To clarify, and to repeat what I often say: I do not have standing within the American establishment; and my personal orientation is not directed toward activism or to building cases for one side or another. In this sort of environment, where we have at least the possibility of examining trends in some detail -- though I notice that most who participate here can't and don't and their ideas, such as they are, are clipped, reductionist, overheated, rhetorically driven and partisan -- don't get us anywhere if understanding is our objective.
Myself, I am willing to take a gamble, and it is a gamble, in attempting to elect a chaos-agent, which Trump certainly is, if it does happen that through electing him a *dispossessed majority* gets a better chance at being represented. I do not have great optimism however. And it does seem to me that when a republic such as that of the US gets to the point where it is now, I wonder what if anything can bring it back to normalcy. I simply cannot see how this is going to work out well. But one thing I will admit: when a republic arrives at this juncture -- a later maturity -- it is inevitable, or has been so historically, that authoritarian policies begin to present themselves as necessary options.
The political and social Left certainly does this through their control of social discourse. Their tendency is to assume a position of self-righteous moral superiority while simultaneously crowing about *democracy* as they use various tools to subvert it. Yet, with that said, I would not describe the Right-leaning faction or establishment as incapable of authoritarian machinations. We should remember that in political crises -- as for example with Lincoln's suspension of constitutional civil rights during the War Between the States -- that strident authoritarianism for specific political objectives is understood to be *necessary*.
The United States is in the midst of a battle over how the Republic defines itself. The Postwar America -- what has developed -- is a different creature from that which was defined and understood previously. The way that this came about is worthy of study and examination. And for that reason the term "social engineering" is relevant.
Trump is one thing, and I tend to see his as the *armor piercing shell* that Bannon described him as. But there is actually a whole other sub-current here which I believe needs to be better understood through being
seen.
So as an example I will submit
Stew Peters and his strident polemic on Weimar Germany and his attempt at a 'historical clarification' in respect to the attack in social depravity which is the focus of his polemic. I refer to this and I could refer to ten additional video discourses (video being a major form of the communication of ideas in our time) by people who, for good or for bad, are convinced that their view of corruption and decadence are understandings with validity.
You can refer to all those who make up the *adulating* masses as merely stupid, as duped, as badly informed, and brush them all aside; or you can begin to examine the causal chains that have brought about this peculiar and dangerous crisis and how people go about interpreting what is going on and why. That is one of my main areas of interest: how people
interpret what they see and perceive going on around them. There are all sorts of levels of analysis starting from what we might all agree is a *sound basis* all the way over to outrageous, even deranged ideas -- interpretations -- about what is and what is not.
This Stew Peters polemic fits within the context of this thread and what is being discussed. Sexuality and the manipulation of sexuality is a tool of political and social manipulation. This seems clear to me.
