We are certainly in the middle of this cultural battle. I worry that the next democRAT president will undo everything President Trump has unwound of their islamo-marxist plot.
The woke and radical left in Michigan are doing so much damage that the majority of its residents are effectively blind to it because the Democrats in Lansing and elsewhere in the State operate in a shady and covertly stealthy manner. They are not “in your face” with it like they are in CA and CO, but don’t let the smooth taste fool you because they’re not the harmless moderates they appear to be. Is it just me, or does it seem like Gov. Whitmer, AG Nessel, SoS Benson (and she’s running for Governor!), have been keeping such a low profile that their silence is also deafening? The State of Michigan has become a testbed for this innovative strategy, the success of which depends heavily upon opacity while having the mere appearance of adequate transparency. It’s what they do, and they have new ways to do it if they think nobody’s looking.
I reject the premise which the author floats. "Western Civ's got to go" was a BS chant back at Berkeley, but Western civilization isn't going anywhere. It changes, era to era, of course. But these United States, as an example, change when one considers that at one time we had neither national income tax at its beginning [ Revenue Act of 1861, and then reestablishment in 1913 ], nor the Fed [ begun also in 1913 ].
Niesche's "God is dead" stuff was trotted out a century and more ago, and while perversion has always riled the faithful, the faihtful don't accept the premise.
To comment further, I looked for a bio for the author, Steve McCann, but all the sites which publish his editorials tell nothing of him excepting the titles of his articles. Looking further, it seems a bit of a dead end in terms of his background and education.
Western civilization will be around, and it will change over time, because we change over time. But so much of today's' news and editorials sound the alarm because "if it bleeds, it leads."
Dueling messages come our way. "Fear" versus "fear not." It would be wise to focus on the latter. Fear not. Stay the course, but fear not.
it is my firm belief that it is Islam that will implement the persecution of Christians during the tribulation.
Who’s Really Defending Democracy?
A principled response to political inversion
Today, one group (Group A) claims that another (Group B) is trying to “destroy democracy.” But what if the real threat isn’t destruction—but redefinition as a prelude to destruction?
🔄 Redefining Democracy: From Liberty to Control
Historically, democracy meant government by consent, rooted in individual rights, free expression, and constitutional limits. This tradition—shaped by thinkers like John Locke, James Madison, and Alexis de Tocqueville—emphasized liberty, not state control.
But Group A has begun to shift the meaning. In their rhetoric, “democracy” now implies:
• Economic equality enforced by the state
• Majoritarian rule unconstrained by constitutional checks
• Government as provider of outcomes, not protector of rights
This redefinition aligns more closely with collectivist systems than with classical liberal democracy. It echoes the logic of Rousseau’s “general will”, where dissent becomes illegitimate if it opposes the collective vision.
🧠 Semantic Inversion: A Tool of Manipulation
This is a classic case of semantic inversion—where words are hollowed out and refilled with new meaning. When “democracy” becomes a euphemism for state-managed equality, then liberty itself becomes the enemy.
George Orwell warned of this in Politics and the English Language, where political language “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” Today, the word “democracy” is being weaponized to vilify dissent and sanctify control.
🧨 Redefinition as a Step Toward Destruction
Redefining democracy is not a harmless shift in vocabulary—it is a strategic maneuver. Once the public accepts the new definition, any defense of liberty, limits, or dissent appears “anti-democratic.” This paves the way for:
• Censorship in the name of equity
• Centralized control in the name of justice
• Suppression of opposition in the name of unity
In this framework, Group B’s defense of constitutional democracy becomes a threat—not because it undermines democracy, but because it exposes the fraud.
📚 Historical Echoes
• Weimar Germany: The Nazi Party claimed to restore democracy while dismantling its institutions.
• Soviet Union: Called itself a “people’s democracy” while suppressing speech, religion, and property rights.
• Modern Venezuela: Elections persist, but dissent is criminalized and economic control centralized.
These regimes didn’t abolish democracy outright—they redefined it first, then destroyed it.
🛡 Group B: Defending the Real Thing
Group B resists this shift—not out of hostility to democracy, but out of fidelity to its original meaning. They defend:
• Free speech—even when unpopular
• Limited government—even when inconvenient
• Equal protection under law—not equal outcomes by decree
They are not destroying democracy. They are preserving it.
✍️ A Call to Clarity
We must reclaim the language of liberty. Democracy is not:
• The tyranny of the majority
• Redistribution of rights
• Government as moral arbiter
It is:
• A framework for freedom
• A system of consent and limits
• A safeguard for pluralism and dissent
Those who defend this framework—even against popular pressure—are not enemies of democracy. They are its guardians.
Developed with the help of AI
Bkmk
Because we have an education system that failed to instill the inherent evils of Marxism, we are doomed to repeat the horrors of the 20th Century?
“ Marxists and their de facto Islamic allies, as both have a common objective: to destroy Western Civilization”
I have been screaming this from the start rooftops since 9/11.
Glad to see it catching on,24 years later…