On his show this evening, Mark Levin said, “What is being promoted is bigger than socialism – it’s tyranny – and they’re out of the closet promoting tyranny…and through their PR, a cult of personality.” The revolution is here.
We must stand ready to speak up for what is right and ensure that these outliers can never establish a permanent foothold in the United States of America.
Levin read the following quote by Edmund Burke:
“By this unprincipled facility of changing the state as often, and as much, and in as many ways as there are floating fancies or fashions, the whole chain and continuity of the commonwealth would be broken. No one generation could link with the other. Men would become little better than the flies of a summer.”
Burke supported the American Revolution which sought freedom and representative government. He did not support the French Revolution because it was simply terrorism.
The reason Levin read the quote was to point out that “we are losing our culture – no doubt about it, our traditions, our customs, our civil institutions.”
He read another quote by Frédéric Bastiat, The Law:
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
Levin asks how can these masterminds be so superior and yet we’re so incapable.
This quote by Whittaker Chambers is both prescient and brilliant:
“It is surprising how little I knew about the New Deal, although it had been all around me during my years in Washington. But all the New Dealers I had known were Communists or near-Communists. None of them took the New Deal seriously as an end in itself. They regarded it as an instrument for gaining their own revolutionary ends. I myself thought of the New Deal as a reform movement that, in social and labor legislation, was belatedly bringing the United States abreast of Britain or Scandinavia.
I had noticed it obvious features – its coalition of divergent interests, some of them diametrically opposed to the others, its divided counsels, its makeshift strategy, its permanently shifting executive personnel whose sole consistency seemed to be that the more it changed, the more it remained the most incongruously headed hybrid since the hydra. Now with a curiosity newborn of Berle, I saw how misleading those surface manifestations were, and tactically how advantageous, for they concealed the inner drift of this great movement. That drift was prevailingly toward socialism, though the mass of those who, in part directed, in part were carried along by it, sincerely supposed that they were liberals.
I saw that the New Deal was only superficially a reform movement. I had to acknowledge the truth of what it’s more forthright protagonists, sometimes unwarily, sometimes defiantly, averred: the New Deal was a genuine revolution, whose deepest purpose was not simply reform from within existing traditions, but a basic change in the social, and above all, the power relationships within the nation. It was not a revolution by violence. It was a revolution by bookkeeping and lawmaking. In so far as it was successful, the power of politics had replaced the power of business. This is the basic power shift of all the revolutions of our time. This shift was the revolution. It was only of incidental interest that the revolution was not complete, that it was made not by tanks and machine guns, but by acts of Congress and decisions of the Supreme Court, or that many of the revolutionists did not know what they were or denied it. But revolution is always an affair of force, whatever forms the force disguises itself in. Whether the revolutionists prefer to call themselves Fabians, who seek power by the inevitability of gradualism, or Bolsheviks, who seek power by the dictatorship of the proletariat, the struggle is for power.
Now I thought I understood much better something that in the past had vaguely nibbled at my mind, but never nibbled to a conclusion – namely, how it happened that so many concealed Communists were clustered in Government, and how it was possible for them to operate so freely with so little fear of detection. For as between revolutionists who only half know what they are doing and revolutionists who know exactly what they are doing the latter are in a superb maneuvering position. At the basic point of the revolution – the shift of power from business to government – the two kinds of revolutionists were at one; and they shared many other views and hopes. Thus men who sincerely abhorred the word Communism, in the pursuit of common ends found that they were unable to distinguish Communists from themselves, except that it was just the Communists who were likely to be the most forthright and most dedicated to the common cause. This political color blindness was all the more dogged because it was completely honest. For men who could not see that what they firmly believed was liberalism added up to socialism could scarcely be expected to see what added up to Communism. Any charge of Communism enraged them precisely because they could not grasp the difference between themselves and those against whom it was made. Conscious of their own political innocence, they suspected that it was merely mischievous, and was aimed, from motives of political malice, at themselves. But as the struggle was really for revolutionary power, which in our age is always a struggle for control of the masses, that was the point at which they always betrayed their real character, for they reacted not like liberals, but with the fierceness of revolutionists whenever that power was at issue.
I believed that the Communists were much more firmly embedded in Government than I had supposed, and that any attempt to disclose or dislodge them was enormously complicated by the political situation in which they were parasitic. Every move against the Communists was felt by the liberals as a move against themselves. If only for the sake of their public health record, the liberals, to protect their power, must seek as long as possible to conceal from themselves and everybody else the fact that the Government had been Communist-penetrated. Unlike the liberals, the Communists were fully aware of their superior tactical position, and knew that they had only to shout their innocence and cry: “Witch hunt!” for the liberals to rally in all innocence to their defense. I felt too, that a persistent effort by any man to expose the Communists in Government was much less likely to lead to their exposure than to reprisals against him. That fact must be borne constantly in mind in understanding what I did and did not do in the next nine years, and indeed throughout the Hiss Case, which was to prove on a vast scale how well-founded my fears had been.”
The New Deal was the revolution and insofar as it was successful, this power shift of relationships within the nation was the revolution. The power of politics had replaced the power of business. This is the basic power shift of all the revolutions of our time. The shift was the revolution…It was made not be tanks and machine guns.
Levin said, “The struggle is the same, the struggle is for power. That is exactly what has happened to this great nation. The central government is becoming all powerful. It’s overwhelming the states, it’s overwhelming business people – small and large, it’s overwhelming home owners and property owners. It’s overwhelming individuals who seek to purchase their own healthcare. It’s overwhelming religious people who seek to practice their faith in their own way and not be compelled to practice it in another way. It’s overwhelming people who believe in free speech. It’s overwhelming people who believe in the freedom of association…what isn’t it overwhelming?”
“It’s here, it’s here, it’s here,” he said. “We are surrounded by it, we’re in the middle of it, we’re steeped in it,” Levin said. The it he refers to is tyranny.
The government is smothering and destroying our civil society.
Mark Levin believes that people are applauding our own demise. Look at the most radical, foolish, preposterous individuals who are being brought up from the depths to run for the presidency. They are the people Edmund Burke spoke about.
Is this not now the true manifesto of the Democratic Party to eliminate all remaining vestiges of the United States?