THE FOCUS (3/13/2021)
The Demon in Democracy
An excellent book that can help readers to understand the background of the transformation of the Democratic Party in the US into a socialist-Marxist-communist party.
It is an excellent book that can help readers to understand the background of the transformation of the Democratic Party in the US into a socialist-Marxist-communist party. The Democratic Party has made it plainly clear, through the ways they cheated in the 2020 election, the total control of the media and the Big Tech, their collusion with the big money donors and the globalists, and their proposed and passed Bills aimed at grabbing more control unilaterally, that their intent is to establish and solidify a control of the United States by one permanent party--that is the Democratic Party. It has happened in California, Colorado, Oregon, Illinois, and Washington State. Now, they want to expand it to the whole country.
Make no mistake, the Democratic Party of today is not the same as the Democratic Party of 60 years ago. The name of the party is still the same, but the vision, the spirit, and the goals of the party are almost nothing resembling the old Democratic Party, which was to a large extent still influenced by classical liberalism that cherishes free speech and patriotism.
A Young Man with His Vision
On one Friday noon, a young man gave a speech:
In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest in the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.
Now the trumpet summons us again — not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are — but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" — a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.
Notice that he didn’t say inequality—which would imply a social class warfare, which would then negate his call to “rejoice in hope”. Inequality is the 21th century lexicon invented to push socialism-Marxism-communist ideology. If you think I am a conspiracy nut, consider this: Do you really believe we will EVER be able to create a fully equal society? So, to heck with the inequality jargon. A more important one is “poverty”. We need to create a society where the percentage of people living under a certain socio-economic threshold is decreasing over time. That should be the main goal. The young man in his speech recognized it.
The young man continued:
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.
This is blasphemy. How dare you ask your fellow Americans to do it. Your country must give you everything. Your country exists for you. It’s all about “you” and your ilk. Your country has victimized you. Your country owes you everything.
This is today’s mentality and culture promoted almost fanatically by the Democratic Party. You have to make people believe that they have been victimized in order for them to believe that their failure is because of their country and then their responsibility in life is simply just to ask what their country can do for them.
The young man above was John F. Kennedy, a US President from the Democratic Party of 60 years ago, who gave his Inaugural Address on Friday, January 20, 1961.
John Kennedy was a patriotic American, pro family values, and pro industrious culture. They were polar opposite of values promoted by today’s Democratic Party.
They Are from the Same Blood
Legutko’s book is simply outstanding. From the book’s description:
Ryszard Legutko lived and suffered under communism for decades—and he fought with the Polish anti-communist movement to abolish it. Having lived for two decades under a liberal democracy, however, he has discovered that these two political systems have a lot more in common than one might think. They both stem from the same historical roots in early modernity, and accept similar presuppositions about history, society, religion, politics, culture, and human nature.
Legutko explores the shared objectives between these two political systems, and explains how liberal democracy has over time lurched towards the same goals as communism, albeit without Soviet style brutality.
Both systems, says Legutko, reduce human nature to that of the common man, who is led to believe himself liberated from the obligations of the past. Both the communist man and the liberal democratic man refuse to admit that there exists anything of value outside the political systems to which they pledged their loyalty. And both systems refuse to undertake any critical examination of their ideological prejudices.
"… liberal democracy, as it has developed in recent decades, shares a number of alarming features with communism. Both are utopian and look forward to “an end of history” where their systems will prevail as a permanent status quo. Both are historicist and insist that history is inevitably moving in their directions. Both therefore require that all social institutions—family, churches, private associations—must conform to liberal-democratic rules in their internal functioning. Because that is not so at present, both are devoted to social engineering to bring about this transformation. And because such engineering is naturally resisted, albeit slowly and in a confused way, both are engaged in a never-ending struggle against enemies of society (superstition, tradition, the past, intolerance, racism, xenophobia, bigotry, etc., etc.) In short, like Marxism before it, liberal democracy is becoming an all-encompassing ideology that, behind a veil of tolerance, brooks little or no disagreement."
"Both communism and liberal democracy are regimes whose intent is to change reality for the better. They are—to use the current jargon—modernization projects. Both are nourished by the belief that the world cannot be tolerated as it is and that it should be changed: that the old should be replaced with the new. Both systems strongly and—so to speak—impatiently intrude into the social fabric and both justify their intrusion with the argument that it leads to the improvement of the state of affairs by “modernizing” it.
"Having armed himself with rights, modern man found himself in a most comfortable situation with no precedent: he no longer had to justify his claims and actions as long as he qualified them as rights. Regardless of what demands he would make on the basis of those rights and for what purpose he would use them, he did not and, in fact, could not lose his dignity, which he had acquired for life simply by being born human. And since having this dignity carried no obligation to do anything particularly good or worthy, he could, while constantly invoking it, make claims that were increasingly more absurd and demand justification for ever more questionable activities. Sinking more and more into arrogant vulgarity, he could argue that this vulgarity not only did not contradict his inborn dignity, but it could even, by a stretch of the imagination, be treated as some sort of an achievement. After all, can a dignity that is inborn and constitutes the essence of humanness, generate anything that would be essentially undignified and nonhuman? The dignity-based notion of human rights was thus both a powerful factor to legitimize a minimalist concept of human nature, and its legitimate child. Moreover, it equipped modern anthropological minimalism with the instruments of self-perpetuation, the most efficient instruments of this kind ever devised in the history of the Western societies."
Control the Language, Control the Mass
"The conservatives, who, in principle, should oppose the socialists and liberal democrats, quite sincerely argue that they, too, are open, pluralistic, tolerant, and inclusive, dedicated to the entitlements of individuals and groups, non-discriminatory and even supportive of the claims of feminists and homosexual activists. All in all, the liberal democrats, the socialists, and the conservatives are unanimous in their condemnations: they condemn racism, sexism, homophobia, discrimination, intolerance, and all the other sins listed in the liberal-democratic catechism while also participating in an unimaginable stretching of the meaning of these concepts and depriving them of any explanatory power. All thoughts and all modes of linguistic expression are moving within the circle of the same clichés, slogans, spells, ideas, and arguments. All are involved in the grand design of which those who think and speak are not Legutkos but with whose authorship they deeply identify, or—in case of doubt—from which they do not find strength or reasons enough to distance themselves."
Become A Litmus Test
The elites of the West in Europe and the United States are unbending in their belief that “one has to be liberal in order to be respectable, that whoever is not a liberal is either stupid or dangerous, or both. Being liberal is the litmus test of political decency. This is today’s orthodoxy. If you criticize it, or you’re against it, you’re disqualified.”
A liberal is somebody who will come up to you and tell you, ‘I will organize your life for you. I will tell you what kind of liberty you will have. And then you can do whatever you like.’
The world has shrunk and the liberal paradigm seems to be omnipresent. If you are not part of the World Economic Forum, which is organized by an European man, you are not smart enough to lead the world, because....you are not liberal. The Forum is the party of the liberal globalists who proud of their achievements but in truth they are just self-congratulating each others and pretending as if they have superior intellect where in fact their intellectual capability and wisdom are shallow. You can see it by their actions and reactions to the COVID. A random of group of people from the Midwestern part of America would have device a more genuine and wiser policy to tackle the same problem.
The West Raise Its Own Monsters
Legutko would not be surprised that Marxism-communism will be so easily adopted, accepted and endorsed by American Democrat-liberals:
“What happened in the liberal democracy did not result from the absence of culture, and there was nothing natural about it; nor did it come from outside of the realm of civilization. In that, it differed from the vulgarity of the communists, who, before they captured power in Poland, had lived in environments practically unaffected by Polish culture. Having been long exposed to the Soviet influence, they felt an intense, instinctive antipathy toward the West as such, not knowing exactly what it was, and in particular for all forms of civilized conduct and propriety, which they thought both decadent and perfidious. The new barbarians of the liberal democracy, on the other hand, were products of the West, which at a certain stage of its history turned against its own culture; the respect for its achievements was gone, replaced by contempt, the rules of civility and propriety derided. To put it simply, the vulgarity of the communist system was precultural while that of liberal democracy is post-cultural.”
Previous "THE FOCUS"
A Color Blind Society (3/1/2021)
George Washington in 2020 (2/15/2021)