corporations are evil.”

America’s Democrat has only been defined by the radical left.  The non-radical left has been intimidated into silence.  Moderate Democrats have been taken hostage and there can be no compromise with the Republican Party, as we saw with the recent government shutdown.  To the radical left, negotiation can have only two outcomes:  win-lose, or lose-lose.  They are patient.  This is why they can accept a lose-lose outcome until they recruit (agitate) more people that subscribe to their slogans and euphemisms.  The radical left’s secular humanist prophet, Professor George Lakoff, is proud of his success.  His prolific writing has served as the left’s bible for advancing their vision of the American dream.  His book, Moral Politics:  How Liberals and Conservatives Think, pretty much sums up how the left thinks:  the left’s position on political issues is based on truth (even though it has been created in most cases); therefore, conservative views are not only wrong, they are immoral.  Like the border wall.

Lakoff takes personal credit for influencing the political shift going into the 2006 elections.  In his introduction to Jeffrey Feldman’s book, Framing the Debate, Lakoff wrote:

 

For most of the past 40 years, conservatives have had a clear field, as progressives did little or nothing to counter the ongoing conservative framing of issues.  That began to turn around in 2004, with the work of the Rockridge Institute and the publication of Don’t Think of an Elephant! and has continued with the publication of Thinking Points, Rockridge’s handbook for progressives.  Progressives throughout America have begun the reframing process and it showed in the 2006 election” (p. xii).

Lakoff founded the Rockridge Institute and authored both books mentioned above.  The 2006 election brought Speaker of the House, and master framer, Nancy Pelosi to power.  She brought America Obamacare with all of its coercive mandates and a stimulus bill that was nearly a trillion dollars—an amount exponentially greater than a $5.7 billion request for border security.  Both legislative actions became essentially permanent, adding nearly a trillion dollars, a 25% increase from 2008 funding levels, to subsequent annual government spending bills.  The vast majority of this additional spending went (and still goes) to programs that provide government subsidies to Americans (many who are not here legally).

What Next?

We have just answered questions about the American dream, how it is under attack, the nature of America’s democracy, and what today’s leftist Democrat promises.  Americans are faced with a choice:  two different American dreams.  One led to the greatest peace and prosperity of any nation in the history of humankind.  The other is an imagined utopia.  If today’s leftist Democrats are successful in advancing their utopian dream, many will win, but many will lose.  In the end, as other socialist experiments have proven, all would lose.  Ask your Venezuelan neighbors.

I look forward to many more conversations with “Democrats.” Perhaps some or many will take steps to purify their political party and apologize to those who have been slandered and maligned by its malevolent ideology.