The Democrat Party Hates America

[Gary Childress]

But the underlying cause they all support is the push to extort ordinary folks through pushing a kind of global Socialism for the masses, while retaining their own riches and positions of power in the elite. They are not aiming to share their own wealth -- you can see that, by way of the simple fact that they are not doing it -- but rather to end up being "The Party," that gets to speak as "The People's Party," and thus gets to rule in the name of the masses while bilking and manipulating the masses. They fancy themselves not as politicians representing the people, but as social engineers and beneficiaries of the new arrangement. And they certainly have the backing and help of big business, the banks and the media. There's no missing that point. But they utilize the irrational emotional fervour of "social justice" advocates of various kinds to destabilize the status quo and to get a free hand in reorganizing it to their own liking.

If I take what you are presenting as a ‘picture’ of real, cynical political machination, I am not sure if the simplistic label of ‘socialism’ and ‘socialists’ is enough to explain a régime and a power-structure. The picture you are presenting seem to share a good deal in common with how National Socialism had been described in our textbooks: a collusion between capital interests and a governing structure. The collusion enabled a fascistic power-structure to control social and political outlook in the same way that the media-systems of today are described as being controlled by a very small group of corporations who control information.

How odd it is that there has taken place a very unlikely role-reversal: Now it is the Right and the Dissident Republicans who decry the RINO’s who are collaborating with the structures of power you describe as Democrat and Socialist, and it is these Dissident Republicans (or traditional rightists and also traditional religionists) who the State police has in its sights and is harassing and vilifying — labeling them as the primary enemy. It is the Dissident Republicans who are now the victims of the oppressive State when just a very short while ago the *danger* was the Left-Progressive and also the Marxian activists that were painted as *the enemy*.

Strangely, it is the Dissident Republicans who now seem to see that the “military-industrial complex’ is the primary problem, and ‘globalism’, and the sort of Fukiyamaesque “end of history” (i.e. total domination of American Liberal forms) is seen as the enemy of true liberal freedom. The Democrats, who seem now to dominate state power now act like war mongers and indeed initiate unnecessary conflicts and defend them. But wasn’t it the Right establishment (the Neoconservatives) who set so much of this in motion?

It seems really had to get to the bottom of genuine power-struggles. We are in a war but the terms of the war are not so intelligible to us.

I offered to talk with you about "replacement theory". You asked. I gave the conditions for my cooperation and you went silent. Instead, you'd rather talk to someone who thinks "they" are controlling the world. I don't control the world and I don't know who "they" are. Apparently you don't believe God controls the world. You two can knock yourselves out if you don't think God controls the world.

I find the world suitable, even though I have to take elephant tranquilizers just to function, apparently. I don't know what you all are complaining about but try going to people who tell you that elephant tranquilizers (my pet name for my medicine) are a necessary part of your diet and cost an arm and a leg to purchase.

Fucking idiots of the world unite as far as I'm concerned.

[Walker]

Which party a politician becomes a part of is totally random and they only take the desk job for the pay. This is becuz none of em understand what's going on. I know this becuz ten minutes with me and I'd turn any clown who's ever stepped into the white house into a babbling idiot. And this would only be possible if they hadn't the slightest clue about what they stand for or what they're doing.

Biden, Trump, Truman, Reagan, Carter, Roosevelt... fuck u could even throw Washington and Lincoln in there and I'd eat them too.

Trump donated his paycheck to charity ... true selfless public service.

[Gary Childress]

Which party a politician becomes a part of is totally random and they only take the desk job for the pay. This is becuz none of em understand what's going on. I know this becuz ten minutes with me and I'd turn any clown who's ever stepped into the white house into a babbling idiot. And this would only be possible if they hadn't the slightest clue about what they stand for or what they're doing.

Biden, Trump, Truman, Reagan, Carter, Roosevelt... fuck u could even throw Washington and Lincoln in there and I'd eat them too.

Trump donated his paycheck to charity ... true selfless public service.

I doubt "selfless public service" is how he made all that money that he could donate in his own name.

[Walker]

If one is looking for “causes” that have led to a situation of decay, decadence, loss of faith in the ideology and actions of one’s own nation, and also the psychological ramifications that come about when people lose their grounding, then I am not at all sure if to say “It is Marxism” is enough of an analytical picture.

Levin addresses the actual effects of American Marxism and how they came to be, rather than focus on an analysis of a 19th century theory. To do that he does expand the meaning of the last sentence into book-lengths, with many endnotes and sources, rather than simply say it is Marxism ... which would be a rather short book.

[Walker]

Did you notice, Walker, that what you’ve quoted offers no support for any of its claims and characterizations?

I've noticed the book is likely not written for you.

The very first words of The Democrat Party Hates America.

Chapter One
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY & AUTHORITARIANISM

"This book is not intended to be provocative, but in the Democrat Party-centric parts of our society, it undoubtedly will be. That said, it is not written for Democrat Party officials, politicians, media, sycophants, activists, and surrogates."

[Walker]

Which party a politician becomes a part of is totally random and they only take the desk job for the pay. This is becuz none of em understand what's going on. I know this becuz ten minutes with me and I'd turn any clown who's ever stepped into the white house into a babbling idiot. And this would only be possible if they hadn't the slightest clue about what they stand for or what they're doing.

Biden, Trump, Truman, Reagan, Carter, Roosevelt... fuck u could even throw Washington and Lincoln in there and I'd eat them too.

Trump donated his paycheck to charity ... true selfless public service.

I doubt "selfless public service" is how he made all that money that he could donate in his own name.

That's very good, Gary. Very observant. Public service does not make one rich ... but what about Biden? He's rich ... and he's always been a politician.

Explain that one, Gary. Where did he get the money, Honey?

[Gary Childress]

Trump donated his paycheck to charity ... true selfless public service.

I doubt "selfless public service" is how he made all that money that he could donate in his own name.

That's very good, Gary. Very observant. Public service does not make one rich ... but what about Biden? He's rich ... and he's always been a politician.

Explain that one, Gary. Where did he get the money, Honey?

Is Biden a billionaire? Trump also has made and lost billions many times I hear, even to the point of teetering on bankruptcy. Is that the man you're betting on? Or would you most like to see the rich guy (who devoted most of his life to public service and didn't make quite as much money as Trump) lose instead?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Levin addresses the actual effects of American Marxism and how they came to be, rather than focus on an analysis of 19th century theory. To do that he does expand the meaning of the last sentence into book-lengths, with many endnotes and sources.

I am not attempting to challenge nor undermine aspects of his analysis, which can certainly be considered, but rather I think it necessary to consider what he is — obviously — leaving out of the picture.

What he leaves out of the picture is the actions and policies of the Neoconservative faction (I suspect he is of that faction ideologically) which have promulgated war, invasions, and the spinning of a falsely-based patriotic narrative that explains all that as ‘necessary’. Therefore, he leaves out quite a lot.

Now, why is that?

The obvious answer is that people construct narratives on the basis of their interests. Or the pictures they create reflect their ideological perspectives or prejudices.

I think we have no choice but to say that we not only should not but really can’t trust the narratives that are woven by those who have specific interest-sets which could well be occulted, either consciously or unconsciously (through prejudice), or for other reasons.

We are exposed to “facets” that are often limiting perspectives in themselves.

Again, I do not undermine (some of his) views (I’ve only watched him not read him) but I do have a strong sense of what he leaves out.

[Gary Childress]

Levin addresses the actual effects of American Marxism and how they came to be, rather than focus on an analysis of 19th century theory. To do that he does expand the meaning of the last sentence into book-lengths, with many endnotes and sources.

I am not attempting to challenge nor undermine aspects of his analysis, which can certainly be considered, but rather I think it necessary to consider what he is — obviously — leaving out of the picture.

What he leaves out of the picture is the actions and policies of the Neoconservative faction (I suspect he is of that faction ideologically) which have promulgated war, invasions, and the spinning of a falsely-based patriotic narrative that explains all that as ‘necessary’. Therefore, he leaves out quite a lot.

Now, why is that?

The obvious answer is that people construct narratives on the basis of their interests. Or the pictures they create reflect their ideological perspectives or prejudices.

I think we have no choice but to say that we not only should not but really can’t trust the narratives that are woven by those who have specific interest-sets which could well be occulted, either consciously or unconsciously (through prejudice), or for other reasons.

We are exposed to “facets” that are often limiting perspectives in themselves.

Again, I do not undermine (some of his) views (I’ve only watched him not read him) but I do have a strong sense of what he leaves out.

AJ, looking for minions to discuss "replacement theory" with him.

[Gary Childress]

Come out to play, AJ, OK. I want to hear what you a have to say!

[Immanuel Can]

WAR IS A CAUSE OF DECADENCE, NOTHING ELSE.

I think you'll find, Gary, that decadence is a universal feature of humanity. And as for this war, it's been arranged and conducted by one particular party that is at great pains to make sure that the other party does not take power, since that party has promised to stop the war instantly.

The decadence precedes the war. The war is only a symptom, not the cause of the problem.

That doesn't match my interpretation of what is going on. But if that's what you want to be your guiding light. Then, whatever.

Wars don't make people what they are, Gary. People make wars. That's just obvious.

[Immanuel Can]

I am not sure if the simplistic label of ‘socialism’ and ‘socialists’ is enough to explain a régime and a power-structure.

Then you need to read Hegel, Marx and the Cultural Marxists. It's all there.

That's what they "dialectical" in "dialectical materialism" is all about...the destruction of the status quo in the interests of the great god "History" being able to "progress." And that's why they call people who protest and destroy everything "progressives."

Kind of ironic, but there it is.

[Immanuel Can]

The decadence precedes the war. The war is only a symptom, not the cause of the problem.

Nothing is decadent until war enters the picture.

If that were true, there would never be any wars. There would be nobody "decadent" to start one.

War isn't some kind of independent force, Gary. It doesn't make us into some kind of creature we were not already. War is just a description of how decadent people -- which, to some extent we all are -- have chosen to relate to one another...or rather, how they choose to relate against one another.

[Immanuel Can]

War has been going on for decades now, but the party label is irrelevant.

You mean in America? Plausibly; because both sides have participated in wars. But did I not already point out that there is corruption on both sides of the two-party system? So that's hardly surprising.

But for certain, if there is a candidate who will actually shut down the Ukraine war, that's who you should be voting for...not just for your own sake, but for the people of Ukraine and Russia, who are really paying the price for all the political machinations.

[Gary Childress]

The decadence precedes the war. The war is only a symptom, not the cause of the problem.

Nothing is decadent until war enters the picture.

If that were true, there would never be any wars. There would be nobody "decadent" to start one.

War isn't some kind of independent force, Gary. It doesn't make us into some kind of creature we were not already. War is just a description of how decadent people -- which, to some extent we all are -- have chosen to relate to one another...or rather, how they choose to relate against one another.

If we're all the same, then outlaw the act of war, not the speculated "cause" of war. Everything else is simply extending the handcuffs further and further into harmless human behavior.