Trevor Loudon keeps the lists. The John Birch Society has seen it clearly all along. Fred Siegel lays out the arrogance and utopian thinking of the ruling class.
This stuff is beyond arrogance: If you can't quite get with the program under socialism, well, George Bernard Shaw, has the solution for that:
In THE INTELLIGENT WOMAN'S GUIDE TO SOCIALISM AND CAPITALISM, Shaw proposed that under Socialism 'you would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner.Well, ok. What's not to like about that? Maybe George had a companion political vision to "Pygmalion."
And for Bertrand Russell, definitely one of our superior people, a little "population control" is not problem at all:
Population can be kept from increasing....Perhaps bacteriological war may prove effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full....A scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a (socialist) world government....Your reasonably intelligent skeptic might happen to note that the "stability" to be achieved through mass killing was for Russell to be decided on and initiated by socialist world government. And the socialists love to ridicule the John Birch Society for its adamant opposition to socialism and globalism.
And Dennis Cuddy also has the scoop on Fabian Socialist H.G. Wells:
Wells had even written a book in 1901 titled ANTICIPATIONS, in which he acknowledged that the men of the New World Order 'will not be squeamish either in facing or inflicting death....They will have an ideal that will make killing worth the while.'Who isn't in favor of a little worthwhile killing? Or maybe a lot?
And no look into the sick soul of the Princes of Socialism can be complete without recalling these sentiments (1932) of Stuart Chase, one of the intellectual fathers of the New Deal[1]:
I sympathize [with] the first, the direct and single-minded attack [Red Revolution]. I believe it to have been necessary and inevitable in Russia. It may someday be inevitable in this country [United States of America]. I am not seriously alarmed by the sufferings of the creditor class, the troubles which the church is bound to encounter, the restrictions on certain kinds of freedom which must result, nor even by the bloodshed of the transition period. A better economic order is worth a little bloodshed.[2]So, on what basis would an honest person assume that there isn't a profoundly evil side to socialism and to all those who dream of a "rational" solution to the problems of mankind? The beautiful people don't think of the problems of mankind but rather of the problem of mankind. All hail to abortion, birth control, and periodic "cleansings."
And compulsion.
 |
It seems.
Notes
[1] Fabian Freeway. High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A. 1884-1966. By Rose L. Martin, Western Islands (1966), p. 255-56.
[2] Quoted in Martin. Id., p. 257.
H/t: to The republican Mother for the McDonald video.
7 comments:
Friedrich Engels once approached Karl Marx and complained that the book that they were writing would label them both as mass murderers. Marx chuckled and said that history is always written after the fact and if they won the revolution, they would be the ones writing the history so he shouldn't worry about his reputation. Marx spoke truer than he knew at the time. I have educated myself on leftist political philosophy and it is exactly as you describe.
From Robespierre and the Jacobin revolution to today's CPUSA, they have never changed. If they ever manage to get into power in the U.S. and solidify their hold, they will set up re-education camps and execute anyone who doesn't fall into line. As Mao once said, "power flows from the barrel of a gun." The left has never shied away from using death as a tool of policy. Frankly, they could not exist without it. For how could they maintain the lie indefinitely?
The thing about a free republic is that if you allow free speech and the right to assemble, the psychopaths among us will use that liberty to become criminals or communists who threaten freedom.
This is the reason bloody civil wars every hundred years or so are an inevitable feature in a free republic such as ours.
Mr. Stout, I've been an avid reader of anything to do with the Soviet horror. Reading The Gulag Archipelago was a life-altering experience for me. Never could I go back to not knowing exactly who took over Russia and the depth of their depravity. It's the "ah ha" moment I think that any person of good will have when confronted with even one book -- even half a book -- that provides new information the deviates from the "party line." Similarly, were someone to read that the Church was very open-minded toward Galileo and was, in fact, quite willing to have him discuss his theory as a theory, would he not then be less willing to accept the view of the Church as the very distillation of arrogance and obscurantism?
But the communist isn't interested in knowing the truth but, as you point out, is in fact duty bound to cover it up. Thus, instead of being able to ameliorate life by benefiting from individual insights, we have two warring camps today (and the last 150-200 years) where one type of human has been willing to embrace Utopianism with a vengeance or exploit the diabolical propaganda and subversive techniques of Marxists to attain power.
The outwardly human-appearing people who've embraced the "sicentific society" and, necessarily Socialism (as it allows for the requisite brute force to implement ________) have distinguished themselves by their corrupt and facile willingness to approve of the worst kind of violence to achieve their idiotic ends, notwithstanding talk of "kind" executions for the greater good.
Reading Siegel's new book I'm strangely surprised to discover such a concentrated collection of that kind of arrogant, inhuman thinking. Too, I've become aware of additional facts pertaining to the hideous torture and slaughter of the Cheka in the Soviet Union, as well as the same methods applied by communists in Hungary, Germany, and Spain.
None of this is the least bit passe. These kinds of people and their intellectual maneuverings are with us now as much as at any time before. Even the people I know who are casual, slovenly liberals in their thinking have no care in the world about the loss of institutional or legal protections against these swine. The Intentional Ones delight in it, of course.
What the hell is obvious any more? Or fatal? I know few who seem able to see the obvious or who care about what might be fatal.
Open borders. Muslim subversion. Is there a problem?
Mr. Barbour, I can see no other alternative. The 16th-c. English rules seem to have a healthy concern for treasonous speech. As someone who values free speech greatly, I see it as dangerous to meddle with speech, especially as we see how the left can use "hate speech" and "intolerance" against us.
Whatever the problems with going after treasonous speech may be -- and they are not few -- today we not only go to great lengths to protect speech but seem to bend over backwards to accommodate speech that is pure poison. E.g., Islamic doctrine and preaching. It seems quite doable to me to proscribe texts that require death for apostasy and require all competing legal systems to be subordinated or eliminated. And that purveyors of such poison should be jailed or deported is beyond question.
Also, we probably could have helped ourselves more to decree that espousal of any form of communism, whether involving the violent overthrow of the USG or not, was a criminal and/or deportable offense. In the Middle Ages in England, the kings established the category of "outlaw." How cool was that?
But the will to take even those limited steps is lacking and there's no indication it will appear any time soon.
The division, as always, is between those who cherish liberty at any price and those who either don't care or who are prepared to trade liberty for comfort and the illusion of security.
There can be no meaningful dialog between the two positions.
We are at war. Sooner or later it has to become a "hot" war or we will allow ourselves to be herded into serfdom via the ballot box.
And yet,it is always claimed that socialism CAN work...if only we try it AGAIN...
"THIS TIME IT WILL WORK!"
"[T]oday we not only go to great lengths to protect speech but seem to bend over backwards to accommodate speech that is pure poison. E.g., Islamic doctrine and preaching."
Part of the solution to this is wildly unpopular, deny the poison spewers to immigrate to the US.
Close the borders, shoo out the illegals and anti-West poison-mongers, and don't let them in again.
Of course, I might as well hop on my unicorn and tilt at windmills for even writing this sort of Badthink with such unreasonable recommendations.
Post a Comment