This is a page from the official, non-commercial, and nonprofit web site of “Mark Andrew Dwyer” whose only goal is educating and informing.

Although all material contained on this page is copyrighted either by “Mark Andrew Dwyer” or by other parties (all pictures are from the Internet and are copyrighted by third parties), it is being offered here solely as an educational tool to increase understanding of global economics and social justice issues for 'fair use' of copyrighted material as provided in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

Please, send your comments to readerswrite@yahoo.com. (See also readers’ comments.)

THE LEFT’S ARROGANCE

By “Mark Andrew Dwyer”

December 20, 2006

(Last updated December 30, 2006)

When someone says "left", many words are coming to my mind, the most repetitive of which, except, perhaps, for "not right," is the word "arrogant". And, indeed, when I look at the history of over 100 years of diverse movements that experimented with various flavors and brands of leftist ideologies, from cosmopolitan Marxism, to bloody Bolshevism, to dictatorial communism, to Nazi ¹ socialism, to collectivist fascism ², to tax-and-spend neo-socialism ³ (just to name a few), they exercised virtually all practical options to build their leftist utopias that declared group’s interest, as opposed to individual interest, the supreme and ultimate good of mankind, but what was never missing in their different and, often, contradicting doctrines ⁴ (Communist China almost launched a war on Socialist Soviet Union in order to teach the post-Stalin Soviets how to build a 100% leftist society) was arrogance. Be it Stalin's defiance of laws of nature ⁵, Hitler's ⁶ negation of humanity, Zedong’s denial of economics, or Mussolini’s ⁷ rejection of individualism, arrogance has always been the most basic characteristics of social engineers of all brands and denominations from the left to the "moderate" left, to the far left, to the pathologic ⁸ left.

In the Western countries not fallen to "progressive" leftism that was metastasizing all over the post-WWII world, a left-bound cultural trend emerged as means to weaken traditional societal structures that were considered by the Left a bastion of conservatism. It aimed at turning society’s sense of identity upside down by injecting blatantly absurd (sometimes referred to as “revolutionary”) propositions into its well established system of ethical, moral, and esthetic norms. Resorting to their free speech rights, many artists, writers, composers, and performers sympathetic to Left’s agenda were pushing absurdity to its limits, testing patience of once conservative societies by flooding them with non-conformist, if not outrageous, statements of artistic expression. Catchy slogans, like "It's so bad, it's good," were routinely attached to creations and artifacts of dubious essence, and seasoned critics were surpassing each other in their eulogies for contents-free forms of kind of "Waiting for Godot" as the highest accomplishments of man's intellect. (Not that today’s rap “music” and hip-hop are any better.) In what followed, the advances of Left’s cultural vanguard prepared grounds for a frontal assault on Western European and American “conservative” status quo.

What was then, and has been now, the defining feature of these post-WWII times of well-orchestrated (engineered, if you will) gradual erosion ¹⁵ of traditional norms, values, and standards was that no one of consequence stood up against these exercises of pure absurdity, whose only visible goal, except for some genuine artistic and literary experimentation, was to detach conservative citizens from their core values, and uproot them, little by little, to the point where they became confused, alienated, and unwilling to stand for what they used to believe anymore. Multiculturalism and diversity, today's Trojan horses of West's conquest by the leftist demagogues that direct an army of rebellious hordes of “migrants” from Mexico and other Third World countries, beat whites’ sense of ethnic identity to submission so that when a journal with provocative name "Race Traitor" that openly advocated abolishment of white race was established in 1992 no one in the "mainstream" journalism had courage to confront it.

And that was not a co-incidence. One of particularly blatant instances of today’s Left arrogance is their nonsensical stance on issues related to race. On one hand, they claim, against common sense and scientific evidence, that the concept of race is a biological myth ⁹ devoid of any factual (genetic, in this case) foundation, while at the same time blaming white Europeans and Americans, and only them, for rampart racism ¹⁰ as well as artificial creation of races that, according to today’s Left doctrine, biologically don’t exist. One can see how arrogant those claims are after even a brief examination of research results in genetics ¹¹, as well as history of racism and slavery ¹² in Asia, Middle East, and North Africa, that clearly contradict these claims but are routinely ignored by the leftist agitators. Apparently, they perceive themselves so invincible and so much in control of minds of the masses that, in a way characteristic of Stalin’s infamous dismissal of laws of nature⁵, they firmly believe in their ability of changing inconvenient (for them) reality by collective disapproval of it for purely political reasons. (George Orwell would not be surprised.)

We need to learn some of these successful Left’s tactics and employ them ourselves, for the goal that we have now in front of us resembles the Left's post-WWII agenda: to get away with all taboos, de-empower the regime of "political correctness", and render its main enforcer, the notorious "thought police," powerless and irrelevant. We need to flood the market with magazines and journals that unapologetically publish the results of free and totally unrestrained intellectual inquiry into hot-button issues, like IQ, immigration, race, ethnicity, culture, civilization, and patriotism, just to name a few, no matter how unpopular, disturbing, or heretical the results of such inquiry may seem, and give these magazines and journals provocative, if not outright outrageous, names, like "The Racist", “The Bigot”, "The Anti-Socialist", "The Ethnic Egoist", “The Xenophobe”, “The Heretic”, and "The Post-Leftist". And on every slightest attempt of criticism of our efforts in this direction, we should raise hell that our God-given, constitutionally protected free speech right is being disrespected, violated, vandalized, and desecrated, calling notorious militants of the sort of SPLC ¹³ and ADL ¹⁴ that muzzle supposedly free individuals with a bare threat of calling their free expression a "hate speech" what they really are: the anti-freedom of speech conspiracy organizations.

Then, and only then, will we have any chance of not losing our once well-functioning Republic to the arrogant Left.

_________________________________________________

Notes ¹“Nazi” was a nick name of NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or in English, National Socialist [emphasis added] German Worker’s Party) with a 25-point program formulated in 1920 that included such obviously socialist postulates as: “the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens”, “It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work […] within the framework of the community and be for the general good”, “the abolition of incomes unearned by work”, “nationalization of all businesses [emphasis added] which have been formed into corporations”, “We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises”, “We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age”, “the immediate communalizing of big department stores”, “We demand a land reform [emphasis added] […]; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land”, and “We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State” (ref. [1]). Does it sound like a conservative or right-wing agenda? Of course, not.

²Although in popular opinion, promoted mostly by many leftist ideologues and left-leaning historians that are doing what they can to distance the Left from horrible crimes committed by oppressive regimes that flirted with leftist ideologies, fascism is portrayed as an antithesis of socialism, the fact is that fascism and socialism are kin to each other as they both originated and borrowed heavily from Marx’s teachings. Italian fascism had its roots in fasci movements of 19^th century that sought social justice for the exploited working class by means of trade unionism and revolution (ref. [2]). Benito Mussolini was, initially, a devoted socialist (ref. [3]) who later broke up with the mainstream Italian Left to form its own, radical movement, just like Trotsky and his followers broke up with Stalin in 1920s. Term “fascism” is often, but not quite correctly, extended to include the ideology of NSDAP (see footnote¹ above), although Mussolini considered Hitler’s version of socialism more primitive, or barbaric, than his.

³Neo-socialism is a non-orthodox version of Marxism that is gaining momentum in the U.S. and Western Europe these days. Rather than calling for nationalization of all means of production and imposition of dictatorship of proletariat, as Marx did, it opts for leaving means of production in private hands while submitting businesses and corporations to stringent state’s control, be it in form of regulations or in form of heavy taxation. Simply speaking, neo-socialism is a Robin-Hoodian ideology (take away from the rich and give to the poor) that, unlike the orthodox socialism, does not attempt to eliminate the rich but contents itself with soaking them. One cannot help noticing that both Italian fascism and German national socialism (Nazism) with the totalitarian control of means of production by the state were de facto early instances of neo-socialism (referred to as “modern leftism” in ref. [3]).

⁴The fact that both Hitler and Mussolini were in disagreement with Stalin’s implementation of Marx’s socialist ideas, as well as with Marx (but so were Lenin and Stalin – this is why they had to “improve” on Marx), is often quoted as a “proof” that the totalitarian systems they created had virtually nothing in common with Stalin’s (that happened to be totalitarian, or collectivist, in Soviet terminology, too). This, however, is not the case. The three notorious dictators weren’t that much of enemies as they were rivals for controlling workers’ movements. If one accepted the argument of rivalry as a “proof” of a lack of essential similarity then one must have also concluded that rival gangs that fight each other in their attempts to control local markets of illegal drugs are dramatically different from each other, which they are not. Hitler ordered killing of many members of NSDAP’s elite (almost entire leadership of SA) in 1934 and Stalin did the same to many prominent communists during the power struggle in 1920ies. (Stalin’s successors repeated the “purge” in 1956 when they arranged killings of several heads of Eastern European then-socialist states while they attended the Communist Party meeting in Moscow; their deaths were later blamed on flu.) Does it mean that those eliminated by Hitler weren’t Nazi’s or those eliminated by Stalin weren’t Bolsheviks? Of course, not! Also, it’s worth noting that Stalin’s regime was blamed for est. 8 million deaths (ref. [4]), which is not far behind Hitler’s record (about one and half as much, not including WWII casualties). Stalin once considered Hitler a close ally (after all, Hitler was a socialist; see ref [5]) and hoped for splitting Europe with his new friend (ref [6]). When German troops attacked the Soviet Union on July 22, 1941, Stalin isolated himself for days, heavily drinking and mumbling “And we trusted this man”.

⁵In late 1920ties, disappointed with insufficient grain production in Soviet Union, Stalin, influenced by Marxist-inspired pseudo-scientist Trofim Lysenko, ordered the beginning of agricultural season in early March, despite the fact that snow had not melted yet on many fields. This was supposed to improve harvests in collective Soviet farms that were often too late to avoid losses from rains in the late summer, but it lead to further decrease of grain’s production, instead.

⁶Perhaps the most inhumane ideologue of Nazism was Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels (ref. [7]) who was blamed for masterminding ideological foundations of genocide carried on by the Nazis. He wrote: “To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole,” which statement didn’t leave any doubt as to his affirmation, at least in principle, of collectivism. In what followed, Nazis did in fact do a lot of “sacrificing” of individuals, half of them (est. six millions) of Jewish ancestry that were killed in “concentration” camps.

⁷Mussolini’s (in)famous quote from his speech delivered on October 28, 1925: “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato” (“Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”; ref. [3]) has been considered the encapsulation of fascist totalitarian (extreme collectivist, that is) philosophy. How similar it sounds to M.E.Ch.A.’s motto: “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada” (“For the race, everything. Outside of the race, nothing.”), an organization that reveals strong socialist and nationalistic tendencies with characteristic irredentism against the U.S. (ref. [8a]). (Added December 30, 2006.) This does not seem like a coincidence, for there are other striking similarities between the so-called “Chicano movement” (that M.E.Ch.A. belongs to the vanguard of) and fascist/Nazi ideology of early 1920ties. For instance, one of the main demands listed in M.E.Ch.A’s El Plan de Santa Barbara (ref. [8b]) is “self-determination [emphasis added] for the Chicana and Chicano”, that is almost identical to the first point of NSDAP program (see the footnote¹ above and ref. [1]): “We demand the union of all Germany in a Greater Germany on the basis of the right of national self-determination [emphasis added].” It appears that Mexican national socialists borrowed heavily from their precursors, who also happened to be the experts on conquest and expansion.

⁸Hitler’s Nazism, Mussolini’s fascism, Stalin’s collectivism, and Zedong’s cultural revolutionism (just to name a few) are undoubtedly pathological forms of socialism that deviated from original Marx’s teachings. (Claiming that Hitler and Mussolini belonged to political Right is a common canard that is equally absurd as speculation that they were conservatives, despite that they turned their countries and societies literally upside down. In fact, they were about as much Right-wingers as were Stalin and Zedong, if one understands “Right” as “oppressive totalitarian”.) Although many prominent Leftist ideologues consider these regimes exceptions from the “rule” that socialism translates onto freedom, prosperity, and happiness, not even one society that decided (or was forced) to implement a form of socialism avoided “progressing” towards oppression, economic downturn, and social decay. This seems to be a necessary consequence of unconditional submission of individuals to a group – a common denominator of all socialist experiments. (Interestingly, “Hispanic” gangs seem to profess that kind of submission, too.) Its antithesis, Western individualism, fares so much better despite a lack of “scientific” foundations and social engineering, and in spite of its disapproval by self-appointed advocates of disgruntled masses.

⁹Typical propaganda of this kind that the concept of race is a purely social construct can be found in ref. [9,10,11] – highly recommended readings for all those who don’t know what leftist social engineers are cooking for us under auspices of innocently looking organizations.

¹⁰It’s mind boggling how someone at his right mind can claim that all races are equal (or, at least, that it’s racist to claim that some races are better than others) and yet conjecture, despite the evidence, that whites are the only racial group that practice racism (see [12]).

¹¹Differences between the races are far greater than previously thought (ref. [13]). Self-described ethnicity declared on various federal forms (e.g., affirmative action) is almost totally consistent with the genome of the respondents (ref. [14]).

¹²Making slavery an exclusively white sin has all attributes of a racist claim (for the reason indicated in footnote¹⁰ above), yet those who make such an assertion characterize themselves as being, ostensibly, against all forms of racism. More balanced and brief history of slavery, as well as debunking of other myths propagated by anti-white (usually, leftist) bigots, may be found in ref. [15].

¹³Southern Poverty Law Canter is a left-leaning organization that gained notoriety for silencing groups and individuals by labeling them “hate groups” and suing them and/or their publishers in U.S. courts for their exercise of “hate speech”. One cannot help noticing a similarity between this tactics of SPLC and book burnings in 1933 by Nazi students (ref. [16]).

¹⁴Anti-Defamation League is a left-leaning organization that is considered the strongest lobby that advocates ban of “hate speech”. (Interestingly, ADL, as well as SPLC, would not tolerate anyone’s attempts to restrict their First Amendment rights.) Originally founded to fight against anti-Semitism, it gradually generalized its ideology and doctrines over other lines of ethnic and racial controversies. Currently, ADL is one of the main opponents of border and immigration laws’ enforcement in the U.S. (ref. [17]), and gets ballistic each time when someone mentions the idea of ethno state (ref. [18]).

¹⁵(Added December 28, 2006) A very indicative example of how far away has the American society been driven from its moral standards of 1950-ties by social engineers of leftist denomination may be found in ref. [19]. The little-by-little strategy worked pretty well for the Left’s anti-Christian secularism agenda when consistently applied over prolonged period of time. Note the “rise eyebrows” in the title of that article as the only visible reaction of the reporting agency to quite outrageous, at least by the traditional standards, trend. Could you imagine media outcry if it were not Christmas but, say, Muslim Ramadan that were subject to this kind of disrespect?

Readers’ comments: If they haven't already, everyone here should read the excellent article... “The Left's Arrogance” -- by Mark Andrew Dwyer. [The Conservative Voice Forum]

Excellent article; well footnoted and documented. Kudos to Dwyer. [...] From now on when I see Mark Andrew Dwyer in the byline, my attention is guaranteed to the same level I accord Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams. [top]

REFERENCES

[1] The Seeds of Evil: The Rise of Hitler

Schools History

http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/ASLevel_History/25pointnsdapprogramme.htm

[2] In Lockstep with Fascism

By Hari Heath

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20040102.htm

[3] Modern Leftism as Recycled Fascism

By John J. Ray

http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/06/this-is-expanded-version-of-article.html

[4] Black Famine in Ukraine 1932-33

By Andrew Gregorovich

http://209.82.14.226/history/famine/gregorovich/

[5] Hitler Was a Socialist

By R.J. Rummel

http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/08/hitler-was-socialist.html