Have Top Democrats Actually Gone Mad? (Part II) (philosophy edition)

As those of you who follow this blog know, we do a lot of “think pieces” here. These are essays that do more than comment on current events, by delving deeply into the topic to try to discern causes, directions, motivations, outcomes. We do a lot of Who, What, When, Where… but the real meat of a topic is: Why? And: Can you prove it? Or at least, can you present compelling, persuasive evidence to support your conclusions?

By posing the question at the top of this page, we pretty much answered it by implication. Yes, the Democrat Party has actually gone mad. This particular essay is a “We Can Prove It” kind of essay. The “Why” essay is one we’ve written many times before in these pages, and it can all be summed up very concisely: Their primary goal is to obtain and retain power.

Here’s an exploration of the evidence that the American Democrat Party has actually gone mad.

In the late 1920’s and into the 1930’s and beyond, a psychotic ideology revved up and rapidly gained popularity in Germany. It was called “National Socialism,” and we refer to it today by its shorter name: “Naziism.”

Naziism wasn’t always psychotic… when it started out, it was merely paranoid, angry, resentful and childish. But an ideology, like any collection of ideas, thoughts and states of mind, is never a static thing, it’s constantly evolving, roiling, moving… it’s on a trajectory; a trajectory that’s headed in a direction. Naziism was a bunch of things, but it was really only an inevitable evolution of what we all know as: Socialism. The ideology blandly called “Democratic Socialism” can also accurately be named: “Early Naziism,” or “Proto-naziism,” or “Proto-fascism.”

The toxic brew that was early Naziism carried it on a fatal trajectory that eventually brought it into genuine psychosis. As Naziism’s trajectory lurched into madness, it dragged its followers there too.  After all, people don’t start off psychotic either. Not as a rule. When a person inserts himself into a psychotic collection of thoughts, though, then he can easily and naturally slip into psychosis too.

We’ve all heard the stories, seen it in the movies: During the war, the concentration camp guard comes home from a long day of dispassionately gassing innocent people, only to cry bitter tears on learning that his pet schnauzer had died. People are capable of compartmentalizing  psychosis too!

Naziism’s trajectory carried it, and its followers, quickly into Crazyland, and thence to gruesome catastrophe.

Lest we think it can’t happen here, let’s keep in mind that an actual major American political party has spent decades empty-headedly vilifying people who disagree with them. “Nazis!” “Fascists!” “Racists!” “Sexists!” “Homophobes!” “Transphobes!” “Islamophobes!” You know the litany. Democrats have spent generations relegating to malign non-personhood those people who even question their orthodoxies.

Gee, I wonder what other movement tried to relegate people to non-personhood too. I wonder how that worked out for everyone. And I wonder how that other movement staggered its way into psychosis.

Was it, perhaps, by constantly vilifying people? Only certain people, of course. Then did they, maybe, double down, triple down, quadruple down on the vilification? Gypsies, homosexuals, Catholics, oh and maybe the old standby… Jews? Might it have been by howling the loudest about what victims the vilifiers were? Might it have been by finding convenient scapegoats in the country? Gee, I wonder who’s constantly on the hunt for scapegoats in America today? I wonder who’s constantly blaming certain people for certain things. And is it always the same people being vilified?

Is there, for example, a phrase like “Toxic Femininity out there? How about the phrase “Black Supremacy?” Have you ever heard: Black Privilege” or “Non-white Privilege?” “Female Privilege?” Do you ever hear any of that from the media? From academia? From Hollywood or the rest of pop culture? Do you ever hear the word “heterophobe(1)” coming from any of those sources? Have you ever heard a word like “Christophobe?(2)” out and about?

You can tell who’s the designated scapegoats of a nation both by what you hear, and by what you don’t hear. One sees easily that the target of all the hatred, the derision, the contempt, from the new fascists in America is, of course: the straight, white man.

— xPraetorius


(1) My coining of the word just this moment is the first time I’ve ever encountered it. Oh, I’m sure it’s out there, but not in any meaningful or widespread way.

(2) Same as for the first note. People might use a word like this to label increasingly numerous anti-Christian bigots.





One thought on “Have Top Democrats Actually Gone Mad? (Part II) (philosophy edition)

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s