David Hogg picks up where Bill Ayers left off.

Leftist radical David Hogg generated some controversy when he complained to the press that "Older Democrats just won't move the f-k off the plate and let [the young people] take control [of the DNC]." With that outburst, Hogg completed the cultural revolution begun in the 1960s - and best summed up by the domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, who ordered young Baby Boomers (at the time) to "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents."

After decades of dumbing down America's youth, in order to turn that youth into nothing more than empty receptacles in which to dump their destructive ideology, the Left is about to reap what they sow. This isn't the first time a youthful rebellion has ripped apart the Democratic Party. Bill Ayers' generation of the radical New Left did just that in the 1960s. What was so interesting was that the New Left of the 1960s arose during a period of relative political dominance for the Democratic Party. It was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who effectively created the paradigm - the regime - of postwar American politics.

Yes, the Harry Truman and JFK administrations were punctuated by the Republican presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower, but even Ike's administration was far more moderate than what most Right-wingers of the day wanted it to be. Democrats controlled what Lenin once referred to as a country's "transmission belts." The Democratic Party held sway over the federal bureaucracy, the courts, education, and the media.

Nevertheless, the young Democrats - the Baby Boomers - of the 1960s sought to destroy the corporate-style, professional, programmatic Liberalism of the pre-1960s Democratic Party and install a newer, truly revolutionary politics at the heart of the Democratic Party. At its core, the politics of the New Left was aimed at destroying the American middle-class which radical leaders had long associated with being the single-greatest impediment to the implementation of a full-on Marxian-style revolution from consuming the country.

For their part, the radicals of the 1960s imbibed a noxious ideological swill consisting of one-part Cultural Marxism, one-part blatant Soviet propaganda, and one-part outright hooliganism. The Cultural Marxist elements were taught to these young skulls full of mush by gonzo academicians - mostly of the much-maligned Frankfurt School (read Michael Walsh's two books on the matter for more details). The Soviet propaganda was force-fed to these raging youngsters by unwitting accomplices in the American media (and academia). And, the hooliganism was bestowed upon them by their idol, Saul Alinsky - who, although far older than the student protesters of the '60s, was very much their "spiritual" leader.

After all, it was Alinsky who advised his ideological progeny to use the politics of guilt to help the otherwise-vibrant American middle-class to commit suicide. Even after the 1960s, when it became clear that the revolution would not be embraced by a majority of the American people, many of the protesters retained their radical notions. Most went on to enter into respected educational institutions, where they earned degrees in everything from law to education. These people then went about infiltrating every aspect of American society, until they came to dominate the most important elements of American culture. Usually, when one moves into adulthood, one embraces a more conservative and traditional worldview.

While many of the former radicals of the 1960s - such as Hillary Clinton - did embrace a more pragmatic view of politics, hardly any foreswore their life-long flirtation with the radical New Left ideology of their youth. They just channeled that radicalism into the next generation of children. Thus, David Hogg and his cohort of young radicals sound as kooky as Bill Ayers did 50 years ago (thankfully, though, Hogg and his bunch have not decided to act on their radical notions in the same bloody ways that Ayers and his comrades did).

And, just like the New Left of yesteryear, the Alt-Left of today has made the Democratic Party its target of opportunity. The logic is that, first, the corporatist, neoliberal leadership of the Democratic Party must be destroyed in order to open up slots for this new, whacky bunch of "democratic socialists" rising up from the grassroots of the Democratic Party.

Hogg has clearly indicated his intentions toward the DNC: he and others like him seek to push out the current group of leaders in the DNC (many who once, in their youth, marched in the streets and behaved similarly as Hogg has), replace them with radicals, and complete the revolution begun in the 1960s. David Hogg and the Alt-Left of Millennial and Generation-Z democratic socialists are the ideological progeny of the 1960s generation of New Left revolutionaries.

For more than half-a-century, the Democratic Party has sown the wind of radicalism. Now, they are about to reap the whirlwind of revolution.

Intriguing. It is true there is a limit to how liberal one can be and still be dependably loyal.

dependably loyal isn't exactly good either... When people start " getting rid" of others that don't think like them, it seems to be a start of a form of Nazism...

"Leftist radical David Hogg"? Jeez, the kid lived through something as a high-school student (an active-shooter event) that would have left MOST of us at that age a quivering mess.

Some of those survivors, facing "survivor's guilt", will no doubt turn to drugs and alcohol to try to take the edge off the nightmares that might never go away (If you doubt me about the nightmares, just ask some Vietnam veterans you know if they still occasionally get the "tough nights")

Some of these survivors, like David, are going to try to see that "something like this never happens again". He is asking his elected representatives where they stand on the issue. This is the same thing Mothers Against Drunk Drivers did, 9/11 families did, hell, what McLain and Stockdale did for POW awareness. All these activities were started under the idea "so ___ did not die in vain"

The article you cite (I am guessing you did not write the piece) sounds like it was penned by the NRA. Of course, they have every reason to vilify a survivor, because he is cutting into their profits.

Not sure if the title "Democratic Suicide Watch" was their title or yours, but it over-sensationalizes an article full of emotional hot buttons. They are not good students of history either, as Kennedy's line in today's politics would be considered "right leaning"

the full article I c&p was on sott.net, the original came from the American spectator

Yes, but an opposite problem is also prevalent where I live.

Oppression of non-loyal people is not good, for sure. Loyalty in its self can be mutually beneficial, however. The reality of being totally independent and free of trusting relationships is homelessness. There was very little trust between colleges and businesses when I graduated college a few years ago. Internships were not encouraged, because with the job-hopping culture businesses knew they would be wasting resources on someone who would just work for someone else. Businesses were vilified in the schools and students did not know what to shape their education around. Most of my friends seemed to disappear off the face of the earth working dead-end jobs and either homeless or relying heavily upon their parents. I worked road construction. Around that time I heard of a liberal arts PhD student who committed suicide because the only job he could get was a package delivery truck driver. There were a few forward thinking students who got jobs that truly benefit mankind using their best skills instead of taking hand-out jobs, and there were a few students who stayed in the college town and started businesses for the town out in the boonies. I went back to school for a graduate engineering program staffed by Asians, who have a more industry-focused philosophy and then went to work for the family business. I still have a good number of homeless friends, and that is okay if they want that by choice, but many of them want to participate in society but can’t because no one knows how to prepare for trustable relationships.

You need to make your way in the world. Depending on friends is a sure way to set yourself up to be let down.

I work those supposed "Hand out" jobs. A college degree isn't the only way to make a living in this world. Being a craftsman will put the green in your pocket. Do your work right, make people happy, and you'll get called on for more work than you can handle. Those "Dirty Jobs" and a willingness to take them on will make you one sought after person.

Thanks for the advice.

Also, I make a correction because of the misleading term. I meant specifically jobs that I was not really qualified for that were handed out as a privilege from friends. I was Not talking about most jobs that were handed out because of high demand by employers. Grit is definitely the backbone of all of civilization.

just an opinion piece...I understand that liberals don't Like anyone else's opinion on anything, but we live in a society, and liberals just need to learn to accept that other people have opinions too...