“The Democrats’ theme for 2016 is totalitarianism.”


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

There are those who have read Behind the Black who have been very offended when I refer to the policies and behavior of the Democractic Party and the left as fascist. This article provides a nice summary of their recent activity, which when read all together should make every freedom-loving American downright horrified:

Donald Trump may talk like a brownshirt, but the Democrats mean business. For those of you keeping track, the Democrats and their allies on the left have now: voted in the Senate to repeal the First Amendment, proposed imprisoning people for holding the wrong views on global warming, sought to prohibit the showing of a film critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton, proposed banning politically unpopular academic research, demanded that funding politically unpopular organizations and causes be made a crime and that the RICO organized-crime statute be used as a weapon against targeted political groups. They have filed felony charges against a Republican governor for vetoing a piece of legislation, engaged in naked political persecutions of members of Congress, and used the IRS and the ATF as weapons against political critics.

On the college campuses, they shout down unpopular ideas or simply forbid nonconforming views from being heard there in the first place. They have declared academic freedom an “outdated concept” and have gone the full Orwell, declaring that freedom is oppressive and that they should not be expected to tolerate ideas that they do not share. They are demanding mandatory ideological indoctrination sessions for nonconforming students. They have violently assaulted students studying in libraries and assaulted student journalists documenting their activities. They have staged dozens of phony hate crimes and sexual assaults as a pretext for persecuting unpopular organizations and people.

He keeps going. And with every statement he provides a link to a documented story that backs-up his accusation. Worse, he doesn’t even address the attacks on traditional religions and their practitioners.

The Democratic Party and the left have become the party of brownshirts and dictators. No wonder they often seem more sympathetic to Islamic terrorists and tyrants than they do to the innocent people those terrorists and tyrants have killed. They empathize with this oppressive behavior, especially because it appears to be attacking their own enemies.

Unfortunately, there are too many powerful Republicans who have little problem with this behavior, because they themselves see the behavior of the Democrats as useful because it also attacks their own enemies. It is thus imperative for the voters to aggressively vote against all these brownshirts, from either party, and support those candidates — who unfortunately appear to only be running in the Republican Party — who are dedicated to defeating these fascists.

In fact, it appears this is exactly what Republican voters appear to be doing, illustrated by their consistent support for outsider-type candidates like Trump and Cruz.

Share

20 comments

  • Joe

    All of the things you mentioned about “Democrats” are tools of the politically corrupt and morally bankrupt, and all are also tools of various participants in the Republican party past and present. Why attach a party to it? Is it not really the party of money, fear, and oppression that we, the people, should be opposing? I don’t think anyone wants to be on the receiving end of those power plays, regardless of party or belief. Innocents who get killed number in the millions, with victims of terrorism being only a small fraction of a percent. Even if one dispenses with the global warming argument, it can be medically proven that coal and other dirty fuels add harmful particulates to the air. Those particles cause multitudes more deaths per year. Wouldn’t politicians who defend and legislate pro coal be just as guilty of shielding “murderers”? Buying into divisive hate propaganda is not as productive as finding common causes that the majority can get behind. We need solutions that are conscious of the real corrupt power players. Don’t limit the argument to a party or ideology.

  • I find it interesting that you seem focused on trying to excuse these politicians (mostly Democrats and leftists with some Republicans thrown in) rather than being outraged by their oppressive behavior. Moreover, you accuse me of being partisan and attaching a party to the behavior, when I expressly made a point of noting the bad contributions being made by Republicans as well.

    From this, I conclude that you would have no problem if either political party decided to imprison anyone who tried to argue that there are benefits to “coal and other dirty fuels”. To hell with free speech, freedom, and the Constitution! Onward the revolution to save Gaia!

  • Cotour

    How they accomplish their agenda:

    I have conversations with a woman who happens to be a “highly” educated person. She is a liberal minded woman of color and our on going conversations go to politics, race relations and the constitution etc. During these conversations she has been driven to actually take adult educations courses specifically on and related to the constitution. The other day she replied to something I wrote related to the constitution, and this is what she wrote after studying the constitution specifically and in her class that was taught by a lawyer and attended by and debated by lawyers.

    ” The constitution is just a guide line”

    My response: “The Constitution is not a “guide line” it is carefully laid out and democratically passed plan of governance. There are ways contained within it that allows changes to be made to it, but to characterize it as a “guide line” is a gross misrepresentation or a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is. Who told you that?”

    My point? A large percentage of Americans are being taught and they parrot these false beliefs and these beliefs and teachings which are promoted by the education system threatens us all. This is a liberal Democrat agenda.

    Joe: The leadership of both party’s have been perverted by the power that they have enjoyed for sooo long. IMO the Democrats represent the more perverted and the bigger threat to the American foundation which is our constitution.

    So, I get your point, but if you had to pick one party that really threatens us in a “fundamental change” kind of way, a way that sees the constitution just as a “guide line” or an opinion without regard to the fundamental concepts that make America America then plainly the Democrats represent the greater threat.

  • Joe

    I fully support all tenets of free speech, and your right to your opinion. Here’s mine: Start another web site that is political and don’t mix politics and science. Isn’t science, at its purest, supposed to be apolitical? Scientific solutions struggle when mixed with distracting politics. You would serve your audience by not posting personal reflections in combination with scientific discoveries. I enjoy some of your scientific highlights but find it oh so hard to ignore the personal political, one-sided (subjective, not objective) rants. Respect the science and ditch the politics! It’s your site, but are you doing it for yourself or for the advancement of science? You’re not convincing anyone politically, and only limiting your audience to your “choir”.

  • Obviously, you disagree with many of my opinions and conclusions, which suggests that you are at least liberal-leaning, or prefer to be a low-information voter who doesn’t want to know. And as is usual for individuals in either of these categories, your debating tactic isn’t to try to persuade me to a different opinion or conclusion by citing different data but to instead tell me to “Shut up!”

    Sorry, but I won’t “Shut up!” I welcome you to debate me and try to change my mind. If your ideas are good, you will succeed.

    Or maybe in the process of debate you might learn something. I notice that you continue to ignore the substance of the article that I linked to. It documents forcefully the totalitarian behavior of the left and the Democrats in the recent past. I wonder why that does not concern you, especially since much of it is a direct attack on the ability of honest scientists and thinkers to express honest dissenting opinions about the dominate theories of our time.

  • Joe

    You know that labels like liberal make you seem uninformed and full of “low information” right? I am staunchly independent and support personal freedoms to the extreme. I am not uniformed, or as you are essentially calling me, “stupid”. I never said “shut up” – I just don’t think you any business polluting scientific discoveries with political rants. You don’t know how to find common ground – only differences that produce hatred and ignorance.
    It seems that you won’t acknowledge the fundamental need for science to distance itself from this type of rhetoric. You obviously don’t have a clue as to my information background and are content to slap a label and call it good. Dehumanization is easy, isn’t it? That’s what people like Trump and Hitler do to make it easy to form lines to “showers”.

  • Joe

    Here’s an example for you:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/
    Notice, no politics!
    Do you know who Neil Degrasse Tyson voted for, or if he’s a liberal? Or Stephen Hawking?
    No, because they don’t mix science and politics. It’s a bad idea. I mentioned making another site for your politics, not shutting up. Do that and see which site does better.

  • What you want me to do is to relegate my commentary and political considerations (which today are ingrained in everything, even science) to the ghetto of another website, so that you don’t have to see them. I won’t do that.

    Meanwhile, you have still not addressed the substance of my post. For someone who claims they are “staunchly independent and support[s] personal freedoms to the extreme,” you do not seem bothered that the Democrats last year

    voted in the Senate to repeal the First Amendment, proposed imprisoning people for holding the wrong views on global warming, sought to prohibit the showing of a film critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton, proposed banning politically unpopular academic research, demanded that funding politically unpopular organizations and causes be made a crime and that the RICO organized-crime statute be used as a weapon against targeted political groups. They have filed felony charges against a Republican governor for vetoing a piece of legislation, engaged in naked political persecutions of members of Congress, and used the IRS and the ATF as weapons against political critics.

    The items I have emphasized in the quote above specifically involve science and research, and are examples where elected Democratic officials tried to use their legislative abilities to make illegal any scientific dissent that they disagreed with. In addition, none of this is opinion, or a “rant” as you want to believe, but a simple restating of easily documented facts. Since Behind the Black is about science and research, I think it wholly appropriate for me to comment on this fascist behavior when I see it, especially since it is a direct attack on the ability of scientists to do their research free of political pressure.

    I will support freedom and the first amendment to the death, which means I will do whatever is necessary to describe those who try to squelch it. If you support it as much as I than I wonder why you would rather have me hide this debate.

  • You are revealing your biases. Neil Degrasse Tyson mixes science and politics all the time, and sometimes does it while getting his facts wrong. He just does it from a liberal perspective, which is why I suspect it doesn’t bother you.

    Considering the fact that most of today’s funding for scientific research comes from the federal government, one cannot discuss science intelligently without being aware of its political component. It exists. To deny that is to deny reality. That one party in Congress has been aggressively using its power to try to squelch any challenges to scientific research that they disagree with is as significant. That you seem willing to accept this perversion of the scientific process does not mean that I have to accept it.

    As for trying to compete with sciencedaily.com, that is absurd. I do not claim that Behind the Black should be the go-to place for the hottest scientific stories. It is instead a place where people can get my perspective on science and the political forces that are trying to influence it. If you don’t like that, then I suggest you go elsewhere.

    I must emphasize however that I would much prefer that you stopped trying to change how I do things here and instead get into a real debate. I once again wonder why you seem to be completely unbothered by the Democratic Party’s recent efforts to use the force of law to silence their opponents. Rather than being outraged that I dare discuss politics on my own website, I think it would be more appropriate for you to be outraged at their fascist behavior.

  • pzatchok

    “I am staunchly independent and support personal freedoms to the extreme.”

    But Joe doesn’t want you to talk about politics on your own website and he seems awfully willing to argue that point until you quit.
    But he is not imposing his leftist will on you.

    “Dehumanization is easy, isn’t it? That’s what people like Trump and Hitler do to make it easy to form lines to “showers”.”

    And Godwin’s Law gets dropped.

    Typical leftist debate tactics.

  • Joe

    Sorry you don’t understand my argument fully and continue to use labels that have no real practical meaning; and that you think I am politically aligned in a way that is untrue.
    You have a right to express whatever you wish, and if you choose to sound stupid and smart at the same time, so be it. I won’t engage you on a level that has no mutual respect.
    I won’t be visiting your site any longer, sir. Good luck with your fund raising. Bubbles are expensive to maintain.

  • Let me close this most edifying discussion with these thoughts. For almost forty years I have faced these arguments. Either I am wrong or I should shut up or my opinions should be confined somewhere where no one will read them. In every case, I present some basic facts and ask that the person on the other side to merely consider them. Instead, the demands are repeated: I am wrong or I should shut up or I should confine my opinions to places where no one will hear them.

    I have never backed down, but what I think has changed is that the internet now allows these one-way dialogues to be public. In the past they were either private conversations or correspondence between myself and book or magazine editors. The result of this change is that the close-mindedness of the left is there for all to see.

    This is also the reason I do this website, to expose this sad situation to the world. I wish Joe had decided to stay and participate in a dialogue. That he didn’t revealed clearly the weakness of his own arguments. Four times I asked him to comment on the fascist behavior of the Democrats and the left, as documented by the link I provided. He avoided that discussion in every way he could, as has every leftist for the past forty years.

  • Hank

    The thought of Hillary bamboozling her way to the presidency frightens me too , Bob!
    but, …Joe made some good points that I agree with.
    I’m a Libertarian and like to stay apolitical even if only for better conversation.

  • Cotour

    Its funny, I come here for the exact opposite reason that Joe apparently no longer does. I love the science and the space and the politics. The site has never been represented as being purely about science, the site is not called “Physics Today”.

    The real world reality of the politics and its agenda is that it is now proven to be so intimately woven into the science to the point that it perverts the science, so why would you not be willing to talk about the perversion in a forum designed with the flexibility to do so? Is ignorance of the situation the more desired condition?

    I would like Joe to reconsider his departure and attempt to better explain his positions but be willing to get the push back that all philosophies of operation need in order to validate (or invalidate) them.

  • With a large percentage of the population quite willing to use the force of law to squelch free speech and dissent, it is no longer an option to “stay apolitical”. You do so at the serious risk of losing your freedom.

  • Edward

    Considering that politicians are now abusing science in order to justify their tyrannical ways, it seems to me that much of science can no longer be considered separate from politics.

    I wish Joe had realized that he labelled we readers as Robert’s “choir,” apparently an insult to us, then labelled himself “staunchly independent” in order to evoke the idea that his comments are impartial, yet insisted that others not use labels. I do not think that he is quite as impartial or smart as he thinks that he is.

    A wonderful part of freedom of expression in a blog is that the rest of us can skip over the parts that we do not want to deal with. We can remain uninformed; we can avoid debates that we might lose (even though we call for that debate; I’m still waiting for Desmond’s response to start one that, four days ago, he requested in another post); but best of all, we are free to choose which debates to join.

    Meanwhile, we already live in a country that has the audacity to require that we buy a type of product, whether we need it or not, whether we want to or not. This is no longer a free market economy, as we are no longer free to choose (neither as consumer or as producer). Our freedom to express our opinions, practice our religions, and state facts (scientific or otherwise) is rapidly slipping away, just as has happened to our right to choose to not purchase insurance. Our right to self protection and our right to freedom from governmental persecution are also slipping away.

    Most people deny it, but compare the actual policies and practices under this administration to those seen in some European countries in the 1930s, and you will be astonished at the similarities. From speech to self protection, to economics, and to violence, the frightening similarities are there.

    That one political party has been the instigator does not mean that the other party is not complicit.

    Welcome to Obama’s America: land of the formerly free.

  • Cotour

    “That one political party has been the instigator does not mean that the other party is not complicit.”

    The government and the people (in both party’s) who inhabit and are empowered to push and pull the levers of power are unable to “control” where it is that they control, it is their nature to push it further and further until what we have here is what everyone was running away from over there. Being an American I reject that inevitability!

    Its the nature of the beast, and the beast needs to be re-instructed as to where and when they can control.

    I also have to question someone who would make such a big noise and then not be able or willing to stick around and re-instruct the “choir” as to their failings in their ability to understand. I do not think that many here have problems understanding much of anything that comes up for discussion, its pretty straight forward.

  • Steve

    “Typical leftist debate tactics.”

    Exactly! Refuse to answer direct questions, raise strawmen at every opportunity, decry “labels” and then use them to attack, dismiss, and disparage repeatedly…..

    There are none so blind as those who will not see.

    ” With a large percentage of the population quite willing to use the force of law to squelch free speech and dissent, it is no longer an option to “stay apolitical”. You do so at the serious risk of losing your freedom.”

    Again, Exactly! Well said Robert and well done in 2015 with “Behind the Black” Please keep doing the same in 2016

    Happy New Year “Choir”!

  • Edward

    As Pericles said: “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.”

    Welcome to 2016, and Happy New Year from the “Choir”!

  • Steve

    “…..As Pericles said: “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.”

    Welcome to 2016, and Happy New Year from the “Choir”!…..”

    The perfect quote for 2016!

    Regardless of which way it goes the politics of this year will affect every person on the planet whether they are aware of it or not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *