THE NEW LEFT IS DEVOLVING AMERICA INTO SELF-DESTRUCTION

by | Jun 26, 2024 | Uncategorized | 3 comments

  • Life forms need water to begin.
  • THE NEW LEFT IS DEVOLVING AMERICA INTO A CULTURE OF SELF-DESTRUCTION; THEY OPENED OUR BORDERS, SO MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL INTERLOPERS POUR INTO THE USA YEAR AFTER YEAR; YHR MEXICAN CARTELS ARE RUNNING LEGAL AND ILLEGAL DRUGS ARE KILLING MILLIONS OF AMERICANS EVERY YEAR, OR TWO. THE EVE OF DESTRUCTION  IS SOON.
  • THE NEW LEFT HAS INCULCATED SOCIAL AND CULTURAL MARXISM INTO  AMERICA WITH HIGH SPEEDS WE HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED IN OUR HISTORY.
  • ACADEMIA HAS DONE THEIR PART. THEY HAVE TURNED THEIR STUDENTS INTO MINDLESS COMMUNISTS WHO HATE AMERICA. FOR NO APPARENT REASON, THESE SAME STUDENTS HAVE BECOME ANTI-SEMETICS AND WANT TO KILL ALL OF THE JEWS.
  • MANY COUNTRIES HAVE SEEMPENIED THEIR PRISONS AND THE MENTALLY INSANE TO US. THEY DEMOCRATIC SANCTUARY CITIES ARE FILLED WITH THEIR RAPISTS, MURDERERS, AND ALL-AROUND CRIMINALS TO THE SANCTUARY CITIES, CRIMES OF EVERY TYPE ARE GROWING LIKE THE CANCER THEY ARE.R
  • THE BIG CITY KILLING FLOORS WILL HAVE BLOOD IN THE STREETS DAY AND NIGHT.
  • The New Left that developed in the years that followed was “a loosely organized, mostly white student movement that advocated for democracy, civil rights, and various types of university reforms, and protested against the Vietnam war”. The New Left in the United States also included anarchist, countercultural, and hippie-related radical groups such as the Yippies (who were led by Abbie Hoffman), the Diggers,[34] Up Against the Wall Motherfuckers, and the White Panther Party. By late 1966, the Diggers opened free stores which simply gave away their stock, provided free food, distributed free drugs, gave away money, organized free music concerts, and performed works of political art.[35] The Diggers took their name from the original English Diggers led by Gerrard Winstanley[36] and sought to create a mini-society free of money and capitalism.[37] On the other hand, the Yippies (the name allegedly coming from Youth International Party) employed theatrical gestures, such as advancing a pig (“Pigasus the Immortal”) as a candidate for president in 1968, to mock the social status quo.[38] They have been described as a highly theatrical, anti-authoritarian, and anarchist[39] youth movement of “symbolic politics”.[40] According to ABC News, “The group was known for street theater pranks and was once referred to as the ‘Groucho Marxists‘.”[41] Many of the “old school” political left either ignored or denounced them.
  • The New Storefront Left./ Stung by the criticism that they were “high on analysis, low on action”, and in “the year of the ‘discovery of poverty'” (in 1963 Michael Harrington‘s book The Other America[62] “was the rage”), the SDS launched the Economic Research and Action Project (ERAP).[63] Conceived by Tom Hayden as forestalling “white backlash”, community-organizing initiatives would unite Black, Brown, and White workers around a common program for economic change. The leadership commitment was sustained barely two years. With no early sign in the neighborhoods of an interracial movement that would “collectivize economic decision making and democratize and decentralize every economic, political, and social institution in America”, many SDS organizers were readily induced by the escalating U.S. commitment in Vietnam to abandon their storefront offices, and heed the anti-war call to return to campus.[64]
In some of ERAP projects, such as the JOIN (“Jobs or Income Now”) project in uptown Chicago, SDSers were replaced by white working-class activists (some bitterly conscious that their poor backgrounds had limited their acceptance within “the Movement”). In community unions such JOIN and its successors in Chicago, the Young Patriots and Rising Up Angry, White Lightening in the Bronx, and the 4 October Organization in Philadelphia white radicals (open in the debt they believed they owed to the SNCC and to the Black Panthers) continued to organise rent strikes, health and legal clinics, housing occupations and street protests against police brutality.[65] While city-hall and police harassment was a factor, internal tensions ensured that these radical community-organizing efforts did not long survive the sixties.[66] Kirkpatrick Sale recalls that the most dispiriting feature of the ERAP experience was that, however much they might talk at night about “transforming the system”, “building alternative institutions”, and “revolutionary potential”, the organizers knew that their credibility on the doorstep rested on an ability to secure concessions from, and thus to develop relations with, the local power structures. Far from erecting parallel structures, projects were built “around all the shoddy instruments of the state”. ERAPers were caught in “a politics of adjustment”.[67]
  • The concept of New Left in China originates from the academic debate between “New Left” and “liberal” in the 1990s, both of which are common ideological labels in the Chinese mainland context.[80] In this context, the term “New Left” is often used to describe a faction that focuses on the continued widening of the urban-rural gap in the post-Deng Xiaoping era and calls for a critical re-evaluation of the legacy of the Mao era (including the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution) in response to the current situation.[81] The so-called Chinese New Left differs greatly from the Western New Left and is difficult to define clearly.[81] Under the one-party dictatorship, no “faction” in China can make political waves, so some scholars doubt the existence of a genuine New Left in China.[82
bedience, the refusal to obey the demands or commands of a government or occupying power, without resorting to violence or active measures of opposition; its usual purpose is to force concessions from the government or occupying power. Civil disobedience has been a major tactic and philosophy of nationalist movements in Africa and India, in the American civil rights movement, and of labour, anti-war, and other social movements in many countries.
Witness the breadth of the Occupy Wall Street protest movement as civil disobedience spread across the U.S.
Protesters associated with the Occupy Wall Street movement blocking a bridge in Chicago, November 2011.
See all videos for this article

Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. The civil disobedient, finding legitimate avenues of change blocked or nonexistent, feels obligated by a higher, extralegal principle to break some specific law. It is because acts associated with civil disobedience are considered crimes, however, and known by actor and public alike to be punishable, that such acts serve as a protest. By submitting to punishment, the civil disobedient hopes to set a moral example that will provoke the majority or the government into effecting meaningful political, social, or economic change. Under the imperative of setting a moral example, leaders of civil disobedience insist that the illegal actions be nonviolent.

The philosophical roots of civil disobedience lie deep in Western thought: Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and Henry David Thoreau all sought to justify conduct by virtue of its harmony with some antecedent superhuman moral law. The modern concept of civil disobedience was most clearly formulated by Mahatma Gandhi. Drawing from Eastern and Western thought, Gandhi developed the philosophy of satyagraha, which emphasizes nonviolent resistance to evil. First in the Transvaal of South Africa in 1906 and later in India, via such actions as the Salt March (1930), Gandhi sought to obtain equal right