Quote of the day—Micah Uetricht and Meagan Day

Eventually, after the Left has won significant gains at the ballot box and in civil society, the capitalist class will take the gloves off against socialists and do whatever it takes to destroy our movement. We’ll need to fight back. The democratic road to socialism seeks not to elide this confrontation, but to make it possible.

Micah Uetricht and Meagan Day
February 22, 2020
Why Bernie Sanders is just the beginning of an American turn to the left
[Via email from Chet.

Remember when I said the other day that these crazy laws have to be deliberate attempts to destroy society?

Take appropriate action.—Joe]


10 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Micah Uetricht and Meagan Day

  1. I noticed the authors are editors of “Jacobin magazine”, named for the people who operated the Reign of Terror and the Guillotines in the French revolution.
    As for “democratic road to socialism”, they mention that Russia did not use that. But they omit another country that did: Germany in 1933.

    • Interestingly, if you look carefully at the State Seals of many of the U.S. states you’ll find that little red, Jocobin hat in several of them.

      In other words, up against a movement that is very old, very powerful globally, very practiced at what they do, and patient.

      Also if you look carefully in any state Capitol building, you’ll find the bundles of rods (facii), often wrapped in laurel or some such, often including an axe, representing the fascist system. They’re prominent on your Socialist Security card as well.

      Look atop many Capitol buildings and you’ll see that “godess”, presumably the “godess of reason” which the French uplifted in their revolution, which was a common whore. It could also represent Isis, hardening back to the heathen religions of ancient times.

      It gets much worse besides, but I don’t have three hours right now to try to explain it. Suffice it to say that so-called secularism is a cover for things, religious doctrines, far worse than the mere exclusion of the one God.

      If you want to spend days or weeks going down that rabbit hole, watch the Total Onslaught series of videos on Amazing Discoveries TV by Walter Veith. He’s a seasoned university science professor, and his presentation style shows it. You’ll never look at world history the same after all that, if you can stand to watch it. He’s now a Seventh Day Adventist, so you’ll have to allow for that in order to get the historical information he presents, all of which is sourced and footnoted.

      It goes into the Jacobin Society, and many, many others besides, looking into their doctrines and goals.

      Happy hunting.

      • No. The fasces and axe DO NOT represent Fascism. Those symbols are Republican Roman in origin and are used in U.S. political iconography as an homage to republican principles. Their incorporation predates the foundation of the Fascist party who adopted the pretense of bringing back _Imperial_ Rome.

  2. They want to make that confrontation possible. Do these people ever listen to themselves? We know they need the struggle to cement their ideology. But not a blood on your hands clue of what their espousing. I don’t see it ending well for anyone.
    I mean this generation of communist biggest struggle is over weather or not to dress as a man, or a woman for the mayday parade. Not that their not vicious enough. I just don’t see the grit.
    I just wish I could watch from a distance.

    • I agree about the lack of grit, but we should not forget that all it takes for a mob to be stirred up to do the unthinkable is a leader.

      What sticks in my mind is a scene from a reenactment of the Russian revolution. In this scene, an engineer at a factory is asking the leader of the workers if he knows how to run the factory and he replies NO, but we will figure it out after we destroy it.

      I can only conclude that the left is not rational!

    • They know full well that they’re fomenting mass bloodshed. Those at the top know it, anyway, and it isn’t difficult for anyone else to find out. Mass death is a prominent feature of their ideology, not a potential, unforeseen bug in their plans.

      Y’all best get your heads straight about that and stop pretending that the left is a bunch of retards (who just happen to rule the world and live off of your income while all you in your superior thinking ability can do is bitch about it). You have to begin to understand the difference between a lack of brain power on the one hand, verses pure evil on the other.

      One is not the same as the other. Let’s all stop pretending that evil is not highly intelligent. We’ve been fooling ourselves, and that’s no way to proceed.

      Lucifer was after all the highest, greatest, most powerful and beautiful angel in heaven. The Bringer of Light, they called him then, and those who worship him today use similar terminology. When you hear about “Illumination” and similar language, it often refers to satan. “The Wronged One” is another term for him.

      That line of thinking (the criminal mind, which, in its towering, almost unbelievable pride, sees its problems as persecution from others who fail to understand, which persecution in turn must be avenged for the sake of fairness) is the origin of the “social justice” movement, and the “environmental justice” movement, etc., all of which are purely anti-liberty from the start, and consider the human race to be a stain on an otherwise pristine earth. Thus you also see the roots of pan theism, and all the nature and sun worship, human sacrifice, et al.

      “I will rise above the stars and be like the most high” Lucifer said, or words to that effect.

      And that’s the left today. It’s a religion, same as it’s always been, under any of a thousand different names, and it never, ever changes.

      • Perfect Lyle. And on the subject of commie retards. I’m reminded of the movie, “Red Dragon”. The FBI agent was speaking to Hannibal through his glass gage. Hannibal tells the agent; So by extension think your smarter than me? The agent replied. No sir, I would never consider myself smarter than you. I just had you at a disadvantage. Hannibal asks, what would that be? The agent, Well, your insane.
        Communist are cunning, vicious, and intelligent in many cases. But their brainwashed. It makes them very predictable. One must channel Sun Tzu in such matters. Know your enemy, know yourself.

  3. And the standard idea that they will continue to go back to the Judge, the Legislature until they get the results they want, and from that point on, it is locked in stone, never to be changed.

    Anybody that attempts to change things once they get what they want is attacked on all fronts, as it is “settled law”.

    We see that in the battle for “gay marriage”. In California the question of legalizing gay marriage was brought to the people multiple times and multiple times the people voted it down. And it was brought back again and again. Finally *a* judge ruled that it “gay marriage” was legal and at that instant, it was no longer a question, it was settled law.

    No matter how many times the people picked “no”, once the answer came back “yes” it is no longer an option.

    There is a saying in some of the Arab countries: One Man, One Vote, One time. I.e. they get to vote for the dictator/ruler one time, and that is it.

    (For those that are curious, my beliefs on gay marriage are that the government should not be involved in marriage. The government should be involved in contracts. Marriage is a type of contract. You do the religious things how you want with whom you want. Then you register your marriage contract with the government. And that is the end of it.

    Historically, the government got involved with Marriage in order to stop inter racial marriages.)

    • The only thing I can think of today that requires government to be involved in marriage is the fact that the government will definitely be involved in divorce. Imposing a one-government-size-fits-all standard over marriage definitely has First Amendment issues when their version doesn’t match a Buddhist marriage, a Hindu marriage, a Catholic marriage, a Wiccan marriage, etc.

      So the government should only be involved as an enforcer of contract. Where government should have a role is ensuring a minimization of divorce by ensuring that the prospective couple have agreed on what marriage means. Furthermore, if you get married in a particular religious tradition, doesn’t that tradition have some say in whether the marriage they are participating in is according to their precepts?

      Government should sort this out by getting as many authoritative religious authorities together and hashing out what topics the traditions differ on (let’s call those Factors), and what each tradition requires (let’s call those Options). For example, suppose there was a religious marital tradition that had a doctrine on sexual fidelity that permitted outside relations under certain guidelines… or suppose there isn’t such a religious tradition, but non-religious cultural as-observed practice was similarly codified. Same kind of thing with child rearing and discipline, marriage gender roles, divorce terms and conditions, etc. After working out the width and depth of the field, the religious traditions them get to register a Preset, i.e. in their tradition, marriage means this specific Option (or range of Options) for these defined Factors, and any other factors are up to the conscience of the prospective couple, or if not specified, a government-defined default Option.

      With me so far? Now on to the divorce prevention part: When the prospective couple (or more, I’m not at this point going to impose a size limit on consenting people) go to apply for a marriage license, they separately take a no-notes multiple choice test, with the exception that if they want a religious tradition, they get a cheat-sheet for that tradition. They will get their marriage license approved when they separately produce the same answers. If they don’t match, they’re told they don’t match here, here and here, but they are not told what the other person chose, just what Factors they need to come to agreement on. When they match, the marriage terms are enforceable. Yes, that means if they choose the “’til death do us part” version, there’s no out short of the grave (maybe choose the “or annulment under specified terms” variety).

      There should be an amendment process, but if they chose a religious tradition and their amendment doesn’t comply, the religious authority is informed that the marriage is no longer in compliance with their tradition. That amendment process may be as simple as a unilateral “let that church know we, our children and our money went somewhere else, don’t call us, we’re not your business any more”. Similarly, a church might suggest a new parishioner couple that convert similarly convert their existing marriage contract to their Preset. In any case, changes should be consensual among all involved parties… or we can look at the contract termination terms that were previously agreed to by the rational, informed adults they are expected to be.

Comments are closed.