Irony of ironies.
The International Red Cross is a leftist outfit that does some good work while taking absolutely kooky positions on politics. So when the charity organization wants an international investigation into the question of whether six hundred million online gamers are “war criminals,” one’s eyebrows are likely to jump a few feet. And then when one finds out who is leading the investigation, the International Red Cross, one’s likely to respond, “Oh, those mother*******.”
World of Warcraft, Call of Duty 4, and Assassin’s Creed are huge online gaming experiences that suck in numerous teenagers into a life of massive Cheetos eating and Sunny D consumption. No one knows the psychic scars that may be left from moving pixel characters blowing up other moving pixel characters.
But relax, gamers. Although the Red Cross doesn’t want to bring you
stoners gamers into The Hague for questioning, yet, they’ve gotten in touch with gaming companies/virtual war simulators to make sure that your make-believe violence isn’t quite so…violent. So if in the future, your gun turns into a carrot-spewing pink bunny rabbit while you’re playing Gears of War 3, you’ll know why.
But who knows? Maybe if the Red Cross people get their way, the make-believe violence won’t be quite so “make-believe” in the future.
Just like online porn probably leads to a decline in sexual assaults, online war gaming may help lead to a decline in real violence. If for no other reason than getting off the couch is really, really tiring.
Yet the social engineers at places like Iowa State University argue that video games actually lead to increasing violence. Penn & Teller’s Bullshit! on video game violence goes over the pros and cons:
The most glaring flaw in claims that violent virtual reality war games lead to an increase in actual reality violence is that so many people play violent video games. If six hundred million people play these games, then the odds are pretty good if you find a young adult who has shot someone, he’s played violent video games.
Drawing the conclusion that this means the video game caused the violence would be like saying smoking cigarettes causes people to smoke crack: a lot of crack users have smoked cigarettes, but there are a lot of cigarette smokers that don’t smoke crack. They call such an error in statistics as “sampling on the dependent variable,” in this case, crack users. In the violent video games’ case, the dependent variable population would be those young adults who commit violent crimes.
But let’s get beyond the statistics mumbo-jumbo and cut to the chase. Online games are not only fun, they train our next generation of military warriors to blast stone age peoples back to the paleolithic era by pressing sequences of buttons rather than hunting them down with hunting knives just to make it fair. And that’s something all of us should be able to get behind.
One of the chief complaints of left-wing commentators and modern day revisionist historians is that free market capitalism leads inexorably to the formation of monopolies, or cartels that exert monopolistic control over some good or sector of the economy. As often is the case, there is an underlying current of socialist critique within such half-baked assertions, which omit the role of the state in the rise of various monopolies.
Overlooking for a moment the erroneous criticism of free market capitalism, we should see instead that socialism’s manifest drive is to deliver monopoly control – over society, economy, and government – into the hands of a vanguard of socialist intellectuals. For reasons dealing with human nature, socialists who acquire such power never peaceably or willingly cede it back to the people ever again.
Socialists often pose as anarchists or anti-establishment types, but very few intellectuals above the ranks of self-deluded street agitator actually believe in anarchism. The irony of OccupyWall Street activists donning “V is for Vendetta” masks and displaying various anarchist signs while imploring the government for more free healthcare, education, and retirement benefits simply asks too much of the sane, rational person to take seriously. Rather, what motivates real socialists, the theoreticians and masterminds (Drummond Pike, Maurice Strong, and George Soros, to name a few), is wresting away control of the economy from businesses, and the individuals whose demand fuels them.
When socialists demand that capitalism be abolished, and by extension, individualism and competition done away with, what they really are arguing for is complete domination. There must be uniformity of ideology, a single party hierarchy, subservience of the self to the “cause,” in order for socialism to “work.” In other words the state must have a monopoly, not only of legitimate coercion, but of all legitimate human activities, period.
Under socialism, people must obliterate what it means to be human and to willingly become pawns of the central planners. This is the reality, and not some children’s fantasy story that everyone would live spontaneously and freely, and chocolate milk would flow down Big Rock Candy Mountain without any duties or obligations to the collectivist state.
One example often cited by socialists as proof of supposed capitalists’ drive to break organized labor is National Socialist Germany. Instead, the Nazis were against free market capitalism and instead sought a monopoly on labor, just as the Communists of the Soviet Union accomplished.
“A Socialist Workers’ Government has achieved a workers revolution in Germany without resorting to, tho in some respects it approximates, Communism. Adolf Hitler has done it by wiping out all class privileges and class distinction, but the economics foundation of property rights and private capital has been left almost intact – for the present time.”
“The Third Reich, under Hitler, has wiped out corporate trade-unionism by forcing all workers to join one great government union, the National Socialist Union of Employers and Workers…”
National Socialists were against unions, plural, but were for one all-encompassing German workers union. And what would be the international socialists’ counter-argument? That they are instead for competition in labor? That they are for competition in the economy at all? The foreseeable counter-argument doesn’t wash, defeated by the socialists’ ideological raison d’etre of “unity.” [Continued on Freedom Beacon]
We are living in revolutionary times. Mass unrest is leading Americans to question everything, and shockingly for leftist radicals who have been infiltrating and corroding the system from within since the 1960s, all of their duplicitous work and agitation may yet turn out to be for naught. Can you imagine the discipline, the hardwork , the dedication, not to mention the suppressed rage, that it would take to embed a Gramscian leftwing movement into the schools, the universities, the courts, the news and entertainment industry over the course of decades, and when the moment of truth comes, the big economic crisis everyone has been waiting for – for well over half the country reject socialism to your face? Cognitive dissonance would strike with a vengeance.
So can you imagine the chagrin of radical activists everywhere when Herman Cain, a very black man, becomes the anointed leader of the despised tea party after two years of “tea party = racist” memes broadcast 24/7 on cable outlets and posted on radical websites? The left’s problematique would lead to increasing desperation and ever more tragic-comic displays of Orwellian doublethink to explain just how that might come to be. [Continued on Political Crush]
Reading Bruce Caldwell’s introduction to by F.A. Hayek, I stumbled upon some astonishing background material. I have to say up front that I’ve never seen the utility of Marxism and I have always regarded it as the fetish of a mentally ill collective. There are elements of scientistic thinking in Marxism that is blended with pure utopian tripe. However, it never ceases to baffle me how academics are fascinated by this twisted, insane philosophy. The fact that Marx was a deadbeat kleptoparasite who set out to foster a world revolution a priori to constructing his destructive philosophical system should have been some warning to his acolytes that they might be being led down the primrose garden path to collective hell. : Texts and Documents
Caldwell provides some quotes from the Labour Party’s 1942 statement of the post-war order, “The Old World and New Society.” The two most telling: “A planned society must replace the competitive system” and “The basis for our democracy must be planned production for community use” (12). Then he gives a quote from Barbara Wooten from her review on a Marxist work that brings many things into focus: “The whole approach to social and political questions is still pre-scientific. Until we have removed tribal magic in favour of the detached and relentless accuracy characteristic of science the unconquered social environment will continue to make useless and dangerous our astonishing conquest of the material environment.”
First, Wooten does not say that Marxism is “scientific.” However, the Marxist work she read appears to have elicited a response that pines for a more scientific means of organizing society. Second, she appears to be alleging that the approximate anti-thesis of Marxism, namely capitalism, is beset by elements of “tribal magic.” Third, she writes explicitly (and disturbingly) of conquering the “social environment.” Lastly, she implies that we have already conquered the material environment.
It may appear a belated rebuttal to Ms. Wooten to object to her characterization of science, and by implication, Marxism and capitalism, but there are many reasons to do so. I see residue of Wooten-like thinking throughout the “social scientific” ranks. From overt Marxist professors to burgeoning young technocrats it is deeply embedded in the manner of thinking of our academic, bureaucratic and political leadership. There are several myths that cling hard to the minds of these “social scientists” and it would be counter-productive to address them all here, but one of the greatest myths is the idea that capitalism is exploitative.
In several senses this insinuation towards capitalism is perverse, but I want to focus on a single comparative aspect: man’s relationship to the natural environment (in the non-reified sense).
Marxists make hay of the idea that capitalism rests on Judaeo-Christian principles because they both promote an exploitative relationship of man to the earth. This is patently false.
Capitalism intrinsically recognizes the delicate balance of man’s relationship to nature with the principles of free pricing, scarcity and supply and demand. When given the opportunity to function unobstructed by Marxists and government technocrats, these natural laws inherent to the market provide signals that let people know when natural resources are getting scarcer.
Gambling operations like futures trading and derivatives are not inherent to a market, which is merely a system resting on the free exchange of goods and services for capital. The relationship of futures trading and derivatives to pricing is a separate issue that will not be discussed at length here.
In contrast to capitalism, it is the non-system of Marxism-in-practice (which ultimately rests on the unquestioned arbitrary authority of a Leninist party) that does not recognize scarcity as a fundamental organizing principle, abhors free pricing and thus leads to the technocracy’s poor, underinformed assessment of supply and demand (such as with the “Great Leap Forward”), and fosters a non-humanistic point of view that justifies brazen, ultimately exploitative behavior towards man and nature.
The pseudo-scientific worldview of Marxists is profoundly unscientific in that it leaves no room for skepticism or reality-checking. Their worldview promotes government policies that are disastrous, both intentionally and unintentionally.
It is no accident that governments that derive their legitimacy from Marxism commit the greatest atrocities against human beings and engage in completely unchecked exploitation of man and the natural environment.
President Obama has done more to damage the United States than any other president in American history. This is not hate-speech, this is hate-fact.
- What do you call it when a man is elected with no serious media investigation of his background and immediately begins grabbing power under the guise of a ‘crisis’?
- What do you call it when the government ignores the Constitution and rules arbitrarily?
- What do you call it when the government seizes the assets of the public and claims that it was necessary for our own good?
- What do you call it when the politicians are so corrupt they refuse to be held accountable for their actions precipitating the ‘crisis’ and instead blame the free market, in other words, us?
- What do you call it when the economy is so degraded that the country goes from one of the most free and prosperous to a de facto state of bankruptcy (more debt than net worth)?
- What do you call it when the central bank destroys the currency through a process of perpetual inflation?
- What do you call rampant bank and firm nationalizations, cries for more ‘regulations’ and blatant anti-capitalist behavior?
Some call it “conspiracy.” Let there be no doubt, this conspiracy is out in the open.
For years the liberals in education, the media, the courts, and the government have been prepping for The Big Payback. No longer would millionaire businessmen prosper by providing products that the people want and the means for people to build them. Oh no. Those days are over. “Thanks for the memories, but we, the experts, will be taking over now,” they say.
Only a blind believer in hope and change as intrinsic values could find the departure from limited government an exciting and innovative voyage. If you got to page fifty in any world history book from the early 1950s, that idea would be immediately abandoned. Why it seems a novel and noble experiment to the younger generations is the direct result of radical bromides perpetuated in our schools and universities for decades.
These bromides are not the ramblings of an Alinsky or Gramsci, but they directly buttress their radical programs. “Always share,” “there is no right and wrong,” “we are all winners,” “it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game,” “can’t we all just get along?”
Yes we can!
The ivory tower intellectuals who have benefited from capitalism for decades while relentlessly railing against it are in for some shock and surprise. When a government attempts to impose socialism on a people by force, they usually begin with imprisoning or executing socialist intellectuals. You don’t want the useful idiots alerting to sheeple as to what the commies are actually up to.
But unfortunately, some people never will learn until it is too late. So for now, file this under “I” for “I told you so, idiot.” It will be the only sliver of satisfaction I get when the clueless lefties get what they are clamoring for.
No less than ‘world government’ is the goal of leftists and their corporatist allies, who are working together to break down all barriers to a global oligarchy that presides over the fate of mankind. The tactics of the leftists and the corporatists are not at odds with one another, but are actually complementary: they are a tandem grinding up all resistance to omnipotent government.
Under the rubric of “global governance,” several agendas hostile to human freedom are being implemented. A veneer of altruism and human rights, which are always collective rights and never individual rights, masks a longer-term view to consolidate as much power as possible in the hands of relatively few dominant world bodies.
This point of view may be dismissed by realists schooled in such texts as The Peloponnesian War and The Federalist Papers, who believe that self-interest and state-centric designs on power trump and irreparably frustrate any such collectivist aims. But it is my view that a fundamental change in international relations has occurred since the advent of The Cold War: the presence of Mutually Assured Destruction among great powers has led to what John Lewis Gaddis termed a “long peace” marked by relatively low-level war and the absence of great power or world war.
Counter-intuitively, the reduction of tensions after a prolonged period of nuclear stand-off, and the coming to grips of powers with the reality of a nuclear-armed world has led to two associated phenomena: the proliferation of state subversion as an alternative to direct military conflict among great powers, led at the forefront decades ago by the KGB and followed by the Chinese and now, the Islamists; and the building up of “global governance” institutions, which are employed to undermine the self-interest of targets and redirect power towards aspiring oligarchs using ideological manipulation and mass communications.
The resulting chaos of manipulation by the power elite has an intrinsic logic to it, once one can get beyond the media haze of temporal fetishism and non-analysis to grasp the historical pattern. Leftists manipulate and assault societies, leading them to self-immolation through cultural and moral relativism, and denature capitalist economies using the welfare state apparatus. Corporatists amass wealth using central bank fiat and state privilege, notably in the form of ecofascism, waiting in the wings to scoop up the assets of their less well-connected and more illiquid prey, who are are crushed by ever-more-burdensome taxes and regulations after they are duped into unsound expansion prior to monetary-inflationary busts. Welfare statism, democracy, and central banking are vitally connected, as the Obama administration’s recent backlash against the Fed-threatening Rick Perry belies.
An important theoretical backdrop is needed to grasp the significance of recent events that strongly support this outlook. These will be covered for sake of brevity in rapid-fire succession.
The Marxist Immanuel Wallerstein’s World Systems Theory charts the rise of capitalism in the modern world, and holds that there is a “core,” a “semi-core,” a “periphery,” and a “hinterlands” in world economics. This theory is particularly significant in light of influential Harvard professor Thomas Barnett‘s military advice to integrate what he terms the Non-Integrated Gap with the Functioning Core. Barnett’s seemingly pro-capitalist language is given light by notorious global collectivist George Soros‘ stated agenda to utilize such presumably capitalist agencies as the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank to foster trade and economic interdependence.
Furthermore, one should be aware of the obscure writings of verifiably prescient KGB defector Anatoly Golytsyn, who warned of the KGB grand strategy of “universal convergence” in an ultimately world communist regime. The nature of the regime the KGB (basically, now the FSB) safeguarded in the past should give all of us pause; and it would be remiss to not point out that numerous ex-KGB still fill the Kremlin, including “prime minister” Vladimir Putin.
It should be noted here that Marx and Lenin both recognized the necessity of capitalist development and international trade to promote world communism. Quoting Robert Gilpin in War & Change in World Politics:
“Although capitalist economies had an incentive to colonize the world, they also have an incentive to develop it, as Marx and Lenin fully appreciated. […] It was precisely for this reason that nineteenth-century Marxists regarded capitalist imperialism, despite its many crimes, as ultimately progressive and a necessary step to the emancipation of the human race from poverty and millennia of stagnation…” (142)
Gilpin also writes a very apt line that will help synthesize and compress the argument:
“Communist societies do not eliminate the profit motive; rather they put it in the hands of the state (Hawtrey, 1952, p. 149). The desire of a communist political elite to maximize the power and wealth of the state can dwarf the capitalist profit motive.” (ibid., 84)
The leftists and corporatists act akin to a global communist team; and if one is familiar with critical theory, the neomarxist concept of threat diffusion by breaking down one’s political agenda into separate and perhaps even seemingly conflicting agendas and interest groups, this appears to be intended. As of late, several globalist billionaire magnates are the personification of this argument: George Soros, Dominic Strauss-Kahn, (multi-multi-millionaire) Al Gore, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates Marc Zuckerberg – all for one reason or another (including state bullying) toe the radical leftist line. And it should be noted, one way or another, these people tend not to pay “their fair share” of taxes.
The key to the left’s agenda to radically transform the planet into an amoral mess with docile subjects is democracy. Democracy leads to mob warfare among interest groups, and the government benefits from this internal fighting by justifying state arbitration; the government grows its power until societies collapse, and then the police state can intervene and impose its will on an exhausted and compliant people. In tandem with this is economic collapse, ushered in by a central bank that devalues the currency, leading eventually to hyper-inflation, economic crisis, and a people who want the government to “do something” to fix the economy and to put bread on their plate.
Democracy and central banking are thus the vital institutions of the globalist movement. Both should be trenchantly opposed. But it should be noted that “democracy” is always a controlled one wherever the socialists or communists are in power (this includes the false opposition of parties for public consumption); either through mass media manipulation or outright police state intimidation of those whose interests directly clash with the state.
This backdrop should be sufficient to contemplate the significance of the following events, which should now be contextualized:
- Putin sets sights on Eurasian economic union
- Germany, France propose collective ‘government’ for the eurozone led by EU president
- “Arab Spring” is a fraud
- China Environmental Protests a Victory for People Over Party? Not So Fast
- The U.K. Riots And The Coming Global Class War
Stalin is reputed to have said that he would “sell the capitalists the rope which he would use to hang them.” But what if the so-called “capitalists,” having bought the rope, now intend to hang everyone else?
Global Governance Watch – Website and news aggregator on global governance issues.
Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture (European Union: Institute for Security Studies) Theoretical note: A plausible counter-argument that global governance does not lead to world government is made (presumably due to the reality of self-interest, which is not intrinsically an aspect solely inherent in nationalism or capitalism): “The term ‘global governance’ as used in this paper includes all the institutions, regimes, processes, partnerships, and networks that contribute to collective action and problem solving at the international level. This definition subsumes formal and informal arrangements as well as the role of nonstate actors in transnational settings. Regional cooperation may also be regarded as an element of global governance insofar as it contributes to broader efforts. Governance differs from government, which implies sovereign prerogatives and hierarchical authority. Global governance does not equate to world government, which would be virtually impossible for the foreseeable future, if ever.”
Global Governance Project Quote: “The Global Governance Project (Glogov.org) is a joint research programme of thirteen European research institutions that seeks to advance understanding of the new actors, institutions and mechanisms of global governance. […] The Global Governance Project is co-ordinated by the Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM) of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam…”
Global Leadership in Transition (Brookings Institution) Quote: “Global Leadership in Transition calls for innovations that ‘institutionalize’ or consolidate the G20, helping to make it the global economy’s steering committee.”
When the news first broke of a Norwegian mass murder, my first glance at the Oslo assassin Anders Behring Breivik struck me that the man was a throwback to the Baader-Meinhoff gang or some commie retread in the mold of the Red Army Faction. After all, Marxists are second only to Islamists in committing senseless acts of terrorist mass murder, according to coding from the MIPT database.
But lo and behold! – we actually have our ever elusive “right-wing extremist” ready to plug into the media meme that all conservatives are only one FoxNews broadcast away from going on a mindless shooting spree.
If this man wasn’t on the DHS payroll, he should have been. Just last week, Big Sis Napolitano’s rag-tag outfit released a propaganda video instructing our nation’s police forces to keep an eye out for whities sporting hoodies and rucksacks. Not really, but that’s what one would conclude from watching the tacky, telemarketing-seminar-worthy training video DHS released. Gee, Sis, that pretty much narrows down our nation’s terrorist training grounds to any college campus in the nation.
What’s in the backpack, Chip? More Locke and Burke? Roger that, we caught the unsub red-handed – transporting unapproved terrorist materials!
While the VHS, oops, DHS video was only slightly less insulting than the crayon-scrawled screed the goons issued on “right-wing extremists” – basically any returning veteran, patriot, Paulitanarian, kid smuggling a copy of The Constitution in a Hustler magazine – the two share one thing in common: Labeling all opposition to the left as “right wing.”
Smearing all opposition to socialism as one monolithic block called “right-wing” is a battle-weary tactic going back to the former Stalinist era, when Uncle Joe set up a false opposition between socialism and fascism. As Jonah Goldberg points out in Liberal Fascism, both the INGSocs and the fascists competed for the same proletarian hearts and minds: the former, manifestly nationalist, the latter, internationalist. Same collectivist scumbags, same ambition of forcing everyone into servitude to the state. Only the means varied.
Little-discussed is that American conservatism is a third way, and not associated with either bloodthirsty ideology. It is the way of individual freedom and liberty from oppressive government. It is the ideology of “leave me the hell alone!”
But what ties together American conservatives and truly right-wing nationalists in the unnuanced minds of the left is opposition to socialism. While both conservatives and nationalists are against cultural marxism or multiculturalism, Islamic jihad, and other ideologies hostile to Western Civilization, American conservatives are for restraining government, while nationalists are for collectivist unification and empowering government. American conservatism is ideologically grounded, while nationalism is reactionary.
The problem with this picture is that the left is intentionally provoking reaction with its classic pushiness and government overreach. There literally are no bounds to leftism as a “freedom-clearing” destructive force, and cultural marxism has worn down its resistors with political correctness, multiculturalism, and moral relativism. Cultural marxism has caused two interrelated phenomena to occur and both are explosive.
First, cultural marxists have used the power of media to ridicule, bully, and culturally isolate conservatives. Political correctness has created an environment in which both leftists and conservatives are prone to extreme outburts: the left from its fetishism for acceptance, and the right from its insistence on judgment, including an unwillingness to accept those who seek to destroy them. Conservatives crave pushback on the nihilistic and self-immolatory policies of the left, and when none are forthcoming, a desperate sense of helplessness can ensue. Under the wrong conditions, such as extended unemployment and events leading to personal loss, a psychotic break from reality could potentially occur.
A “lone wolf” like Anders Breivik or Ted Kaczynski could be driven to commit pointless acts of terror accompanied with egomaniacal emancipatory messages. These people may indeed fancy themselves as martyrs for a cause, but in the end, their initiation of force against innocents makes them mass murderers. Jared Loughner can be added to this “lone wolf” profile, although the texts that fed his egomania were predominately of the left-wing persuasion. The message, therefore, is incidental to the act; just as Loughner’s targeting of a Democrat Congresswoman was unrelated to his views, Ted Kaczynski’s use of random bombings was unrelated to his views, and “Islamophobia” was unrelated to Breivik’s attack, as indeed no Muslims were among the victims.
We can conclude therefore, that associating an ideology with an act of terror such as Loughner’s or Breivik’s is spurious at best, malicious at worst. Repeatedly, the media seize on any act of violence to try to paint the perpetrator as “right wing” – from the attack on an IRS building in Texas, to the despicable association of Palin with Jared Loughner, to Breivik’s association with American “right-wing” conservatives.
What is the left-wing blogosphere’s reaction to Breivik’s manifesto, which condemns cultural marxism and Islam? Ruffled feathers in Ostrichotopia, and pitiful attempts to paint authors like Mark Steyn, who warn of the impending Islamapocalypse, as fear-mongers and hate merchants.
This bring us to the second phenomenon caused by political correctness. The lack of principled conservatism in mainstream American culture, or nationalism in Europe, has left the gates open for the Islamist trojan horse. If one has been so blinded by multiculti nonsense that one sees sharia as compatible with a free society, there is really no reason to press this point. Doing so would only strain the patience of the sane reader.
There is literally no way to get through to the left, because to the depraved mind, all facts and reason are hateful. That a hateful mind can intersperse facts in a murderous manifesto is even more reason to indict the facts, so it goes in the minds of the left.
It is only a matter of time when not only physical weapons, but mental weapons are outlawed. The two are equivalent in the cultural marxist view, which sees open war as simply politics by other means. Shooting down the false premises and promises of leftists is equivalent to shooting down innocent women and children on a grassy field. In the lefties’ flight of fancy, reality does appear like mental violence.
The sad thing about this event, in addition to the catastrophic loss of life, is that the left will continue to associate all opposition to systematic terror like political Islam and socialism with hateful acts of rage, such as Breivik displayed. Not indeed, that anything could ever wake those daydream believers up.
The ultimate point is that wishing for a better world where people aren’t pushed around by the state or by leftist nannies or by Islamist mass murderers is not crazy. Descending into a world of esoteric nonsense and becoming a mass murderer yourself, is.
Part of the communists’ plan for subverting the country is to remove loyalty oaths and other expressions of patriotism from the public sphere. One could probably point to all of our nation’s serious troubles, show how each problem relates in some way to communist subversion, and document it, but instead I will provide some sources for the reader to put the pieces together himself.
Online resources for assessing how far along we are in the communizing of America:
- KGB defector Yevgenni Bezmenov explains role of “active measures” in subverting the U.S. (videos).
- The ten planks of the Communist Manifesto (annotated).
- Communist Goals, House report (1963). [Number 13: “Do away with all loyalty oaths.”]
- The Communist Party’s Cold War Against Congressional Investigation of Subversion, House report (1962).
The last is perhaps the least well-known, and it is appropriate to quote an extended passage here, from the testimony of one Robert Carrillo Ronstadt:
Before the bank can be robbed, the guards must be disposed of.
Before subversive forces within this country can achieve their goal, the country’s internal security instruments and agencies must be destroyed or rendered powerless.
Laws against subversion, the agencies charged with formulating such laws, and those charged with investigating violations of them are integral parts of this country’s internal security guard, a guard which the Communists must destroy before their objective of imposing a Soviet-style dictatorship on this country can be attained.
It is only logical, therefore, that the U.S. Communist Party should do everything in its power to discredit, weaken, and destroy –
(a) the security laws, regulations, and programs of this country;
(b) congressional committees created to investigate subversive activities for the purpose of formulating legislation designed to frustrate its efforts; and
(c) The FBI and State and local police subversive squads which have the special mission of obtaining evidence of Communist lawbreaking.
Because the Communist Party knows that, operating under its own name, it cannot win the support of the overwhelming majority of Americans for these or any of its objectives, it uses fronts-false
faces-to promote its aims in this as well as in other areas. The fronts, in turn, use false words to present to the American people a concept, idea, or picture that is the opposite of the truth.
Thus, for example, the names of the fronts will indicate, and their propaganda ,vill assert, that they promote and defend civil liberties, fundamental rights, and the Constitution. Behind this camouflage, however, their immediate aim is the destruction of a certain agency or law designed to protect American liberties, rights, and the Constitution- and their ultimate aim is the imposition of a tyranny which would tear the Constitution to shreds and strip the American people of every liberty and right that flows from observance of it. The party’s fronts use lip service to the principles this Government was created to establish and preserve in order to destroy this Government and those principles.
By any rational assessment, the United States has been penetrated by socialists, communists, radicals, fellow-travelers, and “progressives” hell-bent on destroying the United States as it was founded. How did we get to this point, on the precipice of freedom and full-blown tyranny?
As explained in an earlier post, subversion was the key strategy used by the Soviets to try to bring down the U.S.:
To avoid the impression that this analysis lacks real-world grounding and is just an exercise in sophistry tinged with an unbalanced measure of conspiracy, we can briefly cite what socialists themselves have said in regards to their project of turning America socialist. The influential American socialist Norman Thomas said, “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev famously said, “Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will pour the dirt over your faces” (Нравится вам или нет, но история на нашей стороне. Мы вас закопаем). Stalin himself did not predict the direct overthrow of Capitalism, but rather said, “We will sell the Capitalists the rope with which they will hang themselves.” All of these rather illustrative quotes by well-known Socialist leaders suggest an indirect strategy of subversion, rather than of outright direct conflict.
We may be quickly approaching a red dawn, when freedom-loving Americans will see the ghosts of the founders led to the gallows and hung before their very eyes. The antipathy and outright hostility to The Constitution, to individual rights, even to human life itself, among intellectuals in the journalism, law, education, and entertainment professions is dumbfounding. Between 90%-95% of all those who work in these industries are staunch Democrats, if not “progressives.” Wonder why that is?
It is because the left has conducted a Gramscian “long march” through our cultural, educational, and informational institutions, while Fabian socialists have eroded free market capitalism and placed the economy in the hands of central planners. One side could not bring America to the edge of communism by itself; it took two fronts working in tandem to accomplish this precarious state of affairs. Even more disturbingly, both parties may be cooperating to bring America to the brink of collapse and to usher in some kind of police state; first domestic in nature, and then international.
As the House report (1963) put it: “Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.”
It is impossible at this time to verify if both parties are indeed “captured.” A pattern of behavior by both parties that disturbingly fits the communist template and playbook has emerged, nonetheless. A potentially shared agenda becomes visible once one stops seeing the Democrats and the Republicans as two opposing parties, but rather one party – a Communist party – with respective delegated responsibilities to subvert The Constitution and to impose economic servitude to the state on the American people. The Republicans set themselves up for such speculation with absurdly predictable weak and non-ideologically based opposition despite the preponderance of center-right support for their self-described policies, which never seem to get implemented despite adequate political power. The absurd continuity of many policies of the Bush administration and the “hope and change” Obama administration, from TARP to bailouts to domestic security to wars overseas, clues one in that, at the very least, these parties are not that far apart ideologically. Indeed, in the absence of dogged resistance, the two parties may soon converge somewhere on the socialist-left side of the spectrum.
Why do people tolerate this? Why can’t some people see what is taking place right in front of them?
While economic marxists, or “paleomarxists,” had tremendous difficulty convincing Americans to forsake their freedoms and to adopt socialist slavery, cultural marxists have been more successful adopting a strategy of critical theory. Essentially, cultural marxism sought to replace “capitalist” aka patriotic American culture with godless, amoral or immoral, soft socialistic culture, critical theory is the technique in practice of diffusing threat perception that the country is being subverted. Critical theory seemingly fragments the lockstep marxian movement into several “interest groups” – in practice, race-baiters, homophobia crusaders, male-bashing feminists, Muslim terrorist apologizers – what we see most commonly are “victim” groups who unabashedly attack the white male middle class and justify exploitation, expropriation, and suppression of “class enemies.”
Political correctness is the psychological muzzle intended to keep the real victims from speaking up and coordinating with fellow attacked Americans to take action against their actual oppressors. The stain of white guilt from the forever weeping scar of slavery in America’s past seemingly applies to all whites in perpetuity. Because of the fact of slavery alone, the very notion that a white male middle class person could actually be oppressed by minority groups is indeed laughed off by left-wing media and most academics.
So while opposing the first black president for any policy was once decried as “racist,” white, mentally unstable Debbie Wasserman-Schultz can go on the House floor, call black decorated war hero and Congressman Allen West everything but an Uncle Tom, and the media is automatically on the Democrats’ side. While the American media celebrated the potentially “historic” runs for president of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, there is no such enthusiasm for the potential candidacies of Latino sensation Marco Rubio or former Sarah Palin, both Republicans. And indeed, the candidacy of Michelle Bachmann is already drawing vicious, irrelevant attacks from the left – the exact kind that would draw cries of foul play if it were Hilary Clinton. Sarah Palin’s kids, including mentally challenged Trig, are also fair game in the minds of the media, although Hillary’s daughter Chelsea is “out of bounds.” What is going on here?
Maybe political correctness isn’t really about principle, but about attacking political opposition and then playing the victim when it retaliates? No, couldn’t be.
I encountered a blog post “Global Warming: A Growing Woe” and felt compelled to respond, because the author is obviously well-intentioned, but might benefit as well as I from a vigorous argument regarding the social merits of free-market capitalism. The well-intentioned, intellectually honest left should be engaged on economic matters, but perhaps arguments might be more effective if framed in the social terms they have come to value. At least in this way, the well-intentioned leftist gets an accurate depiction of capitalism that she is free to accept or reject on principle.
The paragraph in question is as follows:
I am also of the opinion that the capitalist system as we know it is long overdue for a makeover. The fact that the living-wage gap (rich vs. poor) is getting larger by the moment, is enough of an indication that all is not well in the land of finances.
While my execution of the blog post is imperfect, perhaps it might give others ideas on how to engage the left. I might have also pointed out The Fed’s malicious effects on capitalist economy, as they tend to the gross accumulation of wealth; this is because the introduction of new money into the economy benefits those with first access to such money, as the capital is worth more before “knowledge” of the money is made felt in the system.
But my general sense from the tone of the whole article is that the author feels that capitalism is an unkind system. So this being said, there are other associated arguments on the beneficial social effects of capitalist systems, beyond the scope of a blog post reply, and even beyond that of an exhaustive essay. Perhaps others might have some suggestions for me that I have missed and which conservatives can draw on in their arguments with the well-intentioned left. (The duplicitous left we will put aside, for now.)
This topic could be the subject of a future blog post, after I have time to research it. (I want to leave aside the obvious Kantian “perpetual peace”-type, internationalist free trade arguments and concentrate on domestic effects.) So the blog reply I have re-posted below, for scrutiny, improvement, or general comment.
I commend you for acknowledging that environmentalists have no real-world solutions capable of fixing “climate change,” manmade or otherwise.
I take friendly issue with your assessment that the ‘capitalist system’ needs a makeover. On the contrary, it is precisely because the market system has been made over through state domination and institutionalized corruption that there are so many flaws in the system.
Just to clarify, I don’t believe free market capitalism is perfect, because I believe no system of human relations is perfect. But the bedrock principle of capitalism, the mutual exchange of value for value, when observed, leads to civility in human affairs, honesty and fairness in economic dealings, and stability in the political system.
The reason free market capitalism leads to civility in human affairs is because, first of all, individuals are respected as individuals. By this I mean, they are not seen as means to an end. By extension, individuals need consent before they engage in labor or give up the fruits of their labor.
While Kant might deride this state of human affairs as “social unsociability,” it is greatly more to be desired for the majority of people than a state of affairs where mobs are being whipped up into unreasonable fervors, which are usually steered by demagogues to achieve the ends of dictators. While the social aesthetic of reasonability, self-control, and ‘calmness’ in human affairs might not satisfy passionate minds who yearn for transcendancy, over reality, perhaps over metaphysical death, the truth is that most men find value in intimate family relations, having a successful and prosperous career, and enjoying modest pleasures.
Secondly, capitalism is an honest form of economy. While it is often argued by the left that work in the capitalist system is tantamount to exploitation of the working class, in fact, the wages for labor are dictated by the market value of someone’s labor. The market thus directs and redirects individuals, in the absence of statist intervention, to pursue employment avenues most valued by other individuals, as demonstrated by the willingness of others to pay for their services. In other words, people are incentivized, but not dictated, by the values of society, as opposed to under socialistic economies, nominally democratic or otherwise, where a cadre of elites determine the economy in accordance with their preferences.
One might ask oneself a question: Under what state-dominated economy has the means of production been used to increase the general happiness of the people by innovating new conveniences on their behalf? On the contrary, statist economies are parasitical on capitalist economies for technological innovations that tangibly improve people’s lives. The modus operandi of statist economies is to preserve the status quo, so that elites are not challenged from below.
Capitalism is predicated on volunteerism, and not on any actual coercion, beyond the coercion of having to work in order to live. Work itself is not coercion, but is as necessary to sustaining human life, as hunting is for any carnivore, or grazing is for any herbivore.
Finally, capitalism, through its reverence for private property, all but dead in present-day America, and esteem for mutual exchange, forestalls tyranny to a ruling class. It is the only known economic system compatible with social spontaneity and freedom of expression. That is hasn’t been observed by the state is the reason for so much instability, and why the economy is such a rancorous issue between both parties. Neither should have control of the economy. We should have control of it, and that necessarily means private property and mutual exchange of value for value.
The murder of Western culture by the left’s secular prophets left a gaping void in the souls of men; one yearning for a worldly master to seize control from the deposed heavenly one. The Unholy Trinity of Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Frederic Nietzsche laid the foundation for the totalitarian state on God’s chalky sepulchre, on whose pyre man erected vast marbled monuments to ego, massive ziggurats down whose steps the blood from human sacrifices would pour.in
The angst of being born into a universe profoundly alone, and the pathos of being consigned to death from one’s conception, led to modern man’s cognitive demand for emancipatory release from the strains and constraints of this world. The palliative sought was found in the demoralizing yet liberating anthem of Nietzsche for man to move “beyond good and evil.”
The disavowal of morality is freedom caved in upon itself; it is the void that results when one rejects God, and then goes one step further, by refusing to acknowledge the individual’s right to live for himself. Self-control becomes an obstacle to elites who seek power outside themselves to fill their spiritual emptiness within. Resultant political madness leads to destabilization, and crisis leads to the cries of the cowering masses for normalization on any terms.
The rationalization of elites who crave power is nonetheless inevitably parsed in the language of good and evil; their proposals are intrinsically good, and those of their opposition are intrinsically evil. This switch from universal objective morality to personal subjective morality is a key to understanding power elites who divorce morality from means and who elevate ends that invariably provide them with more personal arbitrary power over the lives of others.
The great tactician of today’s New Left, Saul Alinsky, was quite Machiavellian in that he called for “radical pragmatists” not to become separated from reality. But it appears to be a truism that serial deceivers on the left who proffer their warped vision of the good as an excuse to use immoral means to attain power for its own sake inevitably wind up believing their own lies.
But if the pragmatism of these radicals in some sense represents the imbuing of amorality into political decision-making, the ideology nonetheless leads to unimaginable immorality when exercised.
If one doesn’t believe in right and wrong, one can commit greater evil than even if one desired to be evil. Why? Because at least with the man who believes in good and evil and rejects the good, there is still the presence of a conscience, and the possibility that he can either see the unnecessary cruelty of his ways or grow weary of them as the emotional gratification or high of inflicting pain on others wears off.
The cold-blooded “radical pragmatists” on the left are fully capable of coolly and pseudo-rationally abusing power in a methodical and relentless matter to break down all opposition to their plans for human domination, including the opposition of humane morality itself. Once morality goes, and more specifically, respect for individual human life, the world can easily become an abattoir.
Foreseeably, due to the inherently totalitarian nature of radical environmentalism, or more fashionably, sustainability, humans could once again become sacrificial fodder for elites’ abstract causes, that is to say, their personal security. The supposed human herd could be thinned through wars, engineered famines, poisonings, sterilizations, or manmade diseases, everything and anything is on the table for the radical pragmatists. And suffice it to say, with our present state of technology, these demented elites’ power base would be great indeed should they somehow consolidate global power.
Fortunately, there are a number of potential flaws in the creation and function of any totalitarian human system that one can draw some hope from:
1) When egomaniacs conspire to dominate the world, the end is the fracturing of the coalition. It comes down typically to the fact that one party will not yield power to another, or for the greater interest of the grand coalition. Mutual distrust reigns and the coalition splits or the parties tear each other apart in a mad scramble for the top.
2) When a complex human system gets more centralized, there is a tendency for there to be more chaos, not less. Lack of information abounds, leading to inefficiencies. While it is true that technology can mitigate some of the problems past centralized regimes experienced, there are still too many variables taking place in real-time for elites to administer a massive polity and maintain control over the long-term. In sum, reality is a bitch.
3) Humans are not infinitely malleable. While in some scenarios they may crave outside control, they are intrinsically driven by biological motives to live one’s own life and to succeed relative to others. Frustration of human desires leads to demoralization, which leads to corruption, economic decay, and collapse in the long run. To quote from Aristotle, “Tyrannies tend to be short-lived.”
These are not overly optimistic claims, but are rather inferred from objective reality and human nature. If elites want to construct a staticof a world, they would have to make human beings static and without motivations of their own. It is no accident that the ancient Greek word for revolution was stasis. If elites think they can avoid stasis through massive waves of propaganda, it is a fact of neuroscience that repetitive agitation leads to desensitization. There is no circumventing the fact that demoralization comes inevitably from the frustration of man’s natural desires, and particularly, his desire for happiness.
Adding complication to the would-be tyrants’ schemes, the global masterminds need to avoid death in order to found and continue any comprehensive regime. Plans beyond the revolutionary stage involve preserving the institution they founded; that is, if they desire it to remain in tact. If the elites choose to have institutional stability by following a singular global despot, there is the danger of intra-organizational tumult during transitions, especially those connected with death. If the elites allow the despot to choose his successor, then the despot may choose a weak one to mitigate threat of assassination.
Personal dynamics of exclusive groups wielding greatthat there is great instability at the top, as the vicissitudes of immoral characters and their interactions are amplified throughout the system, leading to shockwaves and unimaginable consequences.
If the elites opt for an egalitarian power-sharing arrangement, various unspoken coalitions of like-minded individuals will form and shift, and the organization will take on the trappings of high school politics, as petty recriminations and hurt feelings will rule the day, and distract the politicians from effectively ruling the state. Without ample threat from the masses to rise up and overthrow them all, the organization will simply decay into power-struggling coalitions. The world economic order will likewise decay, as the ruling group destroys itself.
Ironically enough, even in the worst totalitarian system, it is the fact of human death that can give subjects the greatest hope. For no set of rulers can live forever, and it is the nature of egomaniacs, particularly sheltered ones, to seek meaning in grandiose plans. This necessarily entails overturning the existing order.
Whether challengers to any totalitarian state would seek to overturn the existing order based on lies, or on eternal truths, is the key question. For one might suppose that elites who have lived within a deceptive ruling class might seek something greater and more glorious for themselves; and that requires founding an order based on truth, human life, and the promotion of happiness.
For who can be happy for long enslaving people who are not grateful for their enslavement? Such a state of affairs where rulers easily preside over perpetually miserable human beings would not only represent a hollow victory over others, one not garnered by merit but by the accident of technological superiority, it would get quite boring.
Immorality can only perpetuate itself for so long before it collapses in on itself; thus sparking the innate drive for the true, the just, and what is conducive to human life and happiness; if only to be contrarian, people would eventually seek to be right.
Today, RogueOperator had the pleasure of chatting up the inimitable Dennis Miller and the iconoclastic James Delingpole, author of Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors. Their chat sesh was preceded by some tete-a-tete with the avuncular Thomas Lifson, editor of American Thinker. Audio of their oh-so-brief time together linked below [3:00-4:00]:
On the advice of a caller to the Dennis Miller Show, I read Walter Russel Mead’s latest blogs on Al Gore. They’re worth a skim. Frankly, I find Mead far too conciliatory as to the green movement’s intentions; but then again, he is perhaps practicing the art of incremental persuasion.
The following is the paragraph I thought particularly apt.
The global green treaty movement to outlaw climate change is the most egregious folly to seize the world’s imagination since the Kellog-Briand Pact outlawed war in the late 1920s. The idea that the nations of the earth could agree on an enforceable treaty mandating deep cuts in their output of all greenhouse gasses is absurd. A global treaty to meet Mr. Gore’s policy goals isn’t a treaty: the changes such a treaty requires are so broad and so sweeping that a GGCT is less a treaty than a constitution for global government. Worse, it is a constitution for a global welfare state with trillions of dollars ultimately sent by the taxpayers of rich countries to governments (however feckless, inept, corrupt or tyrannical) in poor ones.
There is the crux of the issue: the constant apocalyptic fearmongering of the left, proceeding since Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and Paul Erlich’s The Population Bomb, has been going on on for decades now; and despite their prognostications in no wise coming true, and despite the Holocaust-worthy, god-awful effects of such causes as banning DDT and ethanol subsidies, we find the green movement still conveniently driving the statist-globalist agenda of all-powerful control over man’s environment; to wit, everything.
Critical theory is the rubric today’s American leftists employ in order to fracture and subvert the United States. Developed by The Frankfurt School in the 1920s and 1930s, the theory has developed in its practical implementation into a methodology to destroy the ethical bases of capitalism through cultural penetration and transformation.
American socialists experienced stubborn ideological resistance in their early going. Socialist parties failed to gain headway, not for Eugene Debs‘ and Norman Thomas‘ lack of trying. Marxists failed in their predictions of the spontaneous collapse of capitalism in advanced economies, and did not anticipate the continuing success of capitalism to contribute to the general increase in the standard of living. Hijacked or forced Marxism, which is Marxist-Leninism and its bloody progeny, and in particular, Stalinism and Maoism, failed to deliver the communist utopia, and gave socialism and communism a bad name due to their wanton violence.
For radicals to succeed in America, what was needed was a makeover for communism. What was needed was an opaque method of transmitting socialist values without belying their Marxist origins. What was needed was the translation of economic marxism into cultural marxism.
Inspired by the pioneering work of the grand strategist Antonio Gramsci, the left conducted a “long march” through America’s public institutions, capturing the cultural media, channels of information dissemination, and gateways of upward mobility. The left’s success can be adjudged by the percentage of artists, lawyers, teachers, and professors who subscribe to left-wing ideology and who unfailingly vote for the Democrat Party. (The aggregate percentage of Democrat voters in such professions is in the range of 90%-95%.)
The recasting of Marxism into aesthetic terms made it infinitely more difficult for rational analysis to penetrate the left’s grand strategy. Syncretized with the philosophies of Hegel, Kant, and Nietzsche, and the psychology of Freud, neo-marxism tampened within its crucible a diabolical formula to poison American freedom, and turn it against itself.
But the left was still vulnerable. If its radical conspiracy were to be discovered, the threat may be taken seriously by the American public, and the damage inflicted would not be fatal. A method of veiling the harmony of interests among the leftists was required, and that came in the guise of Critical Theory.
Critical Theory ostensibly breaks the left’s united cause to destroy capitalism, erode the U.S. Constitution, and seize power, into many seemingly disparate movements, in order to disperse the perception of threat the left poses in the eyes of the public. Particularly, the left harnesses victim groups and directs them toward its enemies to achieve its aim of destroying “hierarchy”; in other words, to bring the U.S. to a state of anarchy and to install socialist tyranny.
Cultural marxism is not the only aspect to the left’s grand strategy, it should be emphasized here. Economic warfare, such as overregulation, welfare state economics consistent with Cloward-Piven theory, and intentional destruction of the currency, is carried out at the economic “base” level, while the cultural marxists who dominate the “superstructure” give ethical justifications for tactical assaults on capitalism.
Disparate critical theory movements include: feminists, homosexuals, anti-war and peace activists, radical environmentalists, racialists (“anti-racists”), multiculturalists and diversity fetishists, and now, by association, Islamists.
What is important to note is that these groups are by no means complementary, or mutually exclusive. There are tensions within the particular manifestation of Critical Theory, just as there are tensions between the topos of theory and history in Critical Theory. Opposition to the left should exploit these contradictions to the fullest and use them to fracture the movement as a whole, which can only happen in the public, cultural sphere.
It is also important to mention that taking on the left in this fashion within academia is pointless, since Critical Theory is an instrumental strategy that is being used by the left to destroy capitalism and the United States as it was founded, and as such, is separate from the positive collectivist theory that animates more educated leftists. Radicals’ aims are two-fold: destroy, then re-create. (Whether they intend it, or not, their aims lead to tyranny. See Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, or on a lighter note, this video by cultural critic Andrew Klavan.)
To illustrate what we should have in mind, the following are some examples of tensions with the left’s Critical Theory movements that can be employed to delegitimize and demoralize the left in the public sphere.
Feminists and Islamists (abetted by Multiculturalism and Diversity). Insist that radical feminists condemn Islamists for their oppressive treatment of women, including female genital mutilation, and stoning for adultery.
Homosexuals and Islamists. Insist that homosexuals condemn Islamists for murdering and imprisoning homosexuals, particularly in Ahmadenijad’s Iran. (Recall that the University of Columbia invited the dictator to speak at its campus.)
Feminists and Racialists (African American rap artists). Insist that feminists decry African American “rap artists” for their demeaning portrayal of women.
Feminists and Radical Environmentalists. Insist that feminists condemn “patriarchal” environmentalists like Al Gore for advocating female birth control to supposedly curb “manmade global warming.” Isn’t it a woman’s right to choose?
Radical Environmentalists and Animal Rights advocates. Insist that animal rights advocates condemn radical environmentalists for calling for the “culling” of animals in their natural habitats to somehow combat “animal made global warming.” Or thank PETA for killing so many animals and helping to fight climate change. (The latter is the satirical line of attack.)
Another potentially fruitful front in the cultural war on the left is to show how the Neomarxist left contradicts the Paleomarxist left. This is a bit trickier (because of the two-fold program of the left explained above), but one will know an example when one sees it if one knows how to distinguish between the doctrines. A few examples below:
Radical Environmentalists and Working Class Poor. Insist that radical environmentalists explain why they want energy rates to skyrocket, why we cannot drill for oil even though we have huge oil, gas, and coal deposits.
Radical Environmentalists and Profit. Expose how environmentalists are personally profiting from manmade global warming theory, how selling out to “green” corporations is a form of fascism (see connections between cap-and-trade and Goldman Sachs, e.g.), how they are ignoring their own apocalytpic doctrines and flying private planes and riding in limousines when they should be teleconferencing.
Here it should be stressed that the radical left is desperately trying to unite the critical theory movements under the umbrella of radical environmentalism, leading to potentially the richest source for exposing contradictions and hypocrisy on the left, and discrediting the entire enterprise. Despite overwhelming propaganda, people simply are not buying the hare-brained manmade global warming theory. (An interesting aside is that critical theorist Max Horkheimer believed critical theory should unite science with values.)
Above listed are but a few ideas. There are many more lines of attack implied in this counter-strategy, and hopefully schematizing it will help unleash the creativity of opposition to the left. I will add that this strategy is specifically geared to go after the left head on, and we have the advantage of numbers on our side. Therefore, a brief explanation of the modes of attack should be explained.
We are dealing with cultural marxists. Because the culture is the terrain on which the war is being waged, we need to fight the left in the public sphere over what they refer to as “hegemony,” or domination of the culture. (A recent piece arguing that conservatives should stop founding think tanks and start creating culture has the right idea.)
Two key genres, a positive and a negative, are ideal weapons to wield against the leftist opposition.
First, there is a strong craving for heroic narrative. Whether preserving Marvel Comics superheroes such as Captain America and Superman from anti-Americanism, or creating films with the general idea of Atlas Shrugged, except more concerned with aesthetics and implied ethics than overt political ideology, such as The Pursuit of Happyness, opponents of the left need to create and preserve cultural artifacts and get them out there while we can.
The reason for producing heroic books and films is simple: They strike at the nihilistic core the left has taken from Nietszche and adopted as its own, without subscribing to the philosopher’s remedy. Individualist and triumphant films are far more inspiring than the exercises in sappy victimology that the left regularly offers up in order to demoralize the American public.
Second, we need satirical books and films to show how absurd the left is. Perhaps by accident, Forrest Gump shows how Forrest’s friend Jenny winds up destroying her life through her mindless radical activities. Such illustrations of the left’s mindless and faddish self-destruction can be shown intentionally in books and movies.
Satire and ridicule are the greatest weapons against the leftists, particularly because they are not used to being challenged. They frequently inhabit insulated worlds where other leftists confirm their ideology to them and give them a false and an easily deprived sense of confidence. We can shatter this confidence by assaulting the public sphere en masse, particularly where the left resides, and disrupting the easy comfort in their fallacious ideology that they have called home. They need to feel a dose of the unease they have caused in this country by eliciting a wave of resistance from a galvanized, intelligent, and relentless opposition.
What the left hates above all else is a person with dignity and self-respect. This may seem like a counter-intuitive or unfair statement. But the argument for this claim turns on reason, and the proper employment of language.
In the leftist’s view, all those who do not share his grand vision believes himself to be “above” society. Those who stand outside his group, and desire not to be a part of it, is condemned by the leftist as someone who feels himself to be “above” it.
This petty, juvenile contempt translates into a hatred of “hierarchy,” or “patriarchy”; and thus, intentionally or unintentionally, of order in society. It must be pointed out that a modicum of order is necessary for true freedom.
True freedom means an individual decides what to do with his life; this is in fundamental opposition to the totalitarian leftist’s plans for that individual. A person is just a means to an end for the leftist, and has no inherent value in and of himself.
The great majority’s rational rejection of the left’s unhinged views has only served to radicalize the left, which subsequently translated its views into esoteric doctrines and oblique programs to subvert the will of its popular opposition. Due to being historically outnumbered, the left has been driven to infiltrate “the system,” sloughing off all morality of the formerly “bourgeois” system, such as honesty, decency, and forgiveness in the process. The leftist has become the master of patron-client organization building, rewarding those who are “down for the cause,” while punishing those who remain oblivious or unsympathetic to the leftist’s inhumane agenda.
The leftist who reads this entry will immediately dismiss it, unable to separate his self-image from his position vis-a-vis objective reality. Dismissing logic, reason, and anyone who does not share his view, the leftist insulates himself from reality, both economically and socially, while surrounding himself with like-minded individuals who share his contempt for outsiders. The left’s sequestering into monastical environments promotes an “us-them” mentality, very similar to the kind found in cults.
This is not how a leftist would communicate his irrational hatred of an independent person to himself, however; for his lexicon has been shaped by the left’s philosophical forbears to cast all such personal characteristics mentioned above in terms of “selfishness,” “egotism,” “narcissism,” “greed,” or even pure “hate.”
As such, one needs to explain why the leftist is “inhumane.” The leftist pretends to care about “humanity,” without really caring about individuals. This fundamental contradiction is a grave one, for it leads the leftist to sacrifice actual living, breathing human beings for his abstract causes. The foundation of his worldview is seriously, irreconcilably flawed; and this is a deadly mistake in judgment on the leftist’s part.
Anyone who believes in something, and stands for something, is the greatest threat to the left. From the leftist’s point of view, anyone with a solidified moral code is by nature a “fanatic,” even “fascist” in mentality.
But the leftist does not realize that the code of individualism is itself a barrier to fanaticism (one can witness the tidiness and orderliness of tea party rallies, in comparison to the usual mob mentality of the left, for example). In contrast, the leftist’s opposition to entrenched morality and order leads him to seek fatal societal breakdown, resulting not in liberation or a superior order, but rather the powerlessness of members of society to defend themselves from power-hungry rulers.
A woman with her own mind, her own individualistic morality, and who exercises judgment infuriates the left because she is beyond its powers. She is unable to be easily manipulated. She is not readily subject to being reinvented in the left’s imaginary ideal. In the leftist’s eyes, these stubborn qualities alone makes her intrinsically “hateful,” “racist,” “bigoted,” “fanatical,” “uncaring,” and “uncompassionate.”
For the left, the agenda trumps all. Actual living, breathing individuals who refuse to accompany them into demonstrable political madness be damned.
It is the unfortunate state of our nation today that a significant minority of Americans labor under the delusion that increasing or concentrating power in the presumably democratic state is not only fairly without danger, but is actually beneficial as long as the politicians accumulating the power are “well-intentioned” or seek to “do good.” But what is missed by these overly trusting citizens is that the diminution of individual liberty, which is the power for each person to determine the means and ends of his life, and the resultant increase in state control, necessarily produces an increase in arbitrary state power.
What is meant by ‘arbitrary’ power is that the ends of action are indeterminate, or in flux, or conditioned by personal prerogatives such as power-seeking for its own sake, and therefore, individuals who may have yielded personal power to ‘well-intentioned’ politicians with the understanding it would be utilized to serve ‘the greater good,’ may find themselves irreconcilably vulnerable to whatever whims and desires those at the helm of the state develop. The person yielding liberty to the end of a higher morality might find that his lost personal power is subsequently directed towards what he once considered to be an immoral end (war being one prominent example). History is rife with examples of future bloodthirsty dictators promising to further ‘the common good’ when coming to power, and once there, engage in popularly undesirable acts and rampant suppression. (Ayn Rand cites some prominent examples in her essay, “The Only Path to Tomorrow,” Reader’s Digest, January 1944, 88-90)
An individual, out of a sense of compassion, or duty to humankind, or love of country, might partake in a mass movement on behalf of an ostensibly magnificent aim (environmentalism, for example), only to find herself or her children to be no more than fodder for the ultimately failed and miserable schemes of central planners. And at what cost? The loss of one’s life – metaphysically, and in some cases, physically – is this not the greatest tragedy that can befall a human being? To lead a life where one’s merit, one’s virtue, is inconsequential, and all that matters is his ability and willingness to serve as a tool for some faceless bureaucrat or some megalomaniacal dictator to promote some pointless or even malevolent end?
Indeed, it is the sad and irrefutable lesson of history that any system of concentrated power would foster the development of wicked and cruel personalities and bring them into positions of greater power. Immorality, that is, an infinite flexibility of morals, would become the new virtue.
One of the key thinkers whose work elaborated on this general line of thought was F.A. Hayek. His The Road to Serfdom exposed how even the most well-intentioned of planners may create a system that ultimately leads to undesirable and even evil results. As Hayek wrote:
It is not only, as Russell has so well described, that the desire to organize social life according to a unitary plan itself springs largely from a desire for power. It is even more the outcome of the fact that, in order to achieve their end, collectivists must create power – power over men wielded by other men – of a magnitude never before known, and that their success will depend on the extent they achieve such power. […]
This remains true even though many liberal socialists are guided in their endeavors by the tragic illusion that by depriving private individuals of the power they possess in an individualist system, and by transferring this power to society, they can thereby extinguish power. What all those who argue in this manner overlook is that by concentrating power so that it can be used in the service of a single plan, it is not merely transferred but infinitely heightened; that, by uniting in the hands of some single body power formerly exercised independently by many, an amount of power is created infinitely greater than any that existed before, so much more far-reaching as almost to be different in kind. (University of Chicago, The Collected Works of F.A. Hayek, Vol. II, 165.)
Hayek’s thesis bears extremely close resemblance to that of the German sociologist Robert Michels, who lamented socialist revolutions’ propensity to develop into despotic oligarchies. In his Iron Law of Oligarchy, Michels noted that several factors contributed to the necessary control of a complex organization by insiders, even in the case of revolution: the need to coordinate communications regarding who represented the organization and what the organization stands for; a nearly ubiquitous desire by the masses for leadership, especially in time of tumult; and the drive by the elites to maintain order and control, and thus preserve themselves in power.
Ayn Rand formulated a view very similar to Hayek’s theory in her collection of essays The Return of the Primitive. As Rand put it:
Once a country has accepted the obliteration of moral principles, of individual rights, of objectivity, of justice, of reason, and has submitted to the rule of legalized brute force, the elimination of the concept legalized does not take long to follow. Who is to resist it? And in the name of what? When numbers are substituted for morality; and no individual can claim a right, but any gang can assert any desire whatever; when compromise is the only policy expected of those in power; and the preservation of the moment’s stability of peace at any price is their only goal; the winner, necessarily, is whoever presents the most unjust and irrational demands. The system serves as an open invitation to do so. If there were no communists or other thugs in the world, such a system would create them. (Ayn Rand, The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, transcribed from audiobook available at Audible.com.)
In contrast to Hayek’s and Rand’s respective hypotheses, that the state becomes corrupt despite all best intentions, and that the collapse of morality and individual rights produces immoral states, we have the hypothesis of Eugen Richter, whose novel Pictures of a Socialistic Future paints socialist leaders as malevolent actors who fully intend to enslave their fellow man. From professor Bryan Caplan‘s foreword to the novel:
Lord Acton and F.A. Hayek have inspired the two most popular explanations for the crimes of actually existing socialism. While Acton never lived to see socialists gain power, their behavior seems to perfectly illustrate his aphorism that “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” For all their idealism, even socialists will do bad things if left unchecked. Hayek, with the benefit of hindsight, suggested a slightly different explanation: under socialism, “the worst get on top.” On this theory, the idealistic founders of socialism were gradually pushed out by brutal cynics as their movement’s power increased.
Richter’s novel advances a very different explanation for socialism’s “moral decay”: the movement was born bad. While the early socialists were indeed “idealists,” their ideal was totalitarianism. Their overriding goals were to engineer a new society and a New Socialist Man. If this meant treating workers like slaves—depriving them of the freedom to choose their occupation or location, forbidding them to quit, splitting up families without their consent, and imposing draconian punishments on malcontents – so be it. (Eugen Richter, Pictures of a Socialistic Future, ix, available for free from Mises.org.)
The meaning of The Enlightenment was to escape the arbitrary edicts that sprang from Absolute power in the state and to re-found societies on the pillars of enlightened self-interest, and Constitutionally limited government. Supposed “progressivism” is nothing less than a return to the status quo ante and an ushering into power of the oligarchs whose ancien regimes were once lost. What makes this situation perilous is that the oligarchs who return to power will have the past benefits of free market capitalism at their disposal – the surveillance, computing, and military equipment – under which to establish a dark age that could last a thousand years.
The only way to prevent the rise of this existential threat is to stand up for the ideals that gave rise to freedom; not the imaginary freedom the socialists promise, but true freedom. Freedom is nothing less than the ability of each man to follow his conscience, to live his own life, to pursue his own dreams, to personally live according to his own values, as long as he does not seek to deprive this same golden opportunity from others. If one urgently, desperately, desires to “change the world,” or more accurately, to make a better world, the lesson of history is that to ensure one’s moral ends are not perverted, it is best to take action oneself, and to enlist those of like-mind to join you on a purely voluntary basis. In this way, one can truly serve humanity, while ensuring that humanity doesn’t serve you, or those who act in your name.
When one is living through a period of great structural transformation and environmental dislocation, one’s mind is shocked into a state where one is still “fitting” new information into his old way of thinking, when actually he should be adjusting his way of thinking to fit the new reality. Men’s thinking can be plastic, but not infinitely so; rare is the intellect that can trace the prime movers of the structural transformation of his society, and in the public sphere, it requires the coordination of information between the many and the enlightened few for the average person standing in the midst of the maelstrom to grasp the meaning of the changes occurring around him.
What appears as chaos, random and driven of its own accord, may indeed be the effects of a destructive force so ubiquitous as to be non-perceivable, or so hidden and removed from the daily life of the average person as to be enshrouded in mystery, and thus not accorded the weight as a causal agent one might readily identify if intimately familiar.
Much like men’s minds are often the unwitting artifacts of the thinking of dead philosophers, the non-reflective many simply lack the self-awareness and thus the confidence in their respective egos to discern that the changes occurring around them are indeed real. It is the meaning of political correctness to cut off the questioning of one’s environment and the coordination of information with others to attain insight as to the identity, nature, and motivation of the change-agents.
Environmentalism further degrades the process of individual inquiry and coordination of information and action with others by yielding control of the environment en toto to the would-be masterminds. Note that the environment is not simply nature, but the entire realm of man’s lifeworld; whether urban or rural, industrial or agrarian, technologically advanced or backwards. The program is a mystical or pseudo-mystical veneer under which a great leveling can transpire; that is the secret of environmentalism.
The psychological effect of structural transformation, or ‘fundamental transformation’, on the individual psyche can appear akin to living within a dream, or more accurately, within a hypnogogic fog-state between dreaming and being fully awake and lucid. It is uncertainty that holds men back from fully pursuing their intuitions that something is amiss. Uncertainty is compounded by the barrage of information promulgated forth by the propaganda organs of the state. Social uncertainty, the fear of being ostracized, prevents men from articulating in full their innermost suspicions and fears for the future.
But it is perhaps a saving grace that The Internet has thus far allowed men to both explore their innermost fears and suspicions and to circumvent the social anxiety that political correctness is supposed to provoke when questioning the motives of the government. It has allowed, through such scandals as Climategate, citizens to attain secret information and to expose the fraudulent assumptions and machinations of the environmentalist movement. And most importantly, it has provided a relatively unchecked and spontaneously self-organized medium through which to associate with others of like mind, and to collaborate opposition to the unlimited state.
Whether one traces the origins of modern leftist philosophy back to the French Revolution and the Jacobins, led by such radicals as Robespierre and the intellectual father of the revolution Jean Jacques Rousseau, or one leaps further ahead to the 1848 revolutions and the tomes of the Hegelian-influenced materialist philosopher Karl Marx, one has plenty of historical fodder by which to adjudge the record of modern leftist thought as applied in practice (or we can borrow the Gramscian term of theory-in-practice, known as ‘praxis.’)
The essence of leftism is the world is unfair, but this can be changed if one destroys “the system,” or by another school of thought, if one transforms the system into a necessarily totalitarian utopian one. Human nature can be fundamentally altered to make men intrinsically loving and kind, at the expense of dispensing with judgment and rationality. Civilization is thus a naturally corrupting influence, if one follow Rousseau’s savage noblesse theory, and thus it is expendable under the rubric of radical environmentalism. Property keeps men divided and self-interested, and therefore must either be abolished under communism (though this rarely happens in practice) or subverted and pointed towards the collective good under fascism, or more euphemistically, state capitalism.
What leftist politics across the board share is a fascination with the collective good, a sort of Pandora’s box of logic into which we can stuff all the world’s problems, an abstract transcendental ethic requiring in action “unity” for the sake of unity, and the erasure of individuality, including freedom and choice. Prior to this state of nirvana when men will become akin to anomalous free-form amoeba able to be innocuously squirted into a single valueless, essentially homogenous global society will be the destruction of all particularistic cultures, values, identity, rationality, and individuality. (Oh, there’ll still be a superficial veneer of diversity, but all real ideological diversity will be squashed under political correctness.) Mentally, men would become eternally present-bound, like small rodents and infants.
The catch phrases of this project are legion, traditionally: democracy, progressivism, social justice, equality, the collective good, the common good, the public good – name a kind of good, and the left’s got a monopoly on it. The left’s abstraction of a perfect world is eternally pristine and beyond the limitations of the real world. Heaven and earth are to be moved for reality to fit the left’s imagination, as opposed to imagination working within the constraints of reality. The damage to the world wreaked under such a violently destructive and ultimately fruitless worldview is beyond recounting. But we can briefly summarize.
The neo- collectivist movements spawned since the inception of The French Revolution have caused more human death, poverty, and misery than any political ideologies since the beginning of man. Even the religious mystical collectivism of the medieval period pales in comparison to the organized, industrial-fueled state demicide carried out under various forms of “socialism.” RJ Rummel, citing such studies as The Black Book of Communism, estimates “demicide” – or state-led genocide – as somewhere around 100 million in the twentieth century alone. It bears pointing out for the ideologically challenged that no individualistic, fairly free-market based society has ever committed atrocities of any kind approaching the scale of Lenin and Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s National Socialist regime (please don’t make me retell the history), or Mao’s Communist China. Even when one does not deal in the brutal horrors of socialists trying to impose their square-peg-meet-round-hole philosophy onto reality, there are a myriad of other examples of socialist projects going awry and leading to starvation and disease all throughout history.
But even if we overlook the obvious, like the left routinely does, we can point to ongoing mass deaths caused by leftist philosophy today, right under most people’s noses. There is the drastic increase in food prices being driven by Keynesian (i.e. Fabian socialist) philosophy, namely, the injection of money supply to supposedly boost aggregate demand. There are ethanol subsidies, whereby 40% of all corn in the United States is used to produce substandard fuel. There is DDT, whose effective ban by the UN has caused tens and even hundreds of thousands of deaths per year since the early 1970s. And who knows what death and destruction await us under manmade climate change schemes? Much like Obamacare, we’ll just have to go along with them to find out what death, misery, and poverty are in them.
The left likes to brag about its compassion, but does it ever have the “compassion” to admit it is plainly wrong? That its policies are killing people, destroying economies, and leading to a grave deterioration of the quality of life for people around the world? No, they’re never quite that compassionate.
Even if we reduce the scale down to the United States, we can see that wherever the Democrats rule the city or state, there is massive poverty, dependency, and an increase not only in hopelessness, but in a general lack of civility (when people live at the expense of each other, it fosters resentment, not an alleviation of supposed “alienation”). Detroit, Los Angeles, pre-Guiliani New York, Baltimore, Washington D.C. – all cess pools of wasted human lives and desperation. And do the Democrats learn from their failures? No! They are only driven to increase the scale of their failures, as if making a failing idea bigger leads to success!
(Thus the left’s eternal need for scapegoats, saboteurs, and systemic attribution of all the world’s problems to “capitalism,” which is unerringly and unendingly to blame no matter where, how, and to what degree it exists.)
But the Democrats’ blindness is limited to the general sheep-on-the-street, and not the ruling elites whose ideology is only a rationalization for their insatiable thirst for power. The ends justify the means, and in the Democrat Party’s case, the ends and the means are the same: power.
What does power mean? Power means you will do what you are told whether you agree with it or not. Whereas this nation’s founders rallied around Patrick Henry’s famous cry “Give me liberty or give me death!,” today’s leftists rally around “Give me socialism and give me death!” What better sums up the deluded aspirations of those who relish the ruin of civilization, and who celebrate an ideology whose mere utterance recalls for those who have experienced it poverty, despair, and even the stench of human corpses?
It is rare to come across in print a writer whose exposition of a subject mirrors almost exactly what one concludes after extensive research. One of a small group of prominent thinkers who gets it is Andy McCarthy. From his latest book,The Grand Jihad:
“Neocommunism is leftism liberated by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many naively believe the Soviet demise would be a cautionary tale for the left, a warning against the hubris of big-government schemes to perfect man and society. The opposite, instead, is the case. David Horowitz, today’s most eloquent and incisive observer of the revolutionary left, the movement in which he was raised and on which he turned so fiercely, offers a perfect diagnosis:
Far from instilling humility in progressives….the collapse of socialism has revived their self-righteousness and reenergized their assault on the democratic West. The disappearance of the Soviet bloc has had only one consequence of note. It has lifted the burden of having to defend…an indefensible regime. Because the utopian vision is no longer anchored in the reality of an actually existing state, the left can now indulge its nihilistic agenda without restraint.
Nihilism is the key. Today’s hard left is defined by what it is against: the United States, free-market capitalism, and any foreign policy premised on defending American interests or promoting individual liberty. Only this part of the agenda is concrete, leaving neocommunism elastic enough to strike alliances with any movement that shares it. What necommunists are for, by contrast, is a set of abstractions – ‘social justice,’ ‘equality,” redistributive rights,’ the ‘rule of law,’ and of course, ‘our values.’ The details of those can be worked out later, once the more pressing imperative of undoing the existing order has been realized.
This explains Obama‘s ruinous spending, the trillions in debt, far surpassing in just a few months the total debt accumulated since the nation’s founding. Not content with that accomplishment, the president is rushing headlong to bankrupt the treasury permanently with additional trillions for nationalized healthcare and crushing tax increases – which experience assures us will reduce total revenues available for redistribution – including a “cap and trade” energy scheme that will nullify industry’s capacity to generate value. Critics from the right and what used to be the mainstream left are dumbfounded, wondering aloud whether the new administration is in over its head. This drastically underestimates Obama. Quite the opposite of overwhelmed, he has methodically done exactly what was predicted by those who took the time, during the 2008 campaign, to study his radical background: exploiting the new administration’s wind-at-its-back period to crush the capitalist system under an enormous commitment of future dollars, a commitment that will be nigh impossible to roll back once the public is finally roused from its slumbers. This ‘change’ is not designed to create a new system. Its purpose is to destroy the old one. What comes next is negotiable.”
The Grand Jihad joins David Horowitz’s The Unholy Alliance and Dr. Jamie Glazov’s United in Hate as key books exploring the insidious nexus of Islamist-leftist collaboration to destroy the United States.
Not content to have nearly complete control of education – including early education, pre-school, headstart, K-12, undergraduate and graduate colleges and universities – the Democrats and their union friends have their cultural marxist sites set on the newest institution to stand outside of their utopia-tarian aims: The Internet.
You see, there must be no place for people’s minds to escape the all-encompassing tyranny of the state-media complex. Like Mussolini said: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
But what’s the problem? The UN digs it. British ministers dig it. Heck, even the newly mandated socialist dictator Hugo Chavez digs it. So what if the FCC digs it? Wouldn’t regulating the Internet promote the “public good”?
The justifications for Internet “regulation” are legion.
Do it for safety. “Are you some kind of cyber-criminal? Do you want the criminals to win?”
Do it for security. “Are you some kind of terrorist? Do you want the terrorists to win?”
Do it for the children. “Are you some kind of pedophile? Do you want the child pornographers to win?”
No, I’m not any of these things. That’s why I oppose the total regulation of society, including Internet society, even if the justification for doing so is that someone might commit a crime. It’s not only lazy police work, it’s potentially freedom-crushing.
The Internet is a place for liberty-lovers to assemble and to pursue the truth. And that is what is most threatening to the elites. There is a danger that the plebes might see through their web of lies. As Orwell put it: “In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” That ever-lingering danger makes corrupt politicians – uneasy.
At stake in the Internet debate is freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, not only two revered rights, but two persistent threats to the state. The elites hate the Constitution not because they disagree with its animating philosophy, it’s much more shallow than that; but because it limits their power to control the sheeple and their ability to lie to them – two virtually inseparable aims.
The Internet must remain open not because it has been open, but for the same reason all institutions in a free society should be open, including schools, the media, and the halls of government itself: It is the only way to preserve and maintain a people’s civil liberties.
As Jefferson put it, “When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” And the government definitely fears the Internet.
1. They believe that any criticism of the left should be silenced
2. Even 1 degree Celsius increase in global warming means the government should control the entire economy
3. Any manmade carbon dioxide emissions, no matter how miniscule, should be taxed and regulated
4. Even one puff from a cigarette can kill you
5. The entire medical system should be controlled by the government (single payer)
6. Even bake sales should be regulated
7. Banks should be forced to take bailouts, even when they don’t want to
8. All offshore oil drilling should be shut down
9. Any person should be arbitrarily stopped at an airport and forced to submit to a naked body scanner or full body search
10. The government should regulate the Internet via net neutrality
11. Money should not be pegged at all to anything that limits the government’s ability to manipulate the currency, such as gold
12. Any cutting of welfare programs means conservatives are cruel and want to throw people onto the streets
13. If a conservative compromises it is ‘bi-partisanship,’ if a liberal compromises he is to be ostracized or thrown out of office
There are more examples one could think of, but this should be enough to prove the point. You lefties are turning into goose-stepping morons, and you don’t even realize it. Conservatives aren’t extremists for wanting you to stop! Learn from history for once in your lives, and show some introspection for a change.