Tuesday Morning Breakfast For The Brain

Served up piping hot, just for you.

These Key Similarities Between Lenin’s Red Terror and America’s Woke Culture Reveal Left’s Blueprint For Complete Takeover

Via Revolver News

Thursday marked the 151st birthday of the most successful revolutionary of all time, Vladimir Lenin. With only a tiny cabal of diehard followers, Lenin seized control of the world’s largest country and inaugurated a reign of darkness and terror that lasted seventy years.

The Bolsheviks were indisputably more murderous than today’s left (if only because they lived in a more violent age), but even they had to ramp up how much terror they engaged in.

At the beginning of their rule, in fact, the Bolsheviks were even willing to run a fair election. Just days after the October Revolution, they held the preplanned elections for Russia’s Constituent Assembly, anticipating an easy win. To their surprise, they were easily defeated by the Socialist Revolutionaries. And so, like any good leftists, they simply nullified the election and dissolved the Constituent Assembly. Since it was 100 years ago and the Bolsheviks were well-armed, it was enough to simply announce that the Constituent Assembly was closed. Today, they might concoct a more elaborate narrative, perhaps that the Socialist Revolutionaries engaged in “collusion” with a foreign power.

In their earliest days, the Bolsheviks framed their political abuses as a “war on privilege.” In a tactic eerily reminiscent of 2020’s riots, the Bolsheviks of 1918 encouraged a decentralized campaign by the masses to plunder and crush class enemies.

In January 1918, at a meeting of party agitators on their way to the provinces, Lenin explained that the plunder of bourgeois property was to be encouraged as a form of social justice by revenge. It was a question of ‘looting the looters’. Under this slogan, which the Bolsheviks soon made their own, there was an orgy of robbery and violence in the next few months. Gorky described it as a mass pogrom. Armed gangs robbed the propertied — and then robbed each other. Swindlers, thieves and bandits grew rich, as law and order finally vanished. [Figes, A People’s Tragedy, p. 525-526]

This class-based economic warfare was coupled with a revolution in criminal justice. First, the mob replaced the old system of law and order, and then the Bolsheviks came in to lend it a gloss of structure. Crime became a class issue, where mundane criminals went free while class enemies were targeted for the most brutal repression on the flimsiest grounds… MORE.

Nancy Pelosi’s Secret Police

Via American Greatness

This seemingly modest change to the role of the Capitol Police will assume greater, more sinister significance in time.

We recently saw the first phase of the January 6 show trial. The congressional hearing, which the House Republican leadership has boycotted, always threatened to be a farce, prolonging and exaggerating a one-time event for partisan political gain. It lived down to expectations.

The assembled U.S. Capitol Police jerked tears and repeated popular lies, including the now-disproven claim that officer Brian Sicknick was killed during the riots. One of the policemen exposed himself as highly ideological after his tweets praising Black Lives Matter violence surfaced soon after his testimony. All of the witnesses used highly charged language, referring to their fellow Americans as “terrorists” and the event as an attempted “coup.”

In other words, the Capitol Police leadership supported the Democrats’ bleak view of the moment: that the country is beset by dangerous, violent, right-wing extremism, which in turn permits extreme measures to defend “Our Democracy.” With the frequent comparisons to 9/11, it is obvious that restoring the War on Terror’s domestic security apparatus is the goal. But this time, the “war” will be aimed at a much larger group of Americans, namely, those who supported President Trump and have doubts about the 2020 election.

The most ominous development is the plan to deploy the Capitol Police in the nation’s interior, with the first field offices located in California and Florida.

Is This Legal?

This is a peculiar development. The United States has always rejected a national police force, preferring instead more accountable state and local police. The FBI and the enforcement arms of other federal agencies are much smaller than state and local police, and their jurisdiction is limited by their specific agency missions and federal law.

The Capitol Police have very limited jurisdiction by statute. Even in Washington D.C., they’re only allowed to arrest for crimes within the “Capitol Building and Grounds.” In other words, they are highly paid security guards.

Title 2, Section 1966 of U.S. Code, further provides that the “Capitol Police is authorized to protect, in any area of the United States, the person of any Member of Congress, officer of the Congress, as defined in section 4101(b) of this title, and any member of the immediate family of any such Member or officer, if the Capitol Police Board determines such protection to be necessary.” This protective power is extended by statute over the entire United States.

Nonetheless, most congressmen have lax security. With 535 members spread across both houses, members of Congress are far closer to the people than the highly insulated president. It is not unusual to see them about town, perhaps with a local sheriff’s deputy in tow at public events.

Some congressmen have, of course, been attacked. The congressional baseball game shooting of 2017 was undertaken by an angry left-winger. Gabby Giffords was shot in 2011 by a mentally deranged man at a public event. There have also been larger-scale attacks. While we were told repeatedly how the January 6 protest had no precedent, left-wing extremists bombed the Capitol building in 1983. More recently, a black nationalist killed a Capitol Police officer in a vehicle attack in April.

While the Capitol Police have no nationwide arrest authority, they do have a right to work outside the Capitol grounds for “intelligence gathering,” according to 2 U.S.C. § 1978. The scope of this authority is entirely undefined by the statute and related regulations.

In other words, these field offices are probably legal, but they’re also a bad idea. MORE.

When Confidence in Our Institutions Collapses

Via Real Clear Politics

Sometimes, stories that appear unrelated share common foundations and have cumulative effects, far more serious than any one does individually. Highlighting these common features tells us something profound about our society and its troubles. That’s the case with four stories over the past few days.

The first two involve police. One concerns a New York City gang member who attacked multiple officers and shot one of them. The suspect had more than 25 prior arrests for guns, drug offenses, and other crimes. He was known to be part of a gang affiliated with the “Bloods.” Yet Jerome Roman was roaming the streets, gun in hand, out on bail. It is a story repeated dozens of times each week across the country. The second story involves the inability of Portland, Ore., to recruit police to fight the city’s stunning murder epidemic. For some reason, Portland just can’t find people willing to join the special unit designed to stop the killings.

The next two stories involve a subject that seems far removed from violent crime: COVID masks. One is a news report with photographs of Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser celebrating maskless at an indoor party just hours after she had imposed a comprehensive mask mandate on her city, prohibiting exactly her kind of behavior. This was just the latest in a spate of “rules are for thee, not me” actions by Democratic mayors and governors. One of them, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, is facing a recall effort. The rest continue along their merry way.

Finally, the ubiquitous Dr. Anthony Fauci, our nation’s top official for infectious diseases, told ABC News this past weekend that wearing masks should not be an individual choice. That statement goes beyond saying masks are desirable, based on public health data. It portends a new round of mandates. President Biden also indicated new, stricter rules are coming.

Is there any connection among these stories about police, murder, hypocrisy, and public health advice? Yes, and it is a connection that illuminates our country’s deepest problems.

The problem we face, beyond the specifics about crime, COVID, duplicity, and social division, is a palpable breakdown in public order at the same time the public has lost confidence in our government officials and the institutions they lead. The two meta-problems—the breakdown of order and erosion of public confidence—are deeply intertwined because we count on our leaders and institutions to give us reliable information, provide a stable environment (so each of us can go about our lives), and abide by the same rules we all do. Those are foundational elements of a peaceful, liberal, democratic society. Their attrition imperils that society and its governance.

Citizens are all too aware of the collapse of law and order in cities and on America’s southern border. They are aware, too, that the current administration and the mayors of most big cities are unwilling to speak honestly about the problems. They know that Vice President Kamala Harris’ exclusive focus on the “root causes” of migration from Central America is really a way of evading the painful question: Why won’t the Biden administration stop the unprecedented surge of illegal immigration or even speak candidly about it?

The danger and dishonesty come after decades of eroding trust in public officials and the institutions they lead. Polls in the early 1960s showed over 70% of the public believed public officials were telling the truth. Those numbers have declined steadily to less than 20%. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon got that ball rolling downhill, but it hasn’t stopped. The mistrust goes beyond public officials to include news media, social media, universities, corporations, unions, churches, and even civic organizations such as the Boy Scouts. MORE.

Liberals Praise DeBlasio For Barring 65% Of Black NYC Residents From Society

Via The Babylon Bee

NEW YORK CITY, NY—Compassionate progressives across the country are praising New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio for his “bold, courageous” decision to bring segregation to New York.

“Studies show that 65% of black New York residents are unvaccinated, so this will affect them disproportionately, and that’s actually a good thing,” said DeBlasio in a statement. “We just want everyone to be healthy, and anyone who refuses to get the vaccine should be considered less than human and be excluded from participating in society. It’s the compassionate—and scientific—thing to do!”

The new “separate, but equal, for public health” policy will take effect next week.

The Mayor has also said he will be supporting increased police funding and presence in black communities to enforce vaccine segregation, which will definitely not have any side effects like increased deadly police encounters and brutality.

“Just to be clear, this is not Jim Crow. This is more like Jim Crow’s nicer, public health-defending cousin, John Crow. This is all about safety and science because we’re the government and we care,” said DeBlasio.

Experts say the new ordinance will actually have little effect since no one lives in New York anymore except Bill DeBlasio and Brian Stelter. Everyone else has moved to Florida.

Check out all of the Bee’s takes on a world gone mad HERE.

Be sure to stop by at Def-Con News to get the morning started off right.