Who better than a man who watched his home burn to use a metaphor of home ownership to expose the long-term strategy of the hard left torching our love of country.
Anyone paying even scant attention to how the hard left talks about America specifically or the West generally will easily pick up on a pattern. Every flaw is magnified, and every accomplishment or virtue will be downplayed or included with an asterisk. Even Obama famously responded to claims of American exceptionalism by saying America is just another nation like all others that believes itself exceptional… and, in other contexts went out of his way to discredit the American risk-taking adventurist and pioneering spirit that led to so many advances in a dismissive ‘you didn’t build that’.
Actually, they did. Just like Booker T. Washington built Tuskageege University. It was his ambition and efforts that drew others into his project, but it was, ultimately, his project, for which he should be properly credited.
The chipping away at history and love of country is a central idea in Spencer Pratt’s reply to everything Mamdani said from behind Washington’s desk in what should surprise nobody as being one of the least patriotic Independence Day speeches ever given by one of America’s most prominent elected Executives.
With the trailer on the land where his own home once stood as the poignant backdrop to the point he was about to make, Pratt was NOT taking that braadside against everything he loved sitting down.
God Bless America pic.twitter.com/RNwbNIGhCs
— Spencer Pratt (@spencerpratt) July 4, 2026
The right should pay attention to the critical point about history and patriotism he’s making. Because it’s at the heart of the left’s strategy to demoralize those who would love and defend America.
The revolutionary left wants to ‘fundamentally transform’ America, which is radically different (pun not intended) from incremental changes that conservatives would make. Said differently, they want to burn it down and build their vision in its place. America and those who still love it are an impediment to that vision.
Their strategy has two phases:
Step one: undercut the love of history either by removing it or reframing it so that all continuity to what our forefathers believed, remembered, or stood for is either chipped away or poisoned to the point that anything we once saw as good and noble is now seen as corrupt and contemptible.
Step Two: year zero.
When there is no attachment to history, pieces of it can be swept away. When enough pieces are removed, the objections to putting something antithetical to everything we once knew and loved have nothing on which to stand.
Here are three revolutions that fully adopted and implemented the Year Zero thinking required for a hard break between what was, and the utopian future that must necessarily rise in its place. Note what they have in common.
French Revolution. Reign of Terror. Tens of thousands massacred. Aristocrats and religious leaders singled out for execution. Calendar and week deliberately re-written explicitly to expunge any connection to history, in particular Christianity. Ten-day week was a self-aware rejection of the Genesis account. Many of the changes they tried to implement failed because they were too culturally ingrained. Also, the revolution devoured some of its own leaders. (Many such cases.)
Pol Pot’s Killing Fields. Cambodia, 1975
Mao’s Cultural Revolution. China 1966-76
These are two very different visions of America, and sadly, the correlation is growing between which of these two visions you have, and which party you belong to.
Mamdani’s party is no longer hiding the ball in what they claim. Obama endorsed both Spanberger (the ‘bipartisan moderate’ who hides her extremist intentions until after she holds elected office) and Platner who has openly announced himself a Communist. The DSA is winning Democrat primaries across safe leftwing districts, and their 2012 objective to hijack that party as a vehicle to advance their communist ideals is picking up speed.
Reagan cautioned us that “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for and defended by each generation.”
Will we answer the call to preserve it, or let them chip away at cultural memory until there is nothing left to preserve?
