Phyllis Beveridge Nissila

I have been a registered political Independent for years. Prior to that,  Republican. Prior to that, and in the tradition of most of my family, Democrat (I’ve been voting since 1971). The article linked, here, “Pity the Geldings in Pelosi’s House Democrat Caucus” By opinion writer Dave Ball (American Thinker, 7/25/19) gives, in my view, all three groups of voters substantial food for thought; however, several “bites” may be challenging for some readers in this era of easy offense that often stifles analysis.

~~~

Terms of Relevance/Footnotes 

• Those as yet unfamiliar with the new political entity beginning to wield considerable power in Congress, and referenced in the article above, here is an informative link: Democratic Socialists of America(DSA)
• For a quick refresher of how our form of government in the United Stares, a Representative Republic with elements of democracy, differs from a pure Democracy, here is a comparison.
• For an extensive summary and history of the various iterations of Socialism, here is another reference that might interest the reader: “Socialism,” (Encyclopedia Britannica, Terrance Ball and Richard Dagger). It is my opinion that what the young idealists now advocating Socialism have in mind is the iteration called the “Third Way” (definition linked below and cited near the bottom of the article itself).  Salient quotes include the following:

What did remain was the Leninist insistence on one-party rule. (This quote follows the history of many forms of Socialism, their successes and mostly failures throughout history down to the modern era of Lenin and up to now.)

Beginning in the late 20th century, the advent of what many considered a “postindustrial” economy, in which knowledge and information count for more than labour and material production, raised doubts about the relevance of socialism, which was in theory and in practice primarily a response to industrial capitalism. This conviction led to much talk of a “third way”—that is, a centre-left position that would preserve the socialist commitment to equality and welfare while abandoning class-based politics and public ownership of the means of production.

From a layperson’s observations, although many Congressional DSA newbies, aka young Democrats, will cite Sweden as a successful socialistic system such as would be good for the United States (at least this is what one often hears from young idealists who follow after them), there is the critical distinction in that Sweden did not force its way by “civilization/cultural revolution,” let alone more violent forms of revolution, into other nations to take over their governments. They stayed within their borders.

And I think few can argue, anymore, the kind of Socialism the DSAs in Congress are advocating–with their insistence on open borders, the abolition of ICE, re-routing and increasing our taxes to fund cradle-to-grave social welfare for anybody who comes here illegally–is the promotion of a global one-party rule.

At least if their proposals are taken to their logical conclusions.

And if their stated goals are not just voter bait.

For who around the world in dire situations (or as some illegals have said on camera, just for better economic opportunities) would NOT want to flood our, then, open borders for all the “free” stuff?

That would certainly flatten–and dilute–the playing field, while our Constitutional rule of law would obviously no longer apply, leaving the door open, then, for all-comers and for anarchy.

But that’s not all.

Think of, then, the urgently-needed growth in central government (even bigger than now) to institute, regulate, and control such a large influx of newcomers, as well as to, ah, quell resistance when U.S. citizens, both by birth and naturalized, rise up against such a fundamental transformation of the United States, a resistance that will likely get bloody.

For what is most disturbing about this version of a Socialist takeover, what with the rise of unfettered Antifa thugs in many radical-left run cities, is that I doubt the idealistic (and angry) young Socialists are going to keep the revolution merely a cultural force (more on this below).

On the “Cultural Takeover,” aka “Soft Revolution”

Indeed, the cultural aspect of a takeover seems to have already occurred considering the Socialist influences that have, arguably, infiltrated schools, churches, pop culture, and, of course, politics in the latter half of the twentieth century.

My own exposure to Socialism’s influence in higher education began with my first college coursework in 1968 (the year Paulo Freire’s highly influential Pedagogy of the Oppressed  was published and began to appear on required reading lists over here shortly thereafter along with other books and papers of a similar bent). However, I first heard about this philosophy via my Catholic School education.

As a high school student during and after the close of the Second Vatican Council and as a result of the influence, I now know, of so-called Liberation Theology on that Council, I noticed a new term: “social justice” aka “peace and justice” infiltrating the church in new ways, mostly as social outreach committees.

Fast forwarding to today, I see the popular “social justice” movement (its young, hopeful liberators commonly referred to as SJWs, or Social Justice Warriors) as a secular derivative. And now, Roman Catholics have a leader who in many cases arguably aligns with the global Socialist cause.

Of course, as the saying goes, “there is some truth in every lie.” Thus, it is absolutely true that we need to be compassionate toward the poor among us (and poverty is not just physical or material poverty but includes also poverty of education, opportunity, and spirit).

Christianity certainly includes that moral guide.

Indeed, true Christianity, i.e., that which is led by One Who literally gave His life for us by paying the debt for our sins, i.e., those who put faith in Him, inspires taking care of those in need. And many secular governmental forms as well as other religious systems also incorporate helping their less fortunate.

However, as history proves, when a secular brand of such an altruistic philosophy takes hold so also does the baser element of human nature–greed–and so also do those without a conscience seize the opportunity to exploit the needy (and everyone else) in a quest for power and control.

Donning sheep’s clothing and virtue-signaling just makes it all that much easier.

Arguably, then, the soft Socialist revolution has been underway since the last century in America.

On the “Hard Revolution”

However, and this is why I share the above articles, observations, and information, we may well be on the cusp of the “harder” (bloodier) kind.

I pray not.

But unexamined–certainly unknown–history does have a way of repeating itself.

And regarding the four, firebrand Socialist forerunners in US Congress and others like them: historically, this does not bode well for them, either, because, well, they know too much, and in the hubris that gets fed by virtual rock-star-fame they often become just too annoying and demanding for the real (one) party elite once they (the useful firebrands) have served their purpose.