THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 22, 2017
Paul Plante: On Neo-Fascism in America today in the Guise of Progressivism.
Special to the Mirror by Paul Plante
In a recent Cape Charles Mirror article entitled “Andy Zahn: The 5th Column,” mention was made of the term, “anarchy.”
For those not really familiar with the term, since we are not supposed to have anarchy here in the United States of America, although we certainly do, and on a seemingly increasing scale, the Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary defines an “ANARCHIST” as “one who believes in and advocates anarchism,” and “ANARCHISM” as “the theory that all forms of government are incompatible with individual and social liberty and should be abolished,” while “ANARCHY” itself is defined as “lawless confusion and political disorder.”
From those definitions, anyone who is sane and rational can readily discern why it is that we are not supposed to have anarchy here in our Republic, and yet it appears, at least on the surface, from the San Francisco Chronicle article “Masked anarchists violently rout right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley” by Lizzie Johnson, Erin Allday, Michael Cabanatuan and Nanette Asimov dated 28 August 2017, that we do indeed have it here, despite any claims to the contrary that it can’t happen here, to wit:
An army of anarchists in black clothing and masks routed a small group of right-wing demonstrators who had gathered in a Berkeley park Sunday to rail against the city’s famed progressive politics, driving them out – sometimes violently — while overwhelming a huge contingent of police officers.
The swamping of right-wing political ideas by left-wing demonstrators has become a recurring theme in Berkeley and other California cities.
end quote
But are those really an “army of anarchists” as the San Francisco Chronicle claims, or are they something entirely different, such as a paramilitary wing of one of our major political parties, a party with a long and well-documented history of using violence and paramilitary forces to impose its will on others while suppressing the voices of those it does not want heard?
Afterall, who can forget that in the 1870s, Democrats gradually regained power in the Southern legislatures by using insurgent paramilitary groups, such as the White League and Red Shirts, to disrupt Republican organizing, run Republican officeholders out of town, and intimidate blacks to suppress their voting.
As to the White League, it was an American white supremacist paramilitary terrorist organization started in 1874 to turn Republicans out of office and intimidate freedmen from voting and political organizing.
Affiliated with the Democratic Party, the White League was one of the paramilitary groups described as “the military arm of the Democratic Party,” and through violence and intimidation, its members suppressed Republican voting and contributed to the Democrats’ taking control of the Louisiana Legislature in 1876.
The Red Shirts or Redshirts of the Southern United States were white supremacist terrorist groups that were active in the late 19th century after the end of the Reconstruction era of the United States, and they first appeared in Mississippi in 1875, when Democratic Party private terror units adopted red shirts to make themselves more visible and threatening to Southern Republicans, both white and freedmen.
The Red Shirts were one of several paramilitary organizations arising in the continuing efforts of white Democrats to regain political power in the South in the 1870s.
These groups acted as “the military arm of the Democratic Party” and they had one goal: the restoration of the Democrats to power by getting rid of Republicans, which usually meant repressing civil rights and voting by the freedmen, and during the 1876, 1898 and 1900 campaigns in North Carolina, the Red Shirts played prominent roles in intimidating non-Democratic voters.
So, would a political party with a well-documented history of using paramilitary forces to inflict its will on others be averse to using paramilitary forces to do the same today?
As we ponder that question, let us consider the New York Times article “‘Antifa’ Grows as Left-Wing Faction Set to, Literally, Fight the Far Right” by Thomas Fuller, Alan Feuer and Serge F. Kovaleski on August 17, 2017, wherein we were informed:
Last weekend, when a 27-year-old bike messenger showed up at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va., he came ready for battle.
He joined a human chain that stretched in front of Emancipation Park and linked his arms with others, blocking waves of white supremacists — some of them in full Nazi regalia — from entering.
“As soon as they got close,” said the young man, who declined to give his real name and goes by Frank Sabaté after the famous Spanish anarchist, “they started swinging clubs, fists, shields.”
“When you look at this grave and dangerous threat — and the violence it has already caused — is it more dangerous to do nothing and tolerate it, or should we confront it?” Frank Sabaté said.
“Their existence itself is violent and dangerous, so I don’t think using force or violence to oppose them is unethical.”
When not attending what he called “big mobilizations” like the one in Charlottesville, Frank Sabaté has done ordinary community organizing, advocating prison reform and distributing anarchist literature at punk rock shows.
end quotes
Now, while these people might call themselves “anarchists,” those of us with memories who remember history recognize their tactics as being very much those of the fascist Hitler Youth, an integral part of Hitler’s Sturmabteilung, the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party, with its primary purposes being providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties and fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties, which is exactly what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia, recently, as well as in Berkeley, California.
So what is really going on here, people?
As Andy Zahn asked in his recent article, what has happened to this country?
According to the New York Times, members of this so-called “antifa” have shown no qualms about using their fists, sticks or canisters of pepper spray to meet an array of right-wing antagonists whom they call a fascist threat to American democracy.
And that reference to “a fascist threat to American Democracy” takes us back a year and five months in time to a Daily Intelligencer article from May 1, 2016, entitled “America Has Never Been So Ripe for Tyranny,” wherein the writer of that article, Andrew Sullivan, makes this statement about these times we are now firmly into as follows:
This is the Weimar aspect of our current moment.
And while a critical element of 20th-century fascism — its organized street violence — is missing, you can begin to see it in embryonic form.
end quote
Those words were written a year and five months ago, now, and since then, we have seen the embryo hatch as we watch organized street violence erupting in this country as was detailed in the San Francisco Chronicle article “Masked anarchists violently rout right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley” by Lizzie Johnson, Erin Allday, Michael Cabanatuan and Nanette Asimov dated 28 August 2017, I cite above, our "Weimar Moment," as writer Andrew Sullivan calls it.
The meaning of the term "our Weimar Moment," sadly or otherwise, since the train has left the station since Andrew Sullivan wrote whose words, and it is going down a steep grade with no brakes with a hairpin turn coming up, escapes modern people in America today, especially those at the New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle, so a bit of history is necessary here.
The term "Weimar Moment," of course, refers to the largely-unknown today Weimar Republic of Germany which ended with the rug-chewing madman Adolph Hitler coming to power in Germany, as was detailed in the chapter entitled "The Great Depression and the Nazis" at p.170 of his book "World Wars And Revolutions," where the author, Walter Phelps Hall, PhD, of Princeton, copyrighted 1943, gives us this contemporary view:
The chancellor was Bruning, a Centrist.
For support at home he had to depend on a slight majority made up of many different party groups and on the backing of the President of the Republic, the octogenarian Hindenburg.
Support outside his country he had none.
A customs union with Austria which might have helped save the day had been vetoed by the French, a veto upheld on technical grounds by the World Court at the Hague.
Neither politically nor financially was the republic to be aided in her death struggle.
Meanwhile, unemployment rose by leaps and bounds, and starvation threatened.
The very liberalism of the Weimar Republic was telling now against it.
For years the Nationalists and the Nazis had been organizing and drilling informal private armies of their own, the former the Steel Helmets, the latter the Sturmabteilung (Brown Shirts).
Even the peaceful Social Democrats had done likewise with the Reichsbanner corps.
Germany was seething with violent disorder.
Armed bands were attacking Jews and Communists, the former not retaliating, the latter fighting back.
Between the accession of Bruning in March, 1930, and the burning of the Reichstag building in February, 1933, which threw Germany into Hitler's power, the utmost confusion reigned.
Plot and counterplot followed.
There were two presidential and two Reichstag elections; there were innumerable street riots and many murders; and the political balance swayed backward and forward between the defenders of Weimar and the Nationalists, the Nazis, and the Communists who hated the republic.
end quote
Which raises the question of whether the very liberalism of our Republic is telling now against it, as was the case in the Weimar Republic of Germany, and to answer my own question, I would say it is in our late-stage democracy where every lifestyle is allowed and deference to any sort of authority has withered, and multiculturalism and sexual freedom have created a country where family hierarchies are inverted and a father habituates himself to be like his child and fear his sons, and a son habituates himself to be like his father and to have no shame before or fear of his parents, while in classrooms, as the teacher … is frightened of the pupils and fawns on them, so the students make light of their teachers.
Late-stage democracy historically ends with a tyranny, and the question in here is will we such a thing in this country in our lifetimes?
Getting back to the “Weimar Moment,” having first been informed of all of that Weimar Republic history back when I was five years old in kindergarten at the end of WWII (yes, people, at five years old, I was aware there was a world around me, and that it did not revolve around me as its sun), and having studied the period, I find that an accurate capsule summary of the “Weimar moment” writer Andrew Sullivan is referring to above here, and I also think it helps us to understand the rise of neo-fascism in the country today of the guise of Democrat party "progressivism."
As to the term "FASCISM," which term is not really understood in this country, as the United States of America was supposed to have defeated fascism in Europe in WWII, and we were never supposed to have it here in our own now-dead Republic, the Reader's Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary defines it as "a one party system of government in which each class has its distinct place, function and representation in government, BUT the individual is subordinated to the state and control is maintained by military force, secret police, rigid censorship and governmental regimentation of industry and finance."
Focus for a moment on the words “but the individual is subordinated to the state,” because as we explore this subject further, it is to those words that we shall find ourselves returning.
As to where the term “fascism” derives from, under the heading "Fasces," WIKIPEDIA tells us thusly:
Fasces is a bound bundle of wooden rods, sometimes including an axe with its blade emerging.
The fasces had its origin in the Etruscan civilization, and was passed on to ancient Rome, where it symbolized a magistrate's power and jurisdiction.
The image has survived in the modern world as a representation of magisterial or collective power, law and governance.
The fasces frequently occurs as a charge in heraldry, it is present on an older design of the Mercury dime and behind the podium in the United States House of Representatives, it is used as the symbol of a number of Italian syndicalist groups, including the Unione Sindacale Italiana, and it was the origin of the name of the National Fascist Party in Italy (from which the term fascism is derived).
During the first half of the 20th century both the fasces and the swastika (each symbol having its own unique ancient religious and mythological associations), became heavily identified with the authoritarian/fascist political movements of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
end quotes
So there is where the term "fascism" derives from, and for our purposes, then, we can consider it as it was in ancient Rome and in Europe in the 1930s - i.e. authoritarian government.
At pp. 152,153 of "World Wars And Revolutions" by Walter Phelps Hall, PhD, of Princeton, copyrighted 1943, he informs us as follows concerning "fascism" in Europe during their "Weimar Moment:"
Fascism is an all-embracing doctrine which demands a one hundred percent surrender of the individual will in the name of mystical nationalism - with ends not clearly defined.
This nationalism is beyond good and evil, and thus is deified.
Therefore, fascism properly should be classed as a kind of religion like communism, the latter based on class-consciousness, the former on nationalism.
As such, fascism is compounded of three elements - violence, state socialism, totalitarianism.
Direct and clear is its repudiation of the Sermon on the Mount, for the Fascist insists that he only is blessed who smites and smites again.
Emphatic is its assertion that the economic life of the people must be controlled by governmental agencies.
And furthermore, since the be-all and the end-all of life is the exaltation of the state, all members of it must act alike, think alike, obey alike.
Such, in general outline, is the Spartan-like philosophy of twentieth century fascism.
How to explain its origin?
Such an extreme reversal of the main currents of European culture, especially since the Renaissance, could only come about through revolutionary unheavals produced by disillusionment, sharp suffering, social anarchy.
This was the case in both Italy and Germany.
Both countries felt that they had been cheated by the peace treaties (end of WWI); both suffered enormously from economic maladjustment; both were at the mercy of politicians, unable to bring order out of chaos; and, what is more important, in both there were large numbers of ex-soldiers, young but toughened by war, unemployed, bitter, finding after four years in the trenches that back home there was "greed in the saddle, disorder in the street, and poverty on the hearth."
end quotes
And as we ponder the question of whether Democrat Party Progressivism is really neo-fascism in a thin disguise, consider this sentence from the above, because we will be sure to be back to it shortly: And furthermore, since the be-all and the end-all of life is the exaltation of the state, all members of it must act alike, think alike, obey alike.
Where have we heard that before, and that answer was right here in the pages of the Cape Charles Mirror on August 6 2017, in the thread “Paul Plante: A Better Deal for America, and such a Deal it is! – Part 2” http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... is-part-2/ when failed Democrat presidential contender and Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, endorsed Hillary Clinton on July 12th, saying as follows:
“I am happy to tell you that at the Democratic Platform Committee … there was a significant coming together between the two campaigns and we produced, by far, the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party.”
end quote
And referring to that same document, the 2016 Democrat Party Manifesto, in an article in the Washington Post entitled “Bernie Sanders is right: It’s time to support Hillary Clinton now – Democrats need to unite against Donald Trump this week” by Sally Kohn, an essayist, community organizer by training and temperament, and CNN political commentator, we were further informed thusly:
The Democratic Party platform – the most progressive platform in American political history – actively reflects Sanders’s campaign and vision.
end quote
Getting back to our Weimar Moment, today, here in the United States of America, we feel that we have been cheated by trade treaties like NAFTA, and we certainly suffer enormously from economic maladjustment, and we are at the mercy of politicians who are not unable to bring order out of chaos, but more to the point, are seen as stoking the violence that leads to the chaos, and in the United States today, there are indeed large numbers of ex-soldiers, young but toughened by war, unemployed, bitter, finding after years in the trenches that back home there is "greed in the saddle, disorder in the street, and poverty on the hearth."
So, are we ripe for the rise of fascism, or authoritarian government, in the United States of America today, as was the case in Germany and Italy back before WWII?
Any guesses, people?
The candid world would like to know.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ressivism/
ON NEO-FASCISM IN AMERICA
Re: ON NEO-FASCISM IN AMERICA
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 22, 2017 at 10:47 pm
Paul Plante says:
It is important to note here, that for purposes of this discussion on Neo-Fascism in America today in the Guise of Progressivism,” that the term “fascism” means authoritarian government.
Thus, fascism can just as easily refer to a left-wing authoritarian government as it can to a right-wing authoritarian government, and it fact, the Red Guard era of Chairman Mao’s communist government in China can be classified as authoritarian, or fascist, as can the regime of Josef Stalin in the communist Soviet Union.
As to the nebulous term “progressive,” which leads us to “progressivism,” the Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary defines it thusly:
1. Moving forward, advancing
2. Proceding gradually or step by step, as in “the progressive disintegration of an empire”
3. Aiming at or characterized by progress
4. Spreading from one part to others
5. Striving for or favoring progress or reform, especially social, political, educational, or religious
end quotes
Progress is defined in the Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary as:
1. A moving forward in space; movement forward nearer a goal
2. Advancement toward maturity or completion; gradual development, as of mankind or civilization; improvement
end quotes
And reform is defined therein as:
1. To make better by removing abuses, altering, etc,; restore to a better condition
2. To improve morally; persuade or educate to a better life
3. To put an end to; stop
4. To give up sin or error; become better
5. An act or result of reformation; change for the better, especially in administration; correction of evils or abuses
6. Improvement in one’s personal life, especially by abandonment of bad habits
end quotes
And finally, persuade is defined as:
1. To induce someone to do something
2. To induce to a belief; convince
end quotes
Thus, we can readily observe two things here, to wit:
1. The use of the term “progressive” in no way precludes authoritarian government or fascism, and in fact can be construed as a progress towards an authoritarian, or fascist government; and
2. When Vermont senator Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton on July 12th, saying, “I am happy to tell you that at the Democratic Platform Committee … there was a significant coming together between the two campaigns and we produced, by far, the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party,” and when in an article in the Washington Post entitled “Bernie Sanders is right: It’s time to support Hillary Clinton now – Democrats need to unite against Donald Trump this week,” Sally Kohn, an essayist, community organizer by training and temperament, and CNN political commentator, said, “The Democratic Party platform – the most progressive platform in American political history – actively reflects Sanders’s campaign and vision,” the word “progressive” can mean anything under the sun, including an authoritarian or fascist government, which it would have to be to enforce the provisions of the 2016 Democrat Party Manifesto on the people of America, as it is intended to do, to subordinate us all “state,” which would be the Democrat party, because in a fascist state, where the be-all and the end-all of life is the exaltation of the state, all members of it must act alike, think alike, obey alike.
Is that where Democrat progressivism intends to take us?
Stay tuned, more to come.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ressivism/
Paul Plante says:
It is important to note here, that for purposes of this discussion on Neo-Fascism in America today in the Guise of Progressivism,” that the term “fascism” means authoritarian government.
Thus, fascism can just as easily refer to a left-wing authoritarian government as it can to a right-wing authoritarian government, and it fact, the Red Guard era of Chairman Mao’s communist government in China can be classified as authoritarian, or fascist, as can the regime of Josef Stalin in the communist Soviet Union.
As to the nebulous term “progressive,” which leads us to “progressivism,” the Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary defines it thusly:
1. Moving forward, advancing
2. Proceding gradually or step by step, as in “the progressive disintegration of an empire”
3. Aiming at or characterized by progress
4. Spreading from one part to others
5. Striving for or favoring progress or reform, especially social, political, educational, or religious
end quotes
Progress is defined in the Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary as:
1. A moving forward in space; movement forward nearer a goal
2. Advancement toward maturity or completion; gradual development, as of mankind or civilization; improvement
end quotes
And reform is defined therein as:
1. To make better by removing abuses, altering, etc,; restore to a better condition
2. To improve morally; persuade or educate to a better life
3. To put an end to; stop
4. To give up sin or error; become better
5. An act or result of reformation; change for the better, especially in administration; correction of evils or abuses
6. Improvement in one’s personal life, especially by abandonment of bad habits
end quotes
And finally, persuade is defined as:
1. To induce someone to do something
2. To induce to a belief; convince
end quotes
Thus, we can readily observe two things here, to wit:
1. The use of the term “progressive” in no way precludes authoritarian government or fascism, and in fact can be construed as a progress towards an authoritarian, or fascist government; and
2. When Vermont senator Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton on July 12th, saying, “I am happy to tell you that at the Democratic Platform Committee … there was a significant coming together between the two campaigns and we produced, by far, the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party,” and when in an article in the Washington Post entitled “Bernie Sanders is right: It’s time to support Hillary Clinton now – Democrats need to unite against Donald Trump this week,” Sally Kohn, an essayist, community organizer by training and temperament, and CNN political commentator, said, “The Democratic Party platform – the most progressive platform in American political history – actively reflects Sanders’s campaign and vision,” the word “progressive” can mean anything under the sun, including an authoritarian or fascist government, which it would have to be to enforce the provisions of the 2016 Democrat Party Manifesto on the people of America, as it is intended to do, to subordinate us all “state,” which would be the Democrat party, because in a fascist state, where the be-all and the end-all of life is the exaltation of the state, all members of it must act alike, think alike, obey alike.
Is that where Democrat progressivism intends to take us?
Stay tuned, more to come.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ressivism/
Re: ON NEO-FASCISM IN AMERICA
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 24, 2017 at 6:48 pm
Paul Plante says:
As was stated above, according to the Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, “fascism” is defined as “a one party system of government in which each class has its distinct place, function and representation in government, BUT the individual is subordinated to the state and control is maintained by military force, secret police, rigid censorship and governmental regimentation of industry and finance,” where “subordinated” is defined as to “make subservient to or dependent on.”
As to the “one party system of government where the individual is subordinated to the state and control is maintained by military force, secret police, and rigid censorship,” we see clearly the beginnings of that in San Francisco Chronicle article “Masked anarchists violently rout right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley” by Lizzie Johnson, Erin Allday, Michael Cabanatuan and Nanette Asimov dated 28 August 2017, as follows:
An army of anarchists in black clothing and masks routed a small group of right-wing demonstrators who had gathered in a Berkeley park Sunday to rail against the city’s famed progressive politics, driving them out – sometimes violently — while overwhelming a huge contingent of police officers.
The swamping of right-wing political ideas by left-wing demonstrators has become a recurring theme in Berkeley and other California cities.
end quotes
As to “subordination of the individual to the state,” we can find no better example of that in a speech made by 2016 Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton to Black Lives Matter on April 7, 2016, where Progressive Democrat Clinton said as follows:
“If someone has white skin, they are a racist because of Implicit Bias, and we need community programs here in America to cure them.”
end quotes
That, people is what fascist subordination of the individual to the state looks like in real life.
And over in another thread, our dear friend and fellow commentator in here, the honorable Chas Cornweller gave us this definition of fascism according to Webster:
Fascism: n. a governmental system lead by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive NATIONALISM and often racism.
end quotes
In Hillary’s speech to Black Lives Matter on April 7, 2016, where Progressive Democrat Clinton said “If someone has white skin, they are a racist because of Implicit Bias, and we need community programs here in America to cure them,” we see the emergent dictator in the form of Hillary Clinton, and we see the racism, as well, in Hillary’s blanket condemnation of ALL white people having this so-called “implicit bias,” and thus, needing to be “cured” in state-operated “community programs.” to be determined by Hillary in conjunction with Black Lives Matter, with no input from the white people, as if the white people in this country were nothing more than cattle suffering from hoof-and mouth disease, or maybe rabies.
That, people, is not “progressivism,” that is a progression into fascism, and the fact that Hillary Clinton did not prevail in no way ended that progression into fascism intended by the Democrat party in its 2016 Democrat Party Manifesto, and we would be foolish in the country to think otherwise, and thus, drop our guard, for Hillary was not kidding when she said those words to Black Lives Matter on behalf to the progressive branch of the Democrat party on April 7, 2016, as a part of the 2016 Democrat party platform.
In support of that assertion, all I need do is to refer us to page 14 of the 2016 Democrat party manifesto, with manifesto being a public declaration of policy and aims, especially one issued before an election by a political party or candidate, where we find these following words of importance to us all in this nation: Ending Systemic Racism.
Systemic refers to something that is spread throughout, system-wide, affecting a group or system, such as a society as a whole.
In other words, in the words of the Democrat Manifesto for 2016, American society is sick from one end to the other, so that it is now time for the Democrat Party to take the law into its own hands to purge the United States of America of this “systemic racism.”
In that section of its manifesto, we were informed as follows:
Democrats will fight to end institutional and systemic racism in our society.
We will challenge and dismantle the structures that define lasting racial, economic, political, and social inequity.
end quote
Dismantle the structures.
Focus your thoughts on that for a moment if you will, people, especially the word “dismantle.”
The Democrats, who according to Gallup polling in 2010 constituted just 31% of Americans, have determined that they have the right to dismantle OUR nation and re-structure it the way they want it to be for them.
More to the point, that 31% of Americans have made a broad-brush accusation with that unsupported claim of theirs that there is systemic racism all throughout this land.
Where is their evidence?
The answer is they don’t have any and they don’t need any.
It is how they “feel,” and for them, that is all that is needed, and that is good enough.
Based on their “feelings,” our nation has to be “dismantled” and then re-structured in their image, because they alone know what is good for the rest of us in this nation.
The Democrat Manifesto then continues as follows:
Democrats will promote racial justice through fair, just, and equitable governing of all public-serving institutions and in the formation of public policy.
end quotes
As stated above, this 31% of our population, based on how they “feel,” knows what is best for all the rest of us in this country, and so, they are going to impose their will on us, which is what tyranny is really all about – a small group with political power imposing its will through force on a majority, which is the essence of fascism.
Getting back to the 2016 Democrat Manifesto, we next have this:
We will push for a societal transformation to make it clear that black lives matter and that there is no place for racism in our country.
end quote
ALL lives matter, and “societal transformation” is not “progressivism”; it is social engineering, plain and simple, indoctrination and coercion being its tools of change.
And that must be understood in light of this statement above here made in a political gathering in Philadelphia on April 7th of last year by Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton:
“If someone has white skin, they are a racist because of Implicit Bias, and we need community programs here in America to cure them.”
In the name of “progressivism,” we are looking at something more akin to Stalinism in the Soviet Union where those deemed as dissidents were locked away in Gulags for re-education through hard labor.
Is this what you want for your children?
Is this the future the United States deserves?
Think about it, people, for a clock is ticking.
In closing, to me, this “progressivism” being put forth by Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and the Democrat party is the same “progressivism” a cancer exhibits as it metastasizes through a human body, except their cancer will metastasize through the body politic in this nation instead, and bring chaos and disorder in its wake.
And that is as far from the true goals of “progressivism” as one can possibly get.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ressivism/
Paul Plante says:
As was stated above, according to the Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, “fascism” is defined as “a one party system of government in which each class has its distinct place, function and representation in government, BUT the individual is subordinated to the state and control is maintained by military force, secret police, rigid censorship and governmental regimentation of industry and finance,” where “subordinated” is defined as to “make subservient to or dependent on.”
As to the “one party system of government where the individual is subordinated to the state and control is maintained by military force, secret police, and rigid censorship,” we see clearly the beginnings of that in San Francisco Chronicle article “Masked anarchists violently rout right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley” by Lizzie Johnson, Erin Allday, Michael Cabanatuan and Nanette Asimov dated 28 August 2017, as follows:
An army of anarchists in black clothing and masks routed a small group of right-wing demonstrators who had gathered in a Berkeley park Sunday to rail against the city’s famed progressive politics, driving them out – sometimes violently — while overwhelming a huge contingent of police officers.
The swamping of right-wing political ideas by left-wing demonstrators has become a recurring theme in Berkeley and other California cities.
end quotes
As to “subordination of the individual to the state,” we can find no better example of that in a speech made by 2016 Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton to Black Lives Matter on April 7, 2016, where Progressive Democrat Clinton said as follows:
“If someone has white skin, they are a racist because of Implicit Bias, and we need community programs here in America to cure them.”
end quotes
That, people is what fascist subordination of the individual to the state looks like in real life.
And over in another thread, our dear friend and fellow commentator in here, the honorable Chas Cornweller gave us this definition of fascism according to Webster:
Fascism: n. a governmental system lead by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive NATIONALISM and often racism.
end quotes
In Hillary’s speech to Black Lives Matter on April 7, 2016, where Progressive Democrat Clinton said “If someone has white skin, they are a racist because of Implicit Bias, and we need community programs here in America to cure them,” we see the emergent dictator in the form of Hillary Clinton, and we see the racism, as well, in Hillary’s blanket condemnation of ALL white people having this so-called “implicit bias,” and thus, needing to be “cured” in state-operated “community programs.” to be determined by Hillary in conjunction with Black Lives Matter, with no input from the white people, as if the white people in this country were nothing more than cattle suffering from hoof-and mouth disease, or maybe rabies.
That, people, is not “progressivism,” that is a progression into fascism, and the fact that Hillary Clinton did not prevail in no way ended that progression into fascism intended by the Democrat party in its 2016 Democrat Party Manifesto, and we would be foolish in the country to think otherwise, and thus, drop our guard, for Hillary was not kidding when she said those words to Black Lives Matter on behalf to the progressive branch of the Democrat party on April 7, 2016, as a part of the 2016 Democrat party platform.
In support of that assertion, all I need do is to refer us to page 14 of the 2016 Democrat party manifesto, with manifesto being a public declaration of policy and aims, especially one issued before an election by a political party or candidate, where we find these following words of importance to us all in this nation: Ending Systemic Racism.
Systemic refers to something that is spread throughout, system-wide, affecting a group or system, such as a society as a whole.
In other words, in the words of the Democrat Manifesto for 2016, American society is sick from one end to the other, so that it is now time for the Democrat Party to take the law into its own hands to purge the United States of America of this “systemic racism.”
In that section of its manifesto, we were informed as follows:
Democrats will fight to end institutional and systemic racism in our society.
We will challenge and dismantle the structures that define lasting racial, economic, political, and social inequity.
end quote
Dismantle the structures.
Focus your thoughts on that for a moment if you will, people, especially the word “dismantle.”
The Democrats, who according to Gallup polling in 2010 constituted just 31% of Americans, have determined that they have the right to dismantle OUR nation and re-structure it the way they want it to be for them.
More to the point, that 31% of Americans have made a broad-brush accusation with that unsupported claim of theirs that there is systemic racism all throughout this land.
Where is their evidence?
The answer is they don’t have any and they don’t need any.
It is how they “feel,” and for them, that is all that is needed, and that is good enough.
Based on their “feelings,” our nation has to be “dismantled” and then re-structured in their image, because they alone know what is good for the rest of us in this nation.
The Democrat Manifesto then continues as follows:
Democrats will promote racial justice through fair, just, and equitable governing of all public-serving institutions and in the formation of public policy.
end quotes
As stated above, this 31% of our population, based on how they “feel,” knows what is best for all the rest of us in this country, and so, they are going to impose their will on us, which is what tyranny is really all about – a small group with political power imposing its will through force on a majority, which is the essence of fascism.
Getting back to the 2016 Democrat Manifesto, we next have this:
We will push for a societal transformation to make it clear that black lives matter and that there is no place for racism in our country.
end quote
ALL lives matter, and “societal transformation” is not “progressivism”; it is social engineering, plain and simple, indoctrination and coercion being its tools of change.
And that must be understood in light of this statement above here made in a political gathering in Philadelphia on April 7th of last year by Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton:
“If someone has white skin, they are a racist because of Implicit Bias, and we need community programs here in America to cure them.”
In the name of “progressivism,” we are looking at something more akin to Stalinism in the Soviet Union where those deemed as dissidents were locked away in Gulags for re-education through hard labor.
Is this what you want for your children?
Is this the future the United States deserves?
Think about it, people, for a clock is ticking.
In closing, to me, this “progressivism” being put forth by Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and the Democrat party is the same “progressivism” a cancer exhibits as it metastasizes through a human body, except their cancer will metastasize through the body politic in this nation instead, and bring chaos and disorder in its wake.
And that is as far from the true goals of “progressivism” as one can possibly get.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ressivism/
Re: ON NEO-FASCISM IN AMERICA
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 25, 2017 at 11:06 pm
Paul Plante says:
In the essay above on Neo-Fascism in America today in the Guise of Progressivism, I use the term “our Weimar Moment,” and I conclude with this question, to wit:
So, are we ripe for the rise of fascism, or authoritarian government, in the United States of America today, as was the case in Germany and Italy back before WWII?
By way of review, the term “Weimar Moment” refers to the largely-unknown today Weimar Republic of Germany which ended with the rug-chewing madman Adolph Hitler coming to power in Germany, as was detailed in the chapter entitled “The Great Depression and the Nazis” at p.170 of his book “World Wars And Revolutions,” where the author, Walter Phelps Hall, PhD, of Princeton, copyrighted 1943, gives us this contemporary view:
The chancellor was Bruning, a Centrist.
For support at home he had to depend on a slight majority made up of many different party groups and on the backing of the President of the Republic, the octogenarian Hindenburg.
Support outside his country he had none.
A customs union with Austria which might have helped save the day had been vetoed by the French, a veto upheld on technical grounds by the World Court at the Hague.
Neither politically nor financially was the republic to be aided in her death struggle.
Meanwhile, unemployment rose by leaps and bounds, and starvation threatened.
The very liberalism of the Weimar Republic was telling now against it.
For years the Nationalists and the Nazis had been organizing and drilling informal private armies of their own, the former the Steel Helmets, the latter the Sturmabteilung (Brown Shirts).
Even the peaceful Social Democrats had done likewise with the Reichsbanner corps.
Germany was seething with violent disorder.
Armed bands were attacking Jews and Communists, the former not retaliating, the latter fighting back.
Between the accession of Bruning in March, 1930, and the burning of the Reichstag building in February, 1933, which threw Germany into Hitler’s power, the utmost confusion reigned.
Plot and counterplot followed.
There were two presidential and two Reichstag elections; there were innumerable street riots and many murders; and the political balance swayed backward and forward between the defenders of Weimar and the Nationalists, the Nazis, and the Communists who hated the republic.
end quote
With that stated above, I then posed this question:
Is the very liberalism of our Republic now telling against it, as was the case in the Weimar Republic of Germany?
To answer my own question, I took the position that such is the case in our late-stage democracy where every lifestyle is allowed and deference to any sort of authority has withered, and therefore, our diversity is becoming our downfall as a nation, as late-stage democracy historically ends with a tyranny, which raises the question in here is will we such a thing in this country in our lifetimes?
As to tyranny, it is variously defined as “cruel and oppressive government or rule,” with such synonyms as despotism, autocracy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, Fascism and authoritarianism, or “a nation under cruel and oppressive government,” or “cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control,” that last bringing us back around to this sentence from the authoritarian 2016 Democrat Manifesto, to wit:
We will push for a societal transformation to make it clear that black lives matter and that there is no place for racism in our country.
end quotes
The “we” is the progressive wing of the Democrat party and the Black Lives Matter crowd, both of whom are a minority in this country, and yet, despite being a minority, they seek to impose their iron rule on the majority of people in this country, which is a perversion of our American values, and our American way of life.
We did not throw off one tyranny by a minority back in 1776, only to have it reimposed on us in 2017 by the progressive wing of the Democrat Party and the Black Lives Matter crowd.
In the United States of America, free citizens do not come to heel at the beck and call of a minority of citizens like the progressive Democrats and the Black Lives Matter crowd.
In our Republic, the tail does not wag the dog.
Combining the statement “We will make it clear that there is no place for racism in our country” with Hillary Clinton’s speech to Black Lives Matter on April 7, 2016, where Progressive Democrat Clinton said “If someone has white skin, they are a racist because of Implicit Bias, and we need community programs here in America to cure them,” the message becomes clear that according to Hillary Clinton, the progressive Democrats, and the Black Lives Matter crowd, there appears to be no place for white people in the new world order to be imposed on America if and when the progressive Democrats gain control of our government to make it their own, after using their paramilitary wing called the “antifas” to swamp right-wing political ideas, as has become a recurring theme in Berkeley, California and other California cities, and that people, is authoritarianism, plain and simple.
So, to answer my question above, yes, by all appearances, we are indeed ripe for the rise of fascism, or authoritarian government, in this country, and to confirm that, all we need is watch the chaos and anarchy that lead to the imposition of a tyranny unfold all around us.
So, where will this end?
That, people, is a pressing question for our times.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ressivism/
Paul Plante says:
In the essay above on Neo-Fascism in America today in the Guise of Progressivism, I use the term “our Weimar Moment,” and I conclude with this question, to wit:
So, are we ripe for the rise of fascism, or authoritarian government, in the United States of America today, as was the case in Germany and Italy back before WWII?
By way of review, the term “Weimar Moment” refers to the largely-unknown today Weimar Republic of Germany which ended with the rug-chewing madman Adolph Hitler coming to power in Germany, as was detailed in the chapter entitled “The Great Depression and the Nazis” at p.170 of his book “World Wars And Revolutions,” where the author, Walter Phelps Hall, PhD, of Princeton, copyrighted 1943, gives us this contemporary view:
The chancellor was Bruning, a Centrist.
For support at home he had to depend on a slight majority made up of many different party groups and on the backing of the President of the Republic, the octogenarian Hindenburg.
Support outside his country he had none.
A customs union with Austria which might have helped save the day had been vetoed by the French, a veto upheld on technical grounds by the World Court at the Hague.
Neither politically nor financially was the republic to be aided in her death struggle.
Meanwhile, unemployment rose by leaps and bounds, and starvation threatened.
The very liberalism of the Weimar Republic was telling now against it.
For years the Nationalists and the Nazis had been organizing and drilling informal private armies of their own, the former the Steel Helmets, the latter the Sturmabteilung (Brown Shirts).
Even the peaceful Social Democrats had done likewise with the Reichsbanner corps.
Germany was seething with violent disorder.
Armed bands were attacking Jews and Communists, the former not retaliating, the latter fighting back.
Between the accession of Bruning in March, 1930, and the burning of the Reichstag building in February, 1933, which threw Germany into Hitler’s power, the utmost confusion reigned.
Plot and counterplot followed.
There were two presidential and two Reichstag elections; there were innumerable street riots and many murders; and the political balance swayed backward and forward between the defenders of Weimar and the Nationalists, the Nazis, and the Communists who hated the republic.
end quote
With that stated above, I then posed this question:
Is the very liberalism of our Republic now telling against it, as was the case in the Weimar Republic of Germany?
To answer my own question, I took the position that such is the case in our late-stage democracy where every lifestyle is allowed and deference to any sort of authority has withered, and therefore, our diversity is becoming our downfall as a nation, as late-stage democracy historically ends with a tyranny, which raises the question in here is will we such a thing in this country in our lifetimes?
As to tyranny, it is variously defined as “cruel and oppressive government or rule,” with such synonyms as despotism, autocracy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, Fascism and authoritarianism, or “a nation under cruel and oppressive government,” or “cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control,” that last bringing us back around to this sentence from the authoritarian 2016 Democrat Manifesto, to wit:
We will push for a societal transformation to make it clear that black lives matter and that there is no place for racism in our country.
end quotes
The “we” is the progressive wing of the Democrat party and the Black Lives Matter crowd, both of whom are a minority in this country, and yet, despite being a minority, they seek to impose their iron rule on the majority of people in this country, which is a perversion of our American values, and our American way of life.
We did not throw off one tyranny by a minority back in 1776, only to have it reimposed on us in 2017 by the progressive wing of the Democrat Party and the Black Lives Matter crowd.
In the United States of America, free citizens do not come to heel at the beck and call of a minority of citizens like the progressive Democrats and the Black Lives Matter crowd.
In our Republic, the tail does not wag the dog.
Combining the statement “We will make it clear that there is no place for racism in our country” with Hillary Clinton’s speech to Black Lives Matter on April 7, 2016, where Progressive Democrat Clinton said “If someone has white skin, they are a racist because of Implicit Bias, and we need community programs here in America to cure them,” the message becomes clear that according to Hillary Clinton, the progressive Democrats, and the Black Lives Matter crowd, there appears to be no place for white people in the new world order to be imposed on America if and when the progressive Democrats gain control of our government to make it their own, after using their paramilitary wing called the “antifas” to swamp right-wing political ideas, as has become a recurring theme in Berkeley, California and other California cities, and that people, is authoritarianism, plain and simple.
So, to answer my question above, yes, by all appearances, we are indeed ripe for the rise of fascism, or authoritarian government, in this country, and to confirm that, all we need is watch the chaos and anarchy that lead to the imposition of a tyranny unfold all around us.
So, where will this end?
That, people, is a pressing question for our times.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ressivism/
Re: ON NEO-FASCISM IN AMERICA
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 27, 2017 at 7:01 pm
Paul Plante says:
With respect to fascism in the guise of Democrat party progressivism in America today, in Federalist 10, Virginian James Madison, known as the “Father of the Constitution,” stated as follows with respect to democracies:
“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
“Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”
end quotes
It is that last sentence I would draw the reader’s attention to: Theoretic politicians who have patronized this species of government called democracy have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
Consider what Jemmy is saying there when he speaks of “reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights.”
What does it mean to “reduce” mankind to a perfect equality?
More to the point, how exactly is that to be done, where “reduce” means “make smaller or less in amount, degree, or size,” with such synonyms as lessen, make smaller, lower, bring down, decrease, diminish, minimize, or to “bring someone or something to (a lower or weaker state, condition, or role), for that is what a true democracy does, brings everyone down to the level of the most ignorant person in the society, which is also known as “tall-poppy syndrome” which describes aspects of a culture where people of high status are resented, attacked, cut down or criticised simply because they have been classified as superior to their peers.
And the answer is through totalitarianism, which is a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state, and authoritarianism, which is the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom, such as Hillary Clinton telling Black Lives Matter in a political gathering in Philadelphia on April 7th of last year that “If someone has white skin, they are a racist because of Implicit Bias, and we need community programs here in America to cure them.”
We need community programs here in America to cure white people of implicit bias, people.
And that is an excellent example of totalitarianism, which is a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.
White people in the United States of America have been judged by the incipient dictator Hillary Rodham Clinton in conjunction with Black Lives Matter and they have been found guilty, end of story, no appeal available, and now, they must be cured in state-run institutions, where cure means to “relieve a person of the symptoms of a disease or condition,” which would be the imposition of a tyranny here in the United States of America should the progressive wing of the Democrat party in conjunction with Black Lives Matter gain sufficient political power here in America, as is their continuing goal.
And that takes us to the question of how does one tell when late-stage democracy is coming to an end, and is morphing into a tyranny?
By way of review, James Madison, known as the “Father of the Constitution,” had what was called a classical education, and as such, he was familiar with the writings of the Greek Philosopher Plato, specifically, Plato’s Republic and a passage therein where Socrates and his friends are talking about the nature of different political systems, how they change over time, and how one can slowly evolve into another, and therein, Socrates stated that “tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy.”
Going back to Plato, democracy for him was a political system of maximal freedom and equality, where every lifestyle is allowed and deference to any sort of authority would wither; tolerance of any kind of inequality would come under intense threat; and multiculturalism and sexual freedom would create a city or a country like “a many-colored cloak decorated in all hues,” and family hierarchies are inverted: “A father habituates himself to be like his child and fear his sons, and a son habituates himself to be like his father and to have no shame before or fear of his parents,” while in classrooms, “as the teacher … is frightened of the pupils and fawns on them, so the students make light of their teachers,” which actually happened with the Cultural Revolution and the Red Guards in Chairman Mao’s Communist China, and now it is happening here.
Focus on “every lifestyle is allowed,” and then focus on this story in the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE article “Masked anarchists violently rout right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley” By Lizzie Johnson, Erin Allday, Michael Cabanatuan and Nanette Asimov 28 AUGUST 2017, which makes it incandescently clear that no longer is every lifestyle allowed in America, which is when late-stage democracy becomes a tyranny such as we are observing in the world around us, to wit:
An army of anarchists in black clothing and masks routed a small group of right-wing demonstrators who had gathered in a Berkeley park Sunday to rail against the city’s famed progressive politics, driving them out – sometimes violently — while overwhelming a huge contingent of police officers.
As the crowd swelled to several times that size, officers stepped aside and allowed hundreds of people angered by the presence of the right-wing rally to climb over the barriers into the park, said Officer Jennifer Coats, a spokeswoman for Berkeley police.
The masked counterprotesters, often referred to as antifa or antifascists, significantly outnumbered the people who had come for the rally, many of whom wore red clothing supporting President Trump.
The anarchists chased away the right-wingers, and in one case four or five pummeled a man with fists and sticks before a radio host for Reveal, Al Letson, jumped in to shield the victim.
Anarchists also attacked reporters who documented their actions.
“We’re just puzzled as to why people consider violence a valid tactic,” said Kristin Leimkuhler, 60, of Berkeley, who with a group of neighbors left the protests when they turned chaotic.
“We felt disappointed and surprised by how many people were not in any way discreet about being with antifa — in fact being very bold and prepared to be violent.”
“No Trump, no KKK, no racist USA!” crowds chanted early in the day at Civic Center Park.
Hundreds of mostly local residents converged at Berkeley’s Ohlone Park to oppose hate speech, racism and white supremacy.
They carried signs reading “Berkeley stands united against hate,” “Queers against hate” and “End white supremacy.”
“It’s important for people to show up and make it unacceptable for right-wing white supremacists to spew hate and incite violence,” said Jeff Conant, 50, of Berkeley, who helped organize the anti-hate rally.
He praised Saturday’s “tremendous victory in San Francisco” and said Sunday was about “galvanizing a movement to oppose white supremacy and the structures that support it.”
The swamping of right-wing political ideas by left-wing demonstrators has become a recurring theme in Berkeley and other California cities.
In Berkeley on Sunday, some observers derived satisfaction from watching far-left protesters beat up and chase off a young man at the rally in apparent support of Trump.
“It’s a good time,” said Tom Martell, 70, of Crockett, who stood in Civic Center Park with his girlfriend, Lisa Argento, 53.
“They’ve got to be chased out,” Argento said.
“I moved to the Bay Area and pay good money to live here.”
“I don’t want these people here.”
“They need to leave us the f— alone.”
Argento said she has mixed feelings about ignoring members of the political right who rally to drum up support for their views.
“What are we waiting for?” she asked.
“They already hold the White House.”
“They are already dragging people away in the middle of the night.”
But others thought the actions of the masked counterprotesters were shameful.
“What hypocrites,” said Linda Fuentes Rosner, 69, a Spanish-language interpreter from Vallejo, who glared at a group in the park chanting anti-Trump slogans.
“They don’t know what they’re talking about.”
“You think it’s OK that a Trump supporter gets beat up?”
“It’s embarrassing.”
“The left has prevented the right from speaking.”
“That’s not American, that despotism.”
end quote
Yes, it is a despotism, and there for the moment I will end.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ressivism/
Paul Plante says:
With respect to fascism in the guise of Democrat party progressivism in America today, in Federalist 10, Virginian James Madison, known as the “Father of the Constitution,” stated as follows with respect to democracies:
“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
“Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”
end quotes
It is that last sentence I would draw the reader’s attention to: Theoretic politicians who have patronized this species of government called democracy have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
Consider what Jemmy is saying there when he speaks of “reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights.”
What does it mean to “reduce” mankind to a perfect equality?
More to the point, how exactly is that to be done, where “reduce” means “make smaller or less in amount, degree, or size,” with such synonyms as lessen, make smaller, lower, bring down, decrease, diminish, minimize, or to “bring someone or something to (a lower or weaker state, condition, or role), for that is what a true democracy does, brings everyone down to the level of the most ignorant person in the society, which is also known as “tall-poppy syndrome” which describes aspects of a culture where people of high status are resented, attacked, cut down or criticised simply because they have been classified as superior to their peers.
And the answer is through totalitarianism, which is a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state, and authoritarianism, which is the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom, such as Hillary Clinton telling Black Lives Matter in a political gathering in Philadelphia on April 7th of last year that “If someone has white skin, they are a racist because of Implicit Bias, and we need community programs here in America to cure them.”
We need community programs here in America to cure white people of implicit bias, people.
And that is an excellent example of totalitarianism, which is a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.
White people in the United States of America have been judged by the incipient dictator Hillary Rodham Clinton in conjunction with Black Lives Matter and they have been found guilty, end of story, no appeal available, and now, they must be cured in state-run institutions, where cure means to “relieve a person of the symptoms of a disease or condition,” which would be the imposition of a tyranny here in the United States of America should the progressive wing of the Democrat party in conjunction with Black Lives Matter gain sufficient political power here in America, as is their continuing goal.
And that takes us to the question of how does one tell when late-stage democracy is coming to an end, and is morphing into a tyranny?
By way of review, James Madison, known as the “Father of the Constitution,” had what was called a classical education, and as such, he was familiar with the writings of the Greek Philosopher Plato, specifically, Plato’s Republic and a passage therein where Socrates and his friends are talking about the nature of different political systems, how they change over time, and how one can slowly evolve into another, and therein, Socrates stated that “tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy.”
Going back to Plato, democracy for him was a political system of maximal freedom and equality, where every lifestyle is allowed and deference to any sort of authority would wither; tolerance of any kind of inequality would come under intense threat; and multiculturalism and sexual freedom would create a city or a country like “a many-colored cloak decorated in all hues,” and family hierarchies are inverted: “A father habituates himself to be like his child and fear his sons, and a son habituates himself to be like his father and to have no shame before or fear of his parents,” while in classrooms, “as the teacher … is frightened of the pupils and fawns on them, so the students make light of their teachers,” which actually happened with the Cultural Revolution and the Red Guards in Chairman Mao’s Communist China, and now it is happening here.
Focus on “every lifestyle is allowed,” and then focus on this story in the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE article “Masked anarchists violently rout right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley” By Lizzie Johnson, Erin Allday, Michael Cabanatuan and Nanette Asimov 28 AUGUST 2017, which makes it incandescently clear that no longer is every lifestyle allowed in America, which is when late-stage democracy becomes a tyranny such as we are observing in the world around us, to wit:
An army of anarchists in black clothing and masks routed a small group of right-wing demonstrators who had gathered in a Berkeley park Sunday to rail against the city’s famed progressive politics, driving them out – sometimes violently — while overwhelming a huge contingent of police officers.
As the crowd swelled to several times that size, officers stepped aside and allowed hundreds of people angered by the presence of the right-wing rally to climb over the barriers into the park, said Officer Jennifer Coats, a spokeswoman for Berkeley police.
The masked counterprotesters, often referred to as antifa or antifascists, significantly outnumbered the people who had come for the rally, many of whom wore red clothing supporting President Trump.
The anarchists chased away the right-wingers, and in one case four or five pummeled a man with fists and sticks before a radio host for Reveal, Al Letson, jumped in to shield the victim.
Anarchists also attacked reporters who documented their actions.
“We’re just puzzled as to why people consider violence a valid tactic,” said Kristin Leimkuhler, 60, of Berkeley, who with a group of neighbors left the protests when they turned chaotic.
“We felt disappointed and surprised by how many people were not in any way discreet about being with antifa — in fact being very bold and prepared to be violent.”
“No Trump, no KKK, no racist USA!” crowds chanted early in the day at Civic Center Park.
Hundreds of mostly local residents converged at Berkeley’s Ohlone Park to oppose hate speech, racism and white supremacy.
They carried signs reading “Berkeley stands united against hate,” “Queers against hate” and “End white supremacy.”
“It’s important for people to show up and make it unacceptable for right-wing white supremacists to spew hate and incite violence,” said Jeff Conant, 50, of Berkeley, who helped organize the anti-hate rally.
He praised Saturday’s “tremendous victory in San Francisco” and said Sunday was about “galvanizing a movement to oppose white supremacy and the structures that support it.”
The swamping of right-wing political ideas by left-wing demonstrators has become a recurring theme in Berkeley and other California cities.
In Berkeley on Sunday, some observers derived satisfaction from watching far-left protesters beat up and chase off a young man at the rally in apparent support of Trump.
“It’s a good time,” said Tom Martell, 70, of Crockett, who stood in Civic Center Park with his girlfriend, Lisa Argento, 53.
“They’ve got to be chased out,” Argento said.
“I moved to the Bay Area and pay good money to live here.”
“I don’t want these people here.”
“They need to leave us the f— alone.”
Argento said she has mixed feelings about ignoring members of the political right who rally to drum up support for their views.
“What are we waiting for?” she asked.
“They already hold the White House.”
“They are already dragging people away in the middle of the night.”
But others thought the actions of the masked counterprotesters were shameful.
“What hypocrites,” said Linda Fuentes Rosner, 69, a Spanish-language interpreter from Vallejo, who glared at a group in the park chanting anti-Trump slogans.
“They don’t know what they’re talking about.”
“You think it’s OK that a Trump supporter gets beat up?”
“It’s embarrassing.”
“The left has prevented the right from speaking.”
“That’s not American, that despotism.”
end quote
Yes, it is a despotism, and there for the moment I will end.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ressivism/