I have decided that for the next few entries I am going to take a break from hardcore political discussions and instead have some discussions about race.  The first stop is white supremacy.

Quite often being a white male is sufficient grounds for being accused of racism, especially when liberals are involved.  Being a white a white male who is racially aware is even greater grounds.  By racially aware I mean aware of the fact that racism exists towards white people and is increasingly becoming a problem.  It is expected that white people either be indifferent to the fact that they are white or ashamed of it.  Also, there are no white advocacy groups because “that would be racist” while it is never racist to have a black or Native American advocacy group.  Also people gasp if there is any mention of a white pride group but one does not find similar reactions towards Mexican or Black pride groups.  There is also an annoying assumption held by many, and propagated in the universities that only white people can be racist.  I have seen people claim that white men being attracted to non-white women (usually Asian) is racist, but then people also say that white men who only pursue white women are racist.  You can’t have it both ways, and it might be that neither one is racist.  But the fact of that there is a large element in society (including self hating white people) that want to associate being white with being racist.  In other words, a person is racist just because they are white.  People are born white but no one is born racist, racism is an attitude which develops over time, or does not develop at all.  However, white supremacists do exist, and since I have been accused of being one from time to time, I wish to discuss what it is that white supremacists believe and what points I disagree with them on.  I will follow each of their beliefs with my position on that particular belief.

1) White Supremacists (WS) believe in evolution.  Now certainly not all evolutionists are WS, or even white, but one would be hard pressed to find a WS who is not also an evolutionist.  They tend to believe that white people (which they often equate with being Indo-European) are the most evolved.  As evidence they cite technological and historical achievements and the relative level of technological development that of various cultures.  The belief is that if one culture achieves more than another it is due primarily to genetics more than cultural values and mores, and from that they often draw racial generalizations.  They also cite physical attributes as evidence for the level of evolution.  Since Caucasoid features are typically sharp they believe that people who possess such features have moved to a greater distance from the ape-like ancestors who have blunt features.  Furthermore since gorillas and apes have darker skin the WS believe that light skin is also indicative of having evolved further from the ape-like ancestors.  Black people, who typically have blunt or rounded features and dark skin are often viewed as a real life missing link, and this is often why white supremacists will call them monkeys and apes. 

My position: Even if evolution were true I am not certain it would indicate that Indo-Europeans are the most evolved.  It should be noted that East Asians also have light skin, often lighter than the average white person, a high level of technological achievement, and less body hair than the average white person.  Why is body hair important?  Because apes and gorillas have much more body hair, so if the same logic is applied than less hair ought to indicate greater distance from the ape-like ancestor.  Of course I don’t believe in evolutionism.  I think the evidence from history and science points to a Biblical world view.  I think the physical appearances of different races is more incidental.  One can find people descended from generations of white people who have blunt and or rounded features, like Socrates.  One can also find individuals descended from sub-Saharan black Africans with sharp features.  It’s strange but true, and there are exceptions to every generalization.  The first humans probably contained the genetic information to code for a variety of traits, but as people migrated into new areas they became often became isolated from one another and developed a homogeneous look as a result.  I think the level of achievement a culture attains is directly related to the values it holds.  A people group who cares only about maintaining the status quo and/or subsistence is probably not going to achieve much.  A culture which places value on advancement will probably advance, especially if they have aggressive neighbors to contend with and enough manpower to hold them off but not enough to feel secure. 

2) WS have a collective racial view.  For example, putting men on the moon was a white accomplishment, which all white peoples share in collectively.  Achievements from any white culture indicate the superiority of the race as a whole.  While lack of achievement in non-white cultures lower the value of whichever race they are apart. For example, the savagery of the Zulus in South Africa undermines the worth of the Ethiopians. 

My position:  Putting men on the moon was a US accomplishment, Norway had jack all to do with it.  Also, not all white or Indo-European cultures have a high level of achievement.  The Guanches for example lived on a very primitive level like many Native American cultures, so that they have been sometimes referred to as “white Indians.”  Also the Ainu of Japan never achieved much.  I think it achievement is based on cultural priorities/values and the availability of resources.

3) WS are strongly opposed to race mixing. 

The element of Race has a prominent place in the thinking of Dr. Monshizadeh. Sumka’s platform, too, calls for a ban on migration and settlement of the peoples who are not racially befitting for mixing with Iranians.
From Sumka’s stand point, although all the races possess some capabilities; but, from amongst them, the White Race especially the superior Aryan Race have characteristics that others lack. Sumka says:” For sustaining the blood foundation of the nation, mixing with weak, inferior races must be prevented. From now on, we can organize the superior race, and even enlighten the torch of civilization among weak races, with the intrinsic force of culture.”
“If we do not draft fundamental laws for survival of this race today, and do not resort to deliberate and artificial means for cleansing the blood of our brethren

Source: http://sumka.blogfa.com/

I have seen people attribute white men marrying other races to WS, which is thoroughly absurd.  The WS consider themselves to be superior race and the closest thing to perfection, they do not wish to breed children which would be mongrels.  Moving in any direction from perfection is a loss of perfection.  They often complain about the archetypal black man + white woman and the white man + Asian woman.  They often attribute the attraction between black males and white women, and white males and Asian women to Jewish propaganda and manipulation.  Not only do they believe that children produced with non-white partner are inferior, but they often find the idea of copulating with a non-white person repellent even if children are not involved.  Copulating with a non-white is almost like copulating with an animal, as non-whites represent intervening stages between the superior white person and the animal kingdom.  So no, a WS does not wish to have intercourse with or breed with a non-white.  Furthermore, producing mongrels creates a greater threat as they may wish to marry white people and produce more mongrels rather than pure white children, and the WS often have a “one drop” mentality.  The idea being that any admixture no matter how minute is enough to make a person non-white.

My position:  I can’t really oppose racial intermixing because I actually find Asian women more attractive than I do white women.  However, I actually like Indian women the best for cultural reasons.  Sometimes I even find myself attracted to Native American women.  So it would be hypocritical for me to oppose race mixing.  Also the Bible teaches that we all come from a common ancestor, so I could oppose race mixing on ideological grounds either.  I think a man can prefer women of his own race without being racist, or women of another race without being racist.  I think that in the mate search people should pursue the sorts of features that they find physically attractive, and if that offends other people then so be it.  But don’t race mix for the sake of race mixing, do it because you find that person attractive and interesting.

 

4) WS are often atheists/pantheists or polytheists.  My experience with WS is that they often shun what they consider to be Semitic religions.  Meaning, they seldom care for Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.  Since they hate Semites, following beliefs propagated or originated by them is an anathema.  It is possible to find WS people who follow a modified form of Christianity or Islam, but outside of the US the first is rare and the latter is extremely rare.  Given enough time people involved in WS will abandon any Semitic theosophy.  Typically they believe that the white race is the a product of nature’s drive for perfection, or a product of divine intervention by traditional Indo-European gods.  Gods like Odin and Zues/Indra. 

My Position:  Well I am convinced that Christianity is the only way, and it doesn’t matter to me who God used to write the Bible.

5) WS people typically have an extreme paranoid hatred of Jews.  The belief that Jews control the entire world is quite common.  They believe that Jews wish to mongrelize the white race, and to that end they have trained the white male to find Asian women attractive, and the white female to find black men attractive.  They believe that the Jews control the world media and orchestrate wars.  As evidence they often cite the formation of Israel by European powers, and the help that the US gives to Israel.  They believe that the Jews are responsible for the New World Order, and that although a Jewish shadow government controls the world now, eventually they will try to establish a formal one world government where they will rule as elites and make all the other races of the world equal in poverty.  At least, that is the understanding I have gotten from talking with white supremacists.

My Position:  Of course I also believe that a one world government is the epitome of evil and that a shadow government controls much of what goes on in the world, but I don’t think that the Jews are responsible.  It stands to reason that if the Jews were responsible, then the UN ought to treat them well, but the UN also seems to hate Jews and always favors Moslems and Arabs in any Jewish-Arab conflict.  Also if the Jews had as much power as the WS think they have, then their country ought to be bigger (Israel still does not have the full extent of the land promised them int eh Bible), and, I think they would have been able to stop Hitler.  Obviously they were powerless to stop Hitler.  The WS can claim that the Jews allowed that to happen in order to garner sympathy but that seems to be on par with cutting off ones own legs in order increase one’s success while begging for money.  Such a wild claim also demands proof.  So to sum it up, I actually agree with the WS that one world government is bad and that a shadow government is probably orchestrating a lot of things today, but I disagree with them that it’s the Jews, and I disagree based on how much the UN treats Israel and because of the vitriol that proponents of world government often spew at Israel.
 

 
6) Hyperborea:  Hyperborea actually originates with Greek mythology.  I do not know how widespread the belief in Hyperborea is among WS, but I have seen it espoused by enough of the hardcore WS websites in order to feel that it merits mention.  Beliefs on Hyperborea seem to vary between gods and aliens, but there are some common core beliefs.  The basic idea is that in an ancient mostly forgotten age a master race lived on a landmass at the North Pole.  The master race was the original pure Aryans.  Whether they got there by gods, aliens, or some combination varies depending on the which WS organization is doing the telling, but regardless of how they got there they achieved a high level of civilization and advancement.  They lived longer healthier lives than anyone alive today and were ruled by wise king(s).  Eventually something happened and Hyperborea became uninhabitable, so the Aryans had to migrate southward.  Some Aryans remained more pure than others as some mixed with inferior races (negroids and Mongoloids).  Excerpts from Greek, Iranian, and even some Indian mythology are cited as evidence for this belief. 

For more on Hyperborea see: http://aryannordicalpinealiens.blogspot.com/2008/08/nordic-aliens-part1.html

My Position:  To me, Hyperborea occupies the same position in the halls of lunacy as Afrocentrism.  Hyperborea is the WS answer to the Afrocentrist belief that all great civilizations were originally black.  I haven’t done a lot of research on Hyperborea because I think it’s beneath me, but there are two hard facts that the theory has to content with: 1) There is no landmass at the North Pole, that area is referred to as the Arctic Ocean.  2) If there was ever an incredibly advanced civilization that far up north, then the oldest human civilizations out to be clustered around the higher latitudes, but that is not what happened.  Instead the oldest civilizations appear in Southern Europe, Northern Africa, the Middle East, India, and China.  What this indicates to me is that humanity must have begun somewhere near those hot spots of early civilization.  Before anyone says that it’s too cold up north, I would like to point out that today Scandinavia is quite civilized and that it is more technologically advanced than modern Egypt, but 3000 years ago the reverse was true.  It took time for complex civilization to diffuse upwards to that area, but if the Arctic is where civilization started then Scandinavia and North America (in the area of Canada) should have been among the first places to show signs of complex and advanced civilization.

For more information on White Supremacy plus abundant examples of actual specimens see: www.stormfront.org

            In my discussion on understanding the political left I maintained that the political spectrum is best understood in linear terms.  At the far left is collectivism and the absence of personal freedom, with government in full ownership of everything.  At the extreme right is individualism with no external mitigating factors, also known as anarchy.   Though some would disagree, I still maintain that the linear model is the most reliable way to interpret and understand the political spectrum.  The main reason being that, regardless of what personal feelings, convictions, or the lack thereof which are involved, it is ultimately the individuals view on personal freedom which determines their position on the political spectrum.  An individual’s knowledge, lack of knowledge, religious views, personal feelings, etc., form the basis for their views on personal freedom, but it is the value they place on freedom which ultimately decides what role they feel government should play in society.  That being said, I do not believe that any person can be a “moderate.”  I person may change his or her views from time to time but if they have a view then it is going to lean one way or another on an issue, unless, the individual has no position on a particular matter.  The middle of the political spectrum is not occupied by “moderates” it is occupied by people who are apathetic, having no opinion one way or another.

 

Freedom:

 

            The focus of this discussion is the right.  What is the right and how does it differ from the left?  The right is composed of people who consider freedom to be more important than security and/or believe that personal freedom is a necessary requisite for security.  Anything which infringes upon personal freedom is a threat to personal security (the well being of the individual).   The right also defines freedom negatively while the left defines freedom positively.  The implication of negative freedom is that the natural state is one of freedom.  The implication of positive freedom is that the natural state is one of non-freedom, and that freedom(s) must be created through human agency.  The negative view of freedom rejects the view that human beings, either individuals or organizations, are capable of creating freedom.  Freedom is respected/unhindered by voluntary association or by voluntary isolation/non-interaction.  Anything beyond either of those impinges upon freedom.  Human agency cannot create freedom, it can only respect it or hamper it, because the unregulated state is one of absolute freedom.  The concepts of natural rights and self ownership are essential foundational components on right wing ideology, and they are concepts which are absent in the left, more on those later.

 

Leadership:

  

            Unlike the left, on the right there is not a sharp distinction between followers and leaders on the right, this is because the majority of people on the right are their own leader.  Mostly there exists a general gradation between those who are very much outspoken and those who are not.  While there are people on the right who are more disposed to follow than to lead, they still have a relatively strong since of individualism and do not wish to have their freedom impinged upon.  The level of hero worship and idolatry found on the left cannot be found on the right.  For example, although Bush Jr. was ardently and continuously attacked by the left, the reaction from the right was on average not a fraction as extreme as the leftist average leftist reaction when Barack Osama is attacked.  The leftist attack on Bush and the leftist defense of Obama are both by far more extreme and reactionary than their counterparts on the right.  This is because people on the right do not view politicians as heroes or gods, but as public servants who exist to service our agenda or be thrown out of the job by us. The right wing agenda is simply to be left alone, free from the depredations of despotic leadership and violent extremists who hate freedom.  Basically it is freedom.  Our identity and personality are not bound up with the success or popularity of any politician.   The right wing is not a political party, although there are political parties which have right wing principles integrated into their platform.  The right wing is just as ancient as the left as is the debate between the right and the left.  Right wing principles and the defense of them can be found all throughout the ancient world:

 

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

 

(Genesis 3:19)

 

A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.

(Proverbs 12:22)

For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof: but by a man of understanding and knowledge the state thereof shall be prolonged.

(Proverbs 28:2)

For there is reason to think that if a city were composed entirely of good men, then to avoid office would be as much an object of contention as to obtain office is at present; then we should have plain proof that the true ruler is not meant by nature to regard his own interest, but that of his subjects…

 

(Plato, p. 28)

 

If you want to be a great leader, you must learn to follow the Tao. Stop trying to control. Let go of fixed plans and concepts, and the world will govern itself. The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be. The more weapons you have, the less secure people will be. The more subsidies you have, the less self-reliant people will be. Therefore the Master says: I let go of the law, and people become honest. I let go of economics, and people become prosperous. I let go of religion, and people become serene.

 

(Laozi, chapter 57)

 

Governing a large country is like frying a small fish. You spoil it with too much poking.

 

(Laozi, ch. 60)

 

When taxes are too high, people go hungry. When the government is too intrusive, people lose their spirit. Act for the people’s benefit. Trust them; leave them alone.

 

(Laozi, ch. 75)

 

            For people on the right, the matter of which person says a thing is not as important a matter as what is being said.  For people on the left it is the other way around, and for the leftist an argument is undermined if the person presenting the argument is undermined.  It is yet another way in which the leftist leadership manages to put forth ideas while making them immune to logical scrutiny.  To use contemporary examples, this is why the left refuses to believe that right wing demonstrations are grass-roots movements and not orchestrated by higher powers, or why they accuse people on the right of following personalities like Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh.  The left feels that if they destroy those individuals they can decapitate the right, because the left consists of masses organized around leaders and figureheads.  Individuals like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc. are not the authors of right wing ideology they are simply products of it who have chosen speaking as a career path.  The right cannot be decapitated by undermining any individual, because all people on the right are individuals and do not suffer from the disease of collective identity.

 

Self Ownership:

 

            Though occasionally challenged on semantic grounds the concept of self ownership is a simple one.  Self ownership means that the individual is responsible for his or her self.  You (general you referring the individual) have the right to do with yourself and your belongings as you wish, but that right does not extend to other people and their belongings.  You have the freedom to work or not work, and to retain the fruits of your labor.  On the other hand, if you achieve nothing and/or fail miserably then it is up to you to recover, there is no safety net other than the traditional mechanisms put in place by God (family, friends, private charities).  You own the consequences of your own actions, whether they be to success or failure.  It is not up to government to determine how much of your earnings you should get to keep, or to use your money to subsidize a non-producer for not producing.  As Laozi might say, when people are allowed to own the products of their success they will be motivated to achieve more, and the economy will be healthy.  An environment which allows room for success also encourages innovation.  Capitalism stems from the concept of self ownership. 

 

Natural Rights:

 

            Unlike the left, which believes that rights are a human social construction, the right believes that rights exist independent of human agency or authority.  Although there are right wing atheists, this aspect of right wing ideology is essentially a theistic one, the idea being that rights come from an authority higher than any human being, and consequentially cannot be given or taken by any human being.  The idea of natural rights is enumerated by the US Declaration of Independence, which formed the ideological basis upon which US civilization was initially built:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

 

(US Declaration of Independence)

 

            The purpose of government is not to create rights, but to ensure that the natural rights which already exist are respected by the rest of humanity, which includes both potential outside invaders as well as deviant members of society.  That is the ONLY legitimate function of government, however, not everyone on the right sees government as being necessary or adequate to fulfill even this function.  Natural rights include the right to live, the right to engage in voluntary interaction(s) with others, the right to work and maintain possession of the fruits that work brings.  Natural rights do not include having an income in the absence of work (no one is entitled to an income simply because they exist), taking property from another person against their will, or taking the life of another person against their will when they have done nothing wrong.  When a person engages in theft or murder then reprisal is in order so that the scales of justice may be balanced.  Every person has the right to work, obtain property, create a family, and defend what is theirs, if necessary.  Right wing ideology is not based upon taking but upon earning. 

 

Economics:

 

            Individuals on the political right recognize that government does not generate wealth.  Governments often print currency but currency only represents wealth, and anyone can create currency.  Wealth is generated by production and voluntary transactions.  People should be able to keep what they earn because work is the voluntary exchange of services for wealth.  When government appropriates a large portion of a person’s paycheck then that individual is not being fully compensated for the services that he or she has provided, and furthermore that money is being removed from circulation, which hampers the economy as the individual will have reduced potential for saving and spending.  The more money that government takes the more of a burden it puts on the economy, just as surely as the more ticks a dog has the more lethargic he will be.  The right opposes income tax and especially progressive income tax.  Jobs are not generated when the people who employ others are taxed heavily.  The less money an employer has the fewer employees he is able to have.   An uninhibited private sector creates opportunity and opportunity creates prosperity.  The individual has a wider range of options regarding employment, an opportunity for personal advancement, and the ability to enjoy the fruits of his or her labor through the purchasing of goods and services (which in turn provides other people with job opportunities).

 

Sources:

 

King James Bible: available on Biblegateway.com

 

Plato, Republic, translated by Benjamin Jowett, Edited by George Stade (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 2005).

 

Laozi, Tao Te Ching, Translated by Stephen Michell

US Declaration of Independence: found at http://www.conservapedia.com/Declaration_of_Independence

This is from an email I got but it’s some solid truth.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read:

1) You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2) What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3) The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4) When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, then the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to  get what they work for… And that, my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.

5) You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

  

 

          In order to better understand the left, it is necessary to understand the structure of the political spectrum.  The political spectrum is neither circular nor does it have a Y axis.  The political spectrum can be understood as a line, the point farthest to the left representing absolute control of everything by the government, the far right would be the opposite of that.  The far right is a state in which no government exists, or anarchy.  Leftist propagandists like to equate conservatives with Nazism from time to time, but Nazism (National Socialism) is actually a left wing ideology.  In communism the government owns and controls everything, there is no private property.  In fascism the government does not own everything officially but it has control over everything.  Under fascism what little private sector there is exists to serve the government and is directly answerable to the government in all matters.  

 

           The difference in opinion about the role of government between the left and the right stems directly from a profound philosophical difference regarding freedom.  The right defines freedom negatively, which is often stated as “Freedom from…”  The left defines freedom positively, which means “Freedom to…”  People on the right generally believe in some kind of deity or groups of deities from which natural rights flow and to which they are entitled.  The left is generally pantheistic or atheistic, and tends to believe that it is human beings that determine what individuals are entitled to.  I say “generally” in both cases because there are atheists who are right wing, and recognize that “the freedom to” is automatically included in “the freedom from.”  There are also persons who believe in some concept of a supreme deity on the left, who have been duped into believing that rights are a set of freedoms granted by the government.  The idea of “positive liberty” is simply rhetoric to disguise the fact that governments only have the power to impinge upon personal freedom, not to give or create it.  To make an analogy, it would be like if I invaded your house with a group of friends and confiscated everything.  I could say that you have the freedom to use the bathroom down the hall, freedom to sit in the kitchen when you eat, and the freedom to keep half of your paycheck.  Implicit in that is the fact that if you try to eat in the family room or use a bathroom other than the one down the hall there is going to be some kind of punishment.  You are also going to lose half of your paycheck, saying that you have the freedom to keep half of it does not change the fact that you do not have the freedom to keep all of it.  Also, all of those freedoms I am claiming to give you were things you were already free to do before I invaded.  So you would not be gaining any actual freedom, it’s just a rhetorical device to put a rosy spin on things, but people fall for it all the time.

 

           In general the left is opposed to the concept of self ownership, which is an essential plank in the foundation of conservativism.  Not only do they wish to deprive people of the fruits of their labor, but they also wish to shelter people from the consequences of their poor decisions. 

            The left is composed primarily of two basic groups, leaders and followers.  How is that different than the right?  On the right there are also leaders and followers, but with more gradation intervening.  There is also a third category of people on the right which are completely absent on the left: those who are neither leaders nor followers but who simply wish to be left alone.  The gross majority of people in the left are followers.  If I had to put a number on it I would say that about 1% are leaders, while the rest are followers. On the left there are many individuals who fancy themselves as leaders and independent thinkers when in fact everything they believe is a regurgitation of a party position, or a quote from one of the leftists who is an actual leader.   It is these two groups of leftists which will be the focus of the remainder of this discussion.

 

The Followers:

             The followers seldom have any direction of their own but tend to assume whatever direction their leaders wish them to.  The leaders often present them with an idea or a scenario, and they immediately latch onto it and make it their own cause as if they have a personal stake in it.  Even if it is something for which they never would have been concerned on their own.  There is typically one issue with which they feel a deep empathy or level of personal involvement, and that issue anchors them to the left and acts as a gateway to their mind through which other ideas and sympathies might be implanted.  It may be welfare, illegal immigration, abortion, homosexuality, anti-Semitism, racism towards a specific group (usually towards white people), or hatred of Christianity which composes the issue they are genuinely concerned with.  This is how it works, a person may be interested solely in welfare, and in the left wing movement they find leadership which champions their cause.  Because the leftist leadership champions their cause they become sympathetic to other left wing causes as well.  For the first time ever they find themselves supporting “gay marriage,” feeling indignation over Jerusalem being a part of Israel, or championing the legalization of pot.  Because they trust the leadership, they adopt the causes without questioning and are thus assimilated by the left.  Their strong emotional link allows them to accept a multitude of ideas, no matter how preposterous or dangerous, without subjecting them to logical scrutiny. 

             Another characteristic of many leftist followers is a predisposition towards group identity, which the leadership exploits to a great extent, typically by fostering the “us vs. them” mentality through the use of rhetoric.

 

The Leadership:

Often people on the right assume the leadership on the political left is idiotic because their rhetoric seems to empty and/or often idiotic to them, and the consequences of their actions are often disastrous.  The leftist leader may indeed be an imbecile, but in that case he is probably more of a puppet leader than an actual leader.  In any case, the fact that the rhetoric seems foolish and the policies disastrous does not necessarily mean that the leftist leadership is unaware of the consequences of what they do.  Much of it is actually quite calculated.  The rhetoric sounds foolish because it is designed to target emotions, and people on the right are not as easily targeted in that manner, but for the followers on the left it is quite effective.  Leftist leaders generally have a shrewd understanding of their constituency and human nature in general.  They also understand who they can and cannot reach, which is why they often seek to limit freedom of speech. 

Like the woman, whose psychic state is determined less by grounds of abstract reason than by an indefinable emotional longing for a force which will complement her nature, and who, consequently, would rather bow to a strong man than dominate a weakling, likewise the masses love a commander more than a petitioner and feel inwardly more satisfied by a doctrine, tolerating no other beside itself, than by the granting of liberalistic freedom with which, as a rule, they can do little, and are prone to feel that they have been abandoned. 

(Hitler, p. 42)

    

As to the disastrousness of the policies, that is better understood in light of their agenda, which is essentially to stay in power.  The leftist leadership are elitists, who wish to divide humanity up along lines similar to the Morlocks and Eloi in HG Wells’ “The Time Machine” with the exception that they intend to remain fully in control.  For those who have not read “The Time Machine” what happens in the story is that humanity is divided up into two groups: a permanent ruling class (Eloi) which does nothing but rule, and a slavish labor class (Morlocks) which does nothing but keep the machinery running and grow food.  In the story the mental faculties of the Eloi degenerate into childlike ignorance and they become the prey of the Morlocks, but the leftist leadership plans to avoid this outcome by teaching their followers what to think rather than how to think through propaganda, and by social engineering which will reduce the amount of intelligent people in society. When the leftist leadership speaks of equality they mean equality for everyone else but themselves.  “The Communist Manifesto” provides us with many insights into the mode of operation and thought of left wing leadership:

The proletariate will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State…

Of course, in the beginning this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

(Marx, p. 27)

            To sum it up, the goal is to create a new ruling class with absolute power, while impoverishing the rest of the country.  The steps that Marx gives to effect that outcome are as follows:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor.  Establishment of industrial armies, especially agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools.  Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form.  Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.

(Marx p. 27-28).

  

            Marx is considered to be the founder of communism, but the left wing movement is far older than he is.  The left wing movement does not have it’s origin with any specific human individual, culture, or geographic location.  The same ideas were iterated by Lord Shang, advisor to Emperor Chin thousands of years before Christ.  Emperor Chin is the emperor credited with unifying China, and he did so through the application of force and repression.  Emperor Chin sought to build a society similar to that advocated by Marx, however, he moved far more quickly than modern leftist leaders so after his death a new dynasty took over.  At any rate, the pattern for left wing thought, leadership, and social organization is evident in the words of Lord Shang. 

If the poor are encouraged by rewards, they will become rich, and if penalties are applied to the rich, they will become poor.  When in administrating a country one succeeds in making the rich poor, then the country will have much strength, and this being the case, it will attain supremacy.

(Shang p. 164)

A sage knows what is essential in administrating a country, and so he induces the people to devote their attention to agriculture.  If their attention is devoted to agriculture, then they will be simple, and being simple, they may be made correct.  Being perplexed, it will be easy to direct them; being trustworthy, they may be used for defence and warfare.  Being single-minded, their careers may be made dependent on rewards and penalties; being single-minded, they may be used abroad.

Indeed, the people will love their ruler and obey his commandments even to death, if they are engaged in farming, morning and evening; but they will be of no use if they see that glib-tongued, itinerant scholars succeed in being honored in serving the prince, that merchants succeed in enriching their families, and that artisans have plenty to live upon.  If the people see both the comfort and advantage of these three walks of life, then they will indubitably shun agriculture; shunning agriculture, they will care little for their homes; caring little for their homes, they will certainly not fight and defend these for their rulers sake.

(Shang p. 159)

          The emphasis is on preserving the leadership.  The left wing view is that the citizens exist to service the government.  Independent production, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of religion all present threats to the left wing leadership.  Independent production, a.k.a. the private sector, is home to sources of power other than government to which people can rely on for provision.  People who are not dependent upon the government are more difficult to control and manipulate, as they do not feel that their personal success is bound up in the success of the government.  Furthermore, since the goal of the leftist leadership is nothing less than absolute power, they must inevitably take over or drive out all production and service industries.  They cannot allow alternatives to their authority to exist.  State run education is essential to eliminating freedom of thought, which is the basis for opposition to their leadership and policies, and freedom of speech is the outlet for freedom of thought.  Since they realize that they cannot brainwash or immediately eliminate all independent thinkers, they must curtail freedom of speech to keep those people from expressing their thoughts.  Freedom of religion is tied heavily to freedom of thought, but like independent production it too represents a source of divided loyalty.  In order for them to succeed all loyalty must be given to the leftist leadership, and not divided between the government and the employer, or the government and the deity or religious institution.  Or, the principle loyalty might be towards something other than the government, which means that the individual cannot be counted on for support by the leftist leadership. 

The result is that all the people within the territory change and become fond of sophistry, take pleasure in study, pursue trade, practice arts and crafts, and shun agriculture and war; and so in this manner [the ruin of the country] will not be far off.  When the country has trouble, then because studious people hate law, and merchants are clever in bartering and artisans are useless, the state will be utterly destroyed.

(Shang p. 158)

There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society.  But Communism abolishes all eternal truths, it abolishes all religion and morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.

(Marx p. 26)

If in a country there are the following ten evils: rights, music, odes, history, virtue, moral culture, filial piety, brotherly duty, integrity and sophistry, the ruler cannot make the people fight and dismemberment is inevitable; and this brings extinction in its train.  If a country has not these ten things and the ruler can make the people fight, he will be so prosperous that he will attain supremacy.  A country where the virtuous govern the wicked, will suffer from disorder, so that it will be dismembered; but a country where the wicked govern the virtuous, will be orderly, so that it will become strong.

(Shang p. 163)

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based?  On capital, on private gain.  In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.  But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and the public prostitution. 

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing capital.

(Marx p. 24)

            To sum it all up, the leftist leadership is nothing more than a parasitic class of people who are either unable or unwilling to get real jobs, and who wish for citizens to give up their freedom in exchange for the leftist leadership.  They view freedom, science, and sacred institutions such as family as acceptable losses in exchange for their absolute hegemony.  What do they give society in exchange for these things?  Nothing.  What do they take from society?  Everything. 

Sources:

Hitler, Adolf, Mein Kampf, translated by Ralph Manheim (New York: The Houghton Mifflin Company, 1971).

*Sun Tzu & Lord Shang, The Art of War & The Book of Lord Shang, translated by Yuan Shibing & J.J.L. Duyvendak (Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 1998).

Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto and Other Writings, (New York: Barnes & Noble Classics, 2005).

 *It should be noted that “The Book of Lord Shang” and “The Art of War” are separate books written by completely different authors.  The edition used as a resource for this article simply published both of them together in one volume.  There was no ideological or personal association between Sun Tzu and Lord Shang. 

 

This was an interesting email I received:

I had never heard the word until now—Type it into Google and start reading.  Pretty interesting.
 
Word of the Day: Dhimmitude
 
Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.
 
The ObamaCare  bill is the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States . Muslims are specifically  exempted from the government mandate to purchase  insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being  uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be “gambling”,  “risk-taking” and “usury” and is thus banned. Muslims are  specifically granted exemption based on  this.
 
How convenient.  So I, as a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real  estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de-facto government insurance. Non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. Period. This is Dhimmitude.
 
Dhimmitude serves two purposes: it enriches the Muslim masters AND serves to drive conversions to Islam. In this case, the incentive to convert to Islam will be taken up by those in the inner-cities as well as the godless Generation X, Y and Z types who have no moral anchor. If you don’t believe in Christ to begin with, it is no problem whatsoever to sell Him for 30 pieces of silver. “Sure, I’ll be a Muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, bro?”
 
I recommend sending this post to your contacts.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp

Guys, and girls, I heard that there is a provision in Barack Osama’s health crap bill that’s supposed to require everyone to accept a subdermal microchip.  I’ll be looking into the matter to see what more information I can turn up, but this is honestly the first I heard of it.  I wouldn’t put anything past those evil Democrats, who seem to enjoy doing the work of Satan. 

Anyone who spends a significant amount of time on youtube has probably come across “the Amazing Atheist” at least once.  I have always felt that the second part of his name is correct but not the first portion.  At any rate, TAA typifies the mentality of the “intellectual” breed of leftist voters.  I put intellectual in quotations because, although he is smarter than the types of Obama supporters who voted for “hope and change” or to get something for free, he is still leaves a lot to be desired.  The logical flaws and sloppy research are typical of the left.  His attitude and ignorance are also typical of the left, and especially the activist left.  There are many leftists who think he’s some kind of hero, but to me TAA just comes across as a self important dolt. 

This is just brilliant, Barack Osama has signed an arms reduction treaty with Russia.  This is like the international version of those liberals who tout bumper stickers that say “Proudly Unarmed.”  Anyone with a bumper sticker like that is just saying “ROB ME” to any burglars that might be out there.  Obama is doing the exact same thing with his inane treaty.  Everything this man does is either stupid, evil, or both.  Usually both.  I simply don’t have the words for such stupidity.  I realize that the average liberal in western countries is terrified of a nuclear war, but I always assumed that their leaders knew better and merely used the specter of a nuclear war to string along the ignorant masses who vote for them.  I don’t understand why Obama is doing this, but there are only two possibilities, one being that Obama is actually scared of a nuclear war, the other being that he is trying to lay the country open to invasion.

One thing I have noticed about Obama is that he seems to think he is a world leader.  He seems to think that he can dictate policies to sovereign nations and that foreign leaders will actually listen to what he says and comply with it.  He acts as if the one world government is already in place and he’s in charge of it.  He’s very self important and egotistical.  Given that, it’s hard to believe that he would actually be scared of a nuclear war.  Obama’s behavior follows a pattern.  Everything he does domestically is geared towards eroding personal liberties and increasing the power of government.  Everything he does at the international level is geared towards eroding US sovereignty. 

Being a Christian conservative I never jumped onto the “nuclear war” bandwagon of fear mongering.  The main reason being that nothing of a nuclear war is mentioned in the end times prophecies.  What I am afraid of is anything resembling a one world government, and I believe that the nuclear war fear mongering is a ploy to make people view/accept the one world government as a preventative measure.  Because of course it’s better to live under a world straddling left wing government with no freedom, no ability to own property, no opportunity for personal advancement, and the risk of being locked in a prison camp and tortured rather than being snuffed out quicker than you can know what’s happening on the off chance that some foreign leader decides he doesn’t mind having his country utterly destroyed with nukes.  So either Obama grossly misunderstands human nature (which would be a rare trait in an extreme left wing politician), or he’s deliberately laying us open for attack.  I tend to think the latter is true.

There are other countries out there with more manpower than the US, and still others which possess nukes.  The use of nukes becomes pointless when two adversaries are similarly armed, and the advantage of manpower is negated by the presence of nukes.  If no one in the world has nukes then the playing field is level (aside from advantages in manpower), but there is no reason to assume that just because the US eliminates nukes other countries will follow suite.  More likely than not they will seize upon the opportunity for gaining the tactical advantage which Obama has given them.  What power does Obama have over Russia to make sure they follow their half of the agreement?  None, especially not after destroying equipment which could provide a tactical advantage.

Now for anyone out there who thinks that Russia and other foreign governments will not take advantage of this huge “ATTACK ME” sticker Barack Osama has just slapped on us, seriously, you need to read and watch more fiction if you’re too lazy to read history or watch the news.  You can learn a lot from fiction, because it’s basically real life issues placed in an exotic setting.  The only way to find out if an enemy shares your values is by observing them over an extended period of time.  They can say that they share your values, but they could also be lying.  Trust is earned not given, and that is why it’s better to err on the side of caution than assume that everyone has rosy intentions.

I want to share a story from my childhood.  I grew up in the 80′s and 90′s.  My single digits were spent in the 80′s.  At any rate, back then my parents used to let my brother and I wander around the neighborhood without worrying about anything happening to us.  Sometimes we would stay out a whole day wandering around with friends or by ourselves, or with the dog.  It’s a freedom that my sisters were never able to enjoy to the same extent, even though they grew up in a much wealthier neighborhood than we did, because things have become less safe since then, but I digress.

The story I would like to tell is about my Mormon friend from back when I was a kid.  As a kid I had a hard time making friends, for a few reasons:  1) My level of knowledge was a bit more advanced than the other kids so there was often a lack of understanding during conversations. 2) I had a hard time relating to normal people.  One day when there were a lot of other kids hanging out in my backyard this new kid came over that I had never seen before.  He lived way up on the huge hill near the entrance to our neighborhood and generally didn’t come down into our area that often.  At any rate, the other kids were making fun of him because his intellect was considerably in advance of theirs and they lacked the wits to understand much of what he was saying.  As it turned out, my brother and I ended up becoming friends with this boy and forgetting about all of our previous friends from the neighborhood.  The guy’s name was Cameron (I’m not giving out his last name), and although we had some theological disagreements we got along fairly well. 

One day when we were running around the neighborhood shooting at invisible enemies, and sometimes each other, with toy guns we ran into some other kids who were apparently regular enemies of Cameron.  There was a fat kid who was a bout a foot taller than we were, plus one or two of his friends who were smaller than we (the three of us were about the same height).  The fat kid proceeded to make fun of Cameron and demanded that Cameron give him the toys he was carrying.  To my surprise, my friend Cameron proceeded to follow his instructions.  That was a mentality I could not understand.  I would share with friends, but never with enemies or people who were making fun of me.  When the bullies tried to get over on me I would fight them with all of my strength until they fled.  There were a few fights I would lose but not many, and the losses never demoralized me.  Anyways, I was surprised because capitulation was a foreign concept for me.

I said, “What are you doing?  Why are you giving him your stuff?”

“Because he told me to give it to him,” said my friend, “if I don’t give it to him he’ll take it.”

I don’t remember the entire exchange, but I was told that big fat kids last name was Pisgalik. I don’t know if that is even spelled correctly but it was pronounced (Pis-gah-lick).  So many innuendos could be made from such a name.  It was probably the sheer size of the individual that kept that from happening, most of the time.  Cameron said something about how I didn’t know Pisgalik and that he had often bullied him and forced his will on others through violence and threats of violence.  Cameron never insulted his assailants, or offered them violence.  I on the other hand, immediately launched into reminding this individual of his obvious shortcomings.  Basically I called him fat, and probably stupid as well.  I also prevented Cameron from giving Pisgalik any of his belongings.

Pisgalik continually referred to my friend as a p***y.  Being as sheltered as I was, and never having been allowed to watch R or even PG13 rated movies (something for which I compensated as an adult), I had never heard that word and neither had my brother.  We had no idea what it meant.  My brother decided to join the argument and he told Pisgalik that, “if anyone’s a p***y it’s you because your name is Pisgalik and it sounds a lot like p***y.”  With that Pisgalik hung his head and walked off without saying another word.  It was a victory for civilization and human rights over the forces of brutality, ignorance, and oppression. 

For the next few years my brother and I acted as body guards for our friend, and he didn’t have any more problems with bullies for the duration of the time that we were there.  In fact I don’t even recall any further attempts to threaten him by other kids. 

I mentioned this story because there are very many analogous situations in the adult world. 

For those who may not know, I am a pretty big fan of Edger Rice Burroughs.  Burroughs is probably mostly known for Tarzan, but he also wrote a great many Sci-Fi books which I find to be positively brilliant.  Many of Burroughs’ sci-fi stories are heavily laden with political commentary which I have found to be very insightful.  In his Moon series the villains are a group of people from the Moon called “Kalkars.”  In the story the Moon is hollow and people live in the interior, the civilization was originally more advanced than human civilization on earth but it was destroyed by some extreme leftists.  So what I would like to do at this point is quote from “The Moon Maid” by Edger Rice Burroughs and examine some the real life parallels:

“We will have to wait here, Nah-ee-lah,” I said.  “Perhaps, though, all will be well–the Kalkars may prove friendly.”

She shook her head.  “No,” she said, “they will not be friendly.”

“What will they do to us?” I asked.

“They will make slaves of us,” she replied.  “We shall spend the balance of our lives working almost continuously until we drop with fatigue under the worst of task masters, for the Kalkars hate us of Laythe and will hesitate at nothing that will humiliate or injure us.”

Sound familiar yet?  There’s more, after the main character gets captured:

  

“Why all this enmity,” I asked, “between the men of Laythe and the Kalkars?  Who are the Kalkars anyway?”

“You are not of Vanah (the Moon),” he said.  “That I can see.  The Kalkars derive their name from a corruption of a word meaning Thinkers.  Ages ago we were one race, a prosperous people living in peace with all the world of Va-nah…”  “No corner of the three oceans but knew our ships and our cities were joined together by a network of routes, along which ran electrically driven trains…  while other great carriers flew through the air.”

“Our means of communication between distant points were simplified by science through the use of electrical energy, with the result that those who live in one part of Va-nah could talk with those who lived in any other part of Va-Nah, though it were the remotest ends of the world.  There were ten great divisions, each ruled over by its Jemadar, and each division vied with all the others in the service which it rendered to its people.  there were those who held high positions and those who held low; there were those who were rich and those who were poor, but the favors of the state were distributed equally among them and the children of the poor had the same opportunities for education as the children of the rich.”

“There it was that our troubles first started.  There is a saying among us that ‘no learning is better than a little,’ and I can well believe this true when I consider the history of my world, where, as the masses became a little educated, there developed among them a small coterie that commenced to find fault with every one who had achieved to greater learning or greater power than they.  Finally, they organized themselves into a secret society called the Thinkers, but known more accurately to the rest of Va-nah as those who thought that they thought.  It is a long story, for it covers a great period of time, but the result was that, slowly at first, and later rapidly, the Thinkers, who did more talking than thinking, filled people with dissatisfaction, until at last they, arose and took over government and commerce of the entire world.”

“The Thinkers would not work and the result was that both government and commerce fell into rapid decay.  They had neither the training nor the intelligence to develop new things, indeed they could not carry out the old that had been developed for them.  The arts and sciences languished and died with commerce…”  “Practically every vestige of the ancient culture and commercial advancement of Va-nah has been wiped from the face of the world.”

There are really only two points I disagree with Burroughs on.  The first being that physical attractiveness and intellect go hand in hand.  I think sometimes that is the case but there are probably as many real life examples of the reverse, look at Hollywood.  The second being that government is necessary.  Government is only useful or benign when intelligent AND honest people are in charge who know how to do the job and what to keep their hands out of.  But how often does that happen?  At any rate, which stupid or evil people get put in charge then everyone suffers, and that is the main point that ERB is making. 

It is largely stupid people who facilitate the coming to power of evil people.  As a rule evil is heavily dependent upon stupidity, when evil comes up against intelligence it is usually stymied because intelligent people are capable or recognizing the motives as well as the consequences of evil.  People of low intellect are easily manipulated through their emotions, which is how the liberal media and the Democrats are always connecting with them.  Watch any speech given by a Democrat, whether it’s a campaign speech, or a speech promoting a particular policy, they always gouge it in emotional rhetoric but when it comes to actual substance they obfuscate.  There is a reason why they do that. 

Anyways, back to ERB and real life parallels, one can see the liberal Democrat rabble rousers and their followers as Kalkars.  They use emotionally laden rhetoric and play up the entitlement mentality and class conflict as a means to gain support for their grab for power, and everything they do IS a grab for power and does put more power into their hands.  They do this at the expense of freedom (taking over the private sector, firing CEO’s, running the medical industry, etc.), and scientific progress (scratching the lunar program) which the average supporter lacks the wits to understand the value of.