slug.com slug.com

5 1

Stealth & Deceit Can Destroy Democracy

Context: As a default position, it makes sense to reject political conspiracy theories as unfounded, unless the evidence looks solid. But sometimes there really is a political conspiracy. This is about a real conspiracy that is driving a social engineering experiment of massive proportions to completely change American democracy.

Nancy MacLean's 2017 book, Democracy In Chains: The Deep History Of The Radical Right's Stealth Plan For America, describes a vast radical right wing conspiracy theory that is true. MacLean is a historian who wound up with unfettered access to look at the original documents that (1) prove the origin and existence of the radical right conspiracy, and (2) describe its goal. The goal is to completely remake American democracy with its strong central government into a central weak government that is unable to enforce equal protection and due process for average people.

In the radical right vision, power would flow from the central federal government to authoritarian, oligarchic state governments that are captured by wealthy, powerful capitalists and like-minded individuals. The goal of that form of government is to weaken and then destroy the ability of average citizens, especially minorities to work together to defend their interests using equal protection and due process as their main tool to exert influence. The ultimate goal is to elevate property rights above all other rights, including the rights of people to tax property or otherwise burden it in any way.

In other words, this cabal of capitalists and rich people want to have essentially all power and little or no responsibility toward society or the well-being of average people. This new authoritarian kleptocracy has now overpowered the republican party and with President Trump at the helm, it is gaining momentum. This effort just might lead to the end of the American experiment.

A few quotes from MacLean's book with some comments for context help describe what America is facing right now from the anti-democratic authoritarian radical right.

#1 - No compromise: Funding for the radical movement was initiated by Charles and David Koch. They knew that most Americans would oppose what they wanted to do. That included a refusal to compromise, a key trait of tyrants and oligarchs.

  • Koch never lied to himself about what he was doing. While some others in the movement called themselves conservatives, he know exactly how radical his cause was. Informed early on by one of his grantees that the playbook on revolutionary
    organization had been written by Vladimir Lenin dutifully recruited a trusted "cadre" of high-level operatives, just as Lenin had done, to build a movement that refused compromise as it devised savvy maneuvers to alter the political math in its favor.

#2 - Kill liberty: The key intellectual founder of this property absolutist movement, James McGill Buchanan, chairman of the economics department at the University of Virginia, saw an urgent need to curtail civil liberties as much as possible. Previously, Virginia had used state law to impose effective voter suppression, allowing the governor and legislature to maintain their high level of power and control over Virginia's residents. Neutering collective action by citizens, e.g., organized labor unions, was a high priority target for the absolutist authoritarians.

  • Compounding the problems Buchanan faced of elected officials who seemed like allies but, once in power failed to walk the walk, was the passage of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. It began drawing into the electorate more poor people who, in Buchanan's eyes, were likely to support proposals for programs that cost yet more money [than desegregation of public schools was already costing]. . . . . Buchanan now argued, the cause must figure out how to put legal -- indeed constitutional -- shackles on public officials, shackles so powerful that no matter how sympathetic these officials might be to the will of majorities, no matter how concerned they were for their own re-elections, they would no longer have the ability to respond to those who used their numbers [citizens acting together] to get government to do their bidding. . . . . Once these shackles were put in place, they had to be binding and permanent. . . . . Their cause they say is liberty. But by that they mean the insulation of private property rights from the reach of government -- and the takeover of what was long public (schools, prisons, western lands, and much more) by corporations, a system that would radically reduce the freedom of the many. In a nutshell, they aim to hollow out democratic resistance. And by its own lights, the cause is nearing success.

#3 - Republican party takeover with ideologically cleansing RINO hunts: The radical movement knew the American people would reject its political goals and that some institution of political power would be needed to exert influence on a national scale. The radical right's quiet, relentless takeover of the republican party explains why the party now refuses to oppose Trump's moves to undermine democracy and the rule of law. The RHINO hunts effectively drove many (most?) real republicans from the party and replaced them with believers in the radical right's absolutist anti-democratic vision, e.g., the Tea Party. The absolutists play hardball and they play for keeps.

  • The Koch team's most important stealth move, and the one that proved critical to success, was to wrest control over the machinery of the Republican Party, beginning in the late 1990s with sharply escalating determination after 2008. From there, it was just a short step to lay claim to being the true representatives of the party, declaring all others RINOS. But while these radicals of the right operate within the Republican Party and use that party as a delivery vehicle, make no mistake about it: the cadre's loyalty is not to the Grand Old Party or its traditions or standard bearers. Their loyalty is to their revolutionary cause.

  • Republican Party veterans who believed they would be treated fairly because of their longtime service soon learned that, to their new masters, their history of Republicanism meant nothing. The new men in the wings respect only compliance; if they fail to get it, they respond with swift vengeance. The cadre targets for removal any old-time Republicans deemed a problem, throwing big money into their next primary race to unseat them and replace them with the cause's more "conservative" choices -- or at least teach them to heel.

The latter explains why a politician like Ronald Reagan would never have been accepted by the new radical republicans. They would have ousted him as a RINO. The propaganda tactics the radical absolutists employ were and still are devastatingly effective. That got tens of millions of rank and file republicans to effectively switch from old republican ideals, including at least some responsiveness to public opinion, to pure anti-democratic absolutism about property and an intense hostility toward civil liberties.

Germaine 6 Apr 18
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Suggestions can really appear as facts, especially when the reader wants to believe the outrageous conclusions reached, no matter what sort of contortions he must undergo.

And "outrageous" is truly in the eye of the beholder. See Haidt's "THE RIGHTEOUS MIND" for an enlightening categorization of the values both right and left hold dear, versus those that are valued by one, but not both sides of the street. It goes a long ways toward helping us to fathom the divide and the indignation each side feels about the behavior of the other.

Source:

THE RIGHTEOUS MIND: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt

2

How dare those right wingers impose a president like Trump on unsuspecting Americans! We can't support a booming economy and low taxes. What are they thinking? Constitutionalists being appointed as judges. Prison's being reformed, Underperforming neighbourhoods being given tax breaks... Where ever I look it's win, win, win. I'm getting sick of it. Getting past the sarcasm for a minute, if this is a conspiracy, bring it on! Now if we can only get a wall...

@Daryl Man, we sure do count things differently. So, the tax cuts weren't real, wtf is an anti-democratic judge - by definition that what a judge is! constitutional republic is the anti-democratic government created by the founding fathers. So Trump didn't need to sign prison reform? When offered a carrot, the bunny still needs to eat it. What allies before Trump are not allies today? Where ever I look (mainly urbanites) I see loser, loser, loser. I'm sick of it. Oh and can I please have the wall?

1

Anywhere big money and Power are involved, there are conspiracies.

OP and the author of the book are apparently clueless that the biggest conspiracies against the Constitution and nationalism in the past 100 years have been by Communists and their Leftist Pinko-Comrades, and by those who can not be named but include people like Barbara Lerner Spectre and Coudenhove Kalergi. From Weishaupt and Rothschild on down, their plans for World Control have mainly been fought by White Christians--the very people they wish to destroy. From the conspiracy to get the US into WWI, to the selection of authors of the Treaty of Versailles, to todays multiple False Flag events designed for ending the 2nd amendment or doing the bidding of a certain ME "nation"--these conspiracies all came from the Left--and are Hidden by the Left controlled MSM.

The funneling of millions of Asians and Africans into White Europe, and the loss of national control of borders is powered by the EU--another of the villains constructs.

1

Sounds like a fill in the blank template for communism & the left, only filling the blanks with 'right' instead of 'left'. Anyone who can demonize the constitution & private property in America with a streight face, and equate democracy & 'rule of law' in the same sentence is clueless at best, or a full blown communist at worst. This is 'projection' at it's finest.

I would get the book for laughs, but it wouldn't be worth the puking lol.

@Daryl

The entire Republic is built on private property rights & the right to contract, she's advocating the exact opposite, a Democracy (communism), which in theory i think has always been agreeable but in practice, throughout history, has always failed for obvious reasons.

@Daryl

Well as an example, i believe you have every right, as an individual, to be here and say what you will in this community, or any for that matter. But if a bunch of members got together & decided to kick you out, & used admin to do it, that would be the majority rule democracy she is advocating. There wouldn't have to be a reason, could be completely arbitrary & done on a whim. Now if that ability was in the guidelines and all who joined would be doing so volentarily (right to contract), as they are, they would have to accept such action should it be taken aganst them.

The guidelines could grant whatever benefits they wanted to members who've volentarily joined, at the expense of certain rights they possess naturally, such as freedom of speech, thereby waiving those rights as a condition of membership. The guidelines' benefits would be the equivalent of civil rights. Benefits, in the form of rights, created by the majority and granted by admin, that can also be taken away by admin. In other words, man made rights administered by the state, on behalf of the majority, which inevitably leads to the state bypassing the will of the majority and acting as the complete authority. There is your authoritarianism in hard form, vs the soft form of majority rule, or soft communism. What was that Mel Gibson line from The Patriot? "Why trade 1 tyrant 100 miles away, for 100 tyrants 1 mile away?"

Voter suppression? Can we vote in any other countries' elections? If we're not going to become citizens or honor their laws or sovereignty, do we have any say whatsoever in their election or how they run their country? I think those questions answer themselves don't they?

Finally, choosing civil rights over private property is choosing the state over the individual and is the very cornerstone of communism. Without private property the very idea of personal wealth, or rights for that matter, is nullified and instead, accumulated in the hands of the state to be doled out, via civil rights (man made law), at its discretion. Then you have complete and total arbitrary "descrimination against people without wealth", which would be everyone except those in state. Just like the U.S.S.R.

It's communism any way ya slice it, has never worked, and isn't working here either, but it's precisely what she's advocating.

@Daryl

The example i gave of you getting kicked out was pretty clear.

Methinks you're misunderstanding civil rights, which are rights granted and taken away by the states (democracy/communism). Natural rights (republic)are NOT civil rights.

"You are confusing civil rights with property ownership. The two things are different".

No confusion, but you are correct in the distinction. The 2 are opposites and can not coexist. We either have private property (ownership, republic) by which all other rights are protected, or civil rights (state granted privilages including property, democracy/communism). In our case we have both, but are only taught the democracy, where our monetary and legal systems reside, with the intention of eliminating the republic, at least until Trump.

"Communism is concerned with public ownership of all property, which I strongly oppose."

I think if you do a little research you'll find that in our 'Democracy' all property IS owned by the state. They have legal title to it all. Everyone thinks they 'own' their property, when in fact, we are all tenants and congress stated that plainly & simply. I'll post the statement in my group if i can't in this comment. But it's Senate document #43 (Senate Resolution #62), 73rd Congress.

Communism is the abolition of private property, as is the case in our so-called 'democracy', and wealth redistribution via the aforementioned legal & monetary systems, as in our welfare system & wealth confiscation (taxation, inflation, etc), among other things. So it's alive and well here.

As far as the voter suppression of U.S. Citizens, you got me there. That's a new one on me. Where & how is anyone trying to do this? Because i honestly am unaware of such efforts.

@Daryl

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law, and subordinate to the necessities of the State."

Senate document #43
Senate resolution #62
73rd Congress, 1st session
April, 1933

Yea...a bunch of crazy right wimg loons in that 73rd congress. Unfortunately those loons took our money AND possession of our property. Keep in mind i have no stake in whether you get this stuff or not. It's merely information provided.

As for your sources,...NPR? Time? Newyorker? I prefer truth.

@Daryl

Don't think i claimed that doc was law, it merely acknowledges WHAT IS.

Go ahead and point out anything in that document that contradicts that statement. Or, you being the legal mind & all, where's any code, statute or regulation that contradicts that statement? Last i checked, Navada ended their partial allodial title ability in 2005, except on reservation land. There is no allodial title in America unless you own the land patent. Do you? Do you have fee simple title?

How did you acquire your property?
Did you inherit it in fee simple (true ownership)?
Pay for it with specie (gold or silver, true ownership)?
Purchase it with currency (Fed Res Notes, tenancy, no ownership, equitable not legal title, no fee simple)?
Purchase it with a mortgage (tenancy)?
If so, are you a U.S. Citizen (tenancy)?
Is 'your' property registered with the state (tenancy)?
Do you pay property taxes (tenancy)?

What year was Senate document #43 recorded?
What was the title of Senate document #43?
What year was the gold confiscated and the Federal Reserve Act implemented?
Who owns the Federal Reserve Note (FRN)?
Do they have ANY interest in anything purchased with their property?
If so, does that create a split title (legal & equitable)?
Is purchasing the same as buying?
Is a note an IOU?
Is a note a debt instrument?
Is a FRN an IOU?
Is a FRN a debt instrument?
Is the FRN evidence of a debt?
If so, can one pay off a debt, with a debt?
If not, how is it paid off to create ownership?
How, then, is ownership in anything purchased with FRNs possible?

No response necessary. You're the legal beagle, you figure it out. I digress.

1

There is also a conspiracy considered very far right that NWO is absolutely real and started many centuries ago. Well documented with evidence proof sign's ect. One must reseach what has out lasted the other

I submit that is fact and not theory. The problem is both left and right have toggled back and forth in power, yet the agenda moved forward throughout the 20th century with only 2 hiccups. They assassinated one & attempted the other, both from opposite sides. Food for thought.

@Tommy6915 i agree but i try to get people to reseach on their own i never want to push my views ect. On anyone.

@Gerri4321

Good policy. I try & be factual for discernment but often fail as that Irish blood takes over lol. Also fact can be mistaken as opinion because the reader is subjective. I can be guilty of that as well.

@Tommy6915 we all can i have the time to reflect on what i thought or felt. Some may not I'm lucky and men and women are different this should never be changed. See how we communicated so well because of that fact.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:31785
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.