Fascism

President Joe Biden (D) infamously called half of Americans semi-fascists a few days ago.

Now California is creating a State government board that will dictate the wages that fast food companies in the State must pay.

California’s Legislature passed a bill Monday to create a government panel that would set wages for an estimated half-million fast food workers in the state….
The bill, known as the Fast Act, would establish a panel with members appointed by the governor and legislative leaders composed of workers, union representatives, employers and business advocates. They would set hourly wages of up to $22 for fast food workers starting next year and can increase them annually by the same rate as the consumer-price index, up to a maximum of 3.5%.

This is what true fascism is.

In a real dictionary, viz., American Heritage Dictionary or Merriam-Webster, socialism is a political-economic system in which Government directly owns the means of production—directly owns the businesses operating in an economy. Fascism is a subset of socialism wherein Government is pleased to allow businesses to be privately owned, but Government dictates to those businesses how they will operate: the products they will produce and in what quantity, and/or the prices they will charge for their products, and/or as in the present California case, what wages they will pay their employees—all to serve the State’s ends, not the business owners’ or investors’, who are us Americans. This government control, further, is paired with active, often violent, suppression of opposition to such controls.

In addition to that, Merriam-Webster also notes that in fascism, race often is “exalted” above the individual; American Heritage terms it belligerent racism. Much like the Progressive-Party adherents and supporters do today with their enthusiastic proselytizing of identity politics.

In the Newspeak dictionary of the Progressive-Democratic Party, though, “fascist” and “semi-fascist” are just shibboleths, personal smears, with which Party adherents and supporters insult all of us Americans rude enough to disagree with them. These tools of denigration are trotted out whenever Party adherents and supporters are unable to make coherent, reasoned arguments for their own policies and policy proposals or against anyone else’s policies or policy proposals.

Readers easily can discern which of these definitions are in play by Party adherents and supporters.

Contempt for us Americans

President Joe Biden (D), leader of the Progressive-Democratic Party is building on the contempt Herb Croly, one of the founders of the modern Progressive movement, held for us average Americans, and he’s following in the footsteps of those modern Progressive-Democrats, ex-President Barack Obama, of Bible- and gun-clinging bitterness of flyover country Americans infamy, and Hillary Clinton, of 10s of millions of us being irredeemably deplorable odium.

At a Bethesda, MD, fundraiser for his Progressive-Democratic Party last week, Biden had this to say about half of all of us Americans:

What we’re seeing now is the beginning or the death knell of an extreme MAGA philosophy. It’s not just Trump, it’s the entire philosophy that underpins the—I’m going to say something, it’s like semi-fascism.

This is a part of what makes this fall, and the fall of 2024, so important.

Banning on a Maybe

Dr Drew Montez Clark, a black Republican Conservative running to flip Florida’s Congressional District 20 from Progressive-Democrat to Republican, saw his Twitter account banned the night before the originally scheduled Republican Primary election for the district was scheduled to occur.

Parag Agrawal, Twitter’s CEO, let it happen, probably not directly, but through the corporate culture he inherited from Jack Dorsey, and which he has actively cultivated since becoming CEO.

Clark’s account was restored “hours later,” but the move had already been made, and the night had already passed into that election day.

Agrawal’s excuse—Twitter’s statement—for the cancelation is instructive.

Twitter uses proactive, automated systems to detect content that might violate our rules, part of our work to improve the health of conversations on the service. In the case referenced, our automated system detected a false positive. The account has since been reinstated.

Might violate. Sometime in the future. Our rules. But we’re not saying which one or ones.

Mind you, Clark’s Twitter commentary hadn’t actually violated any of Twitter’s rules; Agrawal’s excuse statement makes that clear. But it might, later, violate some as yet carefully unnamed rule(s), so Agrawal let it be taken down preemptively by one of his bots. Or by one of his humans, and he’s hiding behind that bot. Thinking we’re too stupid to understand that his bots are programmed by his human employees.

Fortunately, in this specific case, Agrawal’s Twitter…misbehavior…had no effect, as Clark was running unopposed, and his primary wound up being canceled.

But wait until the November election, when Clark is actively facing the Progressive-Democratic Party incumbent. Agrawal already is on record as saying his Twitter will interfere with Twitter accounts of those of whom he disapproves.

The CDC and Its Proposed Corrections

Dr Marty Makary is on the right track in his op-ed regarding CDC Director Rochelle Walensky’s supposed mea culpa and claimed plans for corrective action in the future. His suggestions for corrective action include

  • stop pushing boosters on teenagers
  • ask colleges to remove their booster mandates
  • ask the Philadelphia school district to remove masks on students
  • tell the government-funded Head Start program to stop requiring all children ages 2 and up to wear masks
  • acknowledge that the Pfizer COVID vaccine for babies and toddlers was recommended by the agency even though the clinical trial found no statistically significant efficacy
  • apologize for being complicit in the human rights violation that was the banning of Americans to visit their dying loved ones in the hospital for most of the pandemic

Those are all fine actions, but they’re inadequate by themselves and mostly empty chit-chat: they do nothing to force the CDC to follow actual science and not the science rumor of the day. They do nothing to make the CDC be transparent about the science they claim to be following by publishing the raw data underlying CDC claims and “recommendations” and identifying the sources of those data and the researcher(s) and research institution(s) that collected those data.

In the end, though, such steps are for the CDC’s personnel replacements to take, after the incumbents have been terminated, from Walensky on down. Neither she nor hers can be trusted to do anything substantive in the way of corrective action.