The More Things (Democrats) Change….

[PoliticalChic]

….the more they mirror their origins.



1.The ideas and values of the modern Democrat Party come directly from the revolution…..no, not the American Revolution, the French Revolution. The may be summarized as

a. no private property (environmentalism is another way of regulating property out of private ownership).

b. terror and violence as public policy. Note the over 12 thousand riots, assaults, arsons, acts of domestic terrorism authorized and incited by the Democrat Party in the run-up to the election, including the provocation on Jan6.

c. resentment and hostility toward the Judeo-Christian religion, and the substitution of worship of government.




2.By the 19th century the spearhead was resistance to kings, tsars, and emperors that mobilized the masses behind promises of liberty and freedom. Of course, any study of the French Revolution would show that in reality, anarchism, socialism, and, of course, Karl Marx’s communism produced death and destruction and simply replaced one tyrant with another.



3. Never lose sight of the fact that from the radicals of the French Revolution to this day, every extremist, radical movement has been on the Left. There is no Far Right in this country, only a Far Left, and that is the Democrat Party: from hatred of religion, to opposition to private property, violence for disagreements, excessive taxation, racism, men can be women, and become pregnant….it is always the Democrats.




4. When government agrees to the Left’s policies….they still go for the throat. Here, the 19th century:

“Alexander II (Russian: Алекса́ндр II Никола́евич, tr. Aleksándr II Nikoláyevich, IPA: [ɐlʲɪˈksandr ftɐˈroj nʲɪkɐˈlajɪvʲɪtɕ]; 29 April 1818 – 13 March 1881)[a] was Emperor of Russia, King of Congress Poland and Grand Duke of Finland from 2 March 1855 until his assassination.[1]

Alexander's most significant reform as emperor was the emancipation of Russia's serfs in 1861, for which he is known as Alexander the Liberator (Russian: Алекса́ндр Освободи́тель, tr. Aleksándr Osvobodytel, IPA: [ɐlʲɪˈksandr ɐsvəbɐˈdʲitʲɪlʲ]). The tsar was responsible for other reforms, including reorganizing the judicial system, setting up elected local judges, abolishing corporal punishment,[2] promoting local self-government through the zemstvo system, imposing universal military service, ending some privileges of the nobility, and promoting university education. After an assassination attempt in 1866, Alexander adopted a somewhat more reactionary stance until his death.”
Alexander II of Russia - Wikipedia



Alexander’s reward for reform was the same pattern from the French Revolution to today’.....he was assassinated.
The Left in any of its forms....must be dealt with in the only fashion they understand.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

I'm afraid you are correct.
Live & let live does not work with Dems because they insist on everybody conforming to whatever insane idea they come up with.
How do you co-exist with people who are actively trying to strip your rights & run roughshod over every aspect of your life?
They policies they endorse are evil & totalitarian but they shine it up with pretty focus group tested language for the masses. Then they demand everybody bends the knee to their obvious derangement.
Compromising with evil is not a virtue, it just makes you both evil

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm afraid you are correct.
Live & let live does not work with Dems because they insist on everybody conforming to whatever insane idea they come up with.
How do you co-exist with people who are actively trying to strip your rights & run roughshod over every aspect of your life?
They policies they endorse are evil & totalitarian but they shine it up with pretty focus group tested language for the masses. Then they demand everybody bends the knee to their obvious derangement.
Compromising with evil is not a virtue, it just makes you both evil

If you and I are the only ones who realize this, America is lost.


I try not to make predictions.....I believe what the Great Yogi said: It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.


But.....Shellacking:
“On Election Day 2010, the Democrats suffered massive losses at every level. They lost 63 seats in the House and control of the chamber. They lost six Senate seats. They suffered a net loss of six governorships. With special elections and party switches, Democrats lost 720 legislative seats; 26 legislatures were under full GOP control. Combined with the statehouse losses, it meant that the political levers in key states — Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, Arizona and North Carolina — were totally in GOP hands. Republicans also gained six attorney general slots, the implications of which would become clear with each passing year as they brought a tsunami of lawsuits against key Obama programs. “
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/05/12/2010-elections-politics-effects/


If the midterm voting isn't worse than that, it should be considered a failure.

No American can consider voting for a Democrat.

Every Democrat should be sent packing.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Every Democrat should be sent packing.

At least.

 

[struth]

off with their heads!!

 

[rightwinger]

Democrats believe in Truth, Justice and the American Way

The only major party that still respects our Constitution

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

off with their heads!!

tick tock

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. Alexander II, ‘the Liberator,” paid dearly for his reforms.


“On 1 March 1881, the tsar of Russia, Alexander II, was returning to the palace after an inspection of his troops. In his pocket he was carrying a document that he had worked out with his advisers: a tentative plan for some kind of Russian parliament—the first step towards the English style of representative government. Although Alexander had freed the serfs, socialist agitation was increasing, ….Now, at last, he was prepared to relinquish a little of his absolute power.

Suddenly, there was a tremendous explosion.

The tsar was rushed back to his palace; an hour later, he died. The assassin belonged to a group who called themselves Narodniki, or the Party of the People’s Will. They were followers of the revolutionary Michael Bakunin—who had been Marx’s chief rival for leadership of the First International

and had been out-manoeuvred by Marx. Bakunin, in turn, was a follower of Pierre Joseph Proudhon—Marx’s pet detestation and the man who invented the phrase ‘property is theft’. It was Proudhon, in fact, who had coined the word ‘anarchy’, meaning the opposite of hierarchy: no government.” Colin Wilson, “A Criminal History of Mankind”



The premise of the thread is that socialists, communists, Marxists, Progressives, anarchists, and the current Democrats, are all variations of the same Leftist principles.





Which of these doesn’t answer political disagreement with violence?????



That’s right…..since the French Revolution, they all do. For the first time in history terror became an official government policy, with the stated aim to use violence in order to achieve a higher political goal. Unlike the later meaning of 'terrorists' as people who use violence against a government, the terrorists of the French Revolution were the government. The Terror was legal, having been voted for by the Convention.

Robespierre and the Terror | History Today

www.historytoday.com

 

[The Duke]

….the more they mirror their origins.



1.The ideas and values of the modern Democrat Party come directly from the revolution…..no, not the American Revolution, the French Revolution. The may be summarized as

a. no private property (environmentalism is another way of regulating property out of private ownership).

b. terror and violence as public policy. Note the over 12 thousand riots, assaults, arsons, acts of domestic terrorism authorized and incited by the Democrat Party in the run-up to the election, including the provocation on Jan6.

c. resentment and hostility toward the Judeo-Christian religion, and the substitution of worship of government.




2.By the 19th century the spearhead was resistance to kings, tsars, and emperors that mobilized the masses behind promises of liberty and freedom. Of course, any study of the French Revolution would show that in reality, anarchism, socialism, and, of course, Karl Marx’s communism produced death and destruction and simply replaced one tyrant with another.



3. Never lose sight of the fact that from the radicals of the French Revolution to this day, every extremist, radical movement has been on the Left. There is no Far Right in this country, only a Far Left, and that is the Democrat Party: from hatred of religion, to opposition to private property, violence for disagreements, excessive taxation, racism, men can be women, and become pregnant….it is always the Democrats.




4. When government agrees to the Left’s policies….they still go for the throat. Here, the 19th century:

“Alexander II (Russian: Алекса́ндр II Никола́евич, tr. Aleksándr II Nikoláyevich, IPA: [ɐlʲɪˈksandr ftɐˈroj nʲɪkɐˈlajɪvʲɪtɕ]; 29 April 1818 – 13 March 1881)[a] was Emperor of Russia, King of Congress Poland and Grand Duke of Finland from 2 March 1855 until his assassination.[1]

Alexander's most significant reform as emperor was the emancipation of Russia's serfs in 1861, for which he is known as Alexander the Liberator (Russian: Алекса́ндр Освободи́тель, tr. Aleksándr Osvobodytel, IPA: [ɐlʲɪˈksandr ɐsvəbɐˈdʲitʲɪlʲ]). The tsar was responsible for other reforms, including reorganizing the judicial system, setting up elected local judges, abolishing corporal punishment,[2] promoting local self-government through the zemstvo system, imposing universal military service, ending some privileges of the nobility, and promoting university education. After an assassination attempt in 1866, Alexander adopted a somewhat more reactionary stance until his death.”
Alexander II of Russia - Wikipedia



Alexander’s reward for reform was the same pattern from the French Revolution to today’.....he was assassinated.
The Left in any of its forms....must be dealt with in the only fashion they understand.

Ah, The French Revolution; The original Commies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah, The French Revolution; The original Commies.

Correctly so.


The Democrats of today are not an America party.....they are the the result of the French Revolution, and are a European Party.....a throw-back.



The Constitution was a distillation of the views of Madison, Jefferson and Franklin. Democrat Progressivism is from the views of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx.







Now, let's quote 'progressives,' also known as totalitarians.



a. The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).



b. The attitude of the FDR government can be seen in these words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor: “[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.”

From a speech delivered on the Senate floor

May 14, 1943 Happy Chandler's dangerous statism - The Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions



c. Jim Cramer, one of the Left's apparatchiks, say what Democrats believe, encourage.....but blames it on the other side.



“government has a right to force you to obey and has always exercised it especially under GOP”



Anyone think to question what the GOP has forced any to obey about?



Masks?



Injections?



Taxation?







See what I mean about the Left/Progressives lying about everything?



The Democrats are the European Party, the party of Obey.

We’re the other side, the personal liberty, individualism, the right to make personal decisions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. When rulers tried to assuage the unrest, the most extreme radicals sensed weakness….a perfect example was the White Revolution in Iran. During the 1953 through 1969, Eisenhower and Kennedy and Johnson pressured the Shah to engage in various reforms based on their fear of a popular uprising, as predicted by the CIA as “…just around the corner!” In mid-1958, “Tomorrow will be a revolution!” Of course, the CIA at that time was factually correct, but chronologically premature by some twenty years!

Due to the American pressure, the Shah launched a series of reforms, known as the White Revolution, in 1963. This included many American ideas for modernization, such as a) land reform, b) modernization of infrastructure including railroads, c) education, d) enfranchising women, e) urbanization, f) encouragement of a class of technocrats and competent bureaucrats, etc. tried (unsuccessfully) to enable Iran’s religious minorities—principally Baha’is, Jews, and Christians—to take the oath of office on a holy book of their own choosing.



Strangely, the success of the White Revolution lead to new social tensions that helped create many of the problems the Shah had been trying to avoid. It produced a middle class, economically privileged, that formed the insurgents who demanded political reform later…just what the Shah had hoped to avoid.

Under Democrat Jimmy Carter’s efforts, installing the Ayatollah, we see the usual pattern:

"When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108




And buckling to the Democrat chest-thumping over the death of the criminal George Floyd resulted in a crime tsunami nationwide.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. To underscore the point of this thread, the French Revolution was the start of modern socialism, communism, totalitarianism. The Bolsheviks actually claimed it as the model for their revolution. And the Democrat’s aims are the same: they are socialist/communists/Marxists.



The Nazis were also socialists, as their name states, and before the Holocaust was revealed, American Progressives were shoulder to shoulder with them: after the revelations of the war, they scrambled to disassociate from their former model.



Philosophically, organizationally, and politically the progressives were as close to authentic homegrown fascists as any movement American has ever produced. Militaristic, fanatically nationalist, imperialist, racist, deeply involved in the promotion of Darwinian eugenics, enamored of the Bismarkian welfare state, statist beyond modern reckoning, the progressives represented the American flowering of a transatlantic movement, a profound reorientation toward the Hegelian and Darwinian collectivism imported from Europe at the end of the nineteenth century. Jonah Goldberg, “Liberal Fascism”

And if you vote Democrat.......this is what you are voting for.






" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to the Soviet Union." Manly, p. 48, 'The Twenty Year Revolution.'

 

[MinTrut]

5. Alexander II, ‘the Liberator,” paid dearly for his reforms.


“On 1 March 1881, the tsar of Russia, Alexander II, was returning to the palace after an inspection of his troops. In his pocket he was carrying a document that he had worked out with his advisers: a tentative plan for some kind of Russian parliament—the first step towards the English style of representative government. Although Alexander had freed the serfs, socialist agitation was increasing, ….Now, at last, he was prepared to relinquish a little of his absolute power.

Suddenly, there was a tremendous explosion.

The tsar was rushed back to his palace; an hour later, he died. The assassin belonged to a group who called themselves Narodniki, or the Party of the People’s Will. They were followers of the revolutionary Michael Bakunin—who had been Marx’s chief rival for leadership of the First International

and had been out-manoeuvred by Marx. Bakunin, in turn, was a follower of Pierre Joseph Proudhon—Marx’s pet detestation and the man who invented the phrase ‘property is theft’. It was Proudhon, in fact, who had coined the word ‘anarchy’, meaning the opposite of hierarchy: no government.” Colin Wilson, “A Criminal History of Mankind”



The premise of the thread is that socialists, communists, Marxists, Progressives, anarchists, and the current Democrats, are all variations of the same Leftist principles.





Which of these doesn’t answer political disagreement with violence?????



That’s right…..since the French Revolution, they all do. For the first time in history terror became an official government policy, with the stated aim to use violence in order to achieve a higher political goal. Unlike the later meaning of 'terrorists' as people who use violence against a government, the terrorists of the French Revolution were the government. The Terror was legal, having been voted for by the Convention.

Robespierre and the Terror | History Today

www.historytoday.com

Here's the problem with your premise:

Democrats aren't remotely leftist.

In fact, they sliced the throats of leftist voters in swing states to install demented rapist Biden.

Democrats DESPISE the left, and the left DESPISES Democrats.

Confusing the left with Democrats is like thinking Jews are Nazis.

Democrats = Powerful/deranged fascists many in number

The left = Tiny powerless group despised by Democrats

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's the problem with your premise:

Democrats aren't remotely leftist.

In fact, they sliced the throats of leftist voters in swing states to install demented rapist Biden.

Democrats DESPISE the left, and the left DESPISES Democrats.

Confusing the left with Democrats is like thinking Jews are Nazis.

Democrats = Powerful/deranged fascists many in number

The left = Tiny powerless group despised by Democrats

Those who now control the Democrat Party are Leftists, as defined

a. no private property (environmentalism is another way of regulating property out of private ownership).

b. terror and violence as public policy. Note the over 12 thousand riots, assaults, arsons, acts of domestic terrorism authorized and incited by the Democrat Party in the run-up to the election, including the provocation on Jan6.

c. resentment and hostility toward the Judeo-Christian religion, and the substitution of worship of government.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. So…..how and why has Fascism, and Nazism, come to be associated with the Right if it is socialist????





"American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism. “Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin,..."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1223

Goldberg, Liberal Fascism



(Now...take the Holocaust as the event that forced Progressives to dissociate from the Nazis....although one American President actually authorized concentration camps for his citizens, and while Nazis, Fascists, and Communists were once one big, comfortable association with American Progressives and that very same President, the catalogue of Nazi crimes caused American Progressives to suddenly claim that....no, Nazis were not really of the Left...they had to be the very opposite.)





" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to the Soviet Union." Manly, p. 48, 'The Twenty Year Revolution.'

 

[MinTrut]

Those who now control the Democrat Party are Leftists, as defined

Not remotely.

They're deranged conservative fascist sociopaths.

a. no private property (environmentalism is another way of regulating property out of private ownership).

b. terror and violence as public policy. Note the over 12 thousand riots, assaults, arsons, acts of domestic terrorism authorized and incited by the Democrat Party in the run-up to the election, including the provocation on Jan6.

c. resentment and hostility toward the Judeo-Christian religion, and the substitution of worship of government.

Naw.

See above.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not remotely.

They're deranged conservative fascist sociopaths.

Naw.

See above.

Fascists are of the Left.


Mussolini, an ally of the Nazis, more Leftists.


FDR, the Socialist Saint of the Democrats, imposed Mussolini's entire economic plan on America s the New Deal.



So...yup......Democrats .....Leftists.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. It has always been a powerful argument by the Left, that there are suffering masses that needed to be freed from the rich, and it has been put to work by the Democrat Party…..even though they are the rich.



And once again we see the Democrat Party mirroring their Marxist origins.

“….why did Kapital come to exercise such widespread influence? Because Marx possessed Savonarola’s talent for emotional invective. He himself told a correspondent ‘It is certainly the most terrible missile that has ever been aimed at the bourgeoisie.’ Marx could always marshal his ‘economic facts’, his starving Irish, his miners dying of silicosis, his foundrymen scalded to death with boiling metal, his seamstresses coughing away their lungs. And the tone of scientific precision proved irresistible to a new generation of socialists, from Bernard Shaw to Lenin and Trotsky. Marx, like Luther, had arrived at precisely the right moment in history.

…the movement became more powerful. Their basic mythology—that rulers and ‘bosses’ were criminals who had robbed the working man—was pure ‘magical’ thinking, a thin rationalization of the ‘xenophobia’ of primitive tribes. Their basic philosophy—that when the rulers had been murdered, men would live together in perfect harmony—was completely untenable. ”
Colin Wilson, “A Criminal History of Mankind”

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. The premise of the thread is that socialists, communists, Marxists, Progressives, anarchists, and the current Democrats, are all variations of the same Leftist principles.



During the 19th century wave of immigration of largely poor from Europe, they brought all of those Leftist views with them. And the Democrats were waiting to register them to vote. And exchange views.....at least the current Democrats assumed those views.



There is a straight line between those anarchist views and what we have seen from the Democrat
‘defund and disband the police’ Party.



“…the anarchists insisted that police were only necessary because of poverty, and that as soon as the Revolution had destroyed all authority, there would be more than enough of everything for everybody; people would only have to go and help themselves from the goods taken from the rich. As to work, five hours a day would be enough to support everybody in comfort … No one even suggested that if everybody was allowed to help themselves, the warehouses containing the goods of the rich would soon be empty; that would have been regarded as a libel on the nature of the poor. But Bernard Shaw sounded a note of realism in a Fabian pamphlet when he asked how, if human nature was so perfect, the oppression and corruption had arisen in the first place.”
Colin Wilson, Op. Cit.



An early peek at what Democrats have done to America.....

Ferguson.....where Democrat Hussein Obama told rioters to "stay the course."






"Obama Met With Ferguson Activists – Said He’s Concerned They “Stay on Course”
President Obama met with Ferguson protest leaders on November 5th, the day after the midterm elections. The meeting was not onhis daily schedule. He was concerned that the protesters“stay on course.”

What does that mean?" Obama Met With Ferguson Activists - Said He's Concerned They "Stay on Course" - The Gateway Pundit

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. Violence, mayhem, and murder have been the hallmark of every Leftist movement. And not just in Europe.

“In America, an unbalanced young Polish immigrant named Leon Czolgosz carried a clipping about the assassination of King Humbert (King of Italy, assassinated in 1900, The assassin was an Italian named Bresci, who had travelled from America) wherever he went. He attended anarchist meetings, but seemed so muddled and strange that the comrades suspected him of being a police agent.

In September 1901, Czolgosz stood in a line in Buffalo, New York State, to shake hands with President McKinley, who was visiting the American Exposition. He shot McKinley, who died eight days later. McKinley was the third American president to die at the hands of an assassin, the previous two being Abraham Lincoln and James Garfield—the latter shot by an unbalanced religious maniac named Charles Guiteau who liked to describe himself as the premier of England. Czolgosz was electrocuted, although one psychiatrist diagnosed him as suffering from delusions. And McKinley’s successor, Theodore Roosevelt, pushed Congress into amending the Immigration Act to exclude anyone who taught disbelief in or opposition to organized government.”
Colin Wilson, “A Criminal History of Mankind”



Leon Czolgosz, who killed President McKinley, was a socialist and anarchist, whose act was instigated by a speech he heard by socialist Emma Goldman.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goldman/filmmore/pt.html

Historic review: every presidential assassin in the history of the nation has been a liberal- or has not been associated with a political outlook- none were right-wingers.



….socialists, communists, Marxists, Progressives, anarchists, and the current Democrats, are all variations of the same Leftist principles.