Land of the unfree 7

The Leftist fascists now in charge of America declare individual liberty, the ideal on which and for which the USA was founded, dangerously “extremist”.

Their aim is to make Leftist ideology the norm.

This comes from Investor’s Business Daily:

Once more, military training has become an Orwellian re-education camp where a radical transformation of the truth depicts the Founding Fathers as extremists and conservative groups as “hate groups.”

Saying “Give me liberty or give me death” qualifies Patrick Henry as an extremist, according to the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute training guide … And so were the rest of those who took up arms against the British Crown and pledged their lives, their fortune and their sacred honor for a shot at liberty and democracy.

Under a section titled “Extremist Ideologies,” the document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

We would not lump the two together necessarily, but the Pentagon does. …

“Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place,” the Pentagon guide advises.

Which provides us with an opportunity to recall the fact that those who dressed up in sheets to terrify Blacks, those who lynched and murdered them, which is to say the members of the Ku Klux Klan, were Democrats.

This is from Free Republic, quoting David Bartonand his book Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White:

Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings. …

Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism

Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party … A 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.

The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by death … Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans were also included.

The IBD article continues about those designated “extremists” by the Pentagon:

They might even form groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or “9-12” in their name, like the groups targeted for political harassment and intimidation by the IRS.

“The Obama administration has a nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And now, in a document full of claptrap, its Defense Department suggests that the Founding Fathers, and many conservative Americans, would not be welcome in today’s military.

“And it is striking,” he added, “that some of the language in this new document echoes the IRS targeting language of conservative and tea party investigations.

Indeed, it also echoes the 2009 document issued by Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that … are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

The guide makes no mention of Nidal Hasan, the Army major who worked his way up through the ranks amid politically correct indifference to kill 13 people, including a pregnant soldier, and shoot 32 others in a Nov. 5, 2009, rampage at the base in Killeen, Texas, while shouting “Allahu Akhbar!”

But then he was defending the Taliban, not seeking freedom from the British.

Somewhat less distressing – though wrong both factually and morally – is the information that the guide calls Catholics, Evangelicals, [religious] Jews, Mormons “extremists” – just like al-Qaeda.

So it labels al-Qaeda “extremist”, but not Muslims as such? The article doesn’t say, but we very much doubt that the guide has a word to say against Islam.

This is from PowerLine, by Paul Mirengoff:

The Chaplain Alliance has issued a press release alleging, based on a review of documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, that in training materials, the Department of Defense classified Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews, and Mormons as religious “extremists” similar to Al Qaeda. The Chaplain Alliance also claims that the military deemed the [far left] Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate group” list a “reliable source” for this conclusion. …

There was never any reason to suppose that the left’s long march through our institutions would not encompass the U.S. military. And we’ve seen plenty of evidence of the success of this portion of the long march.

So now the mighty Pentagon is helping the Obama regime turn the USA into the land of the unfree, and the home of the politically correct.

  • Dale Jensen

    Radical literally means “to the root” which is to say what is fundamental. Rand argued that liberty should be what is fundamental. But the way the Conservative historians view radical has been to identify those movements which wanted to break from the past and create something new. I would say by the originally understood conception of the term the FFs were radical. Yes, they were informed by the past but they wanted to create a new type of society in the new world. They were not “conserving” British monarchism. They were destroying it. Thus, America was both simultaneously radical and progressive from its birth.

    It has to be this because it was liberal, created by liberals. Which is why I do think it is legitimate to call today’s leftists liberals. Leftists also want to break free from the past. But the past they want to break from is the original liberal past. Both versions of liberalism are out to replace something old with something new at a fundamental level. This, I think, distinguishes them from Conservatism. I like the distinction Left-Liberal vs. Right-Liberal vs. Traditionalist Conservative. Left-liberal reduced to egalitarian collectivism. Right-liberal is oriented around individualist liberty. Traditionalism revolves around conserving… …what exactly? There’s the rub. So many things can fall under the conservative or traditionalist framework. But traditionally Conservatism was very distrustful and hostile to right-liberalism (the original right liberals were on the Left). The attempt to fuse the two is problematic. Rand argued that it couldn’t be done. But someone like Hayek basically attempted to do it. I’m not yet decided on if that project is in fact possible.

    Reactionary has usually meant reacting against new developments with the intent to return to the “old ways”. Yes, reactionary therefore like the term conservatism could be considered contextual. But it has always really stood for a return to a more tribal, more socially conservative, more patriarchal society. I guess you could say that today’s reactionaries are “ultra-conservatives”. The Left thinks everyone who is not a moderate is a reactionary. Which is to say everyone who rejects egalitarianism is a fascist and thus just like those evil theocrats from the movie ‘V For Vendetta’.

    Regarding the Democrats. Thanks for the information. That’s a lot to digest. But I think that today’s Democrats, while they are racists, are primarily anti-white racists. They have sacrilized blacks and non-Asian minorities. If you ask a leftist about libertarianism you will usually hear the argument that it is nothing more than thinly veiled racism because it would do away with entitlements to blacks and would allow private discrimination, which it would (in the name of liberty). Leftists find this evil and equate it with white supremacism. So to equate today’s Democrats with the racists of the past makes no sense to me. The only racism today’s Left allows is anti-white racism. It encourages blacks and non-whites to be racists against whites. But if you so much as said the n-word 30 years ago you are punished; i.e. Paula Dean. That’s today’s Democrats. That the Democrats hated blacks years ago is a historical fact but it is not relevant to today’s politics IMO.

    The left’s egalitarian views really need to be studied, broken down, and vivisected from every possible angle. They have taken post-Kantian altruism, i.e. the Categorical Imperative, and combined it with Rawlsean egalitarianism to create a viscous secular civic religion which we ALL suffer under. They have introduced a new type of racism which IMO is just as evil as the older version. We haven’t yet seen how far they will push it. I never underestimate the depravity of Leftists. I would not be surprised if they brought back the firing squad for dissenters in due time.

    • liz

      You’re right about nothing being too depraved for Leftists.
      The present anti-white racism is also a form of anti-black racism, as it treats blacks as if they are too stupid to make it on their own, and need their white leftist benefactors to help them succeed. (while using them for their own political purposes, of course).
      This distorts all the distinctions that would be clear without the left’s interference and manipulation of EVERYTHING for their own twisted purposes.

  • Dale Jensen

    Today’s Democrats are of a different kind then the Democrats in the 19th and early 20th century. The KKK was a palecon phenomenon. They were the racial conservatives of their day. They were not “Democrats” as that party is understood today; they were not egalitarians and universalists. They were particularists. They were for a white ethno-state or an explicit white racial conception of America (as opposed to the universalist conception the Founding Father’s had; i.e. “All men are created equal”), which in my opinion is the purest form of conservatism; because conservatism is about “conserving” things essential for a civilization.

    There will always be conservatives that will argue that there is nothing more essential than race. A race-blind individualist citizenry that operates under principles of individual liberty is not a conservative undertaking. It never was. That is a liberal undertaking; i.e. the Classical liberal agenda. Today’s Left-Liberals want the multi-racial part but they don’t want the individualist liberty part, because they don’t believe in liberty (or have a radically different conception of it; i.e “a hungry man isn’t free”, “human needs are human rights”,etc).

    Conservatism is a far more complicated phenomenon than Leftism. What many people today, including this blog, are trying to accomplish is a hybridization of (original) liberalism with some elements of conservatism, in order to create a political philosophy that can allow for maximal individual liberty without jeopardizing the cohesiveness of the entire society (as pure libertarianism would do – at least as libertarianism is conceived of today). But if you study the history of the reactionary conservative movements you find that they are not liberty oriented. The KKK is a reactionary conservative phenomenon. I would argue that fascism is also related to conservatism or at least has significant overlap with it. In fundamental ways, the Founding Fathers weren’t Conservatives or reactionaries. They were radicals and dare I day, they were progressives (non-Leftist ones, although Thomas Paine was already going down the road to a welfare state). Yes there were Burkean elements to FFs but they weren’t conservatives. And the purer conservative literature makes this point all the time.

    But the essence of this post is right. The Left is trying to establish its ideology as the de facto norm and every other ideology as extremist. This is a necessary step on the road to criminalizing all non-leftist ideologies. Which is a step on the road to the Left’s ultimate goal: total political, social and cultural supremacism. But that doesn’t mean that because the KKK were Democrats that they were somehow intellectually and ideologically linked with the Left. They were not. They were a conservative movement. And all reactionary movements to this day will be conservative. Which is a big problem with that term.

    • Jillian Becker

      Sorry, Dale Jensen. It is not permissible to declare a break
      between what the Democratic Party was at its lynching stage and its what it is now, embracing as it does late 20th century Leftist ideologies. There is a steady record of its racism and fascism all the way through. I am now going to quote loosely from one of many possible sources that tell the story (this one being to hand):

      The Trail of Tears (1838): The first Democrat President, Andrew Jackson and his successor Martin Van Buren, herded Indians into camps, tormented them, burned and pillaged their homes and forced them to relocate with minimal supplies. Thousands died along the way.

      Democrats Cause The Civil War (1860): The pro-slavery faction of the Democratic Party responded to Abraham Lincoln’s election by seceding, which led to the Civil War.

      Formation of the KKK (1865): Along with 5 other Confederate veterans, Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest created the KKK.

      300 Black Americans Murdered (1868): Democrats
      in Opelousas, Louisiana killed nearly 300 blacks who tried to foil an assault on a Republican newspaper editor.

      The American Protective League and The Palmer Raids (1919-1921): Under the leadership of Woodrow Wilson, criticizing the government became a crime and a fascist organization, the
      American Protective League was formed to spy on and even arrest fellow Americans for being insufficiently loyal to the government. More than 100,000 Americans were arrested, with less than 1% of them ever being found guilty of any kind of crime.

      Democrats Successfully Stop Republicans From Making Lynching A Federal Crime (1922): The U.S. House adopted Rep. Leonidas Dyer’s (R., Mo.) bill making lynching a federal crime. Filibustering
      Senate Democrats killed the measure.

      The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (1932-1972): Contrary to what you may have heard, Democrats in Alabama did not give black Americans syphilis. However, the experimenters
      did know that subjects of the experiment unknowingly had syphilis and even after it was proven that penicillin could be used to effectively treat the disease in 1947, the experiments continued. As a result, a number of the subjects needlessly infected their loved ones and died, when they could have been cured.

      Japanese Internment Camps (1942): Democrat Franklin
      D. Roosevelt issued an executive order that led to more than
      100,000 Japanese Americans being put into bleak, remote camps surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards.

      Alger Hiss Convicted Of Perjury (1950): Hiss, who helped advise FDR at Yalta and was strongly defended by the Left, turned
      out to be a Soviet spy. He was convicted of perjury in 1950 (Sadly, the statute of limitations on espionage had run out), but was defended by liberals for decades until the Verona papers proved so conclusively that he was guilty that even most his fellow liberals couldn’t continue to deny it.

      Fire Hoses And Attack Dogs Used On Children (1963): Birmingham, Alabama’s notorious Commissioner of Public Safety, Democrat Bull Connor, used attack dogs and fire hoses on children and teenagers marching for civil rights. Ultimately, thousands of them would also be arrested.

      Stand In The Schoolhouse Door (1963): Democrat George Wallace gave his notorious speech against integrating schools at the University of Alabama in which he said, “segregation
      now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

      I would add the mass murder – burning to death of many, including children – at Wacko on the order of a Democratic administration.

      And its present alliance with Islam promotes an intolerant ideology that subjugates women and believes in killing homosexuals.

      Now I will quote from here:

      The idea that Democrat Party has led the fight for American civil rights for over 200 years is nothing more than a bald-faced lie. Even the Washington Post’s fact-checker found the claim too preposterous to ignore:

      The Web history mentions the leadership of President Woodrow
      Wilson in helping pass the 19th Amendment, without noting that he was a racist or that he repressed civil liberties — even to the point of jailing one of his rivals for the presidency in 1914 (socialist Eugene Debs).

      The history also highlights the passage of the 1964 Civil
      Rights Act. Certainly President Lyndon Johnson, a Texas Democrat, played an essential role, but it is worth remembering that 80 percent of the “no” votes in the Senate came from Democrats, including the late Robert Byrd (W.Va.) and
      Albert Gore (Tenn.), father of the future vice president. Republican votes, in fact, were essential in winning final passage of the bill.

      And let’s not forget that The Great Emancipator, the
      president who spent his legal and political career making some of the most persuasive, moral, common sense, and elegant cases against slavery in our nation’s history was a Republican. Oh, and he freed the slaves.

      In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of
      Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

      I would add that the Republican Party came into existence in order to oppose slavery.

      Now about conservatism and liberalism. Others have argued on our comment pages to say more or less what you are saying. It really does not matter what some conservatives have said about race or anything else, nor how any individual chooses to define “conservative’ “radical” “liberal” etc. Most conservatives are religious, but we conservatives are not. Why strive for a hard definition of conservatism, or prescribe on some historical precedent what conservatives may or may not stand for? We think that wanting governments to abide by the Constitution is a conservative position. The framers of the Constitution may have been radical, but defending it is conservative, in the plain meaning of the word. We think that wanting small government, low taxes, strong defense, a free market economy and individual freedom is a conservative position as well as a mildly libertarian one. We find it perfectly easy to hold these principles – and to be atheist at the same time.

      “All reactionary movements will be conservative”? If by “reactionary” you mean what the Left means, then the two words “reactionary” and “conservative” are simply synonyms. Is all conservatism reactionary? What exactly do you yourself mean by “reactionary”?

      Thomas Paine, by the way, was a strong defender of private property.

      • liz

        It seems that, whether conservative or liberal, Democrats have always been the racists. It was overt back when they were conservative, and then covert when they became leftists and started lying and accusing Republicans of it to get the black vote.
        How sad that blacks have apparently been too ignorant of politics to remember which party was the one with all the racists in it, and thus easy targets for the Left to brainwash and manipulate.

    • liz

      I would say that the Founders were “Classical Liberals”, because of their belief in individual liberty, based on their understanding of Greek history and politics, natural law, and Enlightenment philosophy. This thinking may have been considered “progressive” in their day, compared to those who wanted to conserve loyalty to the King and the Church of England, etc. But I wouldn’t insult them with the label of “radicals”, at least not in the sense we understand the term today, in which it has become synonymous with the leftist mentality of the destruction of the entire established order, while lying and hiding it under the mantle of “progressive”..

  • liz

    The entire thing is worse than distressing, including the labeling of Christians and Jews as extremists (but Muslims not). It is beyond belief that the military, whom one thinks of as unbending in their devotion to the country, could be so easily brainwashed and perverted. But the Hasan case is undeniable proof that they have been.
    The evidence on the KKK and the Democrats also proves just how completely blacks have been brainwashed by Democrats.
    Their forced “conversion” to voting Democrat is similar to how all non-Muslims have been, and still are, forced to convert to Islam.
    They were terrorized into converting, and kept their secret out of fear. But in protecting themselves through secrecy, they deprived later generations of the knowledge of the truth.
    So now we have nearly the entire black population of this country voting for the party that was the political arm of the KKK, who murdered and terrorized their grandparents, and that is now the political arm of Islam, those who murder and terrorize us all.