The End Game of the Left

Within the world of the far left, individuals have no value.  Only the state matters.  That is why the modern American statist devalues individual achievement and wealth.  If, as in the socialist world of Marx, Engels, and Adolf Hitler (yes, Hitler, as I will explain later), God does not exist and humans have no souls, then the state determines the value of a human life.  This philosophy leads to an ominous conclusion.

In my never-ending quest to understand the statist mind, I have attempted to use the principles of objective observation, or phenomenology, to analyze their intentions based on their behavior.  Statists, it appears, have two proclivities:  One, they are perpetually unhappy and dissatisfied with the current political and social environment, no matter what it happens to be.  Two, they are viscerally angry at whoever stands in their way to the next level of progressive utopia.  They do not tolerate alternate points of view.  An objective individual might classify this behavior as classic immaturity.  But there is much more darkness to the statist soul than mere boorish behavior.

The seemingly endless downward spiral into Dante's seventh level of socialist utopia was made into a movie back in 1968, aptly titled "Wild in the Streets".  It was a pretty cheesy flick, but one particular scene left a lasting impression on me.  This was where the radical leftist youths who took control of the government sent the old folks off to national concentration camps and forced them to drink from water coolers filled with Kool-Aid laced with LSD.  For some reason, this image keeps popping into my head whenever I hear about ObamaCare.  At the end of the movie, there is a foreshadowing that an even younger and more radical regime is about to overthrow the radical leftists in power.  On and on it goes, with Dante's infernal utopia never quite achieved.

Concessions to the fantastic demands of statists lead to more dissatisfaction and anger, and increasingly fantastic demands.  This is similar to the strategy of the radical Islamists living in Western countries.  In fact, you can phenomenologically observe many attitude similarities between the statist and Islamist.  Intolerance of divergent opinions, hatred toward "non-believers", the obsession to dominate and control every aspect of others' lives, and a dogmatic attitude guided by emotion rather than logic, are some examples.  Of course, Islamists are just statists with a state religion.  To the Islamist, the end game for the Infidel is conversion or death.

The statist philosophy, whether Islamic or otherwise, appears to condone and even embrace the concept of eliminating the members of the opposition by murdering them.  While the left projects hatred, racism, and evil on the conservative end of the spectrum, it is they who actually exhibit these attributes.  As New York University professor George Watson states in his book, "The Lost Literature of Socialism":

But it was the issue of race, above all, that for half a century has prevented National Socialism (the Nazi party) from being seen as socialist.  The assumption that socialism was never racist can now be seen as a misunderstanding.

The proletariat may have no fatherland, as Lenin said.  But there were still, in Marx view, races that would have to be exterminated.  That is a view he published in January-February 1849 in an article by Engels called "The Hungarian Struggle" in Marx journal the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, and the point was recalled by socialists down to the rise of Hitler.  It is now becoming possible to believe that Auschwitz was socialist-inspired.  The Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that feudalism, which in advanced nations was already giving place to capitalism, must in turn be superseded by socialism.  Entire races would be left behind after a workers' revolution, feudal remnants in a socialist age; and since they could not advance two steps at a time, they would have to be killed.  They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history.

Watson continues:

Socialism offered a blank check to violence, and its license to kill included genocide.  In 1933, in a preface to On the Rocks, for example, Bernard Shaw publicly welcomed the exterminatory which, to his profound satisfaction, the Soviet Union had already adopted.  Socialists could now take pride in a state that had at last found the courage to act, though some still felt that such action should be kept a secret.  In 1932 Beatrice Webb remarked at a tea-party what "very bad stage management" it had been to allow a party of British visitors in the Ukraine to see cattle-trucks full of starving "enemies of the state" at a local station.

But after all, nothing like this could happen in America, right?  Obama's building up of ACORN community organizers and the AmeriCorps civilian army with billions of dollars from the Stimulus couldn't be used against its own citizens, could it?  His statement that "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded (as the military)" doesn't scare you, does it?  Read the following transcript from the testimony of Larry Grathwohl, an FBI informant who infiltrated a 1970 meeting conducted by Obama's close friend (and probable ghost-writer) William Ayers and included the leadership of the socialist Weather Underground. 

I brought up the subject of what's going to happen after we take over the government. You know, we become responsible for administrating, you know, 250 million people. And there was no answer. No one had given any thought to economics. How are you going to clothe and feed these people? The only thing that I could get was that they expected that the Cubans, the North Vietnamese, the Chinese and the Russians would all want to occupy different portions of the United States. They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter-revolution. And they felt that this counter-revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing re-education in the Southwest where we would take all of the people who needed to be re‑educated into the new way of thinking and teach them how things were going to be. I asked, "Well, what is going to happen to those people that we can't re‑educate, that are die-hard capitalists?" And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated and when I pursued this further, they estimated that they'd have to eliminate 25 million people in these re‑education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill 25 million people. I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of whom have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well-known educational centers and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people and they were dead serious.

The end game of the left is the abortion and eugenic elimination of the "undesirables", the euthanasia of the old and infirm, and the genocide of those who disagree.  Its objective is the purity of socialist thought.  And it is pure evil.

Andrew Thomas blogs at Darkangelpolitics
Within the world of the far left, individuals have no value.  Only the state matters.  That is why the modern American statist devalues individual achievement and wealth.  If, as in the socialist world of Marx, Engels, and Adolf Hitler (yes, Hitler, as I will explain later), God does not exist and humans have no souls, then the state determines the value of a human life.  This philosophy leads to an ominous conclusion.

In my never-ending quest to understand the statist mind, I have attempted to use the principles of objective observation, or phenomenology, to analyze their intentions based on their behavior.  Statists, it appears, have two proclivities:  One, they are perpetually unhappy and dissatisfied with the current political and social environment, no matter what it happens to be.  Two, they are viscerally angry at whoever stands in their way to the next level of progressive utopia.  They do not tolerate alternate points of view.  An objective individual might classify this behavior as classic immaturity.  But there is much more darkness to the statist soul than mere boorish behavior.

The seemingly endless downward spiral into Dante's seventh level of socialist utopia was made into a movie back in 1968, aptly titled "Wild in the Streets".  It was a pretty cheesy flick, but one particular scene left a lasting impression on me.  This was where the radical leftist youths who took control of the government sent the old folks off to national concentration camps and forced them to drink from water coolers filled with Kool-Aid laced with LSD.  For some reason, this image keeps popping into my head whenever I hear about ObamaCare.  At the end of the movie, there is a foreshadowing that an even younger and more radical regime is about to overthrow the radical leftists in power.  On and on it goes, with Dante's infernal utopia never quite achieved.

Concessions to the fantastic demands of statists lead to more dissatisfaction and anger, and increasingly fantastic demands.  This is similar to the strategy of the radical Islamists living in Western countries.  In fact, you can phenomenologically observe many attitude similarities between the statist and Islamist.  Intolerance of divergent opinions, hatred toward "non-believers", the obsession to dominate and control every aspect of others' lives, and a dogmatic attitude guided by emotion rather than logic, are some examples.  Of course, Islamists are just statists with a state religion.  To the Islamist, the end game for the Infidel is conversion or death.

The statist philosophy, whether Islamic or otherwise, appears to condone and even embrace the concept of eliminating the members of the opposition by murdering them.  While the left projects hatred, racism, and evil on the conservative end of the spectrum, it is they who actually exhibit these attributes.  As New York University professor George Watson states in his book, "The Lost Literature of Socialism":

But it was the issue of race, above all, that for half a century has prevented National Socialism (the Nazi party) from being seen as socialist.  The assumption that socialism was never racist can now be seen as a misunderstanding.

The proletariat may have no fatherland, as Lenin said.  But there were still, in Marx view, races that would have to be exterminated.  That is a view he published in January-February 1849 in an article by Engels called "The Hungarian Struggle" in Marx journal the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, and the point was recalled by socialists down to the rise of Hitler.  It is now becoming possible to believe that Auschwitz was socialist-inspired.  The Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that feudalism, which in advanced nations was already giving place to capitalism, must in turn be superseded by socialism.  Entire races would be left behind after a workers' revolution, feudal remnants in a socialist age; and since they could not advance two steps at a time, they would have to be killed.  They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history.

Watson continues:

Socialism offered a blank check to violence, and its license to kill included genocide.  In 1933, in a preface to On the Rocks, for example, Bernard Shaw publicly welcomed the exterminatory which, to his profound satisfaction, the Soviet Union had already adopted.  Socialists could now take pride in a state that had at last found the courage to act, though some still felt that such action should be kept a secret.  In 1932 Beatrice Webb remarked at a tea-party what "very bad stage management" it had been to allow a party of British visitors in the Ukraine to see cattle-trucks full of starving "enemies of the state" at a local station.

But after all, nothing like this could happen in America, right?  Obama's building up of ACORN community organizers and the AmeriCorps civilian army with billions of dollars from the Stimulus couldn't be used against its own citizens, could it?  His statement that "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded (as the military)" doesn't scare you, does it?  Read the following transcript from the testimony of Larry Grathwohl, an FBI informant who infiltrated a 1970 meeting conducted by Obama's close friend (and probable ghost-writer) William Ayers and included the leadership of the socialist Weather Underground. 

I brought up the subject of what's going to happen after we take over the government. You know, we become responsible for administrating, you know, 250 million people. And there was no answer. No one had given any thought to economics. How are you going to clothe and feed these people? The only thing that I could get was that they expected that the Cubans, the North Vietnamese, the Chinese and the Russians would all want to occupy different portions of the United States. They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter-revolution. And they felt that this counter-revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing re-education in the Southwest where we would take all of the people who needed to be re‑educated into the new way of thinking and teach them how things were going to be. I asked, "Well, what is going to happen to those people that we can't re‑educate, that are die-hard capitalists?" And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated and when I pursued this further, they estimated that they'd have to eliminate 25 million people in these re‑education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill 25 million people. I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of whom have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well-known educational centers and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people and they were dead serious.

The end game of the left is the abortion and eugenic elimination of the "undesirables", the euthanasia of the old and infirm, and the genocide of those who disagree.  Its objective is the purity of socialist thought.  And it is pure evil.

Andrew Thomas blogs at Darkangelpolitics