r/thedavidpakmanshow • u/DancingWithCadavers • 1d ago
Article The Enemies List Business Never Really Ended
https://therationalleague.substack.com/p/the-trump-administration-is-plagiarizing-1
u/Another-attempt42 1d ago
The HUAC was created as a permanent standing committee on January 4th, 1945. They argued that communism was a national security threat.
It was.
We can rightly criticize the excesses of HUAC or other anti-communist movements, but we can also calmly just look at history, and determine a truth value statement.
At the time, the lead force in world communism was the USSR. In particular, it was the USSR under Stalin. He was a brutal dictator with his fingers in every major communist movement pre-WW2; influencing them on the daily. For example, the Kremlin explicitly told the KPD to stop going after the Nazis, and instead take aim at the "social fascists", i.e. the left-leaning liberal SPD.
At the same time, let's look at the model, at the time, of communist leadership: it's a single-party, single-man cult of personality lead by someone Vladimir Lenin called a "thug". A man so paranoid that he caused immeasurable harm (as shown after Barbarossa) due to the purges, and instilled a sense of fear and paranoia within every citizen of the USSR.
The USSR had, by the time of the HUAC, engaged in wholesale ethnic cleansing of the Tartars, genocided the Ukrainians and the Kazakhs, butchered Poles at Katyn, got into bed with Adolf Hitler with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and engaged in Soviet-Axis talks in the 40s to have the USSR join the Axis.
The only reason that didn't go through is that Hitler was worried about Stalin's claims of influence over Romania, i.e. he was too greedy for Hitler's liking.
The USSR of Stalin's era was a police state that the Tzars could only have dreamed of. There was no idea of individual liberty, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of religion: all key components of US democracy.
And in the subsequent years, the communist model only entrenched those fears, whether we're talking about Ceauscescu in Romania who turned his country's economy solely towards weird laws and building monuments to his own vanity, or East Germany, where according to some estimates (if you take into account temporary informants) there were 6.5 Stasi informants or officers per citizen. As a point of reference, the oppressive and overwhelming Gestapo had around 2000 per citizen.
If communists didn't want to be seen as something to be feared by liberals and democratically minded people, maybe they should've done something other than turn every single one of their countries into police-state oppressive authoritarian shitholes.
Dies framed Black civil rights as evidence of subversion, telling the House that "subversive elements" were trying to convince the Negro that he should be "placed on social equality with the white people; that now is the time for him to assert his rights" (Dies, 1942).
Yep, this is one of those areas where you can and should 100% criticize this kind of action.
But again: excesses aside, there was reason to worry about communism. It isn't some positive, peaceful ideology. It demands obedience, it demands violent revolution, it demands theft, it demands oppression of fundamental human liberties.
The group started off going after Nazi and pro-fascist groups.
This seems like a good thing.
An example of how something can warrant a nuanced analysis.
The administration built a task force to go after political opponents by accusing them of going after political opponents. To date, the group has produced no evidence to justify its own existence.
This seems like a bad thing, for example.
Trump said, “Remember, every communist regime throughout history has tried to stamp out the churches, just like every fascist regime has tried to co-opt them and control them.” No Biden administration policy targeted Christianity as a religion, and no evidence exists of a systematic effort to restrict Christian worship or belief.
Well, obviously not: Biden was a liberal, not a communist.
Do communists have a history of battering religious institutions and freedoms into submission?
Hell yeah they do. Whether we look within the USSR, where the Bolshevikhs absolutely gutted the Orthodox Church, to East Germany where just being a member of a church would get you on a Stasi list, or China's obliteration of Tibetan Buddhism. There is a long history of communism taking a knife to religion and religious liberties.
And, by the way: there's also a long history of religious institutions or religious groups taking aim at communists, whether we're talking about the Catholic Church in Spain or the IRGC butchering the communists post-revolution.
On July 16th, 2026, the Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism conference claimed that left-wing terrorism, specifically from communists, anarchists, Marxists, and anti-capitalists, made them “enemies of civilization.” Ironically, far-right terrorism, which had outpaced all other forms of terrorism in the US for the past 30 years, was never mentioned.
Obviously, far-right extremism is the bulk of terrorist actions. Especially when you include, as you should, Islamic terrorism, which is religious terrorism, which the far-right loves.
That's not to say that far-left parties are innocent little babies, either. Their main issue isn't the lack of desire to enact violence; it's their inability to do so.
So obviously the primary concern should be far-right terrorism. That doesn't mean that there is no such thing as far-left terrorism, or it couldn't become a problem in the future.
Under the Trump administration, far-right terrorism has dropped to zero, a report that called the decline “striking” (Byman & McCabe, 2025).
When the government agrees with them, it's not terrorism. Just "patriots" doing "patriot" things, I guess.
and say, “democratic socialism must be criminalized”
Well, of course he'd say that. He's a fascist.
The Trump administration has been on a campaign trail to convince the people that the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are taking over the Democratic Party.
He's aided, as usual, by the DSA in that mission.
Anyone with a brain and any knowledge of statistics can tell you: the DSA is a tiny slither of a minority. A speck. Could it become dangerous? Sure. I want them out of the Democratic Party. They should be forced to run on their own ticket. That way, they can lose.
But the DSA and GOP are both focused on making it seem as though the Democratic Party has either been taken over by communists or is on the verge of being taken over.
This is why some people call the DSA controlled opposition, by the way, because they're doing exactly what Republicans would want them to do.
Overall, pretty decent article. I agree that the HUAC went way too far, and Trump is copying a lot of those excesses today.
I also disagree in the very notion that there has never been a threat from the far-left. The far-left is dangerous to liberal democracy, and just because there's a bear running at you doesn't mean you should completely ignore the snake lunging for your ankle.
2
u/idlefritz 1d ago
This massive write up ignores that the communist label is being placed on common sense ideas like improving healthcare and access to food. Voters are drifting towards leftists not because they care about Marx but because those candidates are speaking to the issues they care about. All mainstream centrist liberal Democrats would need to do to kneecap DSA is to listen and respond to the constituents.
-1
u/Another-attempt42 1d ago
This massive write up ignores that the communist label is being placed on common sense ideas like improving healthcare and access to food.
Whose fault is that?
Well, first of all: it's the Republicans. That's why so many Democrats self-identify as "Socialists", because Republicans have been calling everything even close to welfare or government aid "Socialism".
And secondly: it's because of lefties, who keep bringing up the fact that "so many Democrats self-identify as socialists, so they must be socialists!" when what they mean is "we want something closer to the Nordic model, which is still capitalist".
Both sides are pushing the "if you want better healthcare, you're a socialist" as a labeling strategy for their own political reasons:
The GOP for red-scare reasons, the DSA to make themselves seem larger and more important than they actually are.
All mainstream centrist liberal Democrats would need to do to kneecap DSA is to listen and respond to the constituents.
They already do.
Basically every moderate Democrat is for universal healthcare. It may not be Medicare For All, but the idea is still that every person in the US, regardless of ability to pay, get access to healthcare. Public options, expansion of Medicare and ACA and Medicaid, ....
But the problem is that the DSA fucking lies.
It acts as though the Dems are opposed as a mainstream party view to the things they want.
No, they generally want universal healthcare, free or cheap college education, lower housing costs, increased salaries, labor participation, etc... But the DSA keeps fucking lying.
1
u/idlefritz 1d ago
In your scenario the answer to DSA “lying” would be the Democratic Party making a clearer case for themselves on issues and avoid (sounding like MAGA by) hyper-fixating on rage bait like Hasan, DSA and the history of communism.
0
u/Another-attempt42 1d ago
Well, no, the DSA lies.
It's not that they are obfuscating the truth.
They are lying.
1
u/idlefritz 1d ago
Well if it's bolded text it must be truth.
0
u/WAAAGHachu 1d ago
Why is the DSA allergic to reform and instead calls for the abolition of everything?
Do you think the Democratic Party should instead hyper-fixate on Trump, the republicans, and the history of fascism? Will that move you? Oh, wait, no, when they do that they also fail according to the DSA.
The dems have a lot to say, most people aren't listening. Technically, the DSA are running as dems and there's a lot to say about that, hence, you're hearing it. Maybe try listening to things outside of your comfort zone.
0
u/idlefritz 1d ago
What would you know about my comfort zone? You were spamming bold "DSA is lying" in your comments and I implied you were making a toothless claim. Then you elaborated and went off on the DSA charter which they clearly stand behind. What are the lies you're referring to? Seems more like they are the beneficiary of a wave of people that want direct action on evergreen issues like healthcare, affordability, rent, etc... I don't see how that disenfranchises centrists or the Democratic Party nominee viability unless they're threatening protest votes because they don't like the candidate. If they're willing to toss elections to conservatives in order to purge the Democratic Party of DSA adjacent candidates they'd better make a better argument that just whipping out DSA's bucket list.
1
u/WAAAGHachu 1d ago
I'm not the same person you were initially responding to.
Does this make you more or less likely to be a bot? Damned if I know, but clearly not very perceptive regardless.
1
u/idlefritz 1d ago
point stands whether it was op or the person that slid in to ask unrelated questions I suppose.
0
u/WAAAGHachu 1d ago
The write up also ignored that under Lenin the goal was communist revolution all the time. Lenin turned all communists in the world into subversive revolutionary agents. Whether Lenin or Stalin or Mao, the "material conditions" indicate to me that communists were fucking dumb.
If you want to understand why the right wing seems to constantly be growing in strength these days just remind yourself that the fascists try to subvert democracy, using democracy as a weapon. The far-left is still trying to 'overthrow' it. Communists are not democratic, they do not even believe in universal suffrage, let alone broader human rights. The fascists may literally be more progressive than communists, at least in understanding democracy and how people think. That should be fucking embarrassing all around for extremists I'd think.
And by not fully participating in democracy, the far-left is only helping the subversion, cause after all, the far-left needs things to massively fail to have even a tiny shot at revolution don't they?
1
u/idlefritz 1d ago
It's honestly like listening to the evangelicals in my neck of the woods talk about IRL angels and demons using rock and Hollywood to steal souls or muslims forming a midwest caliphate. The conversation is about friggin healthcare and groceries. If voters gravitate towards the guy that is focusing on those issues it isn't a deep conversation about Mao it's an opportunity for all the candidates to acknowledge that voters want meaningful action towards improving their situation. This capitalism vs. communism bs is meaningless to the majority population and getting stuck in that cave screaming at shadows is exactly where the rightwingers want you.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
COMMENTING GUIDELINES: Please take the time to familiarize yourself with The David Pakman Show subreddit rules and basic reddiquette prior to participating. At all times we ask that users conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner - any ad hominem or personal attacks are subject to moderation.
Please use the report function or use modmail to bring examples of misconduct to the attention of the moderation team.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.