Why a socialist regime cannot allow dissent

Why Socialism cannot allow dissent, and leads to dictatorship … and apropos L’s appointment of Foxe as head of his political police: –

“A Socialist State once thoroughly completed in all its details and its aspects … could not afford to suffer opposition. . .  Socialism is, in its essence, an attack … upon the right of the ordinary man or woman to breathe freely without having a harsh, clumsy, tyrannical hand clapped across their mouths and nostrils… No Socialist system can be established without a political police.  Many of those who are advocating Socialism or voting Socialist today will be horrified at this idea.  That is because they are short-sighted, that is because they do not see where their theories are leading them. No Socialist Government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, and violently worded expressions of public discontent. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.  And this would nip opinion in the bud; it would stop criticism as it reared its head, and it would gather all the power to the supreme party and the party leader.” – Winston Churchill


“Imagine the UK without Thatcher”

This review of L: A Novel History by Daniel Greenfield was published on May 2, 2013, at Front Page

With the recent death of Margaret Thatcher, one novel takes a look at a UK without Thatcher. L: A Novel History by Jillian Becker, the author of, Hitler’s Children: The Story of the Baader-Meinhof Terrorist Gang, is a modern 1984 taking place in an England fallen to the left. A country where the atrocities and horrors perpetrated in the east found their way to the west.


1984 showed us tyranny from the perspective of an ordinary man coping with the tyranny of an omnipresent Big Brother, while L takes us into the mind of Big Brother.

Becker’s L is a child of the modern left, attracted to the violent spectacle of revolution, feeding on blood and pain, gorging on the emotional spillage of the disgruntled, perpetrating riots, terrorist attacks and finally the mass starvation of the United Kingdom.


1984 takes place in the fragments of a lost history, but L develops its history out of the recent past. L doesn’t emerge out of a vacuum. He is the child of privilege, the student of leftist academics and the tyrant who rises out of the class warfare struggles of the burgeoning welfare state.


L abandons his name, going by a single letter, dabbling in dehumanizing Marxist theory while developing a cult of followers, the L-ites, who become the core of a movement that takes over the United Kingdom. L: A Novel History is as much about L, piecing together his inner thoughts from diary entries and newspaper articles, as it is about the milieu of the period and the more moderate figures on the left who hand over power to him and allow him to perpetrate his acts of terror.


As Becker notes in her introduction, there are historical precedents for L, for his associates and the fascist opposition that eventually allies with him. What she has done is transpose the history of various Communist atrocities from Russia and Eastern Europe into an England on the wavering end of the Cold War.


As a fictional history, L: A Novel History assembles painstakingly an entire alternate history in a metafictional narrative composed of newspaper articles, diary entries and historical speculation that combines the perspectives of L, his followers, the L-ites, his opponents, both genuine and disingenuous, and the people of England who react with bewilderment and then horror as the stores are emptied, the food vanishes and they are put through a brutal and degrading process meant to break their spirit.

L’s great obsession is the cultivation of empathy. Like most sociopaths, he is incapable of genuinely empathizing with others, but has a narcissistic obsession with the experience of emotion as spectacle.


Embodying the privileged empathy of the left, L promises to raise up the people, but instead degrades them, robbing them of their dignity, their humanity and finally their lives, in order to force them to identify with the sufferings of the less well off.


L is Big Brother given form, substance and motive. His resentments and narcissism represent all too well the modern left. Obsessed with image, L is driven to be a cult figure and succeeds in achieving true cult status at the expense of millions for his grand experiment in enforced empathy.


The UK has a long literary tradition of dystopias which imagine a descent into fascism, even as in real life it has continued a descent into Socialism. Jillian Becker’s L: A Novel History challenges that fictional narrative with a meta-fictional narrative that warns of what might have been and what may yet be.

Churchill against L-ism and Obama-ism

In the United States…economic crisis has led to an extension of the activities of the Executive and to the pillorying, by irresponsible agitators, of certain groups and segments of the population as enemies of the rest. There have been efforts to exalt the power of the central government and to limit the rights of individuals. It has been sought to mobilize behind this reversal of the America tradition … It is when passions and cupidities are thus unleashed and, at the same time, the sense of public duty rides high in the hearts of all men and women of good will that the handcuffs can be slipped upon the citizens and they can be brought into entire subjugation to the executive government. They they are led to believe that, if only they will yield themselves, body, mind and soul, to the State, and obey unquestioningly its injunctions, some dazzling future of riches and power will open to them I hold that governments are meant to be, and must remain, the servants of the citizens; that states and federations only come into existence and can only be justified by preserving the “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the homes and families of individuals. The true right and power rest in the individual.  – Winston Churchill, 1936

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.