Occasional Confirmations (6)

Screen Shot 2020-01-16 at 6.58.45 AM

Yes, Lenninthinkers

In my most recent book I open with a Preface that discusses the quintessential difference between how the contemporary political administrations reacted to the election of Presidents Obama and Trump.  This discussion is intended to raise the question of why in President Obama’s case the peaceful transfer of power occurred but for President Trump we have (and continue to) experienced resistance that appears to sometimes rise to the level of sedition.  This resistance is not limited to the rank and file citizenry but rather runs to the very top of the Democrat Party’s elected officials and Obama appointed leadership of our federal Justice, Intelligence, Revenue and State Department.  It also includes virtually all of our “mainstream media,” and academic institutions, among others.

In this book (and this blog) I have pointed out that, observing their behavior, one could reasonably posit that they are motivated by a Marxist ideological foundation.  While I do include some information beyond behavioral observations, this idea is presented as theoretical.

It turns out that a serious investigative reporter and author has dug deep into the available information concerning the ideological influences and beliefs of this clique of elite Progressive leaders.  What Diana West found is truly stunning.  In her new book, The Red Thread she reports on:

leninthinkersThe first investigation into why a ring of senior Washington officials went rogue to derail the election and the presidency of Donald Trump. There was nothing normal about the 2016 presidential election, not when senior U.S. officials were turning the surveillance powers of the federal government—designed to stop terrorist attacks—against the Republican presidential team. These were the ruthless tactics of a Soviet-style police state, not a democratic republic. The Red Thread asks the simple question: Why? What is it that motivated these anti-Trump conspirators from inside and around the Obama administration and Clinton networks to depart so drastically from “politics as usual” to participate in a seditious effort to overturn an election?

The Amazon book summary then goes on to identify this question’s answer.

Finding clues in an array of sources, Diana West uses her trademark investigative skills, honed in her dazzling work, American Betrayal, to construct a fascinating series of ideological profiles of well-known but little understood anti-Trump actors, from James Comey to Christopher Steele to Nellie Ohr, and the rest of the Fusion GPS team; from John Brennan to the numerous Clintonistas still patrolling the Washington Swamp after all these years, and more. Once, we knew these officials by august titles and reputation; after The Red Thread, readers will recognize their multi-generational and inter-connecting communist and socialist pedigrees, and see them for what they really are: foot-soldiers of the Left, deployed to take down America’s first “America First” and most anti-Communist president. If we just give it a pull, the “red thread” is very long and very deep.

A very good hour-long interview of West about this book can be found at this link.

Obviously one book doesn’t necessarily confirm my Lenenthink theory.  However, the fact that serious people are discovering compelling supporting evidence, and other serious people are taking this hypothesis seriously is a confirmation worth noting.

This development also provides confirmation of my position that our current crisis is existential for our Constitutional Republic as opposed to just another run of the mill political controversy.

Yes,Openly Bloodyminded Progressives

Some of you who manage to read my posts to the end may have noticed a recent reference to approval of death threats to Senator Susan Collins after her Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation vote.

Progressives may disagree with Collins’ vote, but their descent into open justification of death threats afterwards shows how thin is the line between farce and wickedness.

kidman-guillotine

The original tweet and even more troubling “explanation” tweet.

You may also recall a series of posts discussing the “bloody-mindedness” of many Progressive elites.

Well, it turns out that a Democrat candidate for the Senate seat currently occupied by Susan Collins, Bre Kidman, has chosen the guillotine as her campaign symbol.  Candidate Kidman was quoted in explanation: “The guillotine is an image which calls to mind what people have done for revolution before” … “If we can find a better path to revolution than that we owe it to ourselves and our country.”  This begs the question of what happens if, in this Democrat’s mind, we can’t find a “better path?”  Her answer to this question is even more troubling than her original tweet (see figure).

It turns out that it isn’t only Democrat Senate candidates who are fondly thinking about the guillotine.  A paid Bernie Sanders campaign worker was caught on video discussing use of this device come the revolution.

Mr. Weissgerber added, “I’m telling you. Guillotine the rich.”

The Sanders campaign has refused to comment on this and another paid worker who envisions American gulags to reeducate Trump voters after a Sanders victory.  The kindest interpretation is that the Sanders campaign isn’t concerned about bloodthirsty rhetoric by its paid workers.

I suppose some could respond that this is just another right winger spreading propaganda.  If so, consider the recent comments by Chris Matthews, an elite Progressive in good standing about Sanders’ ideology.

“I have my own views of the word socialist and I’ll be glad to share them with you in private and they go back to the early 1950s,” he told a post-debate analysis panel.

“I have an attitude about them. I remember the Cold War. I have an attitude toward [Fidel] Castro,” he added. “I believe if Castro and the reds had won the Cold War there would have been executions in Central Park and I might have been one of the ones getting executed. And certain other people would be there cheering.”   …

“I don’t know who Bernie supports over these years, I don’t know what he means by socialism. One week it’s Denmark. We’re gonna be like Denmark,” Matthews continued, mocking Sanders’ deep Brooklyn accent. “Well, what does he think of Castro? That’s a great question. What did you think of Fidelissmo?”

It should deeply trouble Progressive Democrats that this bloody-minded rhetoric pervades their movement, including a candidate for the Senate.  But it doesn’t appear to in the slightest.  At some point we non-elite commoners are entitled to draw conclusions about the moral standing of our elite “betters.”

Screen Shot 2019-12-18 at 7.37.37 AM

The Impeachment: Tragedy to Farce in Record Time (2)

democrats-impeach-constitution-flames

It’s actually much worse than this.  The Democrats simultaneously make both points in their public communications.

Review

As I said in the previous post, my use of the word “farce” to describe the Democrat impeachment mania is not intended to lessen their moral failure, but rather to highlight their pathetic incompetence.

… their intent is pure evil, but their means are so exposed as stupid that it becomes farcical.

Thus, while there was massive tragedy associated with the Brett Kavanaugh debacle, the naked partisanship of the Democrat politicians and their mainstream media (MSM) enablers led them to behave in ludicrous ways.  There was literally no accusation too ridiculous, no yearbook detail too petty that it wasn’t picked up like a Sword of Damocles only to become a wet noodle in their hands.

The Impeachment Farce

When the Democrats, Deep State and MSM decided that President Trump’s phone call with the newly elected president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, would serve as an excellent pretext for (finally!) impeachment, tragedy moved decisively into farce.  This transition occurred when President Trump unexpectedly released the phone call transcript.  The entire impeachment edifice rested on the foundational assumption that the transcript, due to foreign policy and executive privilege issues, would never see the light of day.  Therefore the only source of information about this “crime” would be the secondhand Deep State “whistleblower” complaint and the thirdhand Democrat/MSM accusations.

So when President Trump released the call transcript he blew the wheels out from under the impeachment bandwagon.  But the Democrats were so completely committed and their presumption of MSM protection from public scrutiny was so absolute that they plowed forward anyway.

One noteworthy early incident after the transcript’s release was Chairman Adam Schiff’s attempt to read a completely bogus version into the public record. Chairman Schiff sat down in the House Intelligence Committee’s leadership chair and made up out of thin air a rendition of the President’s conversation.  The made up “transcript” quoted by Chairman Schiff “confirmed” all of the “whistleblower’s” claims.

From this pathetic opening lie the Democrats careened from one idiotic position to another as they attempted to pin an impeachable crime on the President.  We heard endlessly about quid pro quo, until the Democrats’ polling showed public confusion.  From there it was off to bribery and treason, but neither of these actual crimes made it into the final Articles of Impeachment.

What we ended up with was one article so broad and vague (i.e., abuse of power) that every President could have been impeached under it (particularly Barack Obama) and another that was so absurd (i.e., obstruction of Congress, which President Obama repeatedly did without Democrat congressional complaint) that only a Democrat politician could say it with a straight face.  These articles were so pathetic that the House Prosecutors felt obliged to throw every accusation of evil they had ever imagined in their hate-addled brains against the President, some being:

  • Reassertion of the Russian collusion hoax even though the Mueller report had said there was none;
  • Mind reading, where the prosecutors claimed to know what thoughts were in the President’s mind;
  • Wild imagined descriptions of future crimes by the President (e.g., sell Alaska back to the Russians in return for their help to subvert the 2020 election);
  • Claims that the President must prove his innocence rather than they prove his guilt in explicit contradiction of the United States’ legal foundation;
  • Claims that for the duly elected President of the United States to not use “talking points” generated by a bunch of unelected, vain Deep State bureaucrats amounted to treason;
  • Et cetera…

When the whole clown car started careening into the political ditch there was the New York Times with last minute “bombshell” reports based on illegal leaks from the intelligence community’s vetters of the Bolton book manuscript.  However, by this time the coordination between the MSM, Deep State and the Democrat Party had become so transparent that even most elected Republican politicians were able to see it.

And so, on Wednesday, February 5, 2020 every Republican Senator (except Mitt Romney on one article) voted to acquit.

deep-stateIt’s difficult to fathom, let alone describe the hate addled stupidity of what the Democrat Party, Deep State and MSM have done.  They have not convicted or even discredited the President.  His poll numbers stand now at their highest level ever.  What they have accomplished is to unmistakably demonstrate in public their incompetence, dishonesty, mental deficiency and power lust.  I understand that these are not necessarily all negatives in the Progressive movement.  But to a large number of Americans they are appalling.

Clearly the Democrats believe that there exists an electoral majority that supports their program.  If there is then our nation’s life as a republic founded on individual human dignity and liberty is over.  My prayer is that, to the contrary, there exists a persistent majority who will reject these vile Progressive proto-totalitarians.

The Impeachment: Tragedy to Farce in Record Time (1)

marx-history

Opening Remarks

It’s quite fitting that the most appropriate quote describing the Democrat’s impeachment mania comes from the bloodthirsty, moronic ideological genius at whose feet they worship.  This builder of fabulist solutions to humanity’s fallen state has inspired movements whose deceitful, wicked, bloodstained actions have raised tragedy to levels unimaginable prior to his life’s work.  Yes, at an operational level they are Leninthinkers, but at an ideological level they, knowingly or not, are frenzied worshipers at the modern Baal idol called Socialism.

One of the primary themes of this blog has been documentation of, and commentary on the tragic descent of Progressivism into a frenzied, destructive mob. But the effectiveness of this mob has been so diminished by their obvious mental breakdown that the dominance of tragedy has been replaced by farce.

Beginning the Transformation

If I had to identify when this insanity transformed from tragic to farce, it would be during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. Recall that just when this honorable, decent, talented man was about to win Senate approval for the Supreme Court the Democrats pushed forward a troubled woman who’s claims of teenage abuse were not just shockingly vague, but also unsupported by any family or friends. This eventually led to bizarre absurdities such as questioning on the word “boof” from Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook.

Whitehouse did not answer. He then moved on to another possibly sinister phrase, a line in Kavanaugh’s yearbook page that said, “Have you boofed yet?” “Judge, have you — I don’t know if it’s ‘boufed’ or ‘boofed’ — how do you pronounce that?”

“That refers to flatulence,” Kavanaugh said. “We were 16.”

From there we eventually descended into insane fantastic claims by Julie Swetnick that Kavanaugh engaged “in abusive and physically aggressive behavior toward girls,” where Kavanaugh and others would get girls intoxicated so they could be “gang raped” at house parties by a “train” of boys. It beggars the imagination that this occurred even once, let alone repeatedly where the victim girls kept showing up.

In this appalling incident anyone with eyes unblinded by Progressive ideology could see how the mainstream media worked hand-in-glove with the Democrat party to dredge up and then publicize any charge of sexual misconduct no matter how uncorroborated or obviously ridiculous. In the end this obscenity became too much for Republican Senator Susan Collins who was generally supportive of the Me Too movement. Here’s her explanation of the intersection between Me Too and her Kavanaugh vote.

MACCALLUM: What are your thoughts on the Me Too movement?

COLLINS: The Me Too movement has been very important for our country. It’s needed and has helped to heighten awareness and I hope that there’s anything good that has come out of this terrible process, it is that the survivors of sexual assault will feel more empowered to come forward and they’ll come forward at the time of the incident and that they will be heard.

Not everyone is going to be giving an accurate story. But everyone deserves to be treated with respect.

MACCALLUM: It could potentially cost you your election in 2020. Are you at peace with that?

COLLINS: I am. The easier vote, politically, clearly would have been for me to vote no. But that would not have been the right vote. And I have to live with myself and I want to be able to look in the mirror in the morning and know that I did what I felt was right, no matter what the consequences may be.

My job as the United States Senator is to apply my best judgment and that’s what I did in this case despite tremendous pressure, horrible tactics, abuse of my family, my staff, and myself. But I — I really won’t ever be intimidated. I have to do what I think is right and I’ll let the chips fall where they may.

Progressives may disagree with Collins’ vote, but their descent into open justification of death threats afterwards shows how thin is the line between farce and wickedness. Thus I use the word “farce”; not to denote something humorous, but rather something wicked that is also transparently manufactured by hate-filled ideological activists. That is, their intent is pure evil, but their means are so exposed as stupid that it becomes farcical.

What’s at Stake in the 2020 Election? (3)

binary-choice

This is the stark, binary choice that has been presented to us by the Progressive Left in the 2020 election.

The Binary Choice

The choice being presented to the citizens of the United States is simple and stark:

  1. Vote in the Democrat Presidential Candidate and he/she/whatever will view their victory as a mandate to implement the Republic destroying ideas that they campaigned on.
  2. Vote in Donald Trump for a second term and, while the civility of our political discourse will continue to suffer, we will still likely have a Republic in 2024.

Back in 2016 I was deeply concerned that Donald Trump was simply a mirror image of the Progressive political corruption that exploded under Barack Obama’s presidency.  He has rather, in spite of withering, unrelenting resistance by the Democrats (and many Republicans as well), pursued the very Conservative economic and social policies that the “conservative” political establishment (now the “Never-Trumpers”) claimed they supported.  He is also seeking to extract the United States from the seemingly unending, un-winnable wars that have sapped our nation’s morale and strength.  He has kept his campaign promises to a degree that shames most recent politicians, Democrat and Republican alike.  Perhaps that’s another reason that they hate him so.

Make no mistake, if the Democrats win in 2020 under their proto-totalitarian platform, there will likely be little holding back this time.  Expect:

  • a Progressive packed Supreme Court, with 11, 13, however many justices are required to ensure uniform Progressive decisions (or they may simply remove and replace President Trump’s appointees);
  • the Justice Department (including the FBI) and Intelligence Services to become politicized to a far greater degree than they were under President Obama and thus a far greater threat to our civil liberties;
  • by unConstitutional means, for the Electoral College, the First and Second Amendments and the Senate to come under withering attack;
  • our nation’s boarders to be erased, resulting in massive migration from any country by anyone who for whatever reason wants to get in, and, once in, supported by the U.S. taxpayers;
  • an economy devastated by the aggressive deployment of Socialist policies and environmental regulations;
  • the media, social and mainstream, to become even more aggressive and cruel in their assault on any and all people who disagree, or even don’t agree with sufficient fervor;
  • the vicious, murderous physical attacks on and intimidation of non-Progressives by the Progressive proto-Fascist shock troops (i.e., Antifa) and random mobs/individuals will dramatically increase.

One other point.  For all his crudity and bombast, Donald Trump must be one of the most honest men to have attained the Presidency.  The entire apparatus of the Federal Government, Democrat Party and Mainstream Media have been out to find something (anything!) by which to destroy him since at least 2015.  All they have been able to come up with are bogus Dossiers and Whistleblower complaints.  They continue hyper-Ahab-like pursuing their Great White Wale.

The Progressive elite have revealed themselves to be utterly corrupt, incompetent, infantile, narcissistic, self-serving and deceitful.  No self respecting free person should want to be ruled by this cohort of self-lobotomized collectivist ideologues.  And now, for better or worse, it has fallen on Donald Trump to stand between us and their desired proto-totalitarian goals.

As things stand now I will vote for Donald Trump in the 2020 Presidential Election.

Thoughts About “Questions for Socialists” (2)

Greta Thunberg

Greta Thunberg speaking at the United Nations

I’m happy to report that there is at least one adult alive who dares to correct Greta Thunberg’s ignorant presumption.  Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago.  In an open letter to Greta Thunberg he provides a scathing rebuke to this girl and to her enablers.  The following short excerpt provides a sampling of his position.

You proclaim that we need to live within the planetary boundaries, to focus on equity and “take a few steps back” for the sake of all living species. You resent the hierarchical distinctions between human and animals and entertain no qualitative distinction between a monkey, a malaria-infested mosquito and a snarling hyena. You mouth slogans such as: “We have set in motion an irreversible chain reaction beyond control,” and you advocate for universal veganism on the Ellen DeGeneres show. You do not buy new clothes, and you don’t want the rest of us to either. You want us all to stop flying in jet planes without giving us an alternative as to how we would re-transform our financial and trading systems—to say nothing of our personal enjoyment of the world—without regression to a primeval era. Few can afford to cross the Atlantic in a $6M zero carbon yacht financed by rich people who made their wealth by the very means you condemn as loathsome.

There are a few things that we, the rational adults of the world who are not bowing to you like guilt-ridden obsequious Babbitts need to say to you, Greta.

First, we did not rob you of your childhood or of your dreams. You are the legatee of a magnificent technological civilization which my generation and the one before it and several others preceding it all the way to the Industrial Revolution and the Renaissance, bequeathed to you. 

I contend that this response is not only appropriate, but also absolutely necessary.  For it is by our willingness to silently suffer fools that the ideology of fools is legitimized and advanced.  Were I to meet a young person spouting the opinions of Greta in normal life I would not respond in the scathing manned of Dr. Hill.  However, I would politely but firmly make it clear that I disagree and explain the reasons why.  And, if they responded with angry attacks on my character for having accosted the fragile feelings of a youngster I would explain that they’s better grow thicker skin if they hope to succeed in this world.

On the other hand, when the United Nations gives an international platform to a young child from which she spews contempt and idiotic bromides we are operating at another level entirely.  Here the consequences of gentleness or even embarrassed silence are great.  For Greta at the U.N. assaulted the very foundations of civilization.  What young person observing adult cowardice in the face of this assault did not respond with increased contempt for their elders?  What obsequious Socialist wouldn’t interpret our craven silence as an admission of guilt?  And what power hungry Progressive wouldn’t conclude that we don’t have the courage to oppose their project of power accumulation by any means necessary?

So, regardless of who is pushing Socialist ideas it is long past time that we respond appropriately; sometimes with gentle but firm disagreement and others with the aggressive questions and answers necessary to turn back this latest assault by a wicked, stupid and failed ideology.

Thoughts About “Questions for Socialists” (1)

churchell-socialism

One of the great mysteries of life is why the supporters of Socialism continue to be afforded the presumption of moral and intellectual superiority while supporters of Fascism are uniformly condemned as carriers of utter evil.  While the latter conclusion is certainly true and just, the former is a great and wicked lie.

This question has become increasingly relevant as we observe the Millennial Generation embracing Socialism as a means of social advancement, and the Democrat Party increasingly presenting itself as the vehicle by which this end can be accomplished.  It is therefore long past time that a few pointed questions be posed to these people who pose as our betters.

Once we pierce the wafer-thin, fragile shell of presumption that protects Socialists from objective scrutiny it’s shocking to discover how pathetically weak are their claims.  As my previous four posts on this topic demonstrate it is only by the force-field of presumed moral and intellectual superiority that these ignoramuses (and far worse) avoid the fate of the few remaining Fascists.  That is, they are enabled by the power of intimidation through use of social power due to Progressive domination of most of our key institutions.

But there is also a secondary though still potent defense against criticism, that being pity and/or good manners.  Here I have in mind the sweet aged church lady or the earnest young man who spouts Socialist ideas in obvious and embarrassing ignorance.  It would certainly be cruel for those of us who know better to publicly accost such people with the purpose of causing them embarrassment.  And yet it also would be cruel to allow their ignorance to continue by false affirmation or studied silence.

This situation could be reasonably designated the “Greta Thunberg Effect.”  You likely already know that she is the young Swedish girl (born in 2003) who became a famous activist on climate change.  In 2019 she crossed the Atlantic Ocean (from Plymouth, U.K., to New York, U.S.) in a 60 foot racing yacht equipped with solar panels and underwater turbines, thus making it “zero carbon emissions.”  Once in the United States she addressed the United Nations in a scathing speech.  This young girl presumed to be the final judge of all living adults and all human civilizations, and, the font of ultimate wisdom by which the planet could be saved.  And, in spite of her appalling ignorance and presumption most adults  shirked any responsibility to push back.  For to do so would embarrass her and open the criticizer to accusations of child cruelty.

However an unavoidable consequence of this silence is the assumption that we accept the legitimacy of this little girl’s moral and intellectual claims.  Thus we become complicit in the advance of ideas with which we don’t agree and, if implemented, would drive us back to the stone age where human life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

I’ll complete my commentary on this situation in the next post.

Our Bloody-Minded Betters (4)

politics-is-civil-war

Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue

Drawing Conclusions

I contend that the behavior of the Obama ex-officials and the current Democrat leadership is bloody-minded because they all have shown shameless willingness to tear this nation apart.  Their monomaniacal drive to overturn the 2016 Presidential election by extra-Constitutional/democratic means has set into motion a cold civil war with the potential to become hot.  Had they rather focused their energies on building support for a winning 2020 Presidential election our nation would not now be in a state of polarized hatred.

There are likely hidden agendas behind this abhorrent behavior that may come to light when the Justice Department Inspector General’s report and results of the Barr/Durham investigation become public.

I refer, of course, to the imminent exposure — at least we hope it is coming — of the predicates of the Russia probe, easily the most despicable and seditious attempt to unseat a president in American history. This attempt to impeach or, at that point, to interdict began on or not long after June 16, 2015, the day Donald Trump announced his candidacy.

What is happening now is merely a continuation of a process that started then.

Until then we are left to speculate on more philosophical aspects of their motivations.  In what follows I will discuss two end-points that likely encompass the reality behind this behavior, one being the more benign and the other the more sinister.

A More Benign Explanation

A more benign explanation can be found in the Quillette article titled “From Homophobia to Anti-Bigotry: How Did Christians Become the New Pariahs?” by Douglas Murray.  This excerpted passage is generalizable to the issue at hand.

Do you allow arguments that worked for you to work for others? Are reciprocity and tolerance principles or fig-leaves?

And that would be to trample all over one of the bases of political tolerance. It would be to award yourself the right not just to come to your own conclusions about people, but to attribute motives to others that you cannot see but which you suspect. Which leads to a question that everybody in genuinely diverse and pluralistic societies must at some point ask: “Do we take other people at face value, or do we try to read behind their words and actions, claim to see into their hearts and there divine the true motives which their speech and actions have not yet revealed?”

they-live-glasses-president

The President viewed through the Progressive “They Live” sunglasses.

This could be a compelling explanation for the bizarre fantasy-behaviors that have been previously discussed.  In particular, it could be that these ex-officials and current politicians actually believe that they can “see” behind events and statements by President Trump, his administration and his supporters to their “real” motives.  In this case when they accuse the President of “treason” that can’t be found by the Mueller investigative team or “demands for dirt” that aren’t in the actual transcript, they are saying with Joe Biden that “We choose truth over facts.

 

A More Sinister Explanation

A more sinister explanation can be found in The New Criterion article titled “Leninthink” by Gary Saul Morson.  In this case these ex-officials and current politicians are acting from within the anti-morality of the (perhaps neo) Marxist ideology, which is directly related to its most influential practitioner, Vladimir Lenin.  The following excerpts describe both the Leninist moral framework and the author’s contention that this mindset is at work in contemporary politics.

Vladimir Lenin

“When we are reproached with cruelty, we wonder how people can forget the most elementary Marxism.”
—Lenin

Lenin regarded all interactions as zero-sum. To use the phrase he made famous, the fundamental question is always “Who Whom?”—who dominates whom, who does what to whom, ultimately who annihilates whom. To the extent that we gain, you lose. …

Basic books on negotiation teach that you can often do better than split the difference, since people have different concerns. Both sides can come out ahead—but not for the Soviets, whose negotiating stance John F. Kennedy once paraphrased as: what’s mine is mine; and what’s yours is negotiable. For us, the word “politics” means a process of give and take, but for Lenin it’s we take, and you give. From this it follows that one must take maximum advantage of one’s position. If the enemy is weak enough to be destroyed, and one stops simply at one’s initial demands, one is objectively helping the enemy, which makes one a traitor.

When I detect Leninist ways of thinking today, people respond: surely you don’t think all those social justice warriors are Leninists! Of course not. The whole point of Leninism is that only a few people must understand what is going on. That was the key insight of his tract What Is to Be Done? When Leninism is significant, there will always be a spectrum going from those who really understand, to those who just practice the appropriate responses, to those who are entirely innocent. The real questions are: Is there such a spectrum now, and how do we locate people on it? And if there is such a spectrum, what do we do about it?

Although all of these bloody-minded players are clearly card-carrying Progressives, the extent (if any) of their adherence to (neo) Marxism can only be speculated upon.  Except, that is, for John Brennan, who by his own admission voted for the Communist Presidential candidate in 1976.  This was at the height of the Cold War when the Communist U.S.S.R. was credibly threatening to destroy Western Civilization!  We also must admit that the Democrat Party is currently dominated by those calling themselves Democratic Socialists, but whose proposals have a familiar totalitarian ring.

Closing Thoughts

To believe that these high ex-Obama Administration officials and current high Democrat politicians are simply insane as described by the more benign explanation is incredible.  No, regardless of if they are operating under explicit (neo) Marxism or not, their behavior is clearly within the Leninthink model.  That is, they are pursuing raw, unaccountable power without the limitations of moral decency as understood by the history of our Republic.  In this they have richly earned the contempt of tens-of-millions of their fellow citizens.  The only question remaining is will they succeed or fail at fundamentally transforming our Republic from an experiment in human freedom and dignity into a nation of serfs and masters.

leninthinkers

And therefore our bloody-minded “betters”

The Arc of (Neo) Marxist Morality

arc-of-universe-except-marxism

Why does Marxism, neo or otherwise, necessarily bend towards evil?  After all, due to the Fall we are all bound to sin and thus do evil.  What differentiates Marxism from any other ideological system for the worse?

I’ll freely admit that other equally terrible or even worse human ideologies are possible.  It’s just that to this point in time nothing except Fascism has demonstrated such an overwhelming compulsion towards conscienceless evil than has Marxism.

skulls-USSRThe best place that I’ve found to illuminate this terror is through the perspective of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, author of The Gulag Archipelago.  This issue was recently explored by Gary Saul Morson in a New Criterion article titled “How the Great Truth Dawned.”

Well into this article, after a fascinating meditation on the nature of moral truth, Mr. Morson gets to the core issue.

Compared to Soviet interrogators, Solzhenitsyn observes, the villains of Shakespeare, Schiller, and Dickens seem “somewhat farcical and clumsy to our contemporary perception.” The problem is, these villains recognize themselves as evil, and say to themselves, I cannot live unless I do evil. But that is not at all the way things are, Solzhenitsyn explains: “To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good, or else that it’s a well-considered act in conformity with natural law. . . . it is in the nature of a human being to seek a justification for his actions.”

Why is it, Solzhenitsyn asks, that Macbeth, Iago, and other Shakespearean evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses, while Lenin and Stalin did in millions? The answer is that Macbeth and Iago “had no ideology.” Ideology makes the killer and torturer an agent of good, “so that he won’t hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors.” Ideology never achieved such power and scale before the twentieth century.

Anyone can succumb to ideology. All it takes is a sense of one’s own moral superiority for being on the right side; a theory that purports to explain everything; and—this is crucial—a principled refusal to see things from the point of view of one’s opponents or victims, lest one be tainted by their evil viewpoint.

If we remember that totalitarians and terrorists think of themselves as warriors for justice, we can appreciate how good people can join them.

The last quoted sentence should make your blood run cold.  For while only an infinitesimal percentage of Americans are “warriors for justice” in the sense experienced by Solzhenitsyn, a significant percentage of Progressives consider themselves to be “social justice warriors.”  In fact there are enough of these people with sufficient influence to warp the Democrat Party towards neo-Marxist ideas and policy prescriptions.

If you think I’m being overdramatic here, consider this passage from later in the article.

The contrary view, held by ideologues and justice warriors generally, is that our group is good, and theirs is evil. “Evil people committing evil deeds”: this is the sort of thinking behind notions like class conflict or the international Zionist conspiracy. It is the opposite of the idea that makes tolerance and democracy possible: the idea that there is legitimate difference of opinion and we must not act as if God or History had blessed our side as always right. If you think that way, there is no reason not to have a one-party state.

Can anyone seriously contend given the statements and behavior of the Progressive Left, up to and including their Presidential candidates, that they are perceptibly moving in this direction?  It is they who have been weaponizing government agencies against their political opponents, they who are encouraging lawlessness rather than working to change our laws, they who are demanding fundamental change to our republic without reference to the legitimate Constitutional means for obtaining that change.  No, this is not totalitarianism, but it is movement in that direction.  And in that direction is such great evil that no-one should dare to move so much as an inch towards it.  Continuing the article’s excerpts.

Bolshevik ethics explicitly began and ended with atheism. Only someone who rejected all religious or quasi-religious morals could be a Bolshevik because, as Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and other Bolshevik leaders insisted, the only standard of right and wrong was success for the Party. The bourgeoisie falsely claim we have no ethics, Lenin explained in a 1920 speech. But what we reject is any ethics based on God’s commandments or anything resembling them, such as abstract principles, timeless values, universal human rights, or any tenet of philosophical idealism. For a true materialist, Lenin maintained, there can be no Kantian categorical imperative to regard others only as ends, not as means. By the same token, the materialist does not acknowledge the supposed sanctity of human life. All such notions, Lenin insisted, are “based on extra human and extra class concepts” and so are simply religion in disguise. “That is why we say that to us there is no such thing as a morality that stands outside human society; that is a fraud. To us morality is subordinated to the interests of the proletariat’s class struggle,” which means to the Party. Aron Solts, known as “the conscience of the Party,” explained: “We . . . can say openly and frankly: yes, we hold in prison those who interfere with the establishment of our order, and we do not stop before other such actions because we do not believe in the existence of abstractly unethical actions.”

Only someone lobotomized by ideology can fail to see in this description of Marxist “morality” shades of “by any means necessary” Progressivism.  As was explained in a previous post:

LiberalFascism4Neo-marxists divide all demographics (white, black, asian, male, female, gay, straight, etc) and place them in a hierarchy of oppression as determined by how successful that demographic is.

Thus, if we simply replace “class” with “race/identity” we move from classical Marxism to the neo-Marxism that drives contemporary Progressivism.  It should (but doesn’t) shake Progressives to the core that this is the almost exact substitution that differentiates the internationalist socialism of Marxist Communism from national socialism of Nazi Fascism.