A Modest Proposal

[Trapper John]

We as a Nation are coming to a watershed moment. At stake are the very values many of us have fought, bled, and died for. Most simply stated that is the right to self-determination (liberty) and the notion that these rights are natural rights (endowed by our Creator). At stake is the notion that the individual empowers the State and not the other way around.

After 50+ years the State has gained control of our wealth, our educational system, our health care system, the information we receive, the language we speak, and is attempting to control our thoughts.

So here's my modest proposal: As a first step in support of the insurgency, let's hereinafter agree to define the enemy for who they are - neo-Fascists! They are not comprised of merely Democrats, or Liberals, or RINOs. They are neo-Fascists, plainly and simply, and in the truest sense of the word believe that everything comes from and is for the benefit of the State.

Words and definitions matter. To illustrate my point, the current "Liberal" is anything but. I value liberal thinking quite highly as exemplified by one of the truest liberal thinkers and anti-fascists of last century - Archibald Macleish. For the current crop of liberals to bastardize that term for their neo-Fascist agenda just angers me at the deepest levels.

It may seem a small thing of little or no consequence, but it is important to define the enemy for who and what they are - neo-Fascists. Just agreeing to think that way, speak that way on this forum will have an impact beyond us. If we are going to defeat this enemy we need to be much better organized and that begins with defining exactly who and what the enemy is. JMHO

You are now returned to regularly scheduled programming!

[tonyz]

I believe the neo-Fascists to be the insurgents - earning themselves a rather robust counterinsurgency - but I could be wrong. MOO.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by tonyz

I believe the neo-Fascists to be the insurgents - earning themselves a rather robust counterinsurgency - but I could be wrong. MOO.

I would agree with you if this were the 1950's. Unfortunately, they are in control now. Ergo we are the insurgents.

[Old Dog New Trick]

When does the shooting start? (From the good guys)

It time like no other in the history of the United States since the wars of Independence to take back what is ours.

[PRB]

I look at the two parties as Globalist and Nationalist...the G's being the regressive liberal left.

Neo Fascism is getting close to the mark but, by definition, they are strong nationalists.

Neo Global Fascists?

[Scimitar]

If this turns into a unintended high jack, please do ignore.

Would the general goals be to reintroduce strong con-federalism, bringing the power back to the state level and possibly adding a 28th amendment that blocks federal power grab in the future?

S

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Scimitar

...possibly adding a 28th amendment that blocks federal power grab in the future?

S

You are not going to do that through the usual amendment process. The Federal Government will never limit it's own power. That is what the Article 5 Convention of the States movement is all about. In fact, that is exactly why Article 5 was added to the Constitution in the first place.

Pat

[Scimitar]

There in lays the problem.
The Article 5 is weak - requiring a minimum of 38 states to ratify.
Considering the federal governments hold on the purse strings.
There will need to be drastic change in the States addiction to federal funds before that's going to happen.

Mind you, state convention was the vehicle for the 21st amendment - abolishing prohibition.
But the federal governments stranglehold was a lot less back in 1933.

S

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Scimitar

There in lays the problem.
The 5th Amendment is weak - requiring a minimum of 38 states to ratify.
Considering the federal governments hold on the purse strings.
There will need to be drastic change in the States addiction to federal funds before that's going to happen.

Mind you, state convention was the vehicle for the 21st amendment - abolishing prohibition.
But the federal governments stranglehold was a lot less back in 1933.

S

You've got several things confused here. Whether the Congress puts forward an amendment or the States, it's exactly the same process. It's not the 5th Amendment, it's Article 5 of the Constitution of the United States of America. What in the world does the "purse strings" have to do with this process? The purse is filled by the very states that we are talking about.

Pat

[Scimitar]

Thanks for the correction Pat.
Having been educated overseas, I'm still at times finding my bearings on US civics.

My understanding is that the core issue the OP (Trapper John) is discussing is caused by the power grab by the federal government over the last 80 years. This power grab is reinforced by the Federal Government blackmailing the States, that if rules aren't followed Federal funding is withheld.

The States are less likely to entertain State conventions if the Federal government has this power. Basic federalism vs Com-federalism.

So, am I correct that the overall goal is to return to a more con-federalist system, and strengthening that constitutionally (i.e. an anti federalist amendment). And if so, weakening the federal governments funding power would need to be a first step?

Correction welcome

S

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Scimitar

My understanding is that the core issue the OP (Trapper John) is discussing is caused by the power grab by the federal government over the last 80 years. This power grab is reinforced by the Federal Government blackmailing the States, that if rules aren't followed Federal funding is withheld.

Really the power grab started in 1787 and the fear of what we see now was the reason for such steep opposition during the ratification process. If you have some time & wish to get into the down & dirty of that sausage-making process, get this one on your nightstand.

But to TJ's point, I simply think of these creatures as OPFOR in general because (as he mentions, words matter) I also do not draw that party distinction - current Repub leadership can have names like 'useful idiots', 'quislings', whatever. IMO it is long past "enemy of my enemy is my friend" niceties.

A term for that OPFOR is useful in conversation among like-minded friends; but, importantly, one had better know the full range of who they're talking about when explaining to someone, e.g., educating young people as a goal to maintaining a culture, talking with someone on the fence as a conversation starter, etc. It's especially necessary if talking to someone whose definition of "fascism" is what they get from the co-opting of that word by the groups the media panders to. Big rudder-correction needed there. (Verbally, or it could be made of ash & say Hillerich & Bradsby on the side, your call.)

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by PRB

I look at the two parties as Globalist and Nationalist...the G's being the regressive liberal left.

Neo Fascism is getting close to the mark but, by definition, they are strong nationalists.

Neo Global Fascists?

Agree.

The major reasons I take the current situation from merely strong nationalists are the elements of propoganda (media) control, control of the educational system, and thought control (PC and identity politics). Then there is the antifa (brown shirts) and their intimidation tactics.

Nous Defions

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by PSM

You are not going to do that through the usual amendment process. The Federal Government will never limit it's own power. That is what the Article 5 Convention of the States movement is all about. In fact, that is exactly why Article 5 was added to the Constitution in the first place.

Pat

Can we get an AMEN please!

[atticus finch]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

When does the shooting start? (From the good guys)

It time like no other in the history of the United States since the wars of Independence to take back what is ours.

When the culture war the left has waged against this country has been won against them, it will likely come to the use of force. Not before that point.
The leftists, or fascists, will be the ones who take things to that point and leave us no other choice but the use of force.


Trapper John put his finger on one important aspect of winning this culture war:

Words mean things and have specific definitions and it is very important to properly label or identify what we are facing.

The left has deliberately subverted our language, or the meaning and hence the usage of words, for the same purpose. To wage a cultural war against this country.
It has taken a long time for our side to understand and recognize this, however that change is slowly starting to happen. Although that change alone is a major step forward, once that is recognized people will learn how to effectively counter it.

[PRB]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Agree.

The major reasons I take the current situation from merely strong nationalists are the elements of propoganda (media) control, control of the educational system, and thought control (PC and identity politics). Then there is the antifa (brown shirts) and their intimidation tactics.

Nous Defions

Actually I think simply Global fascism .... the neo bring too much to the table that does not fit