I was reading this post by Michael Smith and I was thinking about the Donk platform, and I remember when I was a Union Rep at the Ford plant and I was the only Republican that held union office. I was really good at it so I got reelected and I had people ask me, "Why don't I support the Democrats?" and I replied, "Well there are some things about the Democrats I do like,(Remember this was the early 2000's), they tend to be a bit protectionist whereas the GOP is the CHamber of Commerce types I.E. Cheap Labor. We need to keep our industry here in the United States, not outsource it. The Democrats talk a better game on border security then the GOP(Remember this was the early 2000's). But they are weak on crime, anti 2nd amendment, have started going along with the global warming crazies(Remember Al Gore?) which isn't good for our industrial base. If we could find a candidate that combines both the platforms of both parties, I would be ecstatic. Then my job got outsourced, our replacement car(The Fusion, went to Mexico, and my plant got shut down, and now I am in the aviation industry, Years later a candidate came along that encompassed what I believed was the best of both worlds...Trump. Something that was sorely needed. That is why he has the support of so many from middle America.
I shamelessly cribbed this from "Michael Smith" off his substack.
Despicable Me
It
seems my constant and consistent opposition to all things progressive and
Democrat makes me a bad guy. Oh, well...
I recently received a DM
from someone taking me to task for always being against anything Democrats
say or do - and telling me, in some detail, why that makes me a terrible
person who doesn’t like people, is not compassionate, but is selfish and
generally an all-around bad guy. Well, OK then. I do agree with one
thing, though. I am always against
things Democrats say and do – and I do so for one major reason. They are frauds. Simple as that. Dems are as fake as
Hillary’s Southern accent, Hakeem Jeffries’ intellect, Chuck Schumer’s
legendary grilling skills, and Graham Platner’s “oysterman” persona. Their entire ideology of
progressivism is fraudulent because the true goals always must be kept hidden
until they can’t be – and thanks to the Democratic Socialists of America (the
Id of the greater Democrat Party), we know what that endgame looks like because
they are now openly telling us. It is fun to watch the
Dem Party leadership and mouthpieces having their “Oh, shit!” moment now that
the DSA are saying the quiet part out loud. Schumer and the Old Guard are
sort of in but sort of out with them proves they never had the courage of
their convictions in the first place. There is a pattern. It
becomes obvious once you stop pretending the rhetoric matches the results. Take the border. For
years, the same people who lecture the country about “compassion” and
“humanity” treated open borders as a moral imperative—until cameras showed
the chaos they created: the caravans moving north, the fentanyl deaths,
overwhelmed cities, and human trafficking. Then, almost overnight, when it
was apparent it was a losing issue for Biden, the language shifted to “secure
the border” and “humane enforcement,” as if a decade of deliberate
non-enforcement had been a clerical error. Sanctuary cities continue to
protect illegal aliens at the expense of their legal citizens. The fraud is
the original claim that the policy was ever about compassion rather than
political power and future voters. Or consider crime.
Soft-on-crime district attorneys and “reimagine policing” advocates sold the
public a story of systemic racism and root causes while violent crime spiked
in the cities they governed. They haven’t figured this one out yet. The body
count is still rising as the value of prosecution and order is ignored. None
of this was ever about justice; it was about ideology dressed up as empathy.
The people living with the consequences (mostly in the neighborhoods the
theorists never visit), are still paying the price while the theorists kept
their grants and their prestige. Climate change rhetoric
is offset by private jets, beachfront mansions, and multi-home lifestyles for
the loudest advocates as they demand ordinary families sacrifice heating,
driving, and economic mobility. The “science” is invoked selectively:
catastrophic models justify central planning, but the same models’ failures
to predict the last twenty years of mild outcomes are ignored. The real goal
is state control over energy, industry, and individual behavior. Economic policy follows
the identical script. Minimum-wage hikes, rent control, and wealth taxes are
sold as tools to help the working class. The predictable outcomes—fewer
entry-level jobs, housing shortages, capital flight—are then blamed on
“greed” rather than on the policies themselves. Meanwhile the same
politicians who denounce inequality preside over the most unequal cities in
the country, protected by union contracts, regulatory capture, and donor
networks. The rhetoric is redistribution; the result is protection of the
insider class. Education must be on the
list, too. For decades the party of “the children” defended failing urban
school systems, opposed parental choice, and treated teachers’ unions as
sacred. When test scores collapsed and parents noticed the ideological
content replacing actual literacy, the response was not reform but
accusations of bigotry. The fraud is the claim that the system exists to
educate; the evidence shows it exists to employ adults and transmit a
political worldview. The DSA wing now openly celebrates the capture of
curriculum; the Old Guard still pretends it is about “equity.” But perhaps the greatest
example is how they ignore massive waste and failures in the programs they
have pushed through. USAID has been conclusively proven to be a generational
grift, the State Department estimating something like 12% of allocated funds reaching
the intended uses, most being siphoned off through a chain of overlapping
NGOs headquartered in Alexandra. Think about that – 88% of billions of
taxpayer dollars rarely gets far past the Beltway. And if one considers the
massive fraud and waste in other programs like blue state SomaliBucks from
Medicare/Medicaid or programs that should never exist (like hundreds of
millions for illegal immigrants), it becomes clear that money for social
programs and failing schools is already there – but they don’t appear to care
enough to stop the leakage, leaving one to logically assume they are
benefitting from the status quo. Even their language of
compassion is fraudulent. The same people who demand infinite empathy for
selected victim categories show none for the truck driver who loses his
livelihood to regulation, the small-business owner crushed by Covid era
lockdowns while big-box stores stayed open, or the Asian student whose
academic record is discounted in the name of diversity. Selective compassion
is not compassion; it is the real-life version of the sorting hat of the
Harry Potter movies. The DSA has simply
stopped pretending. It is all in their platform. The goal is not the goal,
the goal is revolution. Better schools, safer streets, or a cleaner
environment? Fuhgeddaboudit. The goal is the dismantling of market
allocation, national borders, traditional family structures, and
constitutional limits on power. State control over the
means of production is the new hotness. Now that the Democrat Id
is speaking in its own voice, the Super-Ego looks ridiculous trying to claim
it never really meant it. That is why I oppose them
consistently. Not because I hate people or lack compassion, but because I
refuse to treat transparent fraud as good-faith governance. When the stated
purpose and the actual purpose diverge systematically across so many domains,
and over so many decades, the rational response is permanent skepticism. The email writer can call
that cruelty if it makes them feel better. I call
it pattern recognition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It was Antonio Gramsci who noted that the American people would never accept a Marxist (Communist) revolution. To make Communism happen, communists would need to infiltrate American institutions and subvert them from the inside. He called this "The Long March" initially targeting education and entertainment. Eventually, Americans would wake up to find a Communist gov't, without ever having chosen it, because they had been trained to accept Communism.
ReplyDeleteI feel that we are in the end stages of his "Long March".
You're not wrong!!! And neither is he!
ReplyDeleteThere is only one difference between the Dem and the DSA.
ReplyDeleteThe former is reticent to proclaim outloud what they intend; DSA does not share that reluctance.
Indeed, while both have the same goal, the same means, including violence, DSA has branded that violence. The angst within the dem party vis à vis the DSA is how to manage the DSA in order to control its untoward bretheren. That zeal for control is bred to the bone in the dems so it is fitting for their intra- party tactics.
The ironic, and cautiously hilarious, part is both loathe being controlled and both desire control.
With that said, I reckon it has come time to disbelieve the charade that there exists a schism among them. Its that the dems still cling to hiding their intent so are yet unwilling to say what they mean
Perhaps that traditional desire for concealment, neè duplicity is exactly the only aspect of their contrived differences.
l
Make no mistake, this is not my attempt to understand the party or their brown shirts. That ship has sailed. They betrayed themselves long ago. So full of fraud and deciet are they that one may as reckon this current schism is as much a deciet oerhaps to win the wayward sympathetic vote at large among the ancestral democrat voter.
Ya know, at one time the mensheviks and the bolsheviks were one and the same. I see no difference today in the alleged difference between the D party and the DSA. Dispicable deceit among them all.