The "Resistance" Democrats are a terrorist party

The Democrats have committed to overthrowing our government.

By Daniel Greenfield, FPM

What does #Resistance really mean? It means the overthrow of our government.

In this century, Democrats rejected the outcomes of two presidential elections won by Republicans. After Bush won, they settled for accusing him of being a thief, an idiot, a liar, a draft dodger and a mass murderer. They fantasized about his assassination and there was talk of impeachment. But elected officials gritted their teeth and tried to get things done.

This time around it’s “radically” different.

The official position, from the Senate to the streets, is “Resistance.” Leftist media outlets are feeding the faithful a fantasy that President Trump will be brought down. There is fevered speculation about the 25th Amendment, a coup or impeachment due to whatever scandal has been manufactured last.

This fantasy is part clickbait. Leftist media outlets are feeding the worst impulses of their readers. But there is a bigger and more disturbing radical endgame.

The left can be roughly divided into moderates and radicals. The distinction doesn’t refer to outcome; both want very similar totalitarian societies with very little personal freedom and a great deal of government control. Instead it’s about the tactics that they use to get to that totalitarian system.

The “moderates” believe in working from within the system to transform the country into a leftist tyranny. The “radicals” believe that the system is so bad that it cannot even be employed for progressive ends. Instead it needs to be discredited and overthrown by radicalizing a revolutionary base.

Radicals radicalize moderates by discrediting the system they want to be a part of. Where moderates seek to impose a false consensus from within the system, radicals attack the system through violent protests and terrorism. Their goal is to set off a chain of confrontations that make it impossible to maintain civil society and polarize the backlash and chaos into consolidating the left for total war.

That is what “Resistance” actually means.

A similar program implemented in Europe, with a covert alliance between Communists and Nazis, led to the deaths of millions, the destruction of much of Europe and the temporary triumph of the left.

The radical left’s efforts in America caused death and destruction but, despite the sympathy of many liberals for terrorist groups such as the Weathermen and the Black Panthers, failed to escalate because the majority of Democrats and even liberals did not accept the premise that our system was illegitimate.

That began to change this century.

64% of Democrats insisted that President Bush had not been legitimately elected. 49% declared that he was not a legitimate president. 22% vowed never to accept him no matter what he might do.

After 9/11, over half of Democrats believed that Bush had known about or been involved in the attacks.

Anywhere from two-thirds to a quarter of the Democrats rejected the results of a presidential election, rejected the president and suspected him of conspiring to murder thousands of Americans.

The left was winning. Much of its natural “moderate” base viewed our government as illegitimate.

The left has declared that President Trump’s victory is illegitimate. The response is “Resistance.” That covers violent anti-government protesters, states declaring that they are no longer bound to follow Federal immigration law and Senators obstructing for the sake of obstruction.

It’s easy to get lost in the partisan turmoil of the moment, but it’s important to understand the implications. If two presidential elections were illegitimate, then our entire system of elections might be illegitimate. And indeed the left made exactly that case with its attack on the Electoral College.

The left pressed Dems to oppose President Trump for the sake of opposition. The goal wasn’t just spite. It was to break the government. When the left forced Senate Dems to filibuster President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, the filibuster became the first casualty of the fight. The goal of the radicals was to make bipartisan legislative activity impossible. Senate Democrats adopted the position of the radical left that their mission was wrecking institutions to deny them to Republicans rather than governing.

Once that was done, the radical left could unveil arguments such as, “The United States Senate is a Failed Institution”. Much like our system of elections and every other part of our government.

The radical left’s goal is to convince its natural base that our system of government is illegitimate. It knows that this can’t be limited to the theoretical level of ideology. Instead it must radicalize by demonstrating it. It does not seriously believe that President Trump will be removed from office by the 25th Amendment or any other aspect of the system. Instead it is feeding these fantasies so that when they fall through those on the left who believed in them will be further radicalized by their failure.

And Democrats have become complicit in the radical left’s program to bring down the government.

They have normalized the radical leftist position that our system is illegitimate. They have moved into the second phase of the left’s program of demonstrating that illegitimacy through confrontation. The final phase is to overthrow the system through actions ranging from protests to terrorism.

This is Cloward-Piven institutional sabotage on a whole other scale. The goal is to collapse our entire system of government. And the Democrats have climbed on board with it using President Trump as a pretext. But regardless of which Republican had won, the end result would have been the same.

The left makes its opposition to the Constitution, the election process and the rule of law into a crisis. And then it uses that crisis to demand a new system. It has pursued this approach successfully in local areas and in narrower causes. This is not the first time that it has embarked on such a project on the national level. But this is the first time that it has the full support of a major national political party.

And that is the true crisis that we face.

The left’s endgame is a totalitarian state. Its “moderates” pursue one by peaceful means only so long as they are allowed to hijack the system. When an election fails to go their way, the radicals brandish it as proof that the system has failed and that violent revolution is the only answer.

But what was once the obscure behavior of a deranged political fringe has become the mainstream politics of the Democrats. The Resistance theme shows that the radicals have won. The Democrats haven’t just fallen to the left. They have fallen to the radical left which believes in overthrowing our system of government through conflict and confrontation rather than covertly engineering change.

The Democrats have become a terrorist party. And their commitment to a radical revolution has plunged our political system into chaos. The left is now exactly where it wanted to be.

And a civil war has begun.

April 16, 2017 | Comments Off on The "Resistance" Democrats are a terrorist party | 63 views

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

8 Comments / 0 Comments

  1. If only more people believed Daniel Greenfield – he accurately describes what has happened to the democratic party – but not why the GOP and conservative media/pundits keep thinking it’s “just politics”. No!

  2. Typos: First time “Left” is capitalized, lower case ever after. Uses the word “fantasy” or “fantasize” over and over. People used to use Roget’s Thesaurus to find synonyms; now you can just Google: “Synonym.” Puhleese!

    Good for mentioning Coward/Liven Strategy. SUPER IMPORTANT! Predates Alinsky and still the game plan.

    They were guests at BILL Clinton’s inauguration. Tells you how “moderate” he really was, it was just cover. He launches Panetta, too.



    “n their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

    The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1971 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. ”

    [Actually, this is Trotsky’s “Transitional Program.” I wonder if they gave him credit or just plagiarized. Maybe, they don’t believe in intellectual property rights either. Except when it’s a question of their’s, of course. See Below. (SZ)]

    From “Transitional Program” Wikipedia

    “…The “transitional” idea of this program, roughly, is the following. The working class is not acquainted with the necessity of embracing the revolutionary ideas of the Fourth International due to “the confusion and disappointment of the older generation, the inexperience of the younger generation”. Hence
    It is necessary to help the masses in the process of the daily struggle to find the bridge between present demand and the socialist program of the revolution. This bridge should include a system of transitional demands, stemming from today’s conditions and from today’s consciousness of wide layers of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat. Classical Social Democracy, functioning in an epoch of progressive capitalism, divided its program into two parts independent of each other: the minimum program which limited itself to reforms within the framework of bourgeois society, and the maximum program which promised substitution of socialism for capitalism in the indefinite future. Between the minimum and the maximum program no bridge existed. And indeed Social Democracy has no need of such a bridge, since the word socialism is used only for holiday speechifying.
    —(The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International p114)
    The problem lay in the fact that the “epoch of progressive capitalism” had ended in the prior period. This meant that “every serious demand of the proletariat” reached beyond the limits of what the capitalist and the bourgeois state were prepared to willingly give.[1]
    The old “minimum” demands had been raised by reformists on the understanding that they were acceptable to an expanding capitalism, and had been dropped when they were not. The Fourth International, Trotsky writes, does not discard the program of the old “minimal” demands “to the degree to which these have preserved at least part of their vital forcefulness.” Trotskyists should indefatigably defend “the democratic rights and social conquests of the workers”.[2]
    But in addition, transitional demands include the call for “employment and decent living conditions for all” and reach beyond what the capitalists will willingly give, challenging the “very basis of the bourgeois regime.” [2] Demands such as higher wages are not impossible demands in themselves, Trotsky argues, but capitalism in crisis demands lower wages in the hope of increasing profitability. Transitional demands therefore do not draw back in the face of the contingencies of capitalist economics, but on the contrary, it is proposed, they continually challenge the logic of the capitalist system, expose it in the eyes of the workers, and thus help them draw towards a fully rounded out socialist consciousness – an acceptance and adoption of the “maximum programme” which the socialist leaders kept for their holiday speechifying, as an immediate and realistic necessity.
    By fighting for these “transitional” demands, in the opinion of the Trotskyists, the workers will come to realize that capitalism cannot meet their needs, and they will then embrace the full program of the Fourth International…”

  4. I just want to know, if the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot. like they did in 1972, 80, 84 and 88. In that case, I will have to look to the Republicans for the next sinister plot.

    It seems, the Dems only dug themselves out of their holes in 1976 and 1992, by marketing “home boy” southerners (actually Northern Liberals, in hayseed clothing) Carter and Clinton. The Republicans obliged, with blunders: Nixon had his Watergate, and GHW Bush had Ross Perot and “read my lips”.

    The Republicans had similar problems in 1964, and during the Roosevelt years, Let me use the 80 year “saeculum” cycle, to compare now with then:

    1929. Stock market crash. This corresponds with 2009 — not a bad fit. In both cases, the “in” Republicans (Hoover, Bush) were dumped by the electorate. The Great Depression was worse than the ‘008″ fiasco; and Roosevelt did correspondingly better than Obama.

    1936. Spanish Civil War, and invasion of Ethiopia. This corresponds with 2016. The war in Spain was a proxy war, between the Axis powers (Germany & Italy) and the Communists. This time around, the counterpart is Syria, a proxy war between US allies and Russian allies. Roosevelt was secure in those years, focusing on domestic issues while shying away from foreign conflicts. Our counterpart, Obama, did so poorly in both categories that the Republicans took over. Now, we have Donald Trump filling in for FDR.

    1939. The invasion of Poland, and the beginning of World War II in Europe. This corresponds with 2019. The conflict still only marginally involved the US then; and I think it will now as well. We were pulling out of the Depression then, and I think we are recovering now as well. This looks good for Trump, other things being equal.

    1941, December. US entry into the world war. That corresponds with 2021. I imagine that we will see a time of a rising economy, coupled with patriotic fervor. This will be very good for Republicans (and bad for the Dems).

    That’s how it will PROBABLY go; but I cannot predict the future: I am not in control of it.

  5. The goal wasn’t just spite. It was to break the government.

    No way that the clubby duopoly on power, known as the Republicrats, want to break the Government.

    They want to bleed the *taxpayers*, stopping just short of their breaking point (at which point the very profitable game would be over).

  6. a covert alliance between Communists and Nazis

    It was so covert that the only person ever to have heard about it was the author.

  7. Dan’s assessment is spot on.
    in my opinion, to emphasize his point,the university campuses are the testing ground for the kind of uncivil demonstrations that disrupt a system.
    Having been successful with little or no consequencees to the perpetrators of the campus hysteria, the next step was to test the waters on a national scale…the organizing of citizen protest marches to DC. Angry demonstrators belligerently demanding the President’s Tax returns.. but their goal wasn’t transparency, it was to see how far they could go to delegitimize the head of state.
    Orchestrated Anarchy in incremental steps is a tactic.

Comments are closed.