The Synthetic Defenders of Democracy, and Their Mission to Annihilate it
Two mainstream editorials By Jennifer Szalai and Robert Reich teach us about the inner workings of the neo-Marxist plot against our Constitution
A persistent trend consistently tracked here and elsewhere, is the rise of illiberalism among the self-styled liberal acolytes of democracy. As we’ve previously documented, the leftist elite have shed their liberal skin, revealing the far more malicious progressive underbelly.
Among the latest contributions to the effort, is a piece appearing in the New York Times entitled, “The Constitution is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?” by Jennifer Szalai. In her opening salvo, Szalai dispenses with any awareness of irony, and castigates former President Donald Trump for his remarks in the wake of the Twitter files release, where he made a half-cocked plea to suspend certain constitutional precepts in order to relitigate the 2020 election, given the mountains of evidence that it was interfered with. Szalai labels Trump’s emotionally reactive - and in hindsight, unserious - call to ignore parts of the Constitution as being evidence of his “authoritarian inclinations”, before deigning to educate us on exactly how the whole of the Constitution should be completely annulled.
From this point forward, the entirety of the piece wrestles with schizophrenic inconsistency, given the writer’s simultaneous disdain for our founding document; and her enthusiasm to berate any of her political opposition for undermining it.
In such a disputatiously anti-constitutional polemic as this, one is sure to find many pull quotes to seize upon and pore over, perhaps none as mind-boggling as this:
“Trump owes his political ascent to the Constitution, making him a beneficiary of a document that is essentially antidemocratic and, in this day and age, increasingly dysfunctional.”
The entirety of this article could devote itself to this passage alone, given the unintentional manner in which it enlightens us as to the underpinnings of the psyche that wrote it. Calling the paramount document of western democracy “essentially antidemocratic” cannot go unnoticed, and had it been a more intellectually worthy scribe that penned it, would deserve itself a voluminous retort. But even more startling, is calling the Constitution “increasingly dysfunctional”. Let’s examine this more closely. How can a document that by its very design is static and immutable, save for a necessarily protracted process by which to alter it - be “increasingly” anything? The last constitutional amendment, the 27th, which basically disallowed a current Congress to vote pay increases for itself, was passed in 1992. This amendment was actually proposed a whopping 202 years earlier, in 1789. Prior to its passage, the previous amendment was passed in 1971, which lowered the voting age to 18.
The only manner in which the Constitution is “increasingly dysfunctional”, is if the demands set upon it are increasingly unconstitutional. And given the nature of today’s secular progressive left and their escalating brazenness in calling for the forced cessation of speech that they deem problematic, this isn’t hard to imagine.
The only manner in which the Constitution is “increasingly dysfunctional”, is if the demands set upon it are increasingly unconstitutional.
The list of alleged constitutional failures cited by the author include Trump winning the presidency, Trump appointing three justices to the Supreme Court, and that court sending Roe v. Wade back to the individual states to decide their own abortion laws. So in other words, the Constitution functioning exactly as it was designed to do, is an obstacle of the highest magnitude, since these issues were products arising from the wrong political party. Szalai objects to the Roe v. Wade decision specifically, on the grounds that the justices were not subject to the will of the majority in their determinations. One may remind her that the very purpose of the lifetime appointment process for SCOTUS is to fashion a court that would in theory not be manipulated by political machinations and the ever changing will of the majority. It is because of this design - not in spite of it - that the United States has been able to preserve the rule of law for generations.
As we further venture through this unhinged treatise, Szalai then flirts with the idea of secession, whereby the left coast would be parted away into its own sovereign arrangement, and the conservative states would do the same, splitting the country apart. It’s always fascinating how whenever the left suffers some defeat, they are not inclined to roll up their sleeves and win back hearts and minds - but to try and burn the whole thing down to the ground. One should note the mountains of praise heaped upon any leftist who forges a diatribe against the evils of the Southern Confederacy, which attempted to secede from the Union in order to pursue its shared ideals; and yet the same progressive would support the exact same prescription in order to achieve a Marxist “utopia”. The truth is that both scenarios are ill-advised, as the Union remaining intact is imperative to its survival.
Szalai then forces us to endure her fear of a “tyranny of the minority”, which is where the word ‘insanity’ begins to no longer be hyperbolic as a descriptor for her screed. The tyrannical rule of the majority over the minority is why all pure democracies have failed. The old saw that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner applies here. Indeed how could the United States have achieved the lofty advances in minority rights, suffrage for women, and even gay rights, if pure democratic rule determined the country’s path forward? The secular progressive leftist of today has fully disassociated himself from the former liberal idealist that fought for such societal advancements. This is not liberalism run amok; this is a new breed altogether - deeply illiberal and fully authoritarian.
After taking us through a progressive retelling of the history of the Constitution, Szalai then actually champions the Constitution for providing a way for historical wrongs to be righted - outlawing slavery, granting all men the right to vote, and then allowing women to vote. However, this accidental moment of clarity is short-lived, as she then focuses her ire on originalism as being the cause of all of her sorrow. After loosely referencing landmark decisions that prohibited segregation and bans on interracial marriage, she then alludes to “conservative legal scholars” that argued against such decisions by citing the original intention of the framers. Szalai conspicuously fails to name these scholars or the years in which any such dissent took place.
One may remind Szalai that it was indeed the Democrat party that fought to keep their slaves; that formed the KKK as a paramilitary force to keep former slaves and their offspring “in line”; and that enacted Jim Crow laws in the south that made life miserable for black Americans. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was preceded by the civil rights acts of 1875, 1957, and 1960 which were all prevented by Democrats from having any real teeth in the fight for racial equality; something the Republican party had stood for since its founding by Abraham Lincoln.
Szalai then betrays another key attribute evident in progressives of her ilk. This is the idea that political friction in Congress is corrosive and unhealthy for the country. While a fractious Congress can be frustrating, this is an important feature, and not a flaw. Building coalitions and then going to the mat to win over the American people is the perfectly imperfect method by which business gets done in Washington. And the Constitution provides the framework - it doesn’t dictate the outcome. Szalai and her cohorts would rather wield the levers of power unencumbered by inconveniences such as having to make a case to the American people that their ideas are superior. This is because plainly, all secular progressives know that no sane citizen would choose for themselves the chains of tyranny prescribed by a neo-Marxist society; and this is precisely why therefore neo-Marxists cannot be bothered with anything other than authoritarian power with which to enact their agenda.
In another piece published by The Guardian, the diminutive Clintonite Robert Reich prescribes a world in which Elon Musk is arrested and/or sanctioned for using his considerable wealth and social media empire X to advance wrongspeak.
Musk’s unforgivable transgression, according to Reich, is his support for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election.
Reich describes Musk as wielding “unaccountable political power”, which is actually chilling considering that Musk is a private American citizen, and therefore enjoys the protections of the first amendment. It is not as if the left doesn’t have their share of billionaires such as Bill Gates, George Soros, and others who likewise hold “unaccountable political power”. The difference being that nobody with any substantial platform is calling for their prosecution simply for nothing other than their political views.
After detailing Musk’s “crimes”; which include sharing memes online, supporting conservative causes, and chatting with Trump about a possible coalignment in his administration should he be successful in his 2024 bid for the White House, Reich chastises Musk for supporting UK citizens who are outraged about the rise of violent crime committed by immigrants against children in that country. While violent protests have erupted across Britain, Musk’s support has specifically been in favor of those who have been arrested for the crime of speaking out against the country’s immigration policies online. British police have all but ignored the violence committed against British citizens by Muslim immigrants, but move with lightning fast reflexes to descend upon anyone who dares speak out on social media, including a 55 year-old woman for posting “unchecked information”.
In the mind of Robert Reich, and the countless other secular progressive globalist elitists that agree with him, the UK’s approach to forcefully curbing wrongthink is government done right. After all, lowly peasants believing they have any ideas about how society should be ordered is an affront of the highest order to the superior central planning committee consisted of leftist politicos and academics. Orwell, with his unique ability to cut across epochs and prevailing fashion, warns:
"Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress toward more pain." ~ George Orwell
Reich’s coup de grâce, is his sixfold directive that he closes his essay with. His first two pronouncements call for boycotts, which is his and any other free citizen’s right to decide who they want to engage or not with. However, it doesn’t take long for Reich’s authoritarian instincts to appear. For the alleged “crime” of “spreading lies and hate” on X, Reich calls for “regulators around the world” to threaten Musk with arrest. He then pines for a similar outcome for Musk as that which befell Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram, when he was recently arrested by French authorities for allowing free speech on his platform, and not caving to pressure by the global speech gestapo to police and persecute the thoughts of users.
If Robert Reich was anything other than a figurative gnome in the garden of totalitarian despotism, and we were at risk of anyone in any real position of power taking his decretum seriously, this idea would absolutely terrify anyone reading it. Musk, as an American citizen enjoying the freedom and liberty afforded any free citizen of the United States, is in no way subject to any other nation’s laws or regulations concerning his speech online. That we are witnessing an era where this needs to be stated aloud in America, is horrifying.
As if he feels the need to declare to us that he isn’t finished demonstrating how completely unhinged he is, Reich then hits us with this gem: “Musk’s free-speech rights under the first amendment don’t take precedence over the public interest.” In the words of Tommy Williams in The Shawshank Redemption, “The hell you say!” Nowhere in this writer’s reading of the first amendment is found any sort of proviso limiting allowed speech to only that which doesn’t infringe upon the “public interest”. In Reich’s mind, this is a perfectly sound argument, and he should be empowered to determine exactly what is best for the public interest, and to therefore prescribe the punishment for those who impede his definition of it with their words or ideas. Reich’s ideas for cultural purification are so illiberal, they’d make Mao blush.
The progressive media has jettisoned all pretense of liberalism, as we’ve detailed. Writers such as those featured here are quick to warn their readers of the creeping rise of authoritarianism among their political opposition - by pointing to nothing more than populist ideas they disagree with as being the evidence of this. With surgical precision they master the art of projectionism by recommending actual tyrannical solutions such as revoking the first amendment rights of those they dislike, attempting to gaslight their audience by trying to convince them that shredding their neighbor’s constitutional rights is in the pursuit of the public good. For those paying attention, these tactics are nothing more than a retread of the Marxist revolutionary ideas that were responsible for so much death and destruction in the 20th century.
As citizens of conscience, everyone of us - regardless of social rank or influence, needs to take a uncompromising stand and engage right now in the defense of our foundational American liberties, or else we will lose them forever. Mouthpieces for the secular progressive globalist cabal like Szalai and Reich are not in and of themselves a threat. But the fact that they are comfortable dictating totalitarian dogma in the mainstream press is a profound indication that the faceless bureaucratic army and their authoritarian overlords are getting way too cozy in their quest to infringe upon our essential God-given rights. Resistance is mandatory.
Can we say that the NYT and these authors have waived their rights to the protection of the US Constitution?
Excellently said!