Thursday, March 15, 2018

The Left And The Philosophy Of Power

     This piece from Mike Hendrix has remained on my mind, especially this portion of it:

     [S]ome of them, starting with Obama’s pal Bill Ayers, have openly declared that millions of us will probably have to be marched off to the camps and murdered in order to finally get the dodo off the ground.
     I asked, “well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” and the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.

     And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

     And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”

     Twenty-five million people.

     I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which 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.

     I can recall at least two other such admissions during Obama’s Reign Of Error, which a cursory Duck-Duck-Go-ing doesn’t unearth. But I strongly suspect such sentiments are far from rare among the more dedicated of these Leftard fanatics; mass slaughter is baked right into the totalitarian cake, a feature, not a bug.

     Ayres has dismissed the informant who narrated the above, Larry Grathwohl, as “having no credibility.” But he wouldn’t deny Grathwohl’s assertions directly and unambiguously. Perhaps he’s aware that others have confirmed the sentiments to which Grathwohl testified.

     For my part, I find Grathwohl’s statement entirely consistent with what I know of the Left. Theirs is an ethic-free philosophy. It goes like this:

  1. We are morally superior to our adversaries.
  2. Therefore, they have no right to oppose us.
  3. Therefore, they have no rights at all.
  4. Therefore, we can dispose of them as we please and whenever it suits us.

     Every particle of evidence we have, drawn from the Left’s own words and deeds, confirms this. Bear in mind that some of them have already acted in accordance with it.

     Mike’s assessment is dead on target: mass slaughter and other horrors are “baked right into the totalitarian cake, a feature, not a bug.”

     And it is long past time we in the Right took official notice of it.

     The Philosophy of Power is usually summarized as “might makes right.” That’s actually a misapplication of terms. The Philosophy of Power denies the existence of rights. In effect, it dismisses all conceptions of morals and ethics a priori. Its outlook is teleological: whatever gets the job done. “The job,” of course, will be defined by those who hold the preponderance of might – and they will brook no dissent from it.

     I suppose that comes as no surprise to a regular Gentle Reader of Liberty’s Torch. What I have in mind this morning is how the Philosophy of Power dovetails, in operation, with another well known conception: the philosophy of Utilitarianism, usually summarized “the greatest good for the greatest number.”

     The Utilitarian will tell you that he seeks “the greatest good for the greatest number,” nothing else. But let’s follow that out for a bit:

  1. First, he and those in league with him must settle upon a “good” to be sought.
  2. Next, they must choose a means by which to seek it.
  3. Next, they must implement their means.
  4. Resisters, who cannot possibly have “the greatest good for the greatest number” as their priority, must be thwarted. But what means would be appropriate?
    • Persuasion has failed.
    • Democratic processes don’t eliminate a resister’s capacity for resistance.
    • Therefore, only force remains.
  5. Having thus satisfied what he uses for a conscience, the Utilitarian will employ coercion.
  6. But coercion only works if behind it looms the ultimate threat: death. So the Utilitarian must be ready to kill those who won’t surrender.

     And as I’ve written before, the Utilitarian makes no “money-back guarantees:”

     It is obvious that many a State policy formulated to bring about some well-conceived end has failed to do so. Sometimes the failure was inherent in the policy conception; sometimes it was the result of discontinuity in administration or application. What matters is that the result upon which the policy was founded was not achieved. How, then, shall we defend, morally or practically, the imposition of collective decision-making that overrode individuals' claims to rightful autonomy, when the very good they were promised in exchange for their rights has failed to materialize? Shall we make restitution to those who were deprived of their lives, liberties, or properties in service to the unachieved goal? If so, what becomes of collective utility's conceptual superiority to individual rights? If not, why should individuals agree to submit to the usurpation of their rights, however conceived, in the first place?

     It becomes clear from such simple analyses that utilitarianism in theory reduces to absolutism in practice.

     And thus we come back to the Philosophy of Power. Gee, it’s like we never left.

     I’ve argued before that there can be no compromise with the Left, because any compromise would undermine a critical principle. The principle, of course, is the existence of natural individual rights. the Left presupposes that no such rights exist. Their polemicists routinely cloak that presumption in the language of the Utilitarian: “This is for the common good.” In effect, this is a bid to nullify any moral test of the means they choose. Their chosen means are always increased government power: the power of the sword.

     If the Left is allowed that power, they will use it. Have no doubt of that – and indulge no further impulse to look like a “nice guy” in confrontation with those to whom power is all.


A Reader said...

I took an unusual step in this regard yesterday. I told a schoolmate I've known for almost twenty years he had proven he was no friend. I've tried to avoid burning bridges, because we increase the likelihood of a shooting war if we burn them all, and because that in turn scares me to no end. Even so, I finally decided after a fairly typical but exceptionally poorly timed rant, I decided to let the bridge burn and told him as much. There a few others in circle who are obnoxiously sanctimonious and so far to the left I consider them potentially dangerous. Civility fails when confronting the habitually crass, vulgar, and abusive


It's not just that they're "higher" morally. It's that they see us as absolute evil. And when confronted with EVIL, it becomes a moral duty to rid the world of it.

It's coming. You can see it in what they say, what they do. Face to face you see the zeal in the eyes of their shock troops - and the unquestioning loyalty to THE VISION.

Andy Texan said...

There is no question that the leftist with perfect power will kill dissenters (any where including here). After-all how many examples of this are there? Too many to remember them all. So the next question that is remains unanswered is: when is it moral to strike at them (extra-legally if necessary) before they can get the necessary power?


Why do I still attempt to talk to liberals in my life? Because if we don't at least try to talk, it WILL result in shooting.

If - WHEN - that happens, I want to be able to say to myself, and to my children, that I tried everything possible (short of submission to slavery) to prevent this from happening.