The American “left-wing” is our real enemy

The over riding problem with American Politics is the words we use have been warped out of all recognition. Take the words “right” and “left” for instance. I put up a post on the problem called “Left, Right, and the political spectrum …” a few years back. Link here.

Karl Hess (book: Dear America; 1975):

The overall characteristic of a right-wing regime, no matter the details of difference between this one and that one, is that it reflects the concentration of power in the fewest practical hands.
Power, concentrated in few hands, is the dominant historic characteristic of what most people, in most times, have considered the political and economic right wing.
The far left, as far as you can get away from the right, would logically represent the opposite tendency and, in fact, has done just that throughout history. The left has been the side of politics and economics that opposes the concentration of power and wealth and, instead, advocates and works toward the distribution of power into the maximum number of hands.

The above is certainly not what modern Americans mean when they use the terms “left” and “right”. After all, the leftists regime of Stalin concentrated power in a very few hands. This is but one example of the difficulty we have communicating politically in the USA in the modern era.

I once posted that the original meaning of “liberal” was a person who held to the political ideology that developed in the nineteenth century in Western Europe that was committed to the ideal of limited government and individual liberty, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and free markets. The liberal believed that the government should not be involved in the actions of men at all other than to provided protection against the invasion of our natural rights, liberties, and freedoms by someone or some group. Some liberals went even further and said that there should be no government even for that task since the free market could provide defense services better than the state and without the danger of the government itself becoming the aggressor. Obviously the word “liberal” in America at least no longer means what it once did since government-loving socialists usurped the word and pretended to be “liberals”.

So, as we see, the word “liberal” and the word “left” have both undergone huge changes over time.

It has been observed that the real difference in ideologies in America today is between the authoritarian left and the libertarian right. As the state is the main enemy of mankind, then so is the authoritarian left since that world view depends on the State to force the people to follow the left’s mandates. The left-wing world view is utter state worship.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. observed:  The right (properly understood), meanwhile, according to the great classical liberal Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, “stands for free, organically grown forms of life.”

The right stands for liberty, a free, unprejudiced form of thinking; a readiness to preserve traditional values (provided they are true values); a balanced view of the nature of man, seeing in him neither beast nor angel, insisting on the uniqueness of human beings which cannot be transformed into or treated as mere numbers or ciphers. The left is the advocate of the opposite principles; it is the enemy of diversity and the fanatical promoter of identity. Uniformity is stressed in all leftist utopias, paradises in which everybody is the same, envy is dead, and the enemy is either dead, lives outside the gates, or is utterly humiliated. Leftism loathes differences, deviations, stratifications…. The word “one” is its symbol: one language, one race, one class, one ideology, one ritual, one type of school, one law for everybody, one flag, one coat of arms, one centralized world state.

Rockwell went on to ask if Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s description was partly out of date and wrote:

After all, who touts their allegiance to “diversity” more than the left? But the left’s version of diversity amounts to uniformity of an especially insidious kind. No one may hold a dissenting view about the desirability of “diversity” itself, of course, and “diverse” college faculties are chosen not for their diversity of viewpoints but precisely for their dreary sameness: left-liberals of all shapes and sizes. What’s more, by demanding “diversity” and proportional representation in as many institutions as possible, the left aims to make all of America exactly the same.

This call for egalitarianism is a revolt against nature as Murray Rothbard pointed out in one of his most famous essays. The left wants to impose a totalitarian sameness on the masses, but not on the enlightened ruling elite. The elite turns out to be the leading leftists themselves. Imaging that!

The left also wants to destroy all society, for society is a collection of beliefs that have stood the test of time and evolved over centuries. The left wants to make deviancy not just accepted, but they seek to promote any deviancy as the exemplar of behavior. Homosexuality must be hailed as a role model rather than just be allowed or tolerated.

As part of the mission of destroying society, the left has attacked the family and nearly destroyed it. Society and family have always gone together, so attacking both makes sense. Walter Williams, the great black economists, once observed that 100 years of slavery could not break the back of the black family, but that welfare did. The entire welfare system is an attack on the family; even to the point that the poor can not be married and live in the same house if the woman is to receive welfare to support her offspring. Williams also pointed out once that the State promises to provided for the young black woman and she chooses that promise over the young, ill-educated black man with little prospects. This, of course leads to the destruction of the family. Never fear, the white family is being destroyed in similar fashion.

On education, Kuehnelt-Leddihn put it thus:

Church schools, parochial schools, private schools, personal tutors, none is in keeping with leftist sentiments. The reasons are manifold. Not only is delight in statism involved, but also the idea of uniformity and equality — the idea that social differences in education should be eliminated and all pupils be given a chance to acquire the same knowledge, the same type of information, in the same fashion, and to the same degree. This should enable them to think in identical or at least in similar ways.

The left-wing obsession with “equality” means that the leftist needs the state to control education, finance, big business, employment, small business, private property, private clubs, and on and on. Every institution in the country must be hammered to be made to look like every other one. In the name of diversity the left mandates exact sameness.

The left sees people of different skills and endowments reap different rewards and that means the leftist demands intervention to “correct” this “inequity”. The is a recipe for ongoing and continual governmental intervention to correct this matter of human nature. Anyone from a large family will tell you that the children have their own unique personalities, likes, desires, abilities, and so on. You can not mandate equal outcomes without favoring some over others. This intervention will lead to every more brutal tyranny.

Over the decades, I have noticed that each generation of American “liberals” changes the program and shames the “liberal” generation that came before. It is an ever moving target. The “leftism” of the US Empire is a recipe for permanent war on the family, tradition, common sense, liberty, and human nature.  The modern “left” is anti-human.



6 thoughts on “The American “left-wing” is our real enemy

  1. What we actually have in the USA is the Socialist/Communists and the ‘Controled Opposition’ (Stalin)

    The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so the that American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”

    – quote from Tragedy and Hope, 1966 by Carroll Quigley, member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), mentor to Bill Clinton

    Seems a ‘Tinfoil hat type’ way back in the 1970’s nailed it.

    The Rockefeller File by Gary Allen
    Published June 28th 1976

    “The master planners devised the strategy of a merger – a Great Merger – among nations.

    But before such a merger can be consummated, and the United States becomes just another province in a New World Order, there must at least be the semblance of parity among the senior partners in the deal. How does one make the nations of the world more nearly equal?

    The Insiders determined that a two-prong approach was needed; use American money and know-how to build up your competitors, while at the same time use every devious strategy you can devise to weaken and impoverish this country. [See Chasing the Dragon: Clinton’s China Policy for how Clinton implemented this plan. ] The goal is not to bankrupt the United States. Rather, it is to reduce our productive might, and therefore our standard of living, to the meager subsistence level of the socialized nations of the world.

    The plan is not to bring the standard of living in less developed countries up to our level, but to bring ours down to meet theirs coming up… It is your standard of living which must be sacrificed on the altar of the New World Order….

    Much of the spade work for setting up this ploy is being done by Henry Kissinger, who was a personal employee of Nelson Rockefeller for a decade before Rocky placed him in the Nixon Administration….

    It is Kissinger’s belief, according to his aides, that by controlling food, one can control people, and by controlling energy, especially oil, one can control nations and their financial systems. By placing food and oil under international control along with the worlds monetary system, Kissinger is convinced a loosely knit world government operating under the frame-work of the United Nations can become a reality before 1980.

    Common sense tells us that a Rockefeller hireling such as Kissinger would not be setting up an “international control” system which takes assets from the Rockefellers and gives them to someone else. Obviously, the game plan is to take other people’s assets and put them under the umbrella of a Rockefeller-controlled World Government.”
    (Read online or as pdf.)

    Do not forget the Food Safety Modernization Act placed US farmers and food sellers under the control of the World Trade Organization. (I still hate Richard Burr for that tra–torous act.) And Global Warming is all about placing energygeneration under the control of the World Bank and the United Nations.
    (Read online or as pdf.)

  2. Pingback: The path to liberty | On the Mark

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s