Recently, I wrote an article for American Thinker titled “Progressives Use Marxist Communication Techniques To Keep Power.” In response, one reader observed, “The key is sustained dissent to Marxist techniques, not retreat.” Another added, “Unwinding the long march through the institutions will require more than laws; it will require a cultural and moral change.” Both comments are true, yet neither breaks new ground nor points to a truth we don’t say out loud often enough—we’re not winning the fight. Even with a president who is fighting back more aggressively than any in memory, progress still feels like three steps forward and two back. A weaker future president will see any gains erased because the underlying dynamics have not been defeated. We either accept that reality or we should acknowledge that we are engaging in delusional thinking.
Three forces explain our frustration and point to what must follow. First, progressives spent decades placing their people in government, media, education, and especially NGOs — their shock troops and tireless hive workers. They function like ticks, embedded and draining the country’s lifeblood. Second, their success depended on America’s wealth. Class asymmetries were exploited to create division, and when that wasn’t enough, new asymmetries were manufactured between ordinary citizens and groups defined as victims — make-believe trans, illegal immigrants, the chronically homeless, criminals, and others — all to reinforce a narrative of structural injustice. Third, they created cultural quicksand for anyone who lacked adequate grounding, with many bereft of the moral clarity one needs to see where this path inevitably leads: the slow destruction of our society and its replacement by a new Marxism dressed up in progressive clothing.
When Protest Became a Pretext:-
Nowhere are these dynamics clearer than in the treatment of those accused of the January 6 demonstrations. Millions have wondered how a protest — or at worst a brief riot — became an existential crisis demanding draconian reprisals. The Biden Justice Department’s response was warlike from the start, with heavyhanded arrests continuing until the day before President Trump was inaugurated. More than 1,500 people were charged, the largest criminal dragnet in American history, compared to roughly 90 federal cases after the far more destructive 2020 riots. The median J6 sentence was about 60 days. Yet, more than 540 defendants received incarceration, including many given long prison sentences for nonviolent offenses such as obstruction or even “parading,” a misdemeanor historically punished with fines or probation.
Although more than two dozen federal judges handled J6 cases, the harshest punishments came from a small cluster of D.C. judges. DOJ data show that while the median sentence might have been only two months, the longest terms — often five to twenty years — came from the same few courtrooms that handled the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leadership trials. Judges Amit Mehta, Timothy Kelly, and Royce Lamberth stand out not only for imposing the stiffest sentences but also for appearing prominently in high-profile rulings against Donald Trump or his administration. When their sentencing patterns are viewed alongside their broader judicial records, it becomes difficult to dismiss the possibility that political hostility, rather than neutral legal reasoning, guided their approach. This became clearer as higher courts began narrowing key charges and reducing or even reversing several sentences, forcing revisions to some of the harshest rulings.
The FBI’s Show of Force:-
The Justice Department’s tactics reinforce that concern. Predawn SWATstyle raids were used even for trespassing cases, and the FBI deployed more than 600 agents — an intensity normally reserved for organized crime or terrorism and more than the FBI fielded at that time for any other investigation—this was demonstratably the FBI and Justice Department’s highest priority. Disproportionate charges, sentencing enhancements typically used for violent felonies, and the sheer manpower involved reveal a strategy aimed not at justice but at crushing the MAGA movement. Early charges were mostly for disorderly conduct and unlawful entry, including people who never entered the building. Among them were 211 women and at least 200 people over 60 — hardly the demographic of insurrectionists. Dozens were held for months, some for over a year, in isolation.
The disparity becomes even clearer when compared to the 2020 riots. By early 2024, more than 540 J6 defendants had received incarceration, while the vast majority of 2020 riot cases resulted in probation, deferred prosecution, or short jail terms despite widespread arson, looting, and hundreds of injured officers. Several high-profile arsonists received sentences of fewer than three years. Even in misdemeanor cases, the contrast is stark: J6 “parading” defendants routinely received jail time, while 2020 rioters almost always received probation.
Friends on the left insisted to me that January 6 was an assault on democracy requiring the harshest consequences. However, the 2020 riots caused 25 to 30 deaths and $1–2 billion in damage — the most expensive period of civil disorder in modern U.S. insurance history — with more than 2,000 officers injured by bricks, frozen water bottles, fireworks, and incendiary devices. By contrast, the total economic damage attributed to January 6 was less than $3 million, including broken windows, damaged furniture, stolen equipment, cleanup costs, and even police overtime, and it was over in hours. Against that backdrop, it becomes increasingly difficult to view January 6 as the uniquely catastrophic event its critics claim; it looks far more like a political pretext to clamp down on Trump supporters and put them in their place.
Conclusion:-
In the end, none of this will change unless we accept that progressives gained ground not because they were right, but because they were relentless — and we were not. They pushed, and we yielded. They advanced, and we hoped the storm would pass. But the lesson of the past decade, and especially of January 6, is that retreat only invites more aggression. If the other side is willing to use institutions, courts, the media, and cultural pressure to cement its power, then the only answer for our side is ever more pushback, not retreat or the belief that better avenues are open to us. We cannot wait for a single president to undo decades of losing the narrative. We cannot assume that laws alone will unwind a movement rooted in culture, bureaucracy, and moral confusion. What we can do — what we must do — is stand our ground, refuse to be intimidated, and push back with the same persistence and moral clarity the left has used against us. Anything less guarantees that the next wave will be worse than the last.
God Bless America!
Allan J. Feifer—Patriot
Author, Businessman, Thinker, and Strategist. Read more about Allan, his background, and his ideas to create a better tomorrow at www.1plus1equals2.com. Read additional great writers here.
Recent Comments