Bleeding Other People’s Blood

Bleeding Other People’s Blood

Socialism, Neo-liberalism — are rarely the result of initially spontaneous mass movements. Rather, such eruptions are usually triggered by one or all of three classes of people:theory-ridden intellectuals for whom exalted but impractical ideas substitute for the real world of refractory human beings, ruthless opportunists intent on seizing power, and wealthy socialites and media types who like to play with forces they do not understand, expressing, in the words of Victor Davis Hanson, “a pathetic projection of their own elite tastes and guilty desires.” The damage they do is immeasurable but the detritus they leave in their wake has never deterred them from wreaking further havoc. For the political Left assumes that it represents the next step in human evolution. In reality, it embodies the next stage in civilizational decline. 

So David Solway writes in an article of particular interest to us at PJ Media. He continues:

This “new” state of affairs will often manifest as a condition of reversion, whether to an idealized vision of the past, as in Rousseau’s natural state of man, or to a more primitive, tribal-like mode of communal association predicated on an ostensible harmony among its members. It’s a compelling and destructive dream world. …

With its manufactured emphasis on peace, brotherhood, and dialogue, its generic sympathy for the poor, the oppressed, the fugitive, and the marginalized, and its mainstreaming of social and sexual deviance as a species of cultural sophistication, the Left as we know it today manages chiefly to assuage its own bad conscience. For the most potent advocates of the contemporary Left, especially the Liberal Left, are generally privileged people — politicians, academics, newspaper editors, Hollywood actors and TV personalities, intellectual mandarins, social patricians — who feel they have a debt to pay for enjoying their own prosperity, exemptions, and perquisites.

Uneasy or embarrassed by favored status and determined to present themselves as lofty egalitarians, they will do everything they can to mobilize those whom they regard as the disenfranchised — the young, the working classes, the destitute, the “undocumented,” the “different” — while refusing to surrender their own prerogatives. They will treat enemies as friends so as not to have to deal with obstacles to their need for absolution. Inwardly crippled, they will feign magnanimity. They will labor to change the world, not from the ground up but from the top down. And in so doing, they will bleed other people’s blood.

Clearly, then, the empathy they profess for the socially disadvantaged and the strangers in their midst is almost entirely fraudulent. There is a deep lesion between the rhetoric and the reality. They will embrace Rousseau’s argument in A Discourse on Inequality that “the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody”; in actual fact, they generally evince a distinct hankering for the fruits of the earth, which they guard jealously, and dispose of the earth as they see fit. Such is the operative “dialectic” of the socialist elite. Meanwhile, the dream must be protected in defiance of both concrete practice and ensuing results.

Thus, the poor are kept at a distance in order not to depress property values. Peace is bought at the expense of appeasement, social tensions, and future conflict. The Humanities curriculum in the universities is devoted to the ephemeral, the fashionable, the deviant, the radical, and a host of social clichés, while the rigors of classical scholarship as well as the archive of the larger and sustaining culture are cast aside as colonial excrescences. Traditional wisdom is anathema. The pursuit of “social justice” on which the Left prides itself is just another cold platitude that the conduct and lifestyles of its adherents demonstrably invalidate. …

The desire to cut through the recalcitrant coil of man’s character leads only to eventual harm and mutilation, to which the demise of every socialist experiment on record abundantly attests. There is no such creature as the “New Man.”No matter. Our socialist utopians are convinced they will ultimately succeed and so continue to interpret every disaster they have inflicted upon their victims as a sign of inevitable future success.

Much of what David Solway perceives in the mind of the Leftists – their snobbery, hypocrisy, self-dissatisfaction, utopian idealism and the rest – and the effect of their ideology on the people they gain power over, is illustrated in the story told in L: A Novel History by Jillian Becker.

The following is an extract from the book, in which the political theory of the man who likes to be called just “L”, a philosopher of aesthetics who becomes a Communist tyrant, is summarized:

Revolution must occur in the soul of man, L  demands and prophesies. Spiritual disintegration must occur so that “man can be remade from his essential particles, his very consciousness changed utterly, so that he becomes in every sense a new creature: not retrained capitalist man, but new-born communist man, as different from his predecessor as Homo Sapiens was from Australopithecus.” The transfiguration of each “member of society” (L eschews the use of the word “individual” whenever possible) will be coincident with, or soon follow, a “social revolution”, which will establish institutions to execute the “common will”.

The “salvation” of “each” will be his “dissolution in the human totality”, so that “each” will be redeemed from the prison of his separateness, and henceforth “know himself to be part of the superforce of common human endeavour”. The one will have become a part of the All. To do so is the only satisfaction for his otherwise insatiable longing, “the great hunger of being, the desperate want of a soul wandering in a universal desert”. The Community and God are identified here as the same – and the Community is by implication the merging of all beings in L’s own mystical universal Self.

Each will achieve his new birth through and by the sole aid of the leaders of the communist movement. To do so must be the “deepest desire of his being”. He must give “all his heart, all his soul, all his mind, and his very life” to the service of the Party. Although “only those capable of growing into the stature great enough for total commitment, strong enough for unquestioning obedience and self-renunciation” will be accepted into the Party. Since the Party will be “the perfect expression of the total will”, it can do no wrong. Whatever it does must be “morally immaculate”. It will in all its actions express “the deepest felt desire of the people”, with a “sureness that rational explanation could never infuse”. Its dominance will “conquer forever the desolation of man confronted by the nugaciousness of his own existence”. In the realisation of its ends lies “all purpose, all glory, and the mystical rapture of the universal consciousness”. The only cause is the cause of the Party. It is the “one sanctity”, and anything done to achieve it is therefore sanctified. Anything a Party member does to serve it is not only justified, but blessed.

There is no innocence but being guiltless of wishing to damage the Party, or undo the revolution, or in any way oppose, hinder or pervert the ends of the Party.

There is no loyalty but unquestioning devotion to the Party.

There is no morality but obedience to the Party.

There is no freedom but submission to the Party.

Since the end which all the Party’s means justify is the ultimate happiness of all mankind – its physical wellbeing, its emotional joy, its aesthetic perfection – any member “of the Party or the masses” who “becomes confused by the desirability of these ends into the mistaken belief that physical suffering, emotional distress or ugly actions should not be performed while the Party is still engaged on working through the processes of historical time to its goal”, fails to understand the nature of sacrifice, and must be “accorded the therapy that will enlighten him and restore him to the great river of human purpose”. However, such a person, who may “have to inflict great agony and terror and even destruction on his fellow beings”, will, if he does what he must do despite his “confusion”, be recognized as “classically tragic”. L goes on*: “The more deeply he feels a sinfulness, the greater his sacrifice to the Cause, and the more he is to be not merely exonerated, but exalted.” Thus the murderer and torturer may be tragic heroes.

This Book is a Triumph

By Robert Kantor, Author/Physicist:

L: A Novel History is just about the most stunning portrayal of a narcissistic psychopath I have ever read. The only rival in my judgment is Solzhenitsyn’s portrayal of Stalin in The First Circle, but perhaps Stalin could be better termed a paranoid psychopath. L’s description of his early memories of the Hampstead house at the beginning of Chapter 2 is simply marvelous; it sheds light on the mental landscape of L in a way that makes his crazed behavior understandable. This book is a triumph (or as the English would say, “not bad at all”).

Eric Hoffer summed up the mentality of the acolytes of L as follows: 

“…the freedom the masses crave is not the freedom of self-expression and self-realization, but freedom from the intolerable burden of an autonomous existence. They want freedom from the ‘fearful burden of free choice,’ freedom from the arduous responsibility of realizing their ineffectual selves and shouldering the blame for the blemished product.”

The  description of the disintegration of England hits too close to home. It has been said that one shouldn’t attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity or ignorance. So I ask the question, Is Barack Obama an ogre or an ignoramus? In a way he resembles one of those celebrities surrounded by sycophants who convince him he is as great as his adoring fans believe him to be. No one in the eunuch press ever asks him why he gives the same speech over and over again with the same proposals (tax the rich, spend more money on education, invest in alternative fuels) that have nothing to do with the real problems facing this country but that are poll-tested to gain the approval of an uninformed and indifferent populace. No one outside of some conservative circles asks him anything of importance. To prove that L’s dystopia is not so far-fetched, read the following:

Utopian delusions and imaginary people

L’s contempt for most human beings is typical of utopian revolutionaries. People must change to suit them, or suffer terrible consequences.

“The Bolsheviks … were truly captivated by utopian delusions.  The problem of all utopians is that they advocate systems and ideas that can only work with imaginary idyllic humans, but never with real human beings.  When they discover that real human beings refuse to knuckle under and behave according to utopian expectations, the utopianists respond with violent rage.  The greatest strength of capitalism is that it actually works with real human beings, people who are lazy, base, narcissistic, self-indulgent, foul-smelling, mean-spirited, and unsophisticated.  Capitalism does not require idyllic fictional humans in order for it to work. The most violent terrorists and oppressors of others have always been the utopians.  The French Revolution turned violent and the guillotine was introduced to attempt to terrorize actual humans into behaving according to the expectations of the utopianists.  The leaders of the Soviet Revolution were no slower or more squeamish in following the same route.”

– from Just What Was Fundamentally Wrong with Bolshevism?  by Steven Plaut , Front Page Magazine, November 29, 2012



The Poisonous Dreams of Europe

Bruce Bawer writes of the Europe that can produce a tyrant like L:

Europe’s most poisonous, dehumanizing dreams:  men and women who are the sworn enemies of that messy, imperfect thing, human freedom, and who’ll never shake off their dangerous, blind faith in the utopian promise of authoritarian ideology.  So it stands, alas, in much of Europe in the year 2012.  To know anything about the history of the last few generations on this beleaguered continent is to realize that none of this insanity is new – and that every bit of it is, shall we say, profoundly inauspicious.

Analogies between L’s England and the vision of the American Left

1. L-ism and the Occupy Wall Street Movement:

There was no use in protest marches and demonstrations now. For now there was real deprivation, real tyranny, real hunger. And that was precisely what L had promised them. They were no longer rich in many poor things, as once protestors had so angrily complained to governments and authorities. Now they were poor in all things.  It was those who had freedom and decried it, pretending they were oppressed; those who had material plenty and despised it, pretending they were poor; those who thus secreted a worm in their own hearts, and so at the heart of civilization – envy: the amazing unforeseen and unforeseeable envy, by the free and comfortable, of the unfree and wretched of the earth: it was these self-deceiving, would-be lovers of mankind … the affluent children who squatted in the communes and protested against freedom calling it “repressive tolerance”, and those they elected … who were caught in the trap of their own lies, and brought an end to liberty in the name of liberation; and end to plenty in the name of humanitarianism; and an end to the impersonality of the law before which all were equal, and the impersonality of the market in which all were equal, and created legal discrimination and class elitism, in the name of equality.


2.  Dependency on the state:

The people had become unaccustomed to self-reliance. They did not after all want a government that would leave them to do the best they could for themselves, and only remove obstacles and restrictions. They wanted a government with paternal responsibilities: to house the citizens, educate them, inoculate them against diseases, cure them when they were ill, keep the warm, tell them to fasten their safety-harnesses in their cars, warn them against smoking tobacco, “counsel” them when they quarreled with their spouses or beat their children or drank too much … and even spend as much of their money as possible on what government considered good for them rather than let them spend it themselves! If the educated and well-off did not need all this for themselves, they believed that “the vast majority of the people of this country” did need it. … The tragedy of Britain was that a self-reliant, self-disciplined, industrious people who had valued freedom, justice, goodwill, commonsense, and had grown strong and prospered because they had the character to embrace those values, had been turned into dependents, dissatisfied and envious, demanding that the state provide what they were no longer willing to provide for themselves. 

L wrote: “I look towards a time when none shall have peace, when all feel insecure, and can look only to a Party, manifestly whimsical, for any reward and any punishment, without any reason to expect justice. For there and there only authority  will reside, and it will be total and as incomprehensible. No aspect of their lives will be too big or too small for the Party to deal with. It will reach into the heart and mind of every man, and his person, his life, will belong not to him but to the Party. The Party will hold the monopoly of life and death. Whatever anyone has will be dispensed to him by the Party, whether it is a material thing, like food and drink, or dignity, self-respect, his mate, the company of his own children. And there will be no escape. For the power of the Party must be planetary. That is why there can be no refuge for individualism; why anyone who expresses thoughts the Party has not allowed him, or who even thinks them to himself, must be stopped.”