The Permanent Pandemic: Tool of the Modern Fascists

Share this Article

Whoever is really in charge in Washington, D.C. has been making every effort possible to bring down the United States of America.

That has been obvious for a while now. Everyone in Congress knows it. Most of them are going along, fighting tiny battles to “win” meaningless concessions on enormous spending and ridiculous restrictions of American freedom so they can keep their small part of power.

Biden’s anonymous, faceless, nameless handlers are dismantling the system put in place by the Founders and Framers so they can, in the words of the Birthday Bash hypocrite (i.e., Obama) “fundamentally transform” the United States. They want to create it in their image, not the image of freedom, not the democratic republic that the Constitution was written to create and ensure.

Does that sound like paranoia? Conspiracy? It shouldn’t, because it’s all taking place in public view. A few remaining loyal members of Congress are going on TV to tell us about it. Tucker Carlson puts it on the air every night. President Trump messages the world about it, even though the tech giants try to shut him down.

Surprisingly, the left talks openly about it, too. They say it at their gatherings and in their TED talks, they say it on air on MSNBC and CNN. They say it in schools under the faux-academics of Critical Race Theory. They openly say they are doing this, we see them doing it, they spend billions doing it, and people still act like they aren’t doing it!

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) spoke to Buck Sexton and Clay Travis, and said outright one of the key ways the left plans to do this: Permanent Pandemic.

She said people “do not want the federal government to come in and mandate masks or mandate vaccines or to mandate lockdowns. But here’s what we have to realize. The left likes lockdowns because it gives them control. They would like to have a permanent pandemic. They would like to keep you in that state, so you’re dependent on them.”

“You look at the bills and things that are coming through us,” Blackburn said. “What are they trying to do? Make people dependent on the federal government by taking more money out of your pocket, having it go to Washington, D.C., go to programs that will have outlived their usefulness by the time our kids and grandkids have to start paying this bill. That’s what they like.

That is what they want. It’s what they’re doing. It’s what’s happening to us.

Which leftist network is worse?
This poll gives you free access to our daily politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

It’s simple. It’s not complicated. You can explain it in less than a minute, and a United States Senator is confirming it out loud. But Google, Facebook and Twitter daily label it “misinformation,” as if they are some kind of authority on the subject. They are not, but that doesn’t matter.

That’s all part of the plan.

Without leadership, “patriot deplorables” throughout our nation are waiting . . . and waiting . . . and waiting. We can’t act without a plan, without cohesive leadership. We must ask ourselves, at what point will we have missed our opportunity to take back our nation?

This is not a call for patriot deplorable action. This is the expression of hope and prayer for leadership to present itself. That is sorely lacking in our elected representatives at this moment in history.

So, what to do? The only thing open to us: Start the revolution ourselves.

In recent weeks my thoughts have been roiled by a series of questions that now I feel compelled to put down in writing. These are root questions about the nature of what I am calling the Counter-Revolution ― an organized and growing network of people nationwide increasingly willing to push back against the revolutionary tide of Fascism and the “Woke” New Faith-Ideology.

What is fascinating about the Counter-Revolution is the surprising political breadth of the people that have been brought together under its tent of opposition. Classic liberals, conservatives, and libertarians; social conservatives, rationalist humanists and atheists; Christians, Jews, Muslims, and neo-reactionaries ― all are at least silently wondering if we are seeing a universal existential threat to our collective survival.

This diversity produces what the Fascists dialecticians would be quick to label as contradictions ― fundamental differences in sociopolitical theory that, if not transformed by seeking the common goal of all, will fracture the Counter-Revolution.

Four big questions are at the core of those contradictions. Those questions are essentially the ones that will shape the future of our nation, particularly a future reflective of its past and the great democratic republican experiment that just recently celebrated its 245th birthday.

The questions are not easily answered, nor are they really new questions at all. The more the counter-revolutionaries move from analysis to action, however, the more pressing they will become ― and the more productive open debate will be in determining a course of action.

These are those clarifying questions.

Is Liberalism what needs to be saved, or is it the source of the problem?

First, to clarify, like so many other terms, phrases and ideas, Fascists have stolen the label “liberal” over the last 120 years in an effort to hide who they truly are. Classic liberalism is actually conservative in thought. It has become known as “classic liberalism” for precisely the reason noted at the beginning of this paragraph: “Liberalism” as practiced today is either Fascist, Marxist, communist or socialist, all differing versions of the same contemptible dishonest system.

Classic liberalism is an ideology advocating for private property ownership, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. The Democrats’ “liberalism” is corrupt totalitarianism.

So it depends, are you talking about classic liberalism, or about what is erroneously called liberalism? The fact that question must be asked indicates that liberalism as currently practiced in the United States is the primary source of the problem and needs to be eradicated.

But how to account for those who believe in moderate government intervention on personal matters and economic matters. They tend to be opposed to war, police powers and victimless crimes? Such people believe in a social safety net, but to a lesser extent than more left wing politics. They generally believe in protecting personal liberty, both through individualism and state protection. They support self-ownership and privacy. Most lean towards embracing capitalism as an economic system.

Many in that camp have come to call themselves “Paleo-liberals,” referencing the fact they are rapidly becoming prehistoric in their existence. There must be room at the table for this political category, a people who believe there is a place for social programs while maintaining personal liberties and private property. Paleo- or classic liberals compromise with traditional conservative viewpoints. Fascists do not compromise at all.

So to answer this question: Stop calling Fascists “liberals” and apply the term properly. The traditional types of liberalism deserves to be preserved, and can be after a counter-revolution.

Is rationalism suspect, or savior?

Rationalism — any view appealing to reason (Logos) as the source of the justification required to know something beyond a reasonable doubt — is creeping in to fill the gaps left in people’s lives by a lack of faith, or religious practice. While 74 percent of Americans still consider themselves Christian, only about 50 percent own more than one Bible.

Only about 33 percent can be called “casual attendees” of a local church, and only 20 percent of Americans attend church regularly and are members of a local congregation. Believe it or not, the numbers are similar for Jewish people, Muslims and other major religions. The majority of them also are faithful in name only.

The Revolution fomented by the Fascist Democrats can only be fully understood if it is recognized as not just an political and ideological movement, but literally as a new religion. It seeks to flow into the vacuum faith is leaving behind. Close examination shows us that it bears all the characteristic hallmarks of cult religious belief, language, and behavior.

Humans are essentially religious beings, essentially incapable of not believing in something. If organized, disciplined, traditional faith structures are pushed out of or eliminated from their lives they will simply replace them with cruder, less conscious faith structures. That includes political ideologies. We see this happening at an increasingly alarming rate.

In eighteenth-century America, pastors made the grave mistake of secularizing the church through the expansion of faith concepts, assigning to the political realm some of the supernatural and transcendent values normally owned by the church. That was the birth of rationalism.

Today it is not the pastors and elders doing this — for the most part — but the congregants themselves. Where we should be gently “calling out” our brothers and sisters who err doctrinally or deny Christ through non-Christlike behavior, we instead call them out ― and not gently at all — for having the wrong politics.

That practice is bound to bring us Hitler rather than God.

We are not practicing our faith, not engaging in the disciplines of prayer, reading the Word, fasting and serving others. We are instead setting up websites and taking to social media to harangue our fellow believers for their perceived political errors. Where is Christ in this? We have shoved Him aside, just as we have shoved aside faith for politics. The fact is, they must be separate but companions. Politics can never supplant faith, the two must peacefully coexist and politics must be government by faith principles.

Therefore, the answer to our question here is, rationalism is the suspect and must be eliminated from our cause of counter-revolution. Our Founders and Framers found support for their cause in God’s Word which transcends politics, they sought God’s blessing in seeking to throw off the yoke of tyranny and their action were taken in His strength, not their own. So must our cause do.

Is the machine of technological capitalism sustainable as a blessing to America, or is it a curse?

The father of modern environmentalism, William Vogt, is considered a prophet by his movement. He spent his life warning repeatedly that the human population and its consumptive appetites were growing faster than the earth’s carrying capacity could bear, and that Malthusian ruin would befall us all if we didn’t cut back: Population, mining, oil drilling, all must be curtailed. In other words, he was a Prophet that preached limits — unreasonable and ridiculous limits.

Norman Borlaug, legendary agronomist, was a Wizard – rather than accepting limits on human population, his innovative research, over which he toiled in relative obscurity for decades, produced new varieties of high-yield, disease-resistant wheat that made him the “father of the Green Revolution,” transformed Mexico almost overnight from wheat importer to wheat exporter, doubled yields in India and Pakistan within five years, and saved an estimate one billion people from dying of starvation.

So far, thanks to the technological revolution in agriculture he kick-started, all claims of the world running out of the food necessary to meet the needs of a growing population have consistently failed to come to pass. Borlaug refuses to be limited by current technologies, methodologies and systems. He doesn’t believe in limits, only in obstacles that can be overcome.

Another way of describing them, then, is that Prophets are pessimistic about the ability of humanity to overcome limits through pure ingenuity, while Wizards hold faith (and I believe that’s the right word) that innovation and technological advancement will always save the day and propel progress, even if we don’t yet know what those innovations will be or for sure that they will arrive in time.

What do Prophets and Wizards have to do with a counter-revolution aimed at keeping tyranny at bay?

Wizards will point to charts of data demonstrating that the world is clearly getting better in almost every measurable material sense, the Prophets will tell them to look around and recognize the immaterial misery all around them. Wizards will point to the promise of technology to ease our burdens, Prophets will argue that a naïve worship of scientific and technological progress is precisely what has led us into a dangerous relationship with our machines.

The irony here is that the same Prophets who denigrate what technology has done to our world also expect some unknown and not-yet-invented technology to magically appear over the next 10 years that will make wind and solar affordable and put an end to the “tyranny” of fossil fuels — with total disregard for the reality that plastics, lubricants and other materials used in wind and solar require fossil fuels to manufacture.

And Wizards would point out that technological progress and perpetual economic growth is the humming machine that now keeps billions of people alive, and so there is no moral alternative even if we wanted there to be, the Prophets would call this a short-sighted Ponzi scheme that will inevitably end in tears when the Tower of Techno-Babel collapses, and suggest we at least stock up on some cans of beans or something.

Yes, technological capitalism is sustainable, and we cannot allow the Revolutionaries to dismantle it.

Is a new balance possible?

Just because there are antagonistic divisions between two sides on these questions doesn’t necessarily mean there is only a binary way to answer them, however. So the final question is whether, on all of the above questions, a new equilibrium, a new balance, can be found in answer.

Can a new balance be found between the benefits and challenges of technological change, free markets, consumer capitalism, and the redefining of limits as mere temporary obstacles?

These are a few of the questions that will help determine the future – not only of the Counter-Revolution, but of our societies as a whole.

The fact that so many people seem to be beginning to consider them (consciously or not) means to me that we are not doomed, not without hope. It suggests to me that we may be entering into one of those periods of true philosophical flourishing that has so often accompanied other periods of conflict and upheaval in history.

Such was the American Revolution. So may be the Second American Revolution. Let’s hope the Fascists don’t see us coming.

By: Mike Nichols. Image from Quote Fancy


Share this Article