In the shadows, an angry mob awaits, with an evil intent,
bigots and neo-fascists, with a message of dissent.
Seeking to desensitize, and numb the feeble mind,
by spreading fear and hatred, to all of mankind.

Protesting and parading, they hide behind a mask,
trying to normalize their presence, is a traitor’s task.
And with a lie of tolerance, democracy they ensnare,
an unlawful infiltration; an occupation—everyone beware!

Their incendiary rhetoric—a time bomb surely to ignite—
inciting cynicism, with every word they speak and write.
Acts of treason they inflict, against a weary population,
their bad deeds must be squashed—no time for hesitation.

If we allow it, they will take it, as a license to carry on,
Until they burn down our republic, and then they’re done.
Citizens must rise up, against their divisive creed,
and protect our constitution, that’s the urgent need.

In the face of opposition, we must all be strong,
and reject their propaganda, because alt-right is what’s wrong.
To safeguard our children’s future, we must all unite;
for our life, liberty and country, we all must fight.

By: ElRoyPoet © 2024

Post-WW2 Anti-Fascist Educational Film

1948 Propaganda Film

Malignant normality: The psychological theory that explains naked emperors, narcissists and Nazis

The emergence of alt-right and neo-fascist groups in recent years has raised concerns about the potential impact of their ideologies on democracy. These organizations actively work to desensitize the public to their fearmongering and incitement of hatred, with the ultimate goal of normalizing their protests and parades. Unfortunately, desensitization carries serious consequences for democracy, making it imperative that we address and counter these extremist movements promptly.

Desensitization and the Erosion of Tolerance

The primary objective of these radical groups is to desensitize society to their rhetoric and microaggressions, gradually normalizing their presence. By consistently exposing citizens to their protests and parades, they strive to create a distorted perception of acceptance and normality. Over time, this desensitization can result in increased tolerance towards their divisive ideologies, posing a significant threat to the fabric of American society.

Tactics Resembling Enemy Infiltration and Occupation Strategies

The desensitization tactics employed by these groups bear a striking resemblance to strategies used in enemy infiltration and occupation during warfare. By making their presence appear routine and acceptable, they insidiously infiltrate and occupy public spaces with their divisive ideologies. This calculated approach undermines the very foundations of democracy, manipulates public opinion, and influences people’s perceptions.

Incendiary Rhetoric as Social Dynamite

The utilization of incendiary rhetoric by extremist groups can be likened to a ticking time bomb. Their hate-filled messages and fear-inducing language have the potential to ignite conflicts and unrest within society. In a democracy that thrives on diversity and mutual respect, such inflammatory rhetoric threatens to unravel the social fabric, erode trust, and foster division among individuals and communities.

Confronting Terrorism against Democracy

It is crucial that any form of inflammatory speech against the constitution and our democratic values be addressed with swift and resolute action. Allowing these movements to persist without consequence grants them a dangerous license to further their destructive agenda. In order to protect the fundamental principles of democratic societies, it is vital for citizens, government institutions, and civil society to stand united against the further dissemination of extremist ideologies.

Safeguarding the Future of the Republic

Failing to confront the dangers posed by alt-right and neo-fascist movements inevitably places the future of our country at risk. If these groups are allowed to continue unchallenged, they could gradually erode the very foundations upon which our republic stands.

There is no room in America for failed ideologies such as authoritarianism or fascism. All citizens have a duty to reject those who incite discord against our constitution or undermine the vision of our founding fathers. Radical groups pose a significant threat to democracy through their tactics of desensitization and normalization. To safeguard the foundations of a democratic society, it is imperative to recognize the dangers posed by their incendiary rhetoric and divisive actions. Promptly addressing and countering these movements ensures the continued strength of our republic while upholding the principles of equality, diversity, and civil rights. The preservation of our democracy necessitates collective vigilance and an unwavering commitment to promoting unity and rejecting hate.

George Orwell’s Warning to the World

The first amendment of the United States Constitution safeguards our right to freedom of speech, which is considered a fundamental pillar of democracy. This vital freedom not only encourages a diverse range of opinions but also promotes open dialogue, necessary for a robust and democratic society. However, it is imperative to recognize that the first amendment does not protect or condone speech that undermines the constitution itself. Striking a balance between the right to freedom of speech and the need to uphold the principles enshrined in the constitution is of paramount importance.

1. Clarifying the Boundaries of Freedom of Speech:
   Although the first amendment protects our right to free speech, it is subject to limitations. These limitations exist to prevent harm to both individuals and society as a whole. One such restriction is speech that directly opposes the constitution, as it contradicts the very foundation upon which our legal system rests. It is crucial to grasp that the constitution serves as the bedrock for our laws and democratic governance.
2. Confronting Contradiction:
   Speaking against the constitution creates an inherent contradiction because it questions and challenges the legal framework and principles that it upholds. Permitting speech that aims to undermine the constitution would introduce an internal conflict within our legal system. In order to uphold order, ensure justice, and safeguard individual rights, society relies on the constitution. Consequently, it is untenable to assert the right to speak against the very document that guarantees fundamental freedoms and establishes the rule of law.
3. Protecting Constitutionally Anchored Principles:
   By disallowing speech that opposes the constitution, we safeguard the principles upon which our nation was founded. These bedrock principles include the separation of powers, protection of individual rights, equality, and due process. Granting free speech rights to those seeking to undermine these principles would erode the integrity and stability of our democratic society.
4. The Importance of Legal Context:
   While freedom of speech is a cherished right, it is crucial to assess both the intent and impact of the speech in question. While dissent and criticism play significant roles in societal development, attempting to delegitimize or dismantle the constitution undermines the very system that allows for freedom of speech, in the first place. Courts have consistently recognized that certain types of speech, such as incitement to violence or defamation, are not protected by the first amendment due to the harm they can cause.
5. Promoting Respectful Dialogue and Constructive Criticism:
   Respecting the boundaries defined by the constitution does not mean stifling all forms of criticism. On the contrary, constructive criticism is essential for advancing the nation’s governance. The first amendment not only protects vigorous debate but encourages responsible and well-informed communication. Engaging in respectful dialogue and challenging ideas within the framework of the constitution fosters a more equitable, inclusive, and just society.

The first amendment’s protection of freedom of speech is a cornerstone of American democracy, yet it is not absolute. Speaking against the constitution itself contradicts the very principles that form the basis of our legal system. While dissent and constructive critique are vital for progress, it is crucial to respect the legal framework that ensures justice, equality, and protection of individual rights. Striking a balance between freedom of speech and the preservation of constitutionally anchored principles is crucial for maintaining the integrity of our democratic society.

If a President’s rhetoric divides the USA, he is a Traitor to the Republic

Commentary: The only people who are afraid of free speech are those who are living in denial, such as absolutists who claim that free speech should be free range rhetoric. There are only two ways to cancel free speech: Shut the spigot off, or open it full blast. If MAGA republicans can’t shut it down, via democratic means, they will use reverse psychology tricks to demand a no holds barred speech. Consequently, the public square will become flooded (anarchy), and then they will claim that the patriots can’t handle the truth, and cancel free speech and the rest of the first amendment all together, with the lie that they will soon legislate a better amendment to replace it (don’t hold your breath). Practicing politically correct speech has never been an option for the neo-fascists politicians, because their real agenda is to repeal the first amendment and ultimately the rest of the constitution, too!

“Rejecting ideals is a fair first amendment right, but purposely using language that is seen as outdated and offensive towards already marginalized groups is socially not appropriate.
Professionalism is important and standards exist equally amongst all sides, and these standards exist for a reason. Political correctness, when referring to everyday language, is expected because it ties in, at its root, with maturity.
What makes it so difficult for people to refuse adhering to basic respect, which is now categorized as political correctness? If the majority of one’s environment is not using racial slurs, ableist language and generally offensive language, that speaks volumes about the extent of maturity one may obtain.”
Excerpt from Opinion: Don’t engage in anti-PC culture

“Obviously, if politicians believe that voters cannot be trusted with the truth, democracy is seriously at risk. For a democracy to function it is essential that a government respects the people and takes them seriously, not only those that have voted for that government, but all people. Furthermore, in order to exercise their democratic rights properly, people should be informed as fully as possible.
Democracy is a form of conflict management within states, just as diplomacy is a form of conflict management between states. Both therefore usually lead to a compromise between different views and different perceived interests. That is certainly the case when a decision requires both agreement between and within states.” Excerpt from Government of the people, by the people, for the people

“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. The object of power is power.” By: George Orwell

“In order to become a fascist, you must question everything, in order to justify your authoritarian leader’s new lie. You have to dismiss universal truths and challenge subject matter experts. You must engage in spinning, dodging, and denying historical facts. You must abandon empathy for humanity and idolize your leader. You must embrace postmodernism.” By: B. Bondman

Definition: “rabble-rouser” is a leader or speaker who stirs up the passions of the masses. A person who tries to stir up masses of people for political action by appealing to their emotions rather than their reason. A demagogue. A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular passions and prejudices.