White Supremacy

When Assessing Authoritarianism: Compare and Contrast Critically

/ MeltdownMessiah / Leave a comment

Altogether too few of the people opposing the steady slide to the right in the U.S. have taken the time to read Mein Kampf or Goebbels’ later extrapolation on many of its premises. This is especially disheartening because it’s clear that the other side is well-acquainted with it. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the distaste people feel at the thought of reading the manifesto that served as the template for the rise of the Nazi Party in 1930s Germany. I would argue that it’s as important to read Mein Kampf as it is to read Sun Tzu’s The Art of War or Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, if only for the glimpse it provides into the thinking and worldview of someone who would commit the sort of atrocities we witnessed from Nazi Germany.

It’s doubly important as we’ve been witnessing The Big Lie on display here in the United States, combined with virtually every other element from the Nazi propaganda playbook: from establishing a mythic (almost messianic) image of Donald Trump to portraying the nation as a society in unity but for an unfortunate assortment of “others” who display “asocial” qualities, tainting the purity of America and threatening both a way of life and the lives of the people therein.

Of course, you hear similar (albeit inverted) accusations from people on the Right. It’s not uncommon to hear or read some mouthpiece of the Republican Party claiming that the Left (as if Democrats are actually a Leftist political party) is mirroring Nazi and Fascist practices and ideology. These are often the same people who, with a straight face, attempt to insist that the Nazis were an embodiment of Socialist principles, despite absolutely no presence of those principles within the stated or enacted objectives of the Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler. Nazi Germany was Socialist in the same way North Korea is a Democratic Republic, which is to say not in the slightest. The Nazis actively objected to every facet of Socialist ideology, from opposing Collective Ownership and dismantling Labor Unions that protected Workers’ Rights to shifting the focus from Class Consciousness and International Egalitarian objectives to Racist Nationalism. It’s all right there in the history books. This means that there are two types of people making these claims: those who weren’t paying attention in their history classes and those who are cynically capitalizing on the fact that people can be manipulated into believing ahistorical nonsense if they’re incentivized to do so.

Unfortunately, you’ll also hear plenty of people who claim to be centrist, insisting that both parties are correct in those accusations, because (according to them) both major parties are Nazi and Fascist in nature. In most instances, you’ll hear or read someone making those sorts of statements only to, in the next breath, almost exclusively parrot the talking points from the Right. I’m jaded enough to believe this is just as often a bad-faith ploy by those who internally cling to right-wing ideology as it is the result of right-wing White Supremacy simply being the long-time default within America and American Politics.

It’s simple enough to dispel these fictional distortions of the respective political platforms, but those who need to hear the truth are least likely to open themselves to it or are willing to accept that they could be wrong. I understand that last part, because it’s hard to admit we’re wrong about something, especially something that has become a core component of who we perceive ourselves as being. I think most of us can understand how challenging it is to uproot long-standing beliefs that are thoroughly entrenched in both our identities and the worldviews we hold. There should be some sympathy and empathy available for the people who are terrified to acknowledge just how wrong they have been and the far-reaching implications associated with acting under false premises for however many years they’ve been propping up these fictions.

In reality, it’s the same sort of cognitive dissonance that goes hand-in-hand with getting people to face the deeply unpleasant realities of American History and the degree to which White Supremacy has been the substrate underlying all of it. It’s not uncommon for people to experience feelings of unwanted (and, to them, unjustified) guilt and shame when forced to evaluate history (and their own lives) through a lens that lays bare the cruelty and lies that have been necessary to maintain that corrupt foundation. Occasionally, people lash out in reaction to what they perceive as persecution or judgment over the role their ancestors might have played in laying or maintaining the bedrock of White Supremacy upon which America has been built. Unfortunately, there are some people (admittedly, a small minority) who take delight in that sense of guilt and shame; however, the vast majority of people simply want acknowledgment of past injustices and a sincere effort to do better and be better. And, the fact is that we can be better. We can (and should) work to dig out that stratum of sickness upon which our society is built, because it’s not as solid as it seems. We can replace it with a medium consisting of education, empathy, and equity, but that requires effort that we need to be willing to invest.

One of the first steps is to analyze our modern political landscape with intellectual honesty. To do that, we need to work on evaluating how we define things and how definitions are being distorted to manipulate people into working against their own self-interests. Liberals (and Democrats by extension) are not a Leftist Political Party. Leftist ideology is rooted in principles more closely associated with Communism, which is mutually exclusive from Capitalism. Liberals are Capitalists, albeit perhaps less overtly predatory in their Capitalist sensibilities than Conservatives (Republicans) happen to be. Even the most progressive Liberals are still Capitalists, even though they may endorse some aspects of Socialism (not Communism): Social Safety Nets, Universal Healthcare, Government Regulation and Oversight, robust Public Education, Trade and Labor Unions, and Public Ownership of Utilities and Infrastructure. This is how most civilized nations operate, in what is classified as a Mixed Economy. European nations embody this Mixed Economy model through Social Democracy or Market Socialism, while China and other nations utilize a model more akin to Socialist Market Economy. In the modern world, Communism is virtually untenable, and the closest example to a pure Communist state is North Korea, which requires isolationism to survive. There are those on the Left who are deeply pro-Communist and invested in the belief that it is the ideal form of human Socioeconomics (and maybe it is). But in practical application, and in today’s global society, it’s either a fantasy or so far down the line as to be indistinguishable from fantasy.

Now that we’ve established accurate definitions, we can proceed. I am writing this as a U.S. citizen and for an audience largely consisting of other U.S. citizens, so I will often be using the terms Democrat, Liberal, and the Left interchangeably. As far as American Politics go, when looking at the two major parties that dominate the political landscape, Democrats are the Left.

We’ll begin by addressing the facile claims that Democrats are the true inheritors of Nazi and Fascist ideologies in American Politics.

No one in either Liberal or Leftist circles has the privileged status of being beyond reproach in the same way that Donald Trump has taken on a sort of mythic status for Conservatives. Those on the Right have a hard time comprehending this, which is why they’ll gleefully toss the name of Bill Clinton into the discourse surrounding the Epstein Files. However, while they will trip over their own feet attempting to dance around as they proactively excuse Trump if he happens to be implicated in monstrous actions (beyond those of which he’s already been implicated). The reaction from both Leftists and Liberals, when this bad-faith argument is proposed, is to say that Clinton should absolutely end up in prison if he’s guilty of the same sort of things. The same would be true for any name they tossed into the discussion. Liberals have a far better track record when it comes to holding their own accountable, in part because they’re operating from a different playbook than the one utilized by present-day Conservatives. “They go low, we go high,” however, only functions as a strategy when the opposition is capable of honest self-reflection and shame.

As a brief aside, the Republican Party has clearly displayed that it will still endorse and vote for accused (and even convicted) pedophiles and people found guilty of sexual assault. Over the last 20 years, all but one of the Lawmakers in D.C. who have been investigated or charged for similar crimes have been Republicans: Matt Gaetz, Madison Cawthorn, Dennis Hastert, Jim Gibbons, and Mark Foley. Notably, no one backed the sole Democrat in the list, Anthony Weiner, when the evidence of his actions came to light, and I doubt anyone either knows or cares where he is today. He became a joke to Liberals and Conservatives alike, and no one on the political spectrum supported him or excused his awful behavior. In direct contrast, Donald Trump (and many of his supporters) openly and repeatedly endorsed Roy Moore in his bid to become a U.S. Senator.

I left out accusations of Sexual Harassment because that claim is admittedly a bit more nebulous and harder to define (or to prove). In that arena, Republicans and Democrats are about evenly distributed. I also left out investigations by Ethics Committees over extramarital affairs and incidents of Lawmakers being outed for same-sex affairs (I don’t think there’s anything wrong with homosexuality) because they’re at least consensual. Though I will take this moment to say it is damning just how many members of the party that proclaims itself to be the arbiter of Christian morality are the ones most unwilling to uphold the same morals they believe they can force upon others. The hypocrisy within Conservative politics is substantially more egregious solely because of how vocal the adherents are in condemning homosexuality, sexual immorality, and sexuality as a whole. These are people (and not exclusively the political figures) who promote repression and oppression, abstinence, conversion therapy, and a plethora of other harmful practices when it comes to everyone but themselves.

Returning to the topic at hand, since no one in the Left or Liberal political realm is considered sacrosanct, there’s no comparison to the Cult of Personality that’s been assembled around Donald Trump by the Right.

Where there is additionally no comparison is that there is no point within my lifetime that Democrats have cultivated a doctrine of othering people based on immutable characteristics such as Ethnicity, Nationality, Sexual Orientation, Gender, or Gender Identity. It’s simply not consistent with the Party Platform.

There are sure to be those who will take this moment to exercise a knee-jerk response and express the historically illiterate argument regarding Democrats and Republicans in their respective roles from the 19th Century, but that can be disregarded just as the individuals making those specious arguments are disregarding reality. Besides, I’ve already devoted a fair amount of time to addressing those ahistorical myths here.

This is not to say that much of the Democratic support for marginalized groups hasn’t been superficial, conditional, and performative. But that’s to be expected in a sociopolitical environment wherein cisgender, straight, white, Christian males are deemed to be the standard by which all others are measured. When that exclusive assortment of traits is treated as the baseline normal, it’s difficult not to fail in attempts to foster true equality and equity. Until that insidious, often unconscious, bias is dismantled, we can’t be surprised by the shortcomings of even the most well-meaning politicians.

Nevertheless, the point remains that there are neither stated nor unwritten components within any Democratic Platform wherein people from other nations or cultures, with different ethnic backgrounds, gender identities, or sexual orientations, are to be persecuted for these inherent and unchangeable aspects of who they are. Similarly, there is nothing in any Democratic Platform that overtly or subtly denigrates people of different faiths, economic statuses, or levels of education.

The Democratic Party (far more than its political opposition) embraces the principle of Diversity and Tolerance that is supposed to be the underlying ethos of America. While flawed in its own ways, the Democratic Party is far closer to embodying the ideals of pluralism and unity than the Republican Party. Hell, one need look no further than the demographic makeup of the respective parties in Congress to see this on clear display.

While one party dedicates massive amounts of resources to the process of not only othering people but also actively persecuting them, the other party strives to provide for all people (including their political opponents). Of course, Democrats often fall into old routines of paternalizing and patronizing marginalized people, infantilizing them, and acting out some antiquated “White Savior” roleplay that does as much harm as good. In that, I suppose we have to allow some leeway for “good intentions” despite the harm it causes. They may be trying in all the wrong ways, but at least they’re trying.

The supposed evils perpetrated by the Democrats seem to center around topics like Abortion Rights, Gender-Affirming Care, Inclusivity, and Multiculturalism. It’s challenging for me to even conceive of a worldview in which those things are evidence of an evil or destructive philosophy.

Regarding Abortion, no Democrat has expressed any desire to impose abortion on those who oppose the practice, instead believing it’s a matter best left to be discussed and decided by the parent(s), their physician, and their spiritual guides (if applicable).

As far as Gender-Affirming Care is concerned, that is similarly something Democrats believe should be left to the individual, their family and loved ones, and the psychiatric and medical professionals who are involved in the decisions.

On the topics of Inclusivity and Multiculturalism, there’s no denying that the Founding Fathers were deeply Eurocentric, embodying White Supremacy that may make some people uncomfortable. When it was born, America was meant to be a Melting Pot, wherein Immigrant Cultures could blend into, and become indistinguishable from the burgeoning nation’s culture of customs, laws, and language. There was a great deal of non-inclusive thinking in early American ideology that extended to several white European nationalities as well as non-whites. Over time, even some of those Founding Fathers (like Washington and Franklin) started to embrace the contributions of cultures that had initially been feared or denigrated. Much of this misgiving was rooted in misapprehension and misunderstanding associated with the relatively recent (and entirely inaccurate) concept of “Race,” which I discuss at length here. Time passed, and by the late 19th Century, perspectives had shifted even further regarding the status of America as a Melting Pot (more accurately, I think, a salad bowl.) Diverse Cultures were increasingly seen as things that added texture and flavor to American Culture. This nation was seen as an example, a place where different cultures could come together and celebrate their differences while assembling a shared national identity that is non-homogenized.

With Capitalism being the ever-present elephant in the room, it would be a mistake if I didn’t include the perception many on the Right seem to have, regarding Democrats being fiscally irresponsible. This is, after all, one of the unforgivable evils associated with Liberals, if we’re to believe the propaganda. However, if anything, it seems to me that Democrats are at least slightly more willing to uphold the Social Contract than their opponents, wherein members of the population pay their share of taxes for the government to then provide for the public good. The Republicans, on the other hand, want to perpetuate a system wherein certain privileged classes pay proportionately less into the government, and the government, in turn, provides less toward the public good (to the benefit of fewer members of the public).

It’s perhaps unfair to place that solely in the laps of Republicans, because there are several Democrats who espouse centrist, middle-of-the-road ideals who are altogether too happy to see the wealthiest fraction of a percentage of Americans skirt their responsibilities as they simultaneously skim off subsidies and take full advantage of the infrastructure and systems funded by tax dollars. However, if we look back through voting records, it’s almost exclusively been the Democrats who most consistently pushed for both Campaign Finance Reform and Financial Transparency within the government. This seems to belie much of the propaganda associated with the financial irresponsibility of Liberals.

Republicans (as far back as I can recall) have proclaimed themselves to be the champions of Freedom and Liberty, while they systematically intrude deeper into people’s lives. Political opposition, questioning authority, deviations from the above-mentioned “baseline normal,” demands for equity, and so on are treated as “asocial” or even criminal behaviors in the rhetoric expressed by the Right. Freedom and Liberty, according to the actions of the Republican Party, are contingent upon meeting certain biological, psychological, sociological, religious, and political purity standards of homogeneity. If one is unfamiliar, that was also the basis of Nazi ideology.

If one can step back and assess all of this without inserting some preexisting partisan bias, it’s fairly obvious that there is no validity in the claims that both parties are the same and that they are equally evil. It’s also obvious to anyone with a modicum of historical literacy that only one of the major political parties in America bears any resemblance to the Nazi Party.

None of this is to say that the Democrats aren’t mired in White Supremacy and an underlying indifference when it comes to actually doing (rather than talking about) things that would improve material conditions for not only marginalized communities, but all Americans. They absolutely are. And that’s unlikely to change unless we can put an end to people and corporate entities buying votes and influencing Political Discourse to the extent that the constituents are unable to achieve. This is precisely why Leftists (not Liberals) oppose Capitalism (or at least the unchecked Capitalism we have in America), because it allows money to be the arbiter of what becomes policy and what is left by the wayside. What absolutely will not improve these conditions is support for those who embody Nazi ideology and foster increased segregation and separation within the American population while catering to the predatory and self-serving desires of Corporations and the ultra-wealthy.

I’m reminded of a scene from Network, in which Ned Beatty’s character, Arthur Jensen, launches into an almost evangelical Capitalist tirade which includes the following, “There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars!” Unless we are willing to dismantle that very “Dominion of Dollars,” we won’t get any closer to Liberty and Freedom than what the Democratic Party offers. And while what the Democrats offer is far from ideal, at least they’re offering something other than the Authoritarianism and Tyranny we’ve already seen play out in Nazi Germany.

If you’re interested in seeing other unsettling parallels between modern Conservatives and Nazis, you can read a detailed breakdown here.

Fiction Treated As Fact: The Myth of Race

/ MeltdownMessiah / 1 Comment

To bring an end to Racism, we need to successfully deconstruct the 17th-century notion of “Race” as a thing. Race, as we commonly think of it, is nothing more than a relatively modern and simplistic categorization based on conveniently visible markers that are both biologically irrelevant and lacking in anything like nuance.

The concept of Race is a Social Construct, not a Biological one, much like Gender. Of course, in both of those arenas, we latch onto these simple Social Constructs because the Biological elements are altogether too complicated and far less conveniently organized. We’re a lazy species that relies far too frequently on simplistic (and often erroneous) Pattern Recognition, as opposed to negotiating with reality on the novel terms required if we aim to be more intellectually honest.

The Enlightenment Era was a time of great advancement in the realms of social and political theory, scientific principles, taxonomy, and philosophy. There’s no disputing the value that arose from the great thinkers and educational centers of the time. I’m personally a great admirer of several of the great thinkers of the time. It is, however, important to note that little of what came from that era is without flaws and errors. There were severe limitations in both the technology available and the understanding of the natural world that even the greatest minds of the time faced.

While much of what we gained from pre-Industrial studies was based on observation, scientific methodology, reason, speculation, and extrapolation, the observable world and scientific tools available to people of the time were not the same ones we have available (and take for granted) today. The great minds of the time certainly performed their duties to the best of their abilities with the information they had available, but we shouldn’t be assuming they had all the answers. Similarly, we shouldn’t assume they didn’t have biases that influenced their findings, conscious or unconscious, as they may have been.

There is arguably no area where that is more true than with the development of concepts regarding Race. And yet our modern notions of Race are virtually indistinguishable from those of Enlightenment Thinkers, despite a plethora of evidence that should dismantle all of it. The biggest problem, and one that great minds could hardly avoid, is that those notions are derived from a White, Eurocentric perspective. Of course, some are deeply invested in maintaining that antiquated worldview, in large part precisely because it is assembled around a White, Eurocentric perspective.

But before modern concepts of Race developed, there was nothing like it in place. Separation between people was based on Political, Religious, and Regional differences. Egyptian, Chinese, Greek, and Roman cultures, for example, had no hierarchical bias regarding the myriad skin tones of their people. It was solely by happenstance that people of similar skin color were lumped together. Their status within the given society was based on where they were from, the society to which they belonged, and the gods they worshipped, not the lightness or darkness of their skin tone. It was instead the assumption that anyone not belonging to one’s culture was some manner of barbarian, but that this cultural defect wasn’t an immutable characteristic. Physiological differences were recognized and somewhat accurately perceived as the result of environmental factors, such as the specific geography where those groups originated, and heritable traits.

Of course, the Greek and Roman societies collapsed, and for a time, the differences were analyzed through a Biblical lens. Medieval thinking led to different skin tones being associated with descending from one of the three sons of Noah. This way of thinking was particularly dominant in Christian and Islamic societies. This showcased a rather large step backward from the earlier recognition that environment and geography were the primary drivers behind those superficial differences. It wasn’t until the 14th Century in Islamic society and the 17th Century in Europe that people began to restore the recognition that a person’s geographic origin played the biggest role in the differences in skin color. That, combined with a moderately greater understanding of heritability, allowed late 17th-century European Naturalists to glimpse the nature of humanity with greater accuracy. Unfortunately, there was still a great deal of error in the interpretations of what they glimpsed.

As White Europeans began to explore the world to a greater extent, they started to consider and explore the superficial differences between people of different regions and cultures in greater detail. It stood to reason, to the scientific minds of the day, that there must be some scientific explanation for the surface-level differences between those other people and themselves, and that required classification. Naturally, these classifications were often based on misapprehensions and limited comprehension of the natural world.

And since they considered themselves to be the arbiters of what constituted civilization and culture, it was just as natural that these classifications were utilized to reinforce the belief that White Europeans were superior, a result that became increasingly imperative as Colonization and Slavery came to the forefront of that White, Eurocentric negotiation with the world surrounding them. With the sociopolitical belief in human equality becoming increasingly widespread, a race was on to define non-white races as somehow subhuman, and thus not deserving of that equality.

It should go without saying that there was no basis in scientific reality for these new Racial Classifications indicating superiority of any group over another. In fact, arguably the greatest single contributor to the concept of Racial Taxonomy, German anthropologist Johann Blumenbach, clearly and concisely showed that there was greater variation within any individual Race than between any two Races (a result later proven by the study of genetics). Even with Christian mythology tainting his research, Blumenbach still arrived at the (correct) conclusion that there was nothing in his findings that reinforced the belief that any Race was superior to another. He actively opposed slavery and those who used his Taxonomy as justification for the poor treatment of non-whites.

But so much hinged on hierarchical thinking that the scientific advancements that should have dismantled it were hampered by assumptions and preconceived notions. Operating from the starting point of White European superiority, several Naturalists spent the late 18th and early 19th Centuries shoring up those assumptions and reinterpreting the data in whatever way was necessary to assure themselves that they were, in fact, superior.

It was the late 19th Century when Charles Darwin advocated for the common ancestry of all humans, regardless of Race, and definitively stated that the characteristics used to separate by Race were exclusively superficial. When writing The Descent of Man, Darwin made it clear that the difficulty in discerning clear delineations between various races should be taken as evidence that distinctive characteristics separating one Race from another simply do not exist. He further argued that non-white people were equal in intellectual capacity to whites.

And yet, to this day, we still suffer fools who will argue that Race is a thing and that there are differences between one Race and another.

Some will attempt to undermine this argument by pointing to Genetics, using everything from inherited traits to predisposition to certain illnesses as a basis for their assertion that Race is a thing. Reality, of course, is more complicated and nuanced than all of that.

Sickle Cell Disease is an excellent example, because it is not (contrary to what many assume) connected to Race, but to Ancestry. Sickle Cell Disease is the result of Natural Selection, due to the Genetic Trait providing a natural defense against Malaria. Thus, this Genetic Trait is exclusive to individuals with Ancestry originating primarily in Sub-Saharan Africa, where Malaria was common. It should be obvious already where I’m going with this, but that means not only is Sickle Cell Disease not something all Black persons are susceptible to, but that it isn’t exclusively Black persons who are susceptible to it. Of course, the predisposition is higher within the Black population, but that’s solely due to the demographic breakdown of the regions where Malaria was most common. It is Genetic, in that it is based on Ancestry, but it is irrespective of Race.
Similar misapprehensions have people believing that Tay-Sachs Disease is something exclusive to Jewish people; however, that is untrue on several fronts.

Originally linked to the Ashkenazi Jewish people of Europe, we know that it is far from exclusive to individuals with that Ancestry. French Canadians, some Amish communities, and Cajuns are also highly susceptible to Tay-Sachs, because it (and other Genetic Diseases) are tied to insular communities with a higher than average historical incidence rate of what geneticists refer to as the Founder Effect, wherein the gene pool is limited and certain forms of Genetic Drift are likely to take place.

Thus, this could arise in any sufficiently isolated population with cultural or environmental factors promoting insularity and lack of interbreeding with other populations. This is why Tay-Sachs is not common in Middle Eastern Jewish populations.

Again, this displays that Race is not a factor, but Ancestry is.

If we want to pretend that Race is a Scientific and Biological categorization, then we’re just as well off breaking the population down by those who can roll their tongues. Or maybe we can draw the line at those who believe cilantro tastes like soap, for all the relevance it has. The amount of Melanin Production only serves as a conveniently visible form of differentiation, no more valuable than eye color, hair color, height, left or right-handedness, or any of the other things we could arbitrarily apply value assessments to.

These things are in no way indicative of any reasonable or useful separation, and I hope the premise helps to showcase how ridiculous and meaningless it is to separate people into groupings based on the things we do utilize.

As it stands, we already do enough segregating based on geographical or national origin, religious beliefs, economic status, and so on. We should focus less on what makes us different than on what we have in common. We should embrace the differences in the same way we embrace the diverse landscapes and ecosystems around the world.

How the American Political Parties Shifted Platforms

/ MeltdownMessiah / 1 Comment

It amazes me that so many people still love to trot out the old–and I believed, sufficiently dismantled–argument that Democrats started the KKK, so they are truly the party of Racists and Segregationists…while Republicans are the party of Lincoln, and therefore must be the good guys who believe in Equality and Liberty.

I never can tell whether these people are making intentionally bad faith arguments based on disingenuous, and manipulative cherry-picked snapshots of party standards from a century and a half earlier…or if they’re sincerely so historically illiterate that they just accept this argument at face value from other people who presented the bad faith argument for them. It’s sad either way, because they either aren’t capable of thinking for themselves or they aren’t capable of intellectual honesty…and neither of those traits should be praised or rewarded.

I want to get one big fucking fact out of the way before I address the falsehood there. This one is going to be hard for some people to hear, especially some of us White People…but it’s something that needs to be dealt with before I even begin digging into the process by which the Democratic and Republican Platforms became what they are today.

First of all, America as a nation is absolutely built on a foundation of White Supremacy, and that corrupt substrate still exists at the core of our society (regardless of party affiliation). It’s like a poison in the bedrock that finds its way into our spiritual and cultural soil and groundwater, tainting everything we do…and until we actively work together to leech that shit out of there, we’ll never be clean of it. The fact of the matter is that neither major party (nor the vast majority of smaller political parties) has been particularly interested in putting in that work, because the bulk of American politicians still benefit too much from their (conscious or unconscious) privileged status. That is a truth we need to remain aware of and vigilant to acknowledge and address whenever and wherever we see it manifesting.

Now, onto the claims made by people who insist on tossing 19th-Century Party Affiliations around as if they’re relevant to the platforms we see today. Those people are fixating on the titles while intentionally ignoring the most salient detail, which is to address which group was “Liberal” and which was “Conservative” at the time of Lincoln.

Just answering that single question turns the argument on its head. But I don’t mind going further into how the party demographics transitioned from what they were in the mid-to-late 19th Century to what they have been during my whole lifetime, and I’m currently 46 years old.

It started to take hold way back in the 1890s, in large part thanks to a Nebraska politician, William Jennings Bryan, who became the Democratic National Committee’s nominee for President, in response to backlash against President Grover Cleveland and the Conservative Democrats that dominated the party at the time. Unfortunately for Bryan, he lost to McKinley…twice.

After taking a brief hiatus from Presidential Campaigns, Bryan lost the Presidential Election for a third time, this time to Taft. But his influence didn’t fade, and he became Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson (until he ultimately resigned from the position).

During his life, Bryan made huge tectonic shifts in the Democratic Party. He drew in people from the political left (progressives) while fighting against American Imperialism, the influence of men like J. P. Morgan and other members of the privileged class who sought to manipulate American Politics for their gain through Crony Capitalism, and many traditionally Conservative ideals. All of this, while also supporting Women’s Suffrage and the League of Nations, and being the first Presidential Candidate to receive endorsement of the American Federation of Labor for his unflinching support of Labor Unions.

He did oppose American involvement in WWI, supported Prohibition, and actively fought against the teaching of Evolution and Darwinism in the Scopes Trial. So, on several matters, he and I would not have been in agreement. He also refused to attack the KKK directly, though not because he supported it, but because he expected it to fall apart on its own. He had more faith in the spirit of the American People than he perhaps should have, in that regard…but that was who he was to the core. He was a man of faith, which largely influenced his decision to take on the role he played in the Scopes Trial.

He was far from perfect, but he was emblematic of what the Democratic Party was gradually becoming.

William Jennings Bryan was arguably the figure one can most easily point to as the origin of the shift in party alignments. But he was only the first set of symbolic supports in creating the bridge that spanned that gulf.

While the transition may have started a few decades earlier, it wasn’t until FDR and the “New Deal” era that we started to really see Liberals as the Democrats we see today and Conservatives as the Republicans we recognize. FDR was, in many ways, the apex of that shift in party dynamics and platform. I would love to see a single Republican today adopt a platform as progressive as FDR’s. Unlike William Jennings Bryan, we all know at least a little bit about FDR and the “New Deal.”

It started as mostly a series of Economic Reforms: offering relief for the poor and unemployed, reforming the financial systems to avoid future economic collapse, and building the economy back up from the dismal lows following the crash of 1929. Major changes to the Federal Reserve, combined with the establishment of the FDIC and the Securities Exchange Commission, along with other Financial Regulatory Bodies, were engineered under FDR’s guidance to restore consumer confidence and bring the U.S. back from the brink of full financial failure. And it worked.

Though ostensibly a response to the Great Depression, there was much of FDR’s “New Deal” that cemented the new bedrock for the Democratic Party, outside of the purely economic considerations.

While modern Libertarians like to pretend that Corporations should be free to act outside of Regulatory Space and that the Free Market will force them to behave ethically, there is no historical precedent for that being the case. It was, in fact, Federal Regulations (and the emergence of Regulatory Agencies) under FDR that brought an end to some of the most egregious examples of Corporate predation. The National Labor Relations, Social Security, and Fair Labor Standards Acts protected workers, ensured protection for the elderly, disabled, and unemployed, fought against Child Labor, supported the development of Labor Unions, provided the 40-Hour Work Week, established a Federal Minimum Wage, and otherwise made it safer and less oppressive to be a worker in the U.S.

It was Conservative control of Congress (including the presence of many Conservative Democrats) that kept FDR from going even further with his “New Deal” Policies. But, during that era, the Democratic Party was reshaped further into being the Party of workers, racial and ethnic minorities, intellectuals, and others who had previously been traditionally aligned with the Republican Party.

Then we come to the Civil Rights Era, where the party transition reaches the Third Act, and the Southern Strategy (that only those invested in a fictional version of history will claim is a lie).

While men like Bryan and FDR reshaped much of the Democratic Party, there was, unfortunately, still a great deal of the previous century’s delineation present in the American South. The Civil Rights Era brought this to a head, as was always going to happen. The Democratic Party and, to a lesser extent, the Republican Party suffered from a sort of Identity Crisis, wherein members of the respective parties were closer in alignment with their opposition depending on where they happened to be located geographically.

Unlike the previous two Acts of the Three-Act transition of party platforms and demographics, the Southern Strategy was the work of Republicans. It was their effort to obtain support from White Southerners who were still Democrats (though they had little in common with Democrats outside of the dozen or so states involved).

There’s a strange symmetry involved in seeing this from a remove, decades afterward. Where Bryan started the process of pushing the Democratic Party to the Left, it was the Southern Strategy implemented by Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater that shifted the Republican Party to the Right.

One could argue (and I think, accurately so) that this started with the Republican Party taking on the banner of “States’ Rights,” which was previously a Democratic stance dating back to the time before the Civil War. This was in direct opposition to the platform of Abraham Lincoln, whom Republicans still want to claim, while defying virtually every aspect of Lincoln’s stated beliefs. This was part of Barry Goldwater’s “Southern Strategy” which focused on courting Southern Whites and dismissing further efforts to appeal to Black Voters, which included open opposition to the Civil Rights Movement as well as to Kennedy’s platform promoting expanded Unemployment Benefits, increased Social Security and Minimum Wage, sending aid to Economically Distressed regions of the country (including cities with larger minority populations), increasing Housing Availability, and so on. But it was the opposition to Kennedy’s Civil Rights policies that was most important here.

Kennedy fought for Voter Education and the removal of the Poll Tax (in addition to further increasing access to Voting Rights for Blacks). He used Executive Orders to promote Equal Opportunity and Anti-Discrimination for Employment, Housing, and Federal Contracts…becoming a champion of Affirmative Action within the Federal Workforce and beyond. Kennedy also struck a massive blow against Jim Crow by making it illegal, as it concerned Interstate Commerce.

These were all policies that Barry Goldwater and Conservative Republicans opposed. One need look no further than the conflict between Republican Governor Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater leading up to the 1964 Presidential Election to see the massive fissure growing in the Republican Party under Goldwater’s influence.

It’s no wonder he lost to Lyndon B. Johnson, with his Regressive, Pro-Segregationist, and Anti-Civil Rights stances even revolting significant portions of the Republican Party at the time (the remaining Liberal and Progressive elements at least).

It was around that time when Strom Thurmond left the Democratic Party and joined the GOP, where he helped to manage Nixon’s campaign in the South. He was far from the last to do so, followed by notable figures like Jesse Helms and countless numbers of formerly Democratic voters. Many Republicans remained with their Party, believing they could rehabilitate it or that this shift toward Racist and Conservative Values would be temporary…but it was no longer recognizable as the Party of Lincoln by that point.

I’d like to make note of one funny aside. As counterintuitive as it may seem, George Wallace famously refused to leave the Democratic Party like many of his like-minded peers (despite repeatedly being repudiated at the national level by the majority). He did gradually soften his perspectives regarding Segregation and White Supremacy. Whether that was sincere or a performative shift to better continue surviving as he had up to that point is anyone’s guess.

Richard Nixon took Goldwater’s playbook and ran with it far more successfully, and I don’t mean that solely in that he actually won a Presidential Election. He focused his platform on the Coded Language of “States’ Rights” and “Law and Order,” which might sound familiar to voters who have been paying attention since 2015 or so.

The Third Act really doesn’t conclude until Reagan’s campaign in 1980 (and the subsequent eight years he led the Nation down the toilet), where Lee Atwater’s assistance helped to shift the overt Racism to more Dogwhistle-Coded language, focused on Economic Policies that would transparently benefit Whites more than any other group.

And it’s not difficult to discern how I feel about Ronald Reagan and the absolute disaster he was for America and the U.S. Economy, creating devastation from which we’re still picking through the rubble today.

So yes, the Southern Strategy is a real thing, and one that was discussed openly by the Candidates and Political Advisers involved in both its development and implementation. It’s on record, and trying to pretend it’s some Conspiracy Theory is ludicrous, at best, and entirely reliant on people never fact-checking what they want to believe is true. This isn’t like PizzaGate or any of the subsequent QAnon nonsense paraded around by the least credible people on the Political Right in America. There’s actually clear, concise data and historical records that don’t need to be twisted and distorted into the most bizarre shapes, explaining the Southern Strategy and how it was done.

Finally, to the people who want to make these bad faith arguments, all I can say is that you should read a book or two, and take some time to learn about American History…because even our High School Textbooks would have provided sufficient evidence to counter most of these ignorant claims. It leads me to believe that you didn’t retain much during your education, and that’s all the proof we need that the Department of Education should be more involved (rather than less) in establishing nationwide standards that aren’t associated with Standardized Tests, but on different methods of teaching and diverse styles of learning, to ensure that our Natural Born Citizens know at least as much as Naturalized Citizens have to.

I know I could pass a Citizenship Exam, do you? When taking that test, there is no Participation Trophy (and no points awarded) for waving a flag and displaying performative (though ultimately false) patriotism based on revisionist understandings that you didn’t even come up with for yourself.

The Proud & The Dumb by Bob Freville

/ MeltdownMessiah / Leave a comment

The Proud & The Dumb manages to be simultaneously hilarious and depressing, irreverent and poignant. There’s a message in Freville’s story. Sadly, the people who should benefit from that message are probably just as incapable of reading at the appropriate grade level as Liam, Connie, and Gunther. It’s up to the rest of us to enjoy this bitter, sarcastic, and cynical glimpse into an evening amidst a small crew of white nationalists in the midwest.
Nothing is quite as it seems, and least of all Curry, the compatriot this trio of imbecilic alt-right gentlemen suspect of being a closet-libtard. Desperate to keep his former associates from killing him in cold blood, Curry talks circles around the other three, calling into question the coherence and consistency of the beliefs they supposedly stand for in their neverending battle against immigrants, homosexuals, and liberals. But is it simple desperation or a more sinister objective pushing Curry to test the limits of the tolerance of his three former friends, as well as their intellects?
While there isn’t much wit to be found in the characters populating this novelette, from the trio of alt-right fellas to the police who find themselves dealing with this unfortunate assortment of dregs, there’s plenty of wit in Freville’s storytelling. He expertly showcases examples of the seemingly limitless barrage of inconsistent, incoherent, and–frequently–incompatible beliefs espoused by groups just like those featured in The Proud & The Dumb. Within these few pages, we’re exposed to so many contradictory statements from the characters that we can only wish it was satire; but that same duration spent listening to people who travel in these social circles would quickly erase any hope of that being true.
The truest absurdity of this tale is that the truth is stranger than fiction.

This story was released on http://www.godless.com during the AntiChristmas event for December of 2021. You can obtain it for yourself by going to the website or downloading the Godless app to your mobile device. The link is below:

The Proud & the Dumb by Bob Freville