May 2nd, 2014

David Horowitz on his lifelong subject: the left

David Horowitz has devoted his entire adult life to the left.

First, working for it. And then for the last three or so decades, fighting against it.

One of the many ways to fight it is to inform people about it, and Horowitz certainly knows whereof he speaks, having looked at politics and history from both sides now.

Horowitz is 75 years old, and had a major health scare a few years ago. So it makes sense that he would be looking back over his life’s work, which in the case of Horowitz consists of a ton of writing. So what better way to look back—and forward—than to issue a multi-volume compendium of his output that constitutes one long warning about the left’s strategy and duplicity, and its plans for the future.

I’ll let Horowitz tell the rest:

…[T]hese are not articles written on random subjects that happened to catch my fancy. Nor were they written as intellectual exercises that set out to explore various aspects of current issues. They are dispatches from a war zone, written to identify the nature, agendas, and long-term goals of a political movement of historic proportions that is also global in scope…

The nature of these conflicts as part of an ongoing war was, in my view, scarcely recognized by conservatives at the time, and has still not fully sunk in. Conservatives have rarely approached the individual conflicts with the seriousness they deserve, describing their adversaries as “liberals” — as if they subscribed to the principles of Lockean individualism, tolerance, and political compromise. Only with the advent of the Obama administration have some conservatives begun to connect the dots of origins and outcomes and to grasp the real nature of the national transformation that their adversaries intend.

It is for this conservative audience — a constituency on whom the American future depends — that I undertook to put together The Black Book of the American Left. It is first of all a narrative map of the battles fought over the last 40 years and — it must be said – lost, almost every one. The Black Book contains a record as complete as any likely to be written of the struggle to resist a Communist-inspired Left that was not defeated in the Cold War but took advantage of the Soviet defeat to enter the American mainstream and conquer it, until today its members occupy the White House…

…[T]he movement now in motion to dismantle the American system, and bring this country to its knees, is no overnight phenomenon and is not the result of misguided idealisms or misunderstandings that can be easily repaired. The adversary cannot be dissuaded, because what drives him is a religious mission on which his identity and quest for a meaningful life depend. He can be stopped only by a political counterforce that is determined and organized, and — most importantly — that understands the gravity of the threat it faces…

…[My work] draws aside the veil of “good intentions” to reveal the malice underneath. That is its utility, and the main reason I am putting these volumes together…

…While I hope this book may be useful to those fighting to defend individual freedom and free markets, I do not deceive myself into believing that I have finally set the harpoon into the leviathan, a feat that is ultimately not possible. Progressivism is fundamentally a religious faith, which meets the same eternal human needs as traditional faiths, and for that reason will be with us always. In the last analysis, the progressive faith is a Gnosticism that can only be held at bay but never finally beaten back to earth.

88 Responses to “David Horowitz on his lifelong subject: the left”

  1. ConceptJunkie Says:

    Horowitz raises an important point that almost every liberal will deny, but which is clearly true: This is ultimately a religious war because their adherence to their flawed and evil ideology is ultimately religious in nature.

    For a lot of people, it’s blatantly obvious: They have tried to replace God with State. For others, it is an obsession with an idea that is so deeply ingrained, they will probably never be able to be cured of it. They would rather die than switch.

    I heard an interesting talk last night on the nature of worship. Drawing on Jewish tradition, the most important aspect of worship is sacrifice, and we are seeing an overwhelming amount of sacrifice on the the altars of collectivism, political correctness and sexual libertinism.

    The economic well-being of middle class is being sacrificed to the first; logic and common sense are being sacrificed to the second; and our literal bodies and souls are being sacrificed to the third, including the bodies of millions of unborn children.

    If that isn’t worship, then nothing is worship.

  2. carl in atlanta Says:

    I read that this morning. Horowitz really scares me, mainly because I’m afraid he’s just telling the unvarnished truth. If that’s the case there really is no hope (other than to resolve to just continue to fight the Long Defeat).

    He’s like the Alpha Changer and he speaks and write with Authority. But his message is so raw, his tone so utterly hopeless that it’s hard for me to take him in big doses.

    Ten volumes of David Horowitz? Sorry, but I’ll wait for the Reader’s Digest version. Or the Cliff Notes.

    Or Neo’s summaries.

  3. Eric Says:

    Neo: “One of the many ways to fight it is to inform people about it”

    Not sufficient.

    Informing people about left activism is not fighting the Left. That’s just sharing intel. As a former MI trooper (and a former activist), I appreciate the importance of intel. But, by the same token, I also appreciate intel is useful only to the degree it’s applied to real competitive activity.

    The people of the Left do social politics correctly, ie, competitively, ie, to win. The Left understands the activist game is the only social-political game there is.

    The problem is the majority of the people of the Right are willing to do no more than complain, pout and wag their shaming finger at the effective activity of the Left, while demanding fantasy magical messianic savior GOP politicians do all the competitive activity that properly falls to an activist social movement by the people. In other words, the people of the Right demand that the GOP do the competitive activity that the people of Right, not the GOP, are responsible for.

    Being informed of how left activists work counterintuitively seems only to make people of the Right complain, pout, and wag their shaming fingers with more pep rather than spur them to actually compete.

    Intel is a supporting piece only. The people of the Right must undertake real activism in order to compete for real against the Left. Hold your nose and take an extra long shower at the end of the day if you must, but it’s the only way.

  4. Eric Says:

    carl in atlanta: “If that’s the case there really is no hope (other than to resolve to just continue to fight the Long Defeat).”

    “Continue” to fight? Until the people of the Right undertake proper activism, they have not begun to fight.

    Being informed of the Left and complaining about the Left is not fighting.

    Fighting is fighting, and in social politics, activism is fighting.

  5. neo-neocon Says:

    Eric:

    I never said it was sufficient. Merely necessary.

    So many people are unaware of the left that they are not able to activate themselves against it.

  6. southpaw Says:

    The TEA party was an activist movement shut down by the left, and just as importantly, their allies, the establishment republicans. When the IRS scandal broke, it was mostly mishandled by the only branch of government controlled by the right. Other than using it as political theatre, our good friend J Boner has resisted naming special prosecutors to fight back. Had Trey Gowdy not reminded Perry Mason Issa thay Lois Learner violated her right to take the 5th, she would have walked out without another thought.
    There has been activism by regular Americans, but the Left barely needs to break a sweat with dummies like McCain and Boner doing their jobs for them. Conservatives like Ted Cruz are marginalized by their own party, in favor of people who play nice with the party that wants to destroy them.

  7. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Having read the linked article, here is what I find most impactful;

    “In fact the adherents of the perspectives commonly described as “liberal” and “progressive” – and this includes the entire Democratic Party leadership and its activists – are radicals. The proper term to describe the outlook and agendas of today’s Democratic Party activists is “neo-communist,” [the members of whom compose] a movement that occupies the White House and is determined to fundamentally transform this country and its constitutional framework. A movement now in motion to dismantle the American system, and bring this country to its knees, is no overnight phenomenon and is not the result of misguided idealisms or misunderstandings that can be easily repaired.

    the assault on America’s heritage and founding principles, which has produced a generation[s] of Americans who believe in collective rather than individual rights, and are comfortable with the creation of thought police in the name of “political correctness” and “social justice.”

    The adversary cannot be dissuaded, because what drives him is a religious mission on which his identity and quest for a meaningful life depend.

    Obama and Castro [and activist leftists] are socialist missionaries. For that very reason, the evil they do far exceeds anything achievable by tinhorn tyrants. They are advocates of a cause that turns a blind eye toward the millions of corpses and the wrecked continents of the recent past while attacking the democratic foundations of what remains of a free-market, free-world community of nations, beginning with Israel and the United States. That is their evil and their crime: their will to do it all over again, as if the human calamities they inspired never took place.” [my emphasis]

    It’s clear that Horowitz does not believe Obama to primarily be a fool but a knave. Though a ‘confederacy of fools’ is providing the political power through votes and mass media, to provide the leverage to fundamentally transform this country and its constitutional framework, to dismantle the American system and bring this country to its knees.

    Obama is gutting the military. He is destroying the Pax Americana which ensures unhindered international commercial shipping. He is militarizing federal agencies and police departments across the country. He is spending this country into fiscal collapse. He is facilitating the acquisition of Iran’s pursuit of nukes and thus ensuring the spread of nuclear proliferation into unstable, third world nations. He is knowingly precipitating the conditions that will lead to terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons.

    He is ignoring the existential threat, the clear and present danger, that an nuclear EMP attack by Iran or North Korea pose to America. Obama’s policies, both foreign and domestic will in time result in national catastrophe. It is only a question of which crisis will manifest first. In all cases however, the resultant consequence of nationwide, near permanent martial law shall occur. Under martial law, legal precedent exists for the legal suspension of constitutional provisions and guarantees.

    Only the naïve and gullible imagine that Obama or a future Pres. Hillary Clinton will fail to appreciate the opportunity martial law would provide to complete the fundamental transformation of this country and its constitutional framework.

  8. Alan F Says:

    I read David Horowitz’s autobiography, Radical Son, in 1997. That and talk radio were key to turning me against the whole liberal side. I am sending $125 to the David Horitwitz Freedom Center to encourage their work.

  9. DNW Says:

    “The adversary cannot be dissuaded, because what drives him is a religious mission on which his identity and quest for a meaningful life depend. “

    An acute and perhaps more completely (in a psychological sense) formulated expression of an exasperated sentiment so often repeated here.

    ” [he] cannot be dissuaded, because [it is that upon] which his identity and quest for a meaningful life depend.”

    Their act of self-creation, as they see it then, or as Obama would phrase it, is their project for a realization of “how we see ourselves”.

    The object of their worship, although not made of clay, is nonetheless, still fashioned by their own hands; but admittedly by hands directed – according to their own theories – by fundamentally unconscious and non-rational impulses … expressions of something which is in some ways fundamentally unintelligible or inexplicable to what we call our rational mind.

    But this idol, whatever it really is, has “science” and real power, and that makes all the difference in their minds.

    Thus, it may not be religion as we usually think of it, as dogma and social practice with an explicitly supernatural orientation, but it is a doctrine that provides life-meaning and emotional comfort and psycho-social reassurance to its adherents; and is certainly religious in a way which those who saw the early Christians (or perhaps the Maccabees) as enemies, would readily recognize.

    Religion:

    “According to Cicero derived from relegere “go through again” (in reading or in thought), from re- “again” (see re-) + legere “read” (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare “to bind fast” (see rely), via notion of “place an obligation on,” or “bond between humans and gods.” In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens “careful,” opposite of negligens. In English, meaning “particular system of faith” is recorded from c.1300; sense of “recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers” is from 1530s. “

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=religion

    Proclaim your allegiance to the emerging god-man collective, act in unconditional solidarity, “sacrifice” to it, or …

  10. neo-neocon Says:

    DNW:

    For some people, leftism is a righteous cause, and although not exactly a religion it has elements of religion and is a fervent belief system. For some it acts as a substitute for a religion they’ve lost or abandoned. But I also know quite a few leftists who are religious (usually Catholic).

  11. Don Carlos Says:

    The “non-religious leftists” are exactly like “moderate muslims”–scratch deep enough and fervor emerges, as if one has drilled down just deep enough to hit a vein of unreason.
    The dogs I run with, gun-loving conservatives, are usually Catholic.

    The Tea Parties have faded because they didn’t grasp the need to be ultra-organized and disciplined, nor did the organizers understand the gravity of the threat against which they briefly and good-heartedly arose. My Tea party’s ExCom thought I was too radical when I tried to tell them what Horowitz is trying to tell a hopefully very much larger audience. No, no they said, we just want a smaller government that taxes less and follows the Constitution. It has dwindled away.

  12. Molly NH Says:

    Neo there are significant numbers of Catholics on the Right too
    I think the Catholics you come across on the Left are of the
    *Cafeteria* variety. Support abortion, gay marriage, divorce,
    & attend Church on Easter & Christmas.
    Right supporting Catholics are church attendees, married to
    their original spouse, consider marriage a sacrament therefore
    It s one man one woman, abhor abortion.
    There are enough Catholics to show up in both the Left & Right
    because of their large numbers. I read in an article on statistics
    that 7 or 8 of every 10 Christians in the World are Catholics.

  13. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “it is a doctrine that provides life-meaning and emotional comfort and psycho-social reassurance to its adherents; and is certainly religious in a way which those who saw the early Christians (or perhaps the Maccabees) as enemies, would readily recognize.” DNW

    Yes.

    “When people reject traditional religious beliefs, they merely go on to create some other faith-based schema to believe in; whether it be money or power or the various religions of the left; socialism, communism, feminism, environmentalism or anthropogenicism… human nature demands something larger than itself to believe in.” unknown

  14. DNW Says:

    I’m kind of dizzy after a long day LOL and need to go home.

    I’ll look in later this weekend for any possible response.

    But in reply to your comment …

    ” neo-neocon Says:
    May 2nd, 2014 at 7:12 pm

    DNW:

    For some people, leftism is a righteous cause, and although not exactly a religion it has elements of religion and is a fervent belief system. For some it acts as a substitute for a religion they’ve lost or abandoned. But I also know quite a few leftists who are religious (usually Catholic).”

    … let me ask the following questions about the leftism you mention as possibly seen as “righteous” by its adherents.

    Is that “righteous” leftism ever not politically coercive, or totalizing?

    Is that righteous leftism ever not-collectivist?

    Is that “righteous” leftism ever individualistic and voluntary and ready to recognize boundaries and limits to its interests and sway?

    Or is leftism, just another term and label for what is always in essence some form of ultimately politically coercive collectivism?

    And finally, what, in anthropological terms, could “righteous” possibly mean in a collectivist context?

    What sense, in a world where the individual and his conscience operating in liberty is not seen as the moral locus, could the term “righteous” even have?

    “From each according to his ability, to each according to his (bureaucratically defined) need” is the essence of leftism; not what is contractually “owed”, not what is conceived of as natural in some teleological sense and as belonging to the individual, not what is personally earned, not what is contractually due or is just in proportion to personal effort expended and result obtained.

    What, can the word “righteous” possibly mean in the mouth of a human who sees mindless social insects as models to be emulated?

    As far as I can determine from my readings of leftists themselves, moral terms like “righteous” have no real meaning in leftism. In fact, morality and ethics as we usually think of them have no more serious and objective meaning to a leftist than the term “rights”.

    The leftist’s universe is about achieving an end which is not in itself susceptible to a moral analysis based on the individual as the moral locus.

    Leftists may use moral terminology in their rhetoric, but what “righteous” could possibly mean in the mouth of a leftist, is at the moment a complete mystery to me.

    Perhaps you could clear that up …

  15. DonS Says:

    Eric,

    What do you mean by “activism”?

    It seems to me that a big part of the left’s success is that they have taken over the media, as well as government jobs and education.

    Leftists teach our children and tell us what is happening each day. We, on the other hand, are much more likely to start a business, but such provides much less opportunity to frame the debate.

    On top of that, all the leftists inside the government will aid an Obama administration in cracking down on the Tea Party, but when the GOP takes the WH those leftists go into hibernation if not outright passive-aggressive mode (leaks at the very least).

    The left is much more leveraged then we are. They also have the edge in the form of programs like social security and medicare, in which they deeply invested the American people since the 30s or 60s, respectively. This investment makes it impossible for the courts to ever rule many unconstitutional governments powers unconstitutional.

    I think a lot of it goes back to the DNA of the respective groups. We just want to be left alone, and don’t care what others think as long as we are free. They very much care what others think, and wish to impose upon us. They find reward in government work, we don’t (except military/law enforcement and perhaps a few others), they find reward in teaching sociology and women’s studies, we dont. They find reward in TV news, we don’t.

  16. DonS Says:

    DNW,

    When I was late teens early 20s a close friend was a moderate leftists who considered himself highly moral.

    He was not religious, but, in many respects followed a moral code.

    I do recall once a discussion we had at Dennys back around 1982. He stated something to the fact that “socialists just want to live together and share”. At the time I didn’t know enough to provide a counter argument on the fly, but I should have corrected him to say that “They can live like that if they wish; many such efforts were in fact started over the last 150 years or so. The problem is they always want to force others to live as they do.”

  17. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “socialists just want [everyone] to live together and share [equally]”

    Right there; rejection of reality and a yearning for utopia.

    It is a rejection of reality because the criminally minded, of which humanity produces a certain percentage in every generation are fundamentally incapable of ‘living together’ cooperatively.

    It is a rejection of reality because humanity produces a certain percentage in every generation whose insecure ego and/or lust for power lead to those individuals placing personal ambition above the public good.

    It is a rejection of reality because humanity is an unequal mix of inherent blessings. Intelligence, industriousness, sheer talent, persistence and plain luck all result in differing degrees of material success.

    It is a rejection of reality because an intelligent, industrious person is naturally resentful of sharing “the daily bread they’ve earned” with a lazy, self-indulgent mooch.

    Socialism is a perversion of the charitable impulse.

    Thus, socialism is a utopian intellectual construct that violates the laws of nature and man. It is an offense against the reality that God has created.

  18. neo-neocon Says:

    DNW:

    “Righteous” in the “kumbaya” sense. There will be no envy, no exploitation, etc. “Righteous” in the sense of utopia peace/love/equality. A “righteous” dream that has nothing to do with the reality.

  19. neo-neocon Says:

    Molly NH:

    These are very devout, committed, activist Catholics for the most part. I have no idea whether they accept every single premise of the Catholic Church because I’ve never had that particular discussion with them.

    A lot of Catholic priests in Latin America used to be in the forefront of Leftist activism there. I don’t know whether that’s still true.

    I’m not saying, of course, that most Catholics are leftists. I’m just saying that some Catholics are, which indicates to me that being on the left is not necessarily a substitute for religion but can go hand in hand with it.

  20. Molly NH Says:

    Neo I agree you can be Left & have religion too.
    You may recall THAT Pope JP II was very much against clerical involvement in politics & publicly *scolded* a priest in a receiving line during one of his So American visits & also issued a Vatican directive that got the Priest (? Fr Drynan ??) not sure of his name but JP cut short his political career.
    Now of course the Pope now, oi vay South America !
    they are all Lefties down there !

  21. eve Says:

    A few of my friends and some members of my family attend services at a Unitarian Meeting House. I have been to several events at the Meeting House. The people are well-educated and generous, but as far as I can see, Unitarians are liberals who meet on Sundays to basically worship themselves.

  22. parker Says:

    Everyone should read Unitended Consequences by John Ross.

  23. Beverly Says:

    He’s saying what Whittaker Chambers said in Witness — which is STILL not on the New York Public Library shelves.

    Zero lending copies in the entire city of New York. Disgraceful. Wicked. Yeah, they’re Communists, Not “Liberals.” (Yet another of the endless examples of their inverted nomenclature.)

    >>Whittaker Chambers, whose autobiography Witness, published in 1952, details his life as an agent in the Fourth Section of Soviet Military Intelligence from 1932 to 1938, where he coordinated espionage activities with high-ranking United States government officials. Witness also movingly explains Chambers’ departure from Communism and his conversion to Christianity.

    From his conversion, Chambers grasped that revolutionary ideology lied about the nature of man and the source of his being. The sources of Chambers’ ascent and the witness he made are worth recalling in our own period of late-modern anomie.

    One morning in 1938, shortly before leaving the Communist Party, while feeding his young daughter, Chambers concluded that the shape of her ear could not be explained by Marxist materialism. Something this beautiful and unique, Chambers observed, implied design, which implied the existence of God.

    Understanding the divine gift of his daughter Ellen also strangely related to the horrific irruption within Chambers of the “screams” from Communism’s suffering victims. He writes “[O]ne day the [apostate] Communist really hears those screams. [The screams] … do not merely reach his mind. They pierce beyond. They pierce to his soul.”

    A soul in agony, in this case, a person under persecution by Communist authorities, has attempted to communicate with another soul through memory and across time. The crucial significance of both episodes rests in Chambers embracing the presence of his soul, thus denying the false materialism of Communism and the darkness it had covered him in.

    As Chambers observed, “A Communist breaks because he must choose at last between irreconcilable opposites—God or Man, Soul or Mind, Freedom or Communism.”<<

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/kqy3tzy

  24. DonS Says:

    Geoffrey,

    Well, yeah, I think the major issue is simply that the socialists will make others play by their system. Their use of force is the key element he overlooked. Even though he himself favored socialist medical care, something I had little argument against at the time, but still tended to reject.

  25. DonS Says:

    With respect to Catholics, it is good to remember that at the time of the English Revolution (1688) it was a Catholic king who wished to establish the divine right of kings and break rule of law. The Protestant nations tended to lead with respect to liberty and rule of law for that reason.

  26. DonS Says:

    Sorry, the “reason” presented above doesn’t make sense as such. The point is that Catholics tended towards absolute kings and absolute religion, while Protestants tended towards religious freedom and rule of law. Spanish Catholics of the 1500s are a prime example of absolutism, while the Dutch and later English and then Americans are examples of rule of law.

  27. Ymarsakar Says:

    The idea that the Leftist alliance is a religion, isn’t news to me.

    Some of us don’t need Horo to tell us what color the sky is, after all.

  28. ErisGuy Says:

    That ship has sailed. The transformation of the Christian West into the Socialist Global [Culture/Polity] is almost finished.

    I have lived to see changes as profound as Christianizing the pagan world of Rome.

    Soon, there will be no law, no society, no public opinion that will restrain Leftist/BDS/atheist hatred.

    All dissenters will be Betty van Patter. Israel will be destroyed to great acclaim. The Soviet campaign against churches will be seen as a just and mild precursor to the final Dawkins-ing of the West.

    The USA tried to defeat this evil with “Red Scares,” WW2, the Cold War, “McCarthyism”, but it failed and succumbed to treason.

    RIP, liberty and individualism.

  29. njartist49 Says:

    Neoneocon has her own David Horowitz in Artfldgr; but no one is paying attention. The main problem with most conservative blogs is that they are basically places where commenters are able to onastically spew and then move onto the next blog post: nothing sinks in, not a thing.

  30. njartist49 Says:

    In order to fight a religious movement, be it socialism/progressivism or Islam, one must – I repeat, must – also take a religious position; the only one available to us of the West is Christianity – biblical Christianity, the source of all our liberties: all else has been shown to fail.

  31. rickl Says:

    Once again, I’ll link to the “Communist Goals” that were read into the Congressional Record in 1963:

    [From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

    1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

    2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

    3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

    4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

    5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

    6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

    7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

    8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

    9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

    10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

    11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

    12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

    13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

    14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

    15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

    16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

    17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

    18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

    19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

    20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

    21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

    22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”

    23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

    24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

    25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

    26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

    27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”

    28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

    29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

    30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

    31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

    32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

    33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

    34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

    35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

    36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

    37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

    38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

    39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

    40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

    41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

    42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

    43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

    44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

    45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

    From the vantage point of 2014, that reads like a progress report.

  32. Zachriel Says:

    You guys are totally paranoid. You do realize that the political left is a complex continuum that encompasses many points of view? Just like the political right.

  33. Don Carlos Says:

    Zachriel has obviously given this a very great deal of thought, kind of like “Elliot Spitzer is corrupt, but so are all politicians.” Very helpful.

  34. Zachriel Says:

    Don Carlos: “Elliot Spitzer is corrupt, but so are all politicians.”

    Power is corrupting, that’s a given. However, modern democracy has power widely distributed, which acts as check and balance. This balance can be upset, but over-inflated claims can exacerbate the problem.

  35. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Zachriel,

    Your comment is an indication of just how far you are from the truth of the matter.

    “All truth [facts at odds with ignorance] passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident.” — Arthur Schopenhauer

    Examination of the left also passes through three stages;
    First, examination of the “complex continuum that encompasses many points of view” on the left.

    Second, identification of the three broad categories of which those on the left are composed; the liberally inclined, duped, low-info voter. The naive and gullible ivory tower, leftist intellectual. And the hard core activist leftist.

    The third stage is identifying the basic criteria that forms the ‘connective tissue’ of those on the left; “Political tags – such as communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. – Robert A. Heinlein

    Those who want people to be controlled do so out of one of two reasons; a personal lust for power or a desire to create a more perfect world. The latter suffer from a form of arrested development having never come to terms with reality. In fact they philosophically reject the reality within which they exist, failing to understand that without life’s essential ‘unfairness’ neither civilization, material progress nor even evolution is possible. They confuse “man’s inhumanity to man” with life’s “unequal sharing of blessings” and out of that arises the left’s tyrannical “social justice”.

    Now we shall see if you personally are ready to begin examining your most fundamental premises or shall, like most “pick yourself up and hurry along like nothing ever happened”.

  36. Zachriel Says:

    Geoffrey Britain: The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. – Robert A. Heinlein

    A couple of problems.

    That’s statism, not leftism. There are statists on the right, and anarchists on the left, and visa versa.

    Furthermore, control is a continuum. Some people want a little control (traffic lights), some want a lot (Heil Hitler). Nearly everyone understands the need for government, so most people are somewhere in between statism and anarchism.

  37. Ymarsakar Says:

    Z boy here supported Obama, either here in America or overseas, and wanted Obamacare with all the trimmings.

    And he dares to talk about distributed power… as if Z fallen angel here distributed any power except to the Democrat tyrants.

  38. Ymarsakar Says:

    Neoneocon has her own David Horowitz in Artfldgr; but no one is paying attention.

    Art has problems communicating a single idea to a single autonomous individual. At least Horo can write and capitalize his sentences for past few decades.

  39. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Zachriel,

    Actually there is no problem in categorization, only in perception. Heinlein’s quote makes clear that he is speaking of statism and there are certainly those on the right who embrace it. Most recently, House speaker Boehner and Senate Minority leader McConnell have revealed themselves to be first and foremost, statists.

    All ‘isms’ of the left, to one degree or another, reject a fundamental and critical aspect of reality; life’s essential unfairness in both its “unequal sharing of blessings” and reality’s disregard for “when bad things happen to good people” and, because those on the left reject that aspect of reality, they seek control. For if only they can make people good enough, if only they can make reality ‘just’ and thus good enough, all the pain and injustice in the world will be eliminated. Those on the left seek, to one degree or another to create heaven on earth. The psychological motivation is obvious.

    Socialism and its child Communism are binary in nature; only what is forbidden and what is mandatory may be allowed to exist. Every aspect of life must be defined in one or the other category. Tyranny results and becomes obvious to all.

    Socialism MUST gradually evolve into a regulated tyranny, it cannot do otherwise because to keep from “running out of other people’s money” it must eventually seize everything. Then, to RETAIN its power, it MUST categorize ALL thought, speech and behavior as either forbidden or mandatory. Political correctness taken to its end state.

    As he did so often, Churchill illuminated the heart of the matter; “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

    There lies the difference; capitalism and a representative republic with constitutionally guaranteed rights is the surest formula yet discovered for maximizing individual liberty. Liberty is a two edged sword, good and bad decisions and behavior will result but overall, liberty and capitalism provide the mechanisms for generational progress and material success based in merit. At base, it accepts reality and thus it operates in cooperation with reality.

  40. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “Art has problems communicating a single idea to a single autonomous individual.”

    artfldgr has explained his disability in communication. IMO, his larger problem is his insecurity with the resultant need to belittle, patronize and condescend. If only we weren’t so stupidly obtuse.

  41. Zachriel Says:

    Geoffrey Britain: All ‘isms’ of the left, to one degree or another, reject a fundamental and critical aspect of reality; life’s essential unfairness in both its “unequal sharing of blessings” and reality’s disregard for “when bad things happen to good people” and, because those on the left reject that aspect of reality, they seek control.

    Well, the left is defined as promotion of egalitarianism. However, you still have two problems.

    Many on the political left understand that some inequality is not only inevitable, but desirable, but that some inequality is due to inequities in the system. Their egalitarianism is often centered on ending these systemic inequities.

    Second, not everyone on the political left thinks government is the solution to the problem of egalitarianism. Some are even anarchists.

    Geoffrey Britain: Those on the left seek, to one degree or another to create heaven on earth.

    So do some on the right. Again, the basic conflation remains. Indeed, your Heinlein quote highlights the conflation saying it’s not liberal or conservative, but statist or non-statist.

    Geoffrey Britain: Socialism MUST gradually evolve into a regulated tyranny, it cannot do otherwise because to keep from “running out of other people’s money” it must eventually seize everything.

    Most modern democracies are mixed systems, and seem reasonably stable. Such governments are usually most involved in pensions and healthcare, but generally leave space in other sectors for robust markets. Democracies have shown they are capable of reining back the size and scope of government.

    Geoffrey Britain: There lies the difference; capitalism and a representative republic with constitutionally guaranteed rights is the surest formula yet discovered for maximizing individual liberty.

    There are very few left of significance who don’t understand the importance of markets and individual liberties. That’s why we found the comments to be so contrary to the actual situation. People get wrapped up in things and begin to think that Social Security is tyranny or something. Some sounding of alarms has a value in calling attention to wrongs, but exaggeration undercuts the argument.

  42. J.J. Says:

    Geoffrey Britain, you’re on fire man! Your comments at 10:10 and 11:40 are outstanding.

    Other good comments as well.

    The one thing I haven’t seen is the analogy between the left and Islam. Both are intolerant to the extreme. Lying and deception to advance their cause are SOP for both. Both demand submission to their God – Either Allah or the state.

    Religion is the belief in that which cannot be seen or proven. That’s why it is called faith. The leftists believe in the possibility of a “Heaven on Earth,” for which all evidence to date is negative. Islamists believe that they have been commanded by Allah to kill/convert all infidels. 1400 years and counting – against all reason they’re still at it.

    There are various visions of utopia on the left. The greenies see a world with few humans who have little or no impact on Gaia. The commies have a vision of all humans living in boxy, concrete apartment buildings, wearing identical clothing, and receiving equal pay no matter their level of contribution to society. The statists have a vision of their elite members directing all human activity into any activity/behavior that they consider “moral/right.” Basically they have a lust for power over others. So, yes, there are differences among the left. But they all recognize that they must control the reins of power in order to achieve their utopia.

  43. DonS Says:

    Power is corrupting, that’s a given. However, modern democracy has power widely distributed, which acts as check and balance. This balance can be upset, but over-inflated claims can exacerbate the problem.

    Modern democracy really does little to prevent the corruption of power (and BTW those who seek power tend to already be corrupt). The key factor is a virtuous culture that demands the rule of law. Once that rule of law is violated, for example with Obama changing the law with respect to the ACA at will for partisan political reasons, modern democracy WILL quickly degrade to banana republic status if the culture does not react to hold that in check.

    The real buffer is culture. Not any form of government, which is little more then a speed bump for statists.

  44. neo-neocon Says:

    njartist49:

    “Nobody is paying attention” to Artfldgr? Why, how would you know?

    Do you monitor pageviews here and know who’s reading what?

    And what would people do differently if they were “paying attention”? Go out in the streets with pitchforks?

  45. DonS Says:

    There are very few left of significance who don’t understand the importance of markets and individual liberties.

    That is obviously not correct. Bill Clinton created the housing bubble due to a failure to understand markets. Both HillaryCare and ObamaCare represent ignorance of markets. TARP, the GM bail out, the forced investment in “green energy” are all failures to understand markets. The minimum wage is a failure to understand markets.

    That’s why we found the comments to be so contrary to the actual situation.

    We?

    People get wrapped up in things and begin to think that Social Security is tyranny or something.

    SS is really a start towards tyranny, since a) it violated the Constitution and b) is essentially un-reformable due to the payrole investing millions of Americans in the system, and c) because it works to undermine the virtuous culture required for rule of law.

  46. Ymarsakar Says:

    The one thing I haven’t seen is the analogy between the left and Islam.

    It’s been made several times, although known only by a few 3%.

    http://www.bookwormroom.com/2014/05/01/muslim-agitation-and-western-accommodation/

    If you cannot derive the solution from the sentence “Islamic Jihad is allied with the Leftist alliance”, then external aid will do little good in the long term. This is not a subject people can learn merely by mimicking other people’s ideas.

  47. Ymarsakar Says:

    DonS, Zimmer boy here considers itself the leader of a legion of angels, check the Z name on wiki. It’s also been around doing his fallen angel of terror on various blogs, acting like a reasonable person to hook people into believing the Left is all roses and sunshine.

    In reality, Z is fighting a holy war and “we” is merely the Royal We, that includes Hussein and the Left’s elites. Z is for Eric Holder. Z is for Hussein. Z is for Obamacare. Z is for homo and feminist infiltration of the US military to reduce it like the UN reduced US abilities. Z likes coating it in sugar coated words, easier to force down the throats of the babes on the internet in preparation for the Leftist alliance’s coup de grace.

  48. DonS Says:

    You do realize that the political left is a complex continuum that encompasses many points of view? Just like the political right.

    The left ranges from useful idiot to power hungry authoritarian. Leftists who think they have a complex view are fools.

  49. Ymarsakar Says:

    artfldgr has explained his disability in communication.

    His problem is his problem to fix, not ours to improve for him. Nor does that gather enough sympathy to provide an authority for whatever he likes it to be an authority for.

    A person can either choose to change the world or change himself. A person too weak to even change himself, has no authority to tell the rest of us that we, the world, must change to suit the desires of a few.

    Z’s another example of a holy crusader that thinks the world needs changing, preferably under the Left’s banner.

  50. DonS Says:

    It’s also been around doing his fallen angel of terror on various blogs, acting like a reasonable person to hook people into believing the Left is all roses and sunshine.

    I would have guessed that, actually. I’ve seen a lot of that before.

  51. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    ”Well, the left is defined as promotion of egalitarianism.”

    Yes.

    “Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning “equal”)—or, rarely, equalitarianism[1][2]—is a trend of thought that favors equality for all people. Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy”. [my emphasis]

    Ah, but all humans are NOT equal in fundamental worth nor is equality in social status preferable or achievable. All people of good will are equal in fundamental worth. The criminally minded do NOT share equality of fundamental worth because they by definition, unilaterally deny that other people have fundamental worth.

    Social status is either the result of some form of nepotism (relational, good ole boys network, social class, etc) OR far less often, of the individual’s merit. Only merit can be eliminated, nepotism is an unfortunate aspect of human nature, a perversion of relational communion. It can only be discouraged.

    ”Many on the political left understand that some inequality is not only inevitable, but desirable”
    Name some. I can’t think of one prominent person on the left who asserts that “some inequality is not only inevitable, but desirable”.

    ”some inequality is due to inequities in the system. Their egalitarianism is often centered on ending these systemic inequities.”

    I addressed that. “systemic inequities” cannot be ‘ended’. Inequities are part of reality and acknowledging that, “Their egalitarianism is often centered on ending these systemic inequities.” is… demonstrable proof of their rejection of reality.

    ”Second, not everyone on the political left thinks government is the solution to the problem of egalitarianism. Some are even anarchists.”

    Again, name one prominent person on the left who has publicly stated that government is NOT the solution to the problems we face and who has advocated solutions that are NOT government centered.

    Anarchists advocate for the “law of the jungle” they are advocates of barbarism.

    Geoffrey Britain: “Those on the left seek, to one degree or another to create heaven on earth.”

    “So do some on the right.”

    Again, name one prominent person on the right who has publicly advanced the proposition that it is possible to create heaven on earth.

    Geoffrey Britain: “Socialism MUST gradually evolve into a regulated tyranny, it cannot do otherwise because to keep from “running out of other people’s money” it must eventually seize everything.”

    “Most modern democracies are mixed systems, and seem reasonably stable. Such governments are usually most involved in pensions and healthcare, but generally leave space in other sectors for robust markets. Democracies have shown they are capable of reining back the size and scope of government.”

    Virtually every Western Democratic Government is socialistic, they only differ in the degree of socialism embraced. Virtually every Western Democratic Government is insolvent. Their stability is an illusion maintained by the Ponzi Scheme being perpetrated upon a willing public.

    ‘Space’ “in other sectors for robust markets” is a demonstrably devolving phenomena.

    Give just one example of a democracy that has reined back the size and scope of government since Reagan did so.

    Geoffrey Britain: “There lies the difference; capitalism and a representative republic with constitutionally guaranteed rights is the surest formula yet discovered for maximizing individual liberty.”

    “There are very few left of significance who don’t understand the importance of markets and individual liberties.”

    So speaks the low-info voter. The promotion of over regulation and the assault upon individual liberty is not being reported to you by the main stream media. When exposed it is so blatant as to be virtually undeniable.

    “People get wrapped up in things and begin to think that Social Security is tyranny or something.”

    Again, name one prominent person on the right who has publicly advanced the proposition that Social Security leads to tyranny. You mistake conservatives pointing out Social Security’s unsustainability for ideological opposition to SS.
    Three Programs Take Literally All the Money
    “A little perspective from the debt commission: (Pres. Obama’s)

    The commission leaders said that, at present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. “The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans — the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries,” [Alan] Simpson said.

    “Three programs — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — consume 100 percent of federal revenue, and everything else is paid for with borrowed money.  This is why we cannot balance the budget by cutting military spending, foreign aid, food stamps, etc. There is not going to be a serious project to address our deficit/debt problem without deep, painful entitlement reform, and the longer we wait to admit that fact and get going on it, the worse it is going to be.

    So, who’s gonna grab that third rail? George W. Bush tried and got hammered — an example that few if any in Washington are eager to follow.”

    “Some sounding of alarms has a value in calling attention to wrongs, but exaggeration undercuts the argument.”

    Your perception of ‘exaggeration’ is the result of your (no offense) ignorance. Fortunately, ignorance is correctable when not opposed by willful denial.

  52. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    JJ,

    Both the hard core Left and Islam are expansionist, totalitarian ideologies. Islam wraps itself in the facade of religion as political and ideological cover.

    I concur with your assessment of them.

    “Meet the New Boss… Same as the Old Boss”

  53. Ymarsakar Says:

    Zimmer boy here also worked tirelessly to lobby the comment section at Legal Insurrection when the topic of Zimmerman came up. Zimmer wanted Zimmerman locked up and punished. Can’t be having blacks defending themselves from black thugs, now can we.

    That’s the Z and the Leftist alliance’s idea of “power distribution” and “equality”.

  54. Cornflour Says:

    Beverly,

    If you have a library card for the New York Public Library, you can download an audio version of Whittaker Chambers’s “Witness.” They also have two paper copies in the main reading room. I completely agree that the NYPL should have more copies available, but maybe there are other copies in the smaller branch libraries.

    Below, I’ve copied the NYPL catalog record. If you need help, please ask a librarian. In my experience, they’re almost all pretty far left politically, but will help anyone who asks.

    LOCATIONS Schwarzman Building – Main Reading Room 315
    CALL # D-16 8246.
    AUTHOR Chambers, Whittaker.
    TITLE Witness.
    PUB INFO New York, Random House [1952]
    DESCRIPT 808 p. 22 cm.
    NOTE Autobiographical.
    SUBJECT Hiss, Alger.
    SUBJECT Chambers, Whittaker.
    SUBJECT Communism — United States.
    SUBJECT Spies — United States — Biography.
    STAFFCALL# D-16 8246.
    STAFFCALL# JFD 98-10531.
    LCCN 52005149 //r932.
    1 > Schwarzman Building – M JFD 98-10531 — c.2 AVAILABLE
    2 > Schwarzman Building – M D-16 8246 — AVAILABLE

  55. Zachriel Says:

    DonS: Modern democracy really does little to prevent the corruption of power

    No, as we said, corruption is a given. What democracy does is pit power against power.

    DonS: Once that rule of law is violated, for example with Obama changing the law with respect to the ACA at will for partisan political reasons

    The executive is authorized under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    DonS: That is obviously not correct.

    Leaving aside your misunderstanding of the specifics, misunderstanding markets is not the same as misunderstanding the importance of markets.

    DonS: SS is really a start towards tyranny, since a) it violated the Constitution and b) is essentially un-reformable due to the payrole investing millions of Americans in the system, and c) because it works to undermine the virtuous culture required for rule of law.

    That illustrates the point nicely. Those who support Social Security are not Hitler. At best, you have a slippery slope argument, but that is not what has been argued in this thread. Someone on the political left with the modest goal of supporting Social Security is not equivalent to trying to “dismantle the American system, and bring this country to its knees”.

    Ymarsakar: the Left is all roses and sunshine.

    Hardly. There are certainly those on the political left who have dangerous notions, just as there are those on the political right who have dangerous notions.

    Ymarsakar: another example of a holy crusader that thinks the world needs changing, preferably under the Left’s banner.

    Prudence dictates that conventions long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.

    Geoffrey Britain: All people of good will are equal in fundamental worth.

    People have the right to due process, and are presumed innocent until proven guilty. There’s a few anarchists here and there, but most everyone accepts the rule of law.

    Geoffrey Britain: Name some.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/jfk-nyliberal/

    Geoffrey Britain: “systemic inequities” cannot be ‘ended’.

    Of course they can. For instance, slavery was ended. The power of the nobility was ended or diluted.

    Geoffrey Britain: Again, name one prominent person on the left who has publicly stated that government is NOT the solution to the problems we face and who has advocated solutions that are NOT government centered.

    People in government generally propose government solutions, whether they are on the left or the right.

    The hippie commune is the archetype left anarchism. Much of the occupy movement was left anarchist.

    Geoffrey Britain: Anarchists advocate for the “law of the jungle” they are advocates of barbarism.

    Some do. Most envision something else, but anarchism is generally unworkable.

    Geoffrey Britain: Again, name one prominent person on the right who has publicly advanced the proposition that it is possible to create heaven on earth.

    Many fundamentalist groups. The Puritans.

    Geoffrey Britain: Virtually every Western Democratic Government is socialistic, they only differ in the degree of socialism embraced.

    They are mixed. That means some sectors are closely controlled by the government, while other sectors include robust markets. For instance, some of the most robust market economies are found in Europe, which also have the strongest safety nets.
    http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

    Geoffrey Britain: Virtually every Western Democratic Government is insolvent.

    Hardly. The richest economies are in the West. Nearly all debts are denominated in either dollars or euros, so insolvency is not a question.

    Geoffrey Britain: Give just one example of a democracy that has reined back the size and scope of government since Reagan did so.

    You just named one. Sweden and Denmark have also worked to rein in their government sector. It seems that government between 30-45% of GDP provides enough social security while also allowing for economic growth.

    Geoffrey Britain: Again, name one prominent person on the right who has publicly advanced the proposition that Social Security leads to tyranny.

    DonS.

    Geoffrey Britain: There is not going to be a serious project to address our deficit/debt problem without deep, painful entitlement reform, and the longer we wait to admit that fact and get going on it, the worse it is going to be.

    Or tax increases, or probably a combination of both. But you’re right, the sooner it is addressed, the less expensive the fix will be. But either way, the U.S. is more than capable of taking care of its elderly and disabled while maintaining growth. Unfortunately, they keep falling for the quick fix.

  56. DNW Says:

    ” DonS Says:
    May 2nd, 2014 at 9:14 pm

    DNW,

    When I was late teens early 20s a close friend was a moderate leftists who considered himself highly moral.

    He was not religious, but, in many respects followed a moral code.

    I do recall once a discussion we had at Dennys back around 1982. He stated something to the fact that “socialists just want to live together and share”. At the time I didn’t know enough to provide a counter argument on the fly, but I should have corrected him to say that “They can live like that if they wish; many such efforts were in fact started over the last 150 years or so. The problem is they always want to force others to live as they do.”

    Yes that’s right. Except as you point out they can’t really no matter how often they tried.

    They had half the planet under their uncontested sway and it didn’t work.

    But, but, but, as a Georgist progressive finally admitted to me with an apparently straight face, in order to work, socialism “must be an all society proposition”.

    Apparently Hell is not enough for the devils.

    And that leads directly to Geoff Britain’s current attempt to get Neo’s resident left-wing version of Mr. Broad, i.e., Zachriel, to cease his languid hanky-waving and sniffing and get specific with examples of the kind of leftism he asserts exists.

    Of course, a man who says things like ” … modern democracy has power widely distributed, which acts as check and balance.” almost invites ridicule.

    Neo,

    Ok I understand. As you point out, “Righteous” as used by the people you reference, has no real public meaning at all.

    It is merely a laudatory term taken from ethics, which they apply to themselves during some reverie in which they have assigned themselves starring roles; with everyone else, including wealth producers and entrepreneurs, appearing as supporting cast.

    Regarding equality, natural and otherwise,

    Humans are naturally equal insofar as they can be considered fungible. But they are not fungible in most contexts; and some cannot be substituted for others under any circumstances.

    They are morally equal insofar as they share a fundamental human nature and can claim the rights that are conceived of as flowing from, or entailed by, that nature.

    But the left has historically defined human nature (or essence in the case of Marx) – and insofar as it has any socially meaningful sense for them – as being the expressed result of participating in a particular mode of production: not as a member of a biological class, but of an economic class.

    Postmodernist and nominalist dogma goes further: to make all classes and categories conventional; and according to doctrine objectively implying nothing whatsoever.

    Therefore, there is objectively speaking and on the basis of their own doctrines no left-wing basis for moral equality other than the imagination and will of the leftist – that is to say of their will to implement their totalizing project of population shaping and direction to suit their particular tastes.

    Why then cooperate? Apparently because they want it; and they prefer getting you to lift and tote, than either muscling up or wearying themselves.

    Good enough reason? No? How surprising!

    The “unfortunate” public exposure received by this current state of progressive ideological affairs, has left progressives and socialists frantically scrambling to find some more socially persuasive rationale in order to justify their claims to rule.

    But then, in whose name, and for what “objectively imperative” end?

    Well, uhhh …. uhhhh

    Well, we can witness the chaos in action, if we wish, by watching these sons of bitches manically attempt to drive the square pegs of a disintegrating common human identity, into the round holes of a progressive solidarity which is announced in the name of a simultaneously debunked common human nature and interest. http://www.dsausa.org/toward_freedom

    These people … they constitute nothing, other than a danger and an annoyance to anyone unfortunate enough to risk exposure to their lamprey like lips.

  57. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Zachriel @ 4:00pm,

    The right to due process, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty only confers the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. It’s not a blanket endorsement of all having fundamental worth but a strategy to lessen the number of innocent wrongfully convicted.

    You linked to a Jack Kennedy speech? LOL, yes many on the political left did once understand that some inequality is not only inevitable, but desirable. By having to reach back to 1960 you confirm my point.

    I’ll agree that blatant man-made “systemic inequities” may be ended, I was referring to natural “systemic inequities” that are the result of the operative laws of the universe within which we reside. Is it ‘fair’ that we don’t all enjoy Mozart’s musical genius? Einsteins? Edison’s? Of course it isn’t ‘fair’ and nothing can be done about it. More importantly, civilization, material progress and evolution itself are dependent upon natural systemic inequities.

    You did NOT “name one prominent person on the left who has publicly stated that government is NOT the solution to the problems we face and who has advocated solutions that are NOT government centered.” Nice try at obfuscation but revealing of intellectual dishonesty.

    “Most [anarchists] envision something else”

    Balderdash. Some anarchists may be in willful denial at the inviolable connection between anarchism and barbarism but neither ignorance nor denial can sever that connection.

    “Many fundamentalist groups. The Puritans.”

    My God you really are that ignorant. Neither has EVER asserted that utopia was achievable. They all advocate separation and segregation not utopianism.

    Wait, you agree that Virtually every Western Democratic Government is socialistic, differing only in the degree of socialism embraced and then present it as rebuttal? More dishonesty.

    Europe is close to fiscal collapse and is only ‘afloat’ due to the International Ponzi Scheme. Or do you argue that the EU’s seizure of Cyprian savings accounts and France’s recent flirtation with 75% income tax rates was merely an ‘anomaly’?

    “Nearly all debts are denominated in either dollars or euros, so insolvency is not a question.”

    An appaling demonstration of economic ignorance.

    An unrestrained growth in socialism interrupted briefly by a temporary reduction such as Reagan’s, followed by an exponential increase in the rate of socialism is not a reining back in “the size and scope of government” . Nor will Sweden and Denmark’s moderation in socialism last. Socialism cannot survive with but 30-45% of GDP, its appetite is insatiable because “bread and circuses” have no natural limit.

    With all due respect to DonS, a commenter on a blog is NOT a “prominent person on the right who has publicly advanced the proposition that Social Security leads to tyranny.”

    The elderly and disabled are not the problem. The premises that lead to the isms of the left, along with a fundamental dishonesty that posits that the end justifies the means is the problem.

    It’s now clear that you are going to pick yourself up and hurry along like nothing ever happened. Nothing new there, da Vinci knew of it long ago, “There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see once they are shown and those who will not see.” and, it’s now obvious within which class you reside. There are no chains more binding than those a man puts upon himself.

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
    ― Samuel Adams

  58. Beverly Says:

    Thanks, Cornflour; but I bought a copy online.

    I will say it again: there are NO circulating copies of this book in the entire New York Public Library system. The online catalog has all the books in all the boroughs in its database: and that includes all the branches.

    There are a couple you can’t check out, but the Leftists will “permit” you to read it on the premises only (those are a handful of “research” copies.) Witness is 799 pages long; try reading it at the research desk.

    It would be interesting to see how many other world-famous, highly influential, best-selling books aren’t available in the NYPL.

    Like I said, disgraceful. Also utterly in character, alas.

  59. Zachriel Says:

    Geoffrey Britain: The right to due process, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty only confers the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

    That’s right. So if the system treats different classes differently, then the system is inequitable.

    Geoffrey Britain: By having to reach back to 1960 you confirm my point.

    Well, the claim was made that Social Security was the start of tyranny, so that would be somewhat before Kennedy. Furthermore, your own description said it was entailed in the very definition of the political left, so your argument would apply to Lenin and Kennedy alike. In any case, Kennedy was a self-described liberal who, most would agree, didn’t want to “dismantle the American system, and bring this country to its knees”.

    Geoffrey Britain: I’ll agree that blatant man-made “systemic inequities” may be ended, I was referring to natural “systemic inequities” that are the result of the operative laws of the universe within which we reside.

    Most rational people understand that there are inevitable differences between people, indeed, that differences in outcome are necessary for market incentives. However, progressives on the left are more likely to support a social safety net.

    Geoffrey Britain: You did NOT “name one prominent person on the left who has publicly stated that government is NOT the solution to the problems we face and who has advocated solutions that are NOT government centered.”

    As we said, people in government nearly always look to government for solutions. Therefore, prominent people, people with power, look to government for solutions. This is true on the left and on the right. Anarchists and libertarians rarely exert much influence except at the margins. Recently, the Tea Party has pushed the Republicans to the right.

    Geoffrey Britain: Some anarchists may be in willful denial at the inviolable connection between anarchism and barbarism but neither ignorance nor denial can sever that connection.

    Most in our experience would disagree. There’s a few anarcho-capitalists over at Carpe Diem. While we attempt to point out that anarchistic systems are inherently unstable, and will revert to some more organized form, the question becoming whether the people will control the government or the government will control the people, but to no avail. They remain convinced that anarchy is preferable *and* achievable.

    Geoffrey Britain: Neither has EVER asserted that utopia was achievable.

    Brooks, Heaven on Earth, 1654: “All saints shall enjoy heaven when they leave this earth; some saints enjoy heaven while they are here on earth. That saints might enjoy two heavens is the project of this book.”

    It’s very common for religious groups to seek isolation to establish a “Heaven on Earth”.

    Geoffrey Britain: You agree that Virtually every Western Democratic Government is socialistic, differing only in the degree of socialism embraced and then present it as rebuttal?

    We could restate that as “differing only in the degree of capitalism embraced”. As we said, they have mixed systems, with robust markets and social safety nets.

    Geoffrey Britain: Europe is close to fiscal collapse and is only ‘afloat’ due to the International Ponzi Scheme.

    Um, no. Though they are still struggling to recover from the recession, they are still among the richest countries in the world.

    Zachriel: Nearly all debts are denominated in either dollars or euros, so insolvency is not a question.

    Geoffrey Britain: An appaling demonstration of economic ignorance.

    We’re glad you saw your error. As long as debts are denominated in dollars, the U.S. can’t become insolvent. That doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be economic repercussions of over-extension.

    Geoffrey Britain: With all due respect to DonS, a commenter on a blog is NOT a “prominent person on the right who has publicly advanced the proposition that Social Security leads to tyranny.”

    Of course not. People with political power have to win elections, and Social Security is very popular. We never said people with political power said social security leads to tyranny. We said “People get wrapped up in things and begin to think that Social Security is tyranny or something.”

    You’ve argued that political leftism leads to tyranny. That would encompass everyone from a committed communist to a little old lady from Topeka who support Social Security.

    Geoffrey Britain: The elderly and disabled are not the problem. The premises that lead to the isms of the left, along with a fundamental dishonesty that posits that the end justifies the means is the problem.

    You’re confusing terms again. The ends justify the means is extremism, and is not confined to the left, but is found on the right as well.

  60. Ymarsakar Says:

    It seems Z thinks it has found a weakness to exploit here. More Z resources are being committed to this front.

    Recall the last time you thought you found a weakness, Z. Didn’t end up so well for the fallen angel squad.

    Meanwhile, Hussein’s Regime proceeds along the totalitarian path, aided by supporters, worshippers, and fellow travelers like Z here.

  61. FOAF Says:

    “That’s statism, not leftism.”

    There is very little difference at this point. The overwhelmingly distinctive feature of the modern-day left is the belief in government solutions.

  62. Ymarsakar Says:

    Z certainly thought that consolidating power in the hands of a few at the top, in the case of Zimmerman, would solve that particular problem.

  63. Zachriel Says:

    Ymarsakar: It seems Z thinks it has found a weakness to exploit here.

    Not a weakness, just something we disagree with, the gross overgeneralizations that the political left wants to “to dismantle the American system, and bring this country to its knees”. There are many different views under the rubric of the political left, and not everyone who advocates greater equality advocates absolute equality.

    FOAF: There is very little difference at this point. The overwhelmingly distinctive feature of the modern-day left is the belief in government solutions.

    Most on the left admit to limitations to government solutions. Most only want incremental change, such as universal healthcare or a stronger safety net for children.

  64. Zachriel Says:

    Geoffrey Britain: Again, name one prominent person on the right who has publicly advanced the proposition that it is possible to create heaven on earth.

    While we didn’t make that claim, and there is a strong consensus in support of Social Security, there are still a few politicians who directly attack Social Security, such as Paul Ryan, who has said “It is a fight that usually comes down to one conflict: individualism vs. collectivism… Social Security right now is a collectivist system.” That fits right in with the theme of the original post.

    Another famous example, concerning Medicare, is Ronald Reagan.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bejdhs3jGyw

  65. Ymarsakar Says:

    Z didn’t agree to the limitations of the Regime on Zimmerman. That’s the reality, vs their hypothetical roses and sunshine.

    Zimmerman’s pre-trial condemnation by the Left wasn’t about incremental change and Obamacare wasn’t about incremental change. That’s the reality vs their hypothetical roses and sunshine.

    Common Core isn’t about a safety net for children. Gun Free zones aren’t a safety net for children.

  66. Zachriel Says:

    Ymarsakar: Z didn’t agree to the limitations of the Regime on Zimmerman.

    He had the right to due process.

  67. Ymarsakar Says:

    Z thought due process meant Zimmerman was clearly guilty, before even the evidence, video enactment, or trial was finished. Yea, that’s due process, under the Leftist Regime.

  68. DonS Says:

    and not everyone who advocates greater equality advocates absolute equality.

    But all of you advocate a form of fascism, even if you are to stupid to realize it.

  69. DonS Says:

    That illustrates the point nicely. Those who support Social Security are not Hitler. At best, you have a slippery slope argument, but that is not what has been argued in this thread. Someone on the political left with the modest goal of supporting Social Security is not equivalent to trying to “dismantle the American system, and bring this country to its knees”.

    SS started out as a violation of the constitution. It is unreformable because the American people have been forced to invest in it.

    SS is a pact with the devil, and it doesn’t matter if you are smart enough to understand that.

  70. DonS Says:

    The executive is authorized under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    No. POTUS follows the rule of law. If he doesn’t, he is in violation of the rule of law. Obama is in violation.

    And you are fine with that, because like all other leftists, rule of law does not matter to you.

  71. Zachriel Says:

    Ymarsakar: Z thought due process meant Zimmerman was clearly guilty, before even the evidence, video enactment, or trial was finished.

    Regardless, Zimmerman had the right to due process.

    Ymarsakar: Yea, that’s due process,

    That’s right. Only the court and jury can determine whether Zimmerman is guilty under the law. What did you think is meant by due process?

    DonS:But all of you advocate a form of fascism

    Hyperbole much?

    DonS:SS started out as a violation of the constitution.

    How so?

    DonS:POTUS follows the rule of law. If he doesn’t, he is in violation of the rule of law. Obama is in violation.

    The Administrative Procedure Act, which allows executive discretion in implementing regulations, IS law. It also gives the court the power to rule on whether the executive has exceed his authority.

  72. DonS Says:

    That’s right. Only the court and jury can determine whether Zimmerman is guilty under the law. What did you think is meant by due process?

    He was not initially charged because it was obvious he wasn’t guilty from the get go. He was only later charged due to a political agenda.

  73. DonS Says:

    How so?

    Because the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to create SS.

  74. DonS Says:

    The Administrative Procedure Act, which allows executive discretion in implementing regulations, IS law.

    But it does not give the power to violate the law, which is what Obama is doing.

  75. DonS Says:

    Hyperbole much?

    No, what you really are is a bunch of fascists.

    The “promotion of egalitarianism” is really just a justification for government force. The goal is never achieved in any country where left gains power, even as leftist praise or support the leadership of such countries, from the USSR to Cuba.

    Where the left gains power, The Party gains all power and also gets its own special medical care, its own stores, etc. It might hide its wealth, as was done in both the USSR and Cuba, but it still exists.

    So “promotion of egalitarianism” is not the real goal of the left, perhaps that’s the goal of the stupid fools at the bottom, but the likes of Obama push things like minimum wage simply to gain power, with no regard to its actual effects.

  76. Zachriel Says:

    DonS: He was not initially charged because it was obvious he wasn’t guilty from the get go.

    Not so obvious, as the lead investigator wanted to arrest Zimmerman that night.

    DonS: Because the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to create SS.

    That’s rather vague. The U.S. Constitution gives the power to Congress to tax and spend.

    DonS: But it does not give the power to violate the law, which is what Obama is doing.

    It allows the executive the ability to delay provisions of the law as long as it is part of an effort to implement the law. Are you really saying Obama doesn’t want to implement ObamaCare? In any case, the courts have jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act, so there’s a remedy.

    DonS: No, what you really are is a bunch of fascists.

    Heh. We call Godwin! In any case, no, we’re not a bunch of fascists. You might be better served with a slippery slope argument.

  77. DonS Says:

    You just named one. Sweden and Denmark have also worked to rein in their government sector. It seems that government between 30-45% of GDP provides enough social security while also allowing for economic growth.

    Small homogeneous cultures that are well behaved can achieve things large multicultural countries cannot. So you argument about government size is bogus.


    DonS.

    I’m hardly prominent. Besides which you seem to not really understand, or correctly relate, my argument.

    Or tax increases, or probably a combination of both. But you’re right, the sooner it is addressed, the less expensive the fix will be. But either way, the U.S. is more than capable of taking care of its elderly and disabled while maintaining growth. Unfortunately, they keep falling for the quick fix.

    Entitlement reform is the key thing needed, and the left won’t and probably can’t do that. They will continue to refuse reform, for political gain, since defending the status quo benefits them so.

    Raising taxes won’t work. It will destroy our GDP, particularly if we continue with nonsense like Obamacare, green energy, and all the other left wing nonsense.

  78. DonS Says:

    Heh. We call Godwin! In any case, no, we’re not a bunch of fascists. You might be better served with a slippery slope argument.

    You already invoked Hitler.

    Socialism always devolves to fascism, as it did in the USSR. Fascism is pragmatic socialism. It is where you are all going, whether you intend it or not, or understand it or not.

    This is based on the fact that you can’t just create any functioning system you want. Reality has its way, and the drive to create the desired system always devolves. As it does, those in power further push the system to undo the problems they created, only to cause new ones.

    You can see this in real time with respect to Venezuela or with respect to Obamacare.

  79. DonS Says:

    It allows the executive the ability to delay provisions of the law as long as it is part of an effort to implement the law. Are you really saying Obama doesn’t want to implement ObamaCare?

    It does not give him the legal ability to delay hard dates stated in the law.

    Obama wants to delay implementation because they know it will be a clusterf*ck that impacts the Democrats at the polls. They want to delay and spread out the impact so they can minimize its impact to their political power.

  80. DonS Says:

    That’s rather vague. The U.S. Constitution gives the power to Congress to tax and spend.

    There is nothing vague about it. SS is unconstitutional, as is a huge amount of the legislation passed since then. Medicare and ACA are also unconstitutional.

  81. DonS Says:

    Not so obvious, as the lead investigator wanted to arrest Zimmerman that night.

    It was a good shoot. He shot a thug who was GnPing him. There was no basis for a conviction.

  82. Zachriel Says:

    DonS: Small homogeneous cultures that are well behaved can achieve things large multicultural countries cannot.

    These are not small countries. Percent of GDP in public sector.

    Germany, 44%
    France, 53%
    UK, 47%
    Japan, 42%
    US, 40%

    It seems to be the norm for developed countries to have social safety nets, as well as robust markets.

    DonS: You already invoked Hitler.

    Yes, but only as an example of extreme statism.

    DonS: It does not give him the legal ability to delay hard dates stated in the law.

    It does, explicitly.

    DonS: There is nothing vague about it. SS is unconstitutional, as is a huge amount of the legislation passed since then.

    Repeating the claim doesn’t mean you’ve supported it. What is unconstitutional about Social Security, and where do the courts stand on the issue? See Helvering v. Davis.

  83. Ymarsakar Says:

    Hussein’s idea of due process with Eric Holder is the same as Z’s idea of due process with Zimmerman’s prosecutor. After all, Z in both situations would have done the same exact thing. He even tries to tell us this here.

  84. Ymarsakar Says:

    While fallen angels tend to forget a lot of things, what with the burned wings and the slavish obedience to their god, Hussein.

    The internet has a longer memory.

    healthguyfsu | November 19, 2013 at 9:35 pm
    …and of course this leads to your hare-brained theory that supsersedes all of the actual forensic evidence and only eyewitness account from the scene that proved the shooting of Trayvon Martin was justified.

    You should help the prosecutors write a how-to book on the ways to build an evidence-free case against someone in a criminal trial. You can publish a mass market reprint under a new title “How to lose a legal case and your livelihood”

    -comment directed at Z at LI.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/11/george-zimmerman-bail-hearing-live/

    Z was never satisfied with the prosecution or with due process. He was holding his own judge, jury, and executioner process in his Z like comments on the net.

    Interestingly, Z never once mentions the term “due process” on that page.

    Do we have to wonder why now that after he has lost his trial before Hussein God, he starts talking about due process, trying to make his side look Good.

  85. Zachriel Says:

    Ymarsakar: Z was never satisfied with the prosecution or with due process.

    Due process is an essential protection.

  86. Ymarsakar Says:

    Going to need more than that magickal talisman to protect against the fires of hell.

  87. DonS Says:

    Repeating the claim doesn’t mean you’ve supported it. What is unconstitutional about Social Security, and where do the courts stand on the issue? See Helvering v. Davis.

    SS is unconstitutional since the federal government was never given the power to implement such a thing. Yes, I’m familiar with the supreme court decision, glade you were able to google and find it. Perhaps you learned something, but the decision was crap.

  88. Zachriel Says:

    DonS: SS is unconstitutional since the federal government was never given the power to implement such a thing.

    The Congress has to power to tax and spend for the general welfare.

    DonS: the decision was crap.

    Yes, we understand that is your position, but you have yet to argue for your position.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge