Bill Whittle Gets “It” – “This is a once-in-history idea” – Now what?

I came to this by Bill Whittle via a post by Zombie:

In fact, in all of human history, there has been only one genuinely progressive, genuinely liberating idea: a lightning bolt across the pages of history – the why in 1776, the how in 1787 – the idea of limited government, god-given rights, personal liberty and rule by the vast collective wisdom and industry of the common man, and not by the bored, pampered and self-hating elites that have run everything before and since. This is a once-in-history idea. This is why we have to conserve it. We have to conserve this fundamentally liberal idea.

Brilliant! I don’t think it would be possible to sum things up with less words without loosing clarity.

So if that is “It”, what is the opposite?

When a society – after generations of hard work, sacrifice and hardship – reaches a certain level of prosperity, “Progressives” like Bill Maher, Janeane Garofolo, Rosie O’Donnell and Gaius Gracchus – that last Progressive died in 121 BC – assume that the prosperity is endless, and push for more and more people to get more and more goods and services for less and less work. Why? Because – as today, in America, as with the British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Ottomans, the Mongols, Rome, Greece, Eqypt, Babylon… They do it for political power. They live for political power. This “Progressivism” is ancient, recurring, tyrannical and ruinous.

And we voted for it. Just like the Romans did.

It is not just the opposite of “It”. The opposite is the norm course of events.

Whittle explains how the USA got to where it is in terms that made me think of 5GW:

And so they asked themselves: if the vanguard of the revolution wasn’t going to be the worker, then who would it be? And the answer they came up with was: the dispossessed.

The Neo-Marxist revolution would not attack the capitalist economy – that was too successful. The target of the new Marxist revolution would be the Culture.

Marxist philosophers like Antonia Gramsci, and later, Saul Alinski – personal hero to such present-day fellow travelers as Chris Matthews, Hillary Clinton and, of course, The President of the United States – started to create narratives – stories – about America. This rapidly evolved into a philosophy called “Critical Theory” and the idea of Critical Theory was to attack the dominant culture – that would be us – from all sides, simultaneously.


The objectives of the Frankfurt School, of Gramsci and Alinski in their assault on the culture, were laid out in detail and were very clear: Eliminate not only the voice, but the very idea of reason. Destroy history. Delegitimize shared morality. Medicate instead of discipline children. Promote the idea that problems are so complex that only elitists, experts and academics can discuss, let alone solve them. A later pair of American Marxist philosophers developed what became known as the Cloward-Piven strategy: overwhelm America’s social systems – welfare, health care, immigration, etc. by telling people they were owed things, and by intentionally overwhelming them, cause them to collapse – leaving nothing but smoking wreckage, and no where to turn but to the government.

This is certainly “Secret War” or “War of Hidden Movements”. Most of us don’t even know it is going on. Whittle calls even says:

we are in an information war, a battle of narratives…We are, together, soldiers in this narrative war for America and for civilization

The first part sounds like Memetic Engineering. The second part sound like Strategic Citizen 5GW.

So…how do “we” win? Using a Titanic analogy he gets to:

We need to ram the iceberg. We need to hit it head-on. We need to put in all the power we have – all of the power – and go right at the heart of that monster. Because everyone talks about what the iceberg did to Titanic, but no one talks about what Titanic did to the iceberg.

That sounds like degrading the 5GW into a 4GW. Maybe.

Any Specifics?

We, for the first time in human history, have an example of what a free society looks like. We, for the first time in history, are children of the only real progressives in all of human history. And we, for the first time in history, have the technology that allows common people to talk to each other, to encourage and inform each other, and to make an end run around the suicidal elites and their suicidal, dying media organs.

Is that it? I think (and it sounds right to me) he is suggesting every meme/false-story/false-narrative on the  must be challenged whether it it is in public or in our institutions with four intermediate ends in mind:

  • Slow/prevent/rollback the memes opposed to “It”
  • Convince the undecided to join on the side of “It”
  • Discourage those opposed to “It”
  • Encourage those on the side of “It”

What is the end goal for “It”? How about this blast from the past:

[…]that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

So now what?

Dont Tread On Me Flag

“Socialism Now to Be Called ‘Sustainable Capitalism'”

From StopTheACLU:

Update your Newspeak dictionaries. Comrade Al Gore has issued a decree that we are now to refer to eco-Marxism as “sustainable capitalism.”

Gore makes a fist and gets ominous: “Business and markets cannot operate in isolation from society or the environment. … We must develop sustainable capitalism.”

I expect The Left to conceal themselves by hiding by changing word definitions.

There are other terms such as Progressive:

Barack Obama is a communist by birth, breeding, education, and profession. His grandparents were communists, his parents were communists, his teachers were communists, his friends are communists, his colleagues are communists, he’s a communist. Duh.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the current euphemism for “communist” is “progressive.” This is not even a new usage. My father’s parents always called themselves “progressives,” for instance. In fact they were CPUSA members. (Before Grandma fell down the stairs at Juilliard and smashed her frontal lobe, one of the last messages she imparted to me was that Frank Rich writes a really great column.) “Progressive” is also all over the place in my ’80s Soviet Life magazines. And La Wik helpfully informs us that the Congressional Progressive Caucus is (a) the largest voting bloc of Democrats in the House, and (b) the affiliation of the Speaker. And now, of course, the President. Summary: the Cold War is over. Communism won.

The small ‘c’ is well-taken, of course. Obama’s faction is the disorganized, SDS, “Maoist,” or “New Left” wing of American communism. Ie, not the organized, CPUSA, “Stalinist” or “Old Left” wing – which both my grandparents and Obama’s first mentor Frank Marshall Davis were in, whose decline I think was as much cause as effect of the Soviet collapse, and whose remnants were really more for Hillary. And certainly not the defunct Trotskyite wing, whose carcass so weirdly morphed into “neoconservatism.”
If there’s one thing to remember about Alinskyism, or indeed progressivism as a whole, it’s that it is the perfect mental framework by which the lordly can do evil, while convincing themselves and/or others that they are small voices sticking up for good. [Link: Unqualified Reservations]


For Future Blog Entry - Communist Party

“They presented themselves not as socialists, but as left-leaning and progressive”

I like Ann Althouse’s blog It is one of the first blog I read. I liked the connection to Wisconsin and Madison and especially the photos of my old campus.

But this is silly:

In any case, I don’t think it’s right to call the New Party “socialist.” I remember this party. One of the founders was UW lawprof Joel Rogers. They presented themselves not as socialists, but as left-leaning and progressive. I realize that for right wingers that counts as “socialist,” but let’s not be inflammatory.

In Milwaukee, the party was filled with people from various Marxists parties and the Socialist Party USA. Basically, they wanted to have more of an impact then the Marxist and Socialist. Hence the “New”.

Her readers call her out on it in the comments:

Unfair only if one changes what the word socialist means.
I don’t see what that article does other than confirm that the New Party was, in fact, socialist. They want socialism, but the founder’s defense against being called socialist is that they don’t give the state as much weight as socialists. You can’t enact all of that progressive garbage without the force of the state, so his defense is an empty one.
“international workers right” come on Ann. Especially you should see through the lingo here.
What are the policy and social positions that -Socialists- have that Progressives and The New Party don’t?
A progressive tax system based on the ability to pay. “

From each according to their means.

“A Bill of Rights for America’s Children, guaranteeing true equality of opportunity by providing equal access to comparable education, health care, nutrition, housing, and safety…. Full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal “social wage” to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity.”

To each according to their needs.

“The New Party believes that the social, economic, and political progress of the United States requires a democratic revolution in America — the return of power to the people. Our basic purpose — reflected both in our own governance and in our aspirations for the nation — is to make that revolution happen.”

Viva la revolucion!
In fact, I think the only way that would be more accurate to describe the New Party than socialist would be to call them Marxist.
I’ve researched the NP, and I believe it to be entirely fair to describe them as socialist at best. The Chicago chapter, in particular, was a hotbed of outright communists, the type of people for whom “socialist” was a conservative tag.
At the very least, Obama does not hold capitalist views or ideals.

And so on.

Update: The Powerline blog has recovered scrubbed early web pages where the New Party claims him from 1996.