Tag Archives: critical theory

The Culture Industry & Pop Subversion

Conservatives tend to ignore pop music and see it as frivolous junk cluttering up the airwaves.  But a closer look at the culture industry reveals it as an insidious piece of the totalitarian puzzle, even more potent than bullets or bombs could be in forcing Americans into collectivism.

Allan Bloom wrote an entire chapter called “Music” in his seminal work The Closing of the American Mind. In the chapter, he rightly states, “Today, a very large proportion of young people between the ages of ten and twenty live for music. It is their passion; they cannot take seriously anything alien to music.”

That was in 1988. Before Brittney Spears, Justin Bieber, Katy Perry and other pop icons of the Internet Age were being streamed into the heads of tweens accompanied by the visual flourishes of jiggling, gyrating, lip-syncing songstresses half-assembled out of silicone and entirely plastic.

And this isn’t some Bible-thumping, snake-handling socon grumbling on his back porch about ‘how times have changed’ and ‘youths were just so much more clean-cut and respectful back in the day.’ This is coming from a libertine libertarian of the live-and-let-live variety. I can’t run for public office because of the extra-curricular activities I engaged in during my college years. At least, not as a Republican. Just saying.

So before explaining why and how the music industry is an implemental part of the hard left’s creepy scheme to demoralize America, let’s set the stage by looking at the lyrics of seven of the biggest hits of the last year:

1. “Last Friday Night” (T.G.I.F.) by Katy Perry (Lyrics)

Last Friday night
We went streaking in the park
Skinny dipping in the dark
Then had a menage a trois
Last Friday night
Yeah I think we broke the law
Always say we’re gonna stop-op

This Friday night
Do it all again
This Friday night
Do it all again

This was banned by the Red Chinese. Can’t say that I blame ‘em in this case. It has nearly 200 million views on YouTube though.

2. “Moves Like Jagger” by Maroon 5 Featuring Christina Aguilera (Lyrics)

You wanted control
So we waited
I put on a show
Now I make it
You say I’m a kid
My ego is big
I don’t give a sh*t
And it goes like this

Comes in at a little over 110 million YouTube views.

3. “Super Bass” by Nicki Minaj (Lyrics)

And he ill, he real, he might got a deal
He pop bottles and he got the right kind of build
He cold, he dope, he might sell coke
He always in the air, but he never fly coach

He a mutha(bleep)in trip, trip, sailor of the ship, ship
When he make it drip, drip, kiss him in the lip, lip
That’s the kind of dude I was lookin’ for
And yes you’ll get slapped if you’re lookin’ ho

This “classic” has 267,000,000 YouTube views.

4. “Party Rock Anthem” by LMFAO Featuring Lauren Bennett & GoonRock (Lyrics)

One more shot for us, another round
Please fill up my cup, don’t mess around
We just wanna see you shake it now
Now you wanna be, you’re naked now

This song has over 465 million views.

5. “Pumped Up Kicks” by Foster the People (Lyrics and Meaning)

All the other kids with the pumped up kicks
You’d better run, better run, outrun my gun
All the other kids with the pumped up kicks
You’d better run, better run, faster than my bullet

The only song on the list I like, even though it is about a kid that snaps and goes on a murder spree.

6. “Give Me Everything” by Pitbull Featuring Ne-Yo, Afrojack & Nayer (Lyrics)

Excuse me but I might drink a little more than I should tonight
And I might take you home with me if I could tonight
And baby I’ma make you feel so good tonight
‘Cause we might not get tomorrow

Almost 250 million YouTube hits.

7. “Tonight, Tonight” by Hot Chelle Rae (Lyrics)

It’s been a really really messed up week
Seven days of torture, seven days of bitter
And my girlfriend went and cheated on me
She’s a California dime but it’s time for me to quit her

La la la, whatever, la la la, it doesn’t matter, la la la, oh well, la la la

Yeah, all of this doesn’t really matter. It’s meaningless, demoralizing, overly sexualized, frivolous, mind-erasing, anti-humanistic drivel. There is nothing individualistically creative or mentally challenging about any of it.

The question is if the sad state of American culture is due to economic forces inherent in capitalism, such as tailoring to the lowest common denominator, or is it part of a leftist drive to debase the culture and to remove moral opposition to socialism?

The easiest way to find out this answer is to look at what influential leftists, who are universally taught in the upper ranks of colleges and universities, have to say about capitalist culture and what they propose to do about it.

One of the most prominent New Left critics of capitalist culture was Theodore Adorno. The Frankfurt School mandarin first coined the phrase “the culture industry,” which he used in the title of some of his manuscripts. In his Culture Industry Reconsidered, he wrote the following:

The culture industry intentionally integrates its consumers from above. To the detriment of both it forces together the spheres of high and low art, separated for thousands of years. The seriousness of high art is destroyed in speculation about its efficacy; the seriousness of the lower perishes with the civilizational constraints imposed on the rebellious resistance inherent within it as long as social control was not yet total. Thus, although the culture industry undeniably speculates on the conscious and unconscious state of the millions towards which it is directed, the masses are not primary, but secondary, they are an object of calculation; an appendage of the machinery. The customer is not king, as the culture industry would have us believe, not its subject but its object.

A modern musicologist comments on Adorno’s observations:

The central culprit for this “regression” was ultimately the culture industry, which sought to commodify the artwork in service of the mass market as “so-called cultural goods”. As a result, the work of art pales as an object of genuine contemplation and circulates in the consumer market, becoming an object sought out for its “exchange value” rather than its ‘deep’ principles. A curious vicious cycle of double-anticipation: the leaders of large entertainment companies anticipate the “tastes” of the “mass market” by reproducing what the “market” has deemed “popular”. Yet, Adorno points out that what is “popular” is “the most familiar” and “is therefore played again and again and made still more familiar”.

This technique of mechanical reproduction is not unique to music, it is also famously and memorably seen in art, with the purposeful critique of industrial civilization inherent in Andy’s Warhols art. The main concept is that the mechanical reproduction of art, in other words, its mass production, “demystifies” the individualistic aspect of artistic expression itself. Repeated imagery or simplified and compressed imagery tailors to the mass tastes; by extension, it influences and “corrupts” them in a not necessarily pejorative sense. The result is the diminishing of the humanistic influences that inform American individualism.

But none of this can be necessarily blamed on the left, which would be akin to shooting the messenger for delivering bad news. The problem arises when one finds evidence that the left actually roots for civilizational dissolution, and has infiltrated and established numerous powerful institutions with the express purpose of destroying the legacy of The Enlightenment, which informs the founding of the United States.  Culturally doing away with The Enlightenment would effectively leave men morally and philosophically helpless against totalitarianism.

One such powerful institution was The Princeton Radio Project, which Adorno took part in. While working with the project, Adorno developed the following critique:

“On the Hit Parade, Adorno found: When a popular song was “plugged” over and over again on American radio, a familiar pattern was recalled. The familiar pattern replaced thinking. With just a few musical notes of a jingle, like the sound of dogfood hitting the bowl, advertisers could produce the desired effect: “Oh, there’s my favorite show, I better stop what I’m doing, and come listen to my show.” Thinking was reduced to recall! Adorno thought the ad jingles and constant “plugging” of a few songs on the Hit Parade “infantilized the listener … with musical stereotypes…”

And what, ironically, was his association with this phenomenon? Adorno thought: “…totalitarian radio was assigned to the task…of providing good entertainment and diversion” and concluded that American radio served the same function as totalitarian radio – to distract listeners from political reality, as he interpreted it.

The Princeton Radio Project eventually became part of The Bureau of Applied Social Research, which Theodore Adorno worked with until leaving the group in the early 1940s. What was “The Bureau” and what did it do?

The Bureau of Applied Social Research (BASR), known as ‘the Bureau’ to those who worked there, played an influential role in early media studies and the development of communication as a discipline. Founded in 1937 as the Office of Radio Research (ORR), the Bureau (renamed in 1944) was a research institute affiliated with Columbia University but dependent for funding on external sources. It was one of several such research institutions formed by Paul F. Lazarsfeld, a Jewish-born Viennese émigré scholar, trained as a mathematician and social psychologist, who became a major figure in the history of the study of communication.

It is very important to note that these projects “studying” mass media influence were funded by very powerful organizations, such as The Rockefeller Foundation, The Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Institute.  Highly recommended is a briefing on the particular role of Adorno and Lazarsfeld, and their work with The Princeton Radio Project.

The significance of such projects becomes more clear and more disturbing once one probes what these “non-profit” foundations are all about. Norman Dodd of the Reece Commission investigated the workings of such foundations and gave a harrowing and convincing interview that puts forth the proposition that they are institutional transmissions for integrating the United States into a world collectivist society.

The Frankfurt School, which Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer led, was eventually transferred to Columbia University, at the Institute for Social Research.  But other neomarxist theoreticians made their mark. Of these, Gyorgy Lukacs and Antonio Gramsci bear special mention.

Gyorgy Lukacs was The Minister of Culture under the communist regime of Bela Kun in Hungary. Lukacs was the author of History & Class Consciousness, which broke new territory on assaulting capitalist “culture.” One key aspect to his program to destroy capitalism was to target Christianity and family values, which he thought culturally reinforced capitalism.

As tenuous a proposition as this is, he debased Hungarian culture by seeking to actively sexualize the youth in the schools, which elicited a revolt in 1919. The Christian peasants helped to overthrow the Kun government, one of the few times a people has quickly overturned communist rule.

One saw the influence of Lukacs in President Obama’s resigned “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings, whose sexually illicit record made him an unusual choice to head a government agency dealing with schools – until one understands the purpose of introducing sexually explicit materials in the classroom: to debase the humanist aspects of the culture, and to make children easier to mold into socialists.

Religion is a very powerful barrier to socialism, and thus it must be destroyed, the left reasons. In addition, the irresponsible behavior provoked by youth sexualization makes young people more amenable to both the dehumanizing experience of abortion, and prone to becoming dependent on the social welfare state.

Antonio Gramsci provided the rationale for the left to seize the culture and to wield hegemonic control over it to bring about socialism. Gramsci’s insights on communication, how to conduct cultural warfare through capturing education and the media are so important they warrant special merit for the unfamiliar reader.

In short, the sum of the left’s progress in the schools, colleges, courts, news and entertainment media should be seen particularly from the viewpoint of a Gramscian war on American culture.

An interesting empirical fact reinforcing the powerful effect of “political correctness” in the culture is that nearly all professions dealing with information dissemination or cultural production have had Democrat voting rates of around 90%. Thus, we see the left’s propaganda techniques have had very powerful effect.

*It was recently brought to my attention by a Twitter user of a golden thread between Hollywood and government known as the Motion Picture Association of America or MPAA. Indeed, an examination of the heads of the MPAA lead right to the Chairman Christopher Dodd, best known for his financial corruption and role in the anti-capitalist legislation Dodd-Frank. During the raging debate on the anti-piracy bill SOPA, Chris Dodd even had the audacity to praise the Chinese model of government censorship. That was before threatening politicians who didn’t stay bought.

The Hollywood elite thus have direct ties to the Democrat Party, an incestuous relationship between culture and politics that is in some ways reminiscent of fascist regimes. Although the sum total view of the messaging is not blatantly socialist, it could be characterized as crypto-marxist.

The non-spontaneous but rather pre-planned nature of the left’s assault on the culture is more fully informed by the indispensable testimony of KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov. Bezmenov explains that the campaign of ideological subversion waged by America’s enemies should be thought of in terms of demoralization, destabilization, crisis, and (totalitarian) normalization.

It is not that the KGB and other ideological subverters originated and drove the cultural and intellectual deterioration of America, but they pulled un-American ideas along, nurtured corrosive values, and helped undermine institutions that kept the country strong and great. And according to recent reports, despite the formal demise of the USSR, the FSB is still in business and still carrying out active measures against The West.

The overarching point is that we should look out for elements of pop culture that may seem trivial, but have a compound effect. Much like critical theory, which breaks up the left’s uniform movement towards socialism into various interest groups, neomarxist modes of thought and expression take on many guises and manifestations. Sometimes the medium itself is the message.

What one finds in American popular culture is a gaping void hungering for a moral defense of the nation’s key values: individualism, liberty, and representative government. Real musicians like Gary Eaton, Wilson Getchell, and the band Cake are helping to lead the way on the music scene. And even seemingly marginal acts of cultural opposition as found in the Hollywood film The Dark Knight Rises are crucial to turning the tide against leftism.

American conservatives – you are the counter-culture. Act like it.

The Death of the Enlightenment

The greatest intellectuals of history rose to prominence in periods of catastrophic change. In the ancient world, Aristotle, Cicero, Confucius, and the Arab scholar Al-Ma’Mun sought to make sense of the tumult and strife they witnessed around them. They left us manuscripts that would, in the words of the Greek historian Thucydides, last “for all time.” Their minds sought to impose order on the mystical culture and seemingly chaotic world around them in order to bring man’s relations in harmony with reality.

Each of these philosophers’ civilizations would ultimately collapse into tyranny or barbarism after periods of ideological decay; their teachings disregarded and their warnings ignored. In the West, the decline and fall of the Roman Empire would lead to the obliteration of the gains of Hellenic philosophy as well as the ‘genius of order’ of the Romans. The Near East would fall under the sway of Islamic fascists who would subjugate all thought under the omnipresent dominion of Allah. China would continue to move ever so slowly towards achieving the totalitarian vision of its first emperor Qin Shu Huang.

The first signs of the reemergence of civilization in the West can best be attributed to the thought of Thomas Aquinas, who reintroduced rationality into Christianity. The Scholastics would pave the way for the Renaissance, primarily by resurrecting Aristotelian thought. Their works would lay the foundations for The Enlightenment, which would disentangle superstition from politics and liberate men from intellectual slavery to monarchy. Once again, we find that the essential political philosophers of the era, Thomas Hobbes and his refuter John Locke, were men who lived during times of immense change and confusion. John Locke’s Two Treatises on Government would provide the intellectual fuel for the American Revolution.

The American Revolution, which created an unprecedented political and economic order based on reason and deliberation, would contrast mightily with its sister revolution, often misleadingly described as animated by The Enlightenment. The French Revolution was birthed by the unruly passion of democracy, and was the midwife of the “philosophy” of rationalized confiscation known as socialism.

Though both democracy and socialism are draped in the ideological garb of reason, they are divorced of it; the former is animated by transcendental collectivist myths and the latter of class envy devoid of reflection or virtue. One might view them as the doctrines of power accumulation in the state under the stewardship of a cult leader and the repression of all upward mobility threatening the elite establishment, respectively.

The present popularity of democracy and socialism in academia and Western culture is indication of a calculated divorce from The Enlightenment, which liberated men from the control of elites. Unfortunately, the practical success of the American experiment, and now the well-founded distrust of self-described intellectual elites, have led to a disdain for ideas qua ideas among many people.

But the consequence of this development is that we have incrementally abandoned the vision of the founders in our hearts and minds, and are within one swift stroke of severance with that glorious past. We now find ourselves in the midst of a war of ideas, with the soul of Western civilization at stake; yet many still show a pathological lack of seriousness about ideas and how they shape our world.

There are questions that arise of why an intellectual elite would subvert the very civilization it benefits from; and secondly, what makes their detractors so smart? The answer to the first question is a matter of human nature, the second one, a matter of historical awareness.

If we assume that the American way has been successful in terms of wealth creation and political stability, the problem for intellectuals becomes “how do I distinguish myself?” One does not acquire notoriety or power by adhering to the principles of the past, no matter how successful they have proved to be. The ideologies that ‘naturally’ developed in academia over the last century, which attracted “alienated” (or rather, narcissistic) individuals, can be summed up as “contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism” and “rationalized power-seeking.”

Hence, it is in the light of such vapid arrogance we should esteem the intellectual programme to criticize all according to the neomarxian rubric known as “critical theory.” After all, socialism at its core is merely a critique of capitalism. It is not a creative or productive system in any realistic sense. People don’t work for its own sake, and certainly they do not do so for strangers (at least, without the implied or explicit threat of a barrel of a gun). Socialism provides no plausible answer to the “then what?” question of what happens after the destruction of capitalism.

Out of crisis comes opportunity, as our political enemies remind us, and for us that entails laying the ideological foundations of liberty on more solid ground. With the illuminating guidance of our founders Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison we may add the insights of Ayn Rand, whose explicit infusion of Aristotelian thought into the philosophy of freedom would buttress our defenses against the inevitable assaults that arise from democratic mobs and iron-fisted tyrants. It is moderation in principle that leads to excess in government; and devotion to principle that leads to liberty, security, peace, and prosperity.

The intellectual decay of Western civilization has brought us to a crossroads, and we must choose the path take from here. We must choose liberty or an “Age of Darkness.” It is our task as freedom-loving Americans to ignite a political Renaissance, reawakening and re-energizing the ideas of the founders.

As the philosophy of a people goes, there, inevitably, is civilization led. Philosophies of confusion and detachment from reality lead to decay and collapse; those of order and rationality provide the conditions that make social harmony and human happiness possible. Yet the austerity of the rational life is not for the faint of heart; it demands virtue and a steely stoicism. Ultimately, many will retreat into utopianism and mysticism, which obviate our personal responsibility and detach us from the real world. The outcome of the battle between reality and unreality is the fulcrum on which the fate of civilization turns.


The Strategy to Destroy America: Critical Theory

Critical theory is the ideological key that explains the majority of the left’s positions.It is imperative that conservatives fully grasp this theory to stand a chance against cultural marxism.

Ever notice how the Democrat Party never stops criticizing the United States? That nothing about this blessed country satisfies them and there is always some “war”  we need to undertake against some imaginary foe?

Some ready examples spring to mind. Like the left’s hatred of minorities that try to leave the Democrat plantation. Or how we have had a “war on poverty” for fifty years with literally no results to show for it except multi-generational poverty in certain “underprivileged” communities. Or how the family is being ripped apart by intentional policies that target males as eternal scapegoats.

The left’s divisive criticism of America is intended to destroy it as it was founded and pivot it to a Marxist redistributionist and repressive regime. Hopefully, the left has overplayed its “racist, sexist, homophobe” hand and many Americans can absorb this argument and comprehend its implications.

The lynchpin in the Democrat’s attempt to harness grievances and victimhood for economic and social control, as well as political domination, is “social justice.” This vague meme implies that there are certain classes or races that inherently and necessarily exploit others and it is the role of the government to “make things right.”

Below are some examples of the divide-and-conquer strategy of the neo-marxist left and how Americans are pitted against one another while the left loots the treasury, tramples the Constitution, and implements its strategy of “fundamental transformation.”

Blacks vs. Whites
Blacks are encouraged to blame whites for their trials and travails. Though slavery was formally dissolved as an institution 150 years ago, and the Civil Rights Act instituted nearly 50 years ago, the left continues to espouse the idea that America is a fundamentally racist nation and nothing ever changes that eternal fact.

The election of Barack Obama, even in predominately white states in the Midwest, has done nothing to salve race relations in the eyes of the leftists. That is because the “racism” paradigm is a tactic that the left exploits to foster animosity between Americans, and for leftists to frame themselves as “defenders” of a presumably oppressed minority.

Men vs. Women
Radical feminism arose in the 1970s in the aftermath of the “sexual revolution.” The feminist way of looking at history through the prism of the “silent woman” can be legitimate if not taken to extremes.

Unfortunately, the hard left, which has clout in many universities and particularly in Women’s Studies and Gender Studies departments, has propagated such radical theories that “gender” itself is a narrative and no real differences exist between the two sexes except for genitalia. Biologists, neurophysiologists, and mainstream child development experts contradict this narrative. The effect of radical feminism is an unnecessary antagonism between men and women. The debunked “war on women” narrative is an outstanding example of this tactic.

Children vs. Parents
Rebellion against parental authority is glamorized in the culture through film and music. Furthermore, the youth are sexualized at an increasingly earlier age (according to radical theorists like Gyorgy Lukacs, this assaults the core of Christianity and leads to youth rebellion against parents). Children are encouraged to turn against their parents, which is no difficult task to begin with, admittedly. But most surprisingly, children can even be taught to assault their parents with leftist ideas like environmentalism, or even to “spy” on their parents.

The Family vs. The Nanny State
Children are increasingly raised in daycares, which tend to teach extremely elementary Marxist values such as “sharing.” “Imagination” and “creativity” is inordinately emphasized in these daycares and kindergartens rather than subjects such as reading, writing, and arithmetic. The education system holds onto these children, effectively, for as long as possible – offering Pell grants and subsidized federal loans to nearly anyone who can enter a university (not a difficult task).

The promulgation of perpetual youth leads to soft-minded young adults who are easily manipulated by narratives such as “hope” and “change,” who are inclined to rebel against the status quo, and who look to the government as a parent-by-proxy.

Why are children more frequently being raised by the state? This is a bit more complex to follow. Through the central bank, a key institution according to Marx’s Communist Manifesto, the money supply is steadily devalued, and credit offered artificially easily. The effect is that, in general, two parents need to work at home just to make ends meet and to pay off easily acquired debt.

Heterosexuals vs. Homosexuals
The left has politicized sexual orientation in this country, even to the extent of creating special rules and regulations regarding homosexuals (such as housing and hiring laws, and military recruitment and retention policies). Those who question the normalization of homosexual behavior in America society, even in elementary schools, are cast as “homophobes.” Gay marriage becomes a political issue, even as marriage is traditionally a religious issue (it is my view that it is none of the government’s business who gets married).

Groups such as the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) infiltrate our schools under the premise of keeping them “safe” (see “safe schools czar” Kevin Jennings), ostensibly in order to recruit more gays. Crimes that seem motivated by animus towards gays are labeled “hate crimes,” which is very dangerous because it punishes a human being for having certain thoughts, and not for his objectively determined behavior. Sexuality is a private matter that should not be politicized, yet in progressive America, everything is politically charged and conflict becomes a ubiquitous fact of life.

Intellectuals vs. Working Class
One way that purported progressive intellectuals marginalize conservatives and middle America is by defining intelligence as agreement with the Marxist agenda. Marxism holds that “revolutionary consciousness” comes from recognizing that history is defined by “class struggle” between haves and have-nots.

Yet the key Marxist element of dialectical materialism implies that men’s thinking reflects their material environment. The proletariat, or the oppressed, are the future of world consciousness; this is supposedly because the internal contradictions of capitalism, such as the steady decline of wages towards subsistence, doom the system to collapse. Anyone who does not recognize this narrative as being true, particularly the working class or middle class, or who criticize it too spiritedly, are demonstrating “false consciousness.”

This is how the left effectively strips their intellectual opposition of agency, leading to anger and frustration among those who oppose them. How the intelligentsia themselves escape the dialectical materialist worldview, especially since many of them are upper middle class, goes unexplained. (I am explaining here how leftist intellectuals think, and not the Democrats who merely follow the progressive leadership without asking too many questions.)

Producers vs. “Parasites”
The welfare state has been around since at least FDR, who implemented dozens of alphabet soup programs and agencies to ameliorate the effects of the Great Depression. Yet when one retraces the history and political thinking behind many social welfare programs, they were: Typically sold as temporary safety nets, and then were never repealed; and were intended to create dependency and reliance on government, and more specifically, on the Democrat Party.

The Democrats transformed the justification for government programs and policies from a legal-rational basis to a “compassionate” one. The Democrats then went after profitable businesses, in other words, successful ones, to take from them and give handouts to the less successful in order to grow their political base (why doesn’t the left leave businesses alone so that they can hire the poor and cut out the middleman?).

The Cloward-Piven strategy arose in the 1960s to grow the welfare programs of LBJ’s “Great Society” to such a massive size that they might cause the capitalist economic system to implode. As the deficit from these programs escalates, and the national debt grows, taxes will inevitably increase. Mounting financial burdens foisted on them by the state fosters anger in the producers and pits them against the “parasites,” or those who do not need welfare yet continue to take it. Welfare programs are almost never repealed once implemented, since being deprived of “entitlements” is infuriating to those who receive them and can lead to a politician’s defeat.

Citizens vs. Illegal Immigrants
Following on the discussion of the welfare state is the problem of illegal immigration. Allowing aliens to enter the country without going through the proper immigration process is a sign of disrespect for the country’s rule of law. Providing illegal immigrants with social welfare and benefits without them having to earn them or pay for them angers American taxpayers.

In addition, the left’s narratives of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” runs cover for illegal immigrants, who often gain concessions from schools and other government agencies, such as foreign language teaching. The sum effect of opening the U.S. to illegal aliens without making them going through the immigration process is a guarantee that tens of millions enter American society without any appreciation for the political, cultural, and social norms that the country is founded on.

This leads to cultural weakening and political decay. Furthermore, illegal aliens take what used to be well-paying jobs from Americans, and they also depress wages. When the economy downturns (and the actions of the Federal Reserve guarantee that those downturns tend to be severe and protracted), extreme hostility between citizens and illegal immigrants is likely to flare up.

Secularists vs. Christians
The great majority of Americans are self-described Christians, yet they are continually mocked and ridiculed in the mainstream culture. Christians are marginalized in the courts and the schools, even to the point that their free speech and freedom to practice their religion are infringed.

Although leftists will bend over backwards to make Muslims feel comfortable any way that they can, Christians are told to keep quiet, “don’t dare” pray in public schools, or erect Nativity scenes – even on private property. The result is the Christians feel cornered politically and change their view that government is founded on freedom to one that it can be used as a vehicle for their religion (such as Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” and his partnering with Christian charities – bear in mind I am against any government subsidies for non-governmental organizations or businesses).

Both progressives and Christians viewing government in such instrumental terms guarantees political strife and misunderstanding between those Christians who seek to legislate their views, those who think that the government should be religiously neutral, and the leftists, who are aggressively anti-religion to the point of imposing on others’ freedoms.

“Neoconservatives” vs. Muslims
It is clear in the historical record that the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks since the 1960s have been committed by radical Muslims. Yet those Americans who support aggressively defending the United States from radical Muslim terrorists are brandished “neocons,” a disparaging term for “neoconservatives.”

Neoconservatives are those political thinkers who propose using the United States as a vehicle to spread American values in the world, and may be completely different from those who seek a foreign policy of intervention in countries that are likely to prove a serious threat to American security, such as state supporters of radical Muslim terrorism. Muslims are held up as just another victim class of American imperialism, even as it is clear who the aggressors are in the war between America and radical Muslims.

Even though the news media continually chide Americans for their supposedly discriminatory views against all Muslims, there have been few, if any, attacks on Muslims in the United States simply for the fact of one being a Muslim. Progressives, many of which ally with the inflammatory Council on Islamic American Relations or CAIR, exploit antagonism in order to paint Christians as reactionary “Islamophobes,” and pose as the defenders of Muslims – even if that means risking our nation’s security by allowing radical Muslims to escape warranted scrutiny.

“Progressives” vs. “Conservatives”
The narrative of “progressives,” who see themselves as inherently more enlightened and advanced than their political adversaries, is that the world of the future is a classless one where conflict is obsolete through the equal distribution of wealth. Those who oppose or criticize this vision are de facto “conservatives” who are hence regressive and mentally inferior.

This arrogance on the hard left inevitably leads to condescension and reaction. Yet progressives vary to the extent that they realize that their vision, whether based on the philosophies of Karl Marx or on those of his teacher G.W.F. Hegel (whom many neomarxists follow), is inherently faith-based (and thus does not reflect an “intellectual” position narrowly speaking).

Some style that Marxism is “scientific,” even despite the many contradictions to Marx’s predictions (for example, that a Marxist revolution would first occur in an advanced capitalist state); while others believe that Marxism is simply a useful myth to advance the left’s utopian vision.

Environmentalists vs. Polluters
Radical environmentalism really took off in the 1970s, most notably with the consecration of the first “Earth Day” in 1970. Although the conservation movement began during the Progressive Era in American politics, famously with Theodore Roosevelt’s creation of national parks and wildlife preserves, conservationism should not be confused with environmentalism.

While conservationism is about humans being good stewards of their environments, environmentalism is a paranoiac view of the world that sees mankind as inherently destructive of the environment. As such, radical environmentalism can take on aspects of a religion, making its adherents resistant to rational debate on the merits of actual science.

The exposure of the faux science of the environmentalist movement with “Climategate” has shaken the hold of the myth of manmade climate change with the public at large. But radical environmentalists remain as committed as ever, since their movement was never about science to begin with, but about promoting their radical agenda and making huge profits while doing it.

The Individual vs. The Collective
One of the main struggles between the left and right is that of the individual versus the collective. The left poses a mystical “greater good” or “common good” as the justification for many supposedly progressive policies. This implies that the individual must put “the community” first, and himself always second (or not at all).

The ethic of altruistic sacrifice is held as the most noble aim of a person’s life, and any resistance to the left is criticized as “selfish” (see the writings of Ayn Rand for more on the opposition of altruism and selfishness). This puts the individual who wants to better himself and make a profit in an inherently defensive position. It follows that private property and individual rights are compromised in the interest of “democracy.” The result is the atomization of those who seek to be “their own men” and the praising of followers and “joiners” of progressive causes.

Democrats vs. Republicans
America’s founding fathers despaired of the possible sabotage of the Constitutional republic due to the rise of political parties. Political parties artificially split the electorate up into blocks since they run on quite ideologically and principally disjointed platforms, essentially forcing Americans to make political preferences according to “best fit” or the choice of “lesser evils.”

Political parties can greatly polarize a nation, since people are identified with the party they support, whether or not they agree with all the planks of that party’s platform. A country strongly dominated by party politics is not conducive to rational public discussion of the issues. Parties are a natural consequence of electoral politics, but since the welfare state is assumed, they are now used as interest groups that loot the public’s treasury for particular goals, as politicians do so for specific constituencies.

The result is an interlocking democratic political system of “winner takes the spoils”; the Constitution is disregarded as merely a barrier in the way of ransacking the nation and creating political fiefdoms within and outside of government. In many ways, the tea party movement is a centrist movement seeking to end the partisan politics by restoring constitutionally limited government and obviating the strictures of party politics (though practically this involves co-opting the Republican party and putting it in the service of this cause).

“Nationalists” vs. Anti-Americans
Patriots and others supporters of American patriotism are often branded as reactionary nationalists. Yet patriotism is defined as a “love of country” and implies reverence for the institutions, traditions, and ideals that are the foundation of one’s country.

Nationalists, on the other hand, are seen by the left as inherently dangerous obstructers of the internationalist project; they range from xenophobes and bigots, to Nazis and fascists. This cross-association is the background to the idea that those who love and cherish America are something akin to fascists, though what America stands for and what the Nazis stood for are not adequately differentiated.

The burning of the flag, and the caricature of those who support and defend America against its enemies as akin to Hitler is a powerful illustration of the leftists’ warped mentality. The anti-war movement will unveil any weapon it can find to suppress what it views as virulent “nationalism”; it will call America colonialist and imperialist, it will fault-find and attack the U.S. military, and it will ridicule anyone who is pro-American by invoking any vulgar epithet it finds effective.


Practically speaking, what is immediately needed to counter-act critical theory is a vigorous defense of America, the family, and the Constitution, including freedom of religion; as well as an exposure of those who corrupt the courts, the schools, the universities, the news media, the entertainment industry, and the government.

We will never have a conflict-free nation; but we can have one where we understand who is cunningly stoking the flames of passion and manipulating people to achieve naive and dangerous ends. This can only happen if we thoroughly know the nature of the enemy, as well as its plans. In a war of ideas, just as in any war, this is fundamental to formulating any effective strategy. We must unify in defense of America, that nation that was birthed in freedom and independence. We must never be intimidated by those who seek to exploit us.

American conservatives can never rest when looking to defeat the ideological subverters of this nation’s founding principles of freedom, liberty, and Constitutionally limited government. Thomas Jefferson had it right more than two hundred years ago when he wrote,”The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

Man Against Himself: The Crux of American Decline

America’s stunning decline appears to many to be a sudden reversal of fortune. But this seemingly precipitous implosion is actually the result of a systematically planned demolition job carried out over the last century. And what appears to be an organic process of cultural decay is the fruit of ideological warfare waged by the left over many decades.

If one were to break up the aspects of human life into different spheres — the political, the economic, and the cultural — then we get a clearer view as to our strategy on the New Right to restore liberty and individual protections. A threat to Constitutionally limited government that many are not familiar with is cultural marxism, which will be briefly discussed in this essay.

Our civilization is thoroughly saturated with cultural marxism to the extent that we less conscious and introspective Americans are like fish that do not know they are wet. The moral content of nearly every cultural phenomenon is almost undeniably leftist, and its mode of expression is often designed to frustrate rational thought or defy analysis. This is a deliberate strategem of the left that plays on the obtuse linkages between aesthetics and morality. One aspect of this strategy that I have discussed before may be called “pop subversion.”

The technological advances in mass communications brought about greater empowerment of the individual to communicate with his fellow man. The information revolution stood poised to bring about the insights of The Enlightenment to all mankind, and thus to undermine the ideological bases of state power. But these technological innovations also provided powerful tools to the state, and its facilitators, the collectivists, to manipulate what they refer to as the ‘public sphere.’

One leftist mastermind who recognized the powerful possibilities of the new media was Antonio Gramsci. An Italian communist, Gramsci posited that in order for communism to be brought to the West, the culture would have to be infiltrated by a ‘long march’ through the institutions of information dissemination; first and foremost, the schools and universities,  followed by news media, radio and music entertainment, film, and the courts.

The ideological subversion would be gradual, but would reinforce and complement the neomarxists’ erosion of the capitalist economic system, which they referred to as “the base.” Fundamental to transforming the culture was to lead men to interpret events and politics in the desired manner, so that the recreation of the economic conditions along class warfare lines, using such instruments as the Fabian socialist banking policy of intentional inflation, would lead to the popular support of socialism.

But in order to create, one must first destroy, to paraphrase Nietzsche. The ideological weapons of the left were to be found in the texts of various atheistic or state-worshiping philosophers. Hegel taught the triumph of the State, and the establishment of rule by the god of Reason. Marx taught class warfare, and material determinism of the kind that eviscerates the free will of the individual. Nietzsche laid the foundation for nihilistic moral and cultural relativism by eschewing men to get ‘beyond good and evil.’ Freud called religion the ‘opiate of the masses,’ and Gyorgy Lukacs sought ways to culturally destroy it. Heidegger taught that the essence of humanity was not life, but existence. Dewey prepared the way for the left’s educational agenda by stripping ideology out of discussion in the social sciences to be replaced by pragmatism. Sartre and Camus demoralized men’s creative and aspirational spirit through cultural promulgation that man was in existentialist crisis.  Foucault imprisoned men’s minds by insisting that power relationships are inescapable.  What emerges out of a survey of modern philosophy as offered by our universities is a uniformity of thought hostile to individual freedom. This set of philosophy can be referred to as anti-humanist in content, as it shuns the Christian-based humanism of the Renaissance that led to The Enlightenment.

Complementing the ideological indoctrination in our universities was to be the daily reinforcement of the news media, who falsely portrayed themselves as a consensus spontaneously and objectively reporting current events, before becoming more ideologically combative as they were challenged from below. The daily duplicity of the news media is relatively easy to analyze for the rational man. The medium invites analysis, and those who would do so are predominately the consumers of it. Since the overt leftism of the establishment news media is so noticeable, especially in relief to the alternative reportage of new media, most once-dominant outlets are being rejected. But has declining ratings caused these outlets to revise their editorial policies? On the contrary, many have doubled down and made even more manifest their fairly unpopular leftist ideology.

There is currently no more compelling illustration of the potential power of the information age than the spontaneous order of The Internet. While it is credited by the media as fostering “democratic” revolutions in the Middle East, what is glaring in the laudatory media narratives is the lack of what is necessary for a people to be free under a democratic political system. The lack of an individualistic ethos dooms these revolutions to tumultuous mob warfare and future tyrannies without further enlightenment. But that appears to be the motive of the “news” media.

What is more subsumed in the culture, and precisely because it is so omnipresent, are such cultural engines as music and film. The thumping, mind-numbing music, with the nearly ubiquitous emphasis on emotion over self-control, often even promoting self-destructive, violent behavior, reinforces a nihilistic live-in-the-moment mentality that undermines the civic qualities needed for people to take care of themselves. It is significant that music is taken seriously enough by Plato to devote an extended passage to in his Republic, and New Left guru Theodore Adorno was a music critic whose work influenced radio and mass communications after the 1930s.

Films provide powerful imagery to stoke the imagination of the audience on new potentialities in human relations. Directors such as the Soviet Sergei Eisenstein and the Nazi Leni Riefenstahl were extremely influential in winning over adherents to their respective parties’ political platforms. Today, nearly all those who work in Hollywood vote Democrat, and movies are regularly churned out for mass consumption for no other discernible purpose than to undermine morality and America’s ability to project force abroad. Many kinds of demoralizing films fail to deliver high revenue, as they offend the sensibilities of a lot of Americans, but they are pumped out nonetheless.

What appears on the surface to be purely an economic crisis of spending and debt is the culmination of the moral degradation and demoralization of Americans. Many men no longer have the self-pride and responsibility needed to govern themselves in a free society. Entitlement spending is largely a proxy for how much the citizenry refuses to take care of themselves, and have outsourced self-care to the government. The frightening economic indicators we read are the signs of a people who have ideologically and morally lost their way.

One visible manifestation of the left’s successful subversion of our nation’s ideology and morality, which led us to become one of the freest and most successful nations in the history of the world, can be seen in how present-day America constantly defeats itself.  Those who are successful are condemned as “greedy,” as if their relative success came in an economic and social vacuum; we do not allow ourselves to drill for oil, even as our enemies do so off our coasts; we over-regulate and strangle our own economies, even as the government seeks to tax it more.  Ayn Rand described such a self-sacrificial ethos under the apt rubric “altruism.”

On the deepest philosophical level, the left’s ideology defies existence, refuses to acknowledge that man’s nature is life, opposes the rational thought that brought civilization into being to being with, and destroys the very language that makes the transmission of ideas possible.  Leftist philosophy is thus essentially not only anti-humanistic, but also anti-life and anti-reality. This ideology in its various expressions stands against wealth creation and self-improvement.  It is thus a self-defeating ideology destructive of human happiness, personal excellence, and non-coincidentally, national greatness.

The foundation of human civilization is the individual; as the individual goes, so goes civilization. One cannot have a great civilization comprised of non-productive, irresponsible citizens, who become a burden upon their fellow man. In order to have freedom in society, each should be free to live in a self-reliant manner within the context of civil society and a free economy. He must not be free from reality itself, as prices and wages describe, but from human coercion. Humans cannot be economically free in the absolute sense of being free from work, but rather can only be free from enslavement to other men. In order for a human being to be able to distinguish between the two states, he must be politically free to experience life directly, its risks and rewards, as a guide to leading his own life. In order to rationally engage with reality, he must be ideologically free, that is to say, enlightened.

If the New Left is able to institute its ethos of anti-humanism into our culture without vibrant and principled opposition, clearly exposing the left’s totalitarian agenda, and enunciating the real world alternatives, man will be doomed to another dark age. Only this time it will be intentionally created and reinforced using the mass communications tools that brought the state to ultimate power, and entrenched by technological advances that civilization brought to fruition. The ultimate way to defeat the left is to edify civilization ideologically and morally.

America’s Race to the Bottom: Barack Obama and Critical Theory

Racism in America is an emotionally explosive subject not well-disposed to cool, rational discussion. The tragic shooting of a young man in Florida named Trayvon Martin has given rise to passionate calls for massive protests by all-too-familiar civil rights activists. The professional traders in racial antagonism claim to speak for a monolithic block called “the black community,” which presumes there can never be any long-term reconcilement between individual citizens of all skin colors in a truly diverse and racially tolerant American society. Such a future would assume unity around something other than race, such as a shared vision to promote the value of freedom, so vital to our country’s prosperity and generosity of spirit.

The radical left has successfully used race to distract Americans from the worthy goal of liberty, because its underlying animation is power. The rationale for such power may be to transform the world into a more equitable and socially just place; but the power to create such an imagined world entails the power to destroy the old one. The relics of the past world must therefore be swept away in the public mind, the left believes, so that mankind can be reformed; and if the Enlightenment philosophy that provided the germ of emancipation proved too potent in laying to waste the sources of oppression, then statists must erect new shibboleths to spur social tensions, thus providing their radical leftist associates with the opportunity to posture themselves as our emancipators. The shackles of state dependency and repression are nonetheless hammered out in the heat of our incendiary social conflict.

For this strategical maneuver to be successful, leftists must constantly level charges that the ‘white right’ is intrinsically and irredeemably racist. These accusations are nearly always unfounded, unprovable, and undeniable. They therefore stoke agitation through confirmation bias among radicals and their adopted minorities, and also stir up irrational counterattacks from the falsely accused. Once insinuated in the public mind, racial animosity can become a perpetual mechanism of mutual hatred, which can spin out of control into open violent conflict. Stage left: Enter the state to save us from ourselves.

The nation’s racial wounds, scraped bare by community organizers of Barack Obama’s ilk, were thus argued to be critically in need of salve. Such was the ideological backdrop that placed Barack Obama center stage in a mass media-contrived drama to redeem our country from its bleak history of racism, slavery, and black oppression. Never mind that the country was one of the first in the world to ban the import of slavery, fought a bloody civil war in part over the issue, and has steadily marched forward to universally apply the vision of The Founders that individuals have certain inalienable rights. The only way for us to wash clean the ‘damned spot’ of slavery was by electing a mysterious savior, one whose blank slate of mixed racial heritage allowed us to project upon him our national hopes of transcending the issue once and for all. But that naive hope among the ‘white guilt’ liberal segment of the population proved to be misplaced. Electing a president of mixed racial ancestry has done nothing to bring so-called whites, blacks, and hispanics together. On the contrary, the president has fueled racial resentment, and this is due mainly to his seeing the world through the lens of “Critical Race Theory.”

The left obviously would never admit to such a connection, just as they vehemently deny any significance of Barack Obama lauding the Critical Race Theory scholar Derek Bell while at Harvard or Mr. Obama including Bell’s work in his college syllabus on “Currents Issues in Racism and the Law” while he was an instructor at the University of Chicago. A balanced approach to examining Obama’s syllabus shows a tendency to focus on the “issues” of racism without the broader historical backdrop of the nation’s founding or the significance of the Enlightenment philosophy that played such a critical role in slave emancipation worldwide. Instead, the syllabus begins its “Historical Foundations” section with “Indian Removal,” and proceeds through “Slavery,” then “Reconstruction, Retrenchment, and Jim Crow,” and finally, “Black Responses.” What is mainstream in academia today, due in part to ignorance of the destructive nature of Critical Theory, is a historically and intellectually one-sided attack on the United States and on its exceptional value of human liberty.

A primary source on Critical Theory, Max Horkeimer’s and Theodore Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment, gives an excellent, albeit convoluted, exposition of how it works:

Despite its great accomplishments, only power can commit injustice, for only the executed judgment is unjust, not the lawyer’s unexecuted plea. Only when discourse aims at oppression, defending power instead of powerlessness, does it contribute to the general wrong. But power, one-sided reason now whispers, is represented by human beings, By exposing the former, you make a target of the latter. And after them, worse perhaps will come. The lie speaks truth. When fascist murderers are waiting, one should not incite the people against the weak government. But even the alliance with the less brutal power does not imply that one should keep silent about infamies. The likelihood that good causes might be damaged by denunciation of the injustice which protects them from the devil has always been outweighed by the advantage the devil gains if the denunciation of injustice is left solely up to him. How far must a society have sunk in which only the scoundrels still speak the truth — and Goebbels reminds us that the lynch mob is still happily at work. Not the good but the bad is the subject matter of theory. (Emphasis my own, p. 181.)

The seductive but cognitively discordant passage, written in the signature Marxian style of slaughtering reason while sounding reasonable, provides a serpentine rationalization for Alinskyite radicals to unscrupulously mobilize power to counter-attack injustices that are defined and even contrived by the left themselves. The left will thus always provide an excuse to stoke and harness racial hatred to attack supposedly ubiquitous oppression, even while conjuring up anecdotes to falsely misrepresent “the system.” In reality, those on the left are merely turning individuals with dark skin against individuals with white skin for the cynical purpose of accruing political capital.

The question is thus begged: What is the left’s definition of justice implied with the critical race theory worldview? State-administered vengeance, where the scales of justice are perpetually adjusted according to the superfluous standard of skin pigmentation. What are the terms of social equilibrium? A racial admixture in society that is balanced and stable? Critical theory is mute on such ideological matters, just as it is mute on the question of “what is the good?” The theory’s aim is to destroy, not to promote the good; unless one holds that the good is the moral inversion of the world as it is. Peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.

If one understands the workings of Critical Theory (and its subset, Critical Race Theory), one will never be fooled by the left or misled into rhetorical blind alleys. The diversionary tactics of the media, the three-card monty of perpetual race-baiting, the baby games of Alinsky ridiculing of opponents, will all be flushed into irrelevance in one’s mind where it belongs. But unfortunately, the consequences of the public falling for the left’s racial warfare, which has devolved into a proxy struggle for the war on the free enterprise system, liberty and limited government, are utterly grave in importance.

The left is deadly afraid that the right will eventually connect the dots on its critical theory gambit. For a related example, the use of the women’s movement to promote the public financing of condoms was ridiculed in Alinsky fashion by Rush Limbaugh. When the talk show host satirically compared the spokeswoman for all women to a “slut,” he was immediately blitzed by a Media Matters for America orchestrated campaign to silence him. Cries of “Kill Rush Limbaugh!” on YouTube show how desperately the left fears that the right will catch on and use their own tactics against them. Leftists must perpetually play the victim, even as they wantonly attack the values of the country; and Democrat operative Sandra Fluke was the sacrificial virgin to play such a role.

So when the leftist media found a victim fitting the right racial profile, they pounced. The president was provided the cultural terrain in which he could give a speech on the Trayvon Martin shooting, making an unnecessary statement on the teenager’s race that “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Newt Gingrich was right to point out the needlessly racialized component of the president’s overall “unifying” speech. President Obama is supposed to be the chief citizen of all Americans, and not the spokesman for “the black community” or any other particular community. But the American dream of the post-racial black president was just that: a dream.

That there is such a gulf between the Critical Race Theory vision of Barack Obama and that of Martin Luther King Jr., who hoped that one day people “would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” is something the left is desperate to conceal. The mentioning of the lunatic ravings of sermonizing race-baiter Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor for twenty years, was said during the 2008 campaign to be off-limits. Early on in his administration, we were supposed to have a beer with Officer James Crowley after he was called out nationally for his having “acted stupidly” in the rightful arrest of black civil rights attorney Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

The radical left and its associates in the mainstream media now urge us not to make anything of the president speaking at a 2007 engagement involving the New Black Panther Party, the same NBPP that has recently floated a sizable bounty for the “capture” of Trayvon Martin’s alleged shooter George Zimmerman. The same NBPP that called for “Cairo-style” riots in 2011, and have been presumably waiting for the opportune time, or perhaps even the go-ahead signal from the media, to mobilize one. Such would not be a surprising turn of events under a community organizer-turned-president who stated that the members of the Occupy Movement were the reason he ran for office. The left’s reaction to videos that show NBPP members teaching violent “black survival tactics” to youngsters is thus to trot out a presentable spokesman, as Alinsky advised, to speak in dulcet tones about the group’s admirable aims. Yes, this is the same NBPP whose members were exculpated from all wrongdoing by Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice, in a case noted civil rights attorney Bartle Bull called “the most blatant case of voter intimidation” he had ever seen.

When confronted on wrongdoing, including high-ranking knowledge of the exposed Fast and Furious operation in the Department of Justice, Eric Holder predictably tried to deflect attention by accusing his questioners of racist motives. This would presumably make Holder the victim in a scandal where a U.S. government operation to traffic guns to Mexico resulted in thousands of deaths, including the killing of an American border patrol agent. We are supposed to ignore the repeated examples of race antagonism by the president and his administration, and white people are to presume their own guilt for even thinking anything untoward of such inherently admirable individuals, whose unimpeachable virtue is that they were born with a specific skin color.

While overt racism did exist in the United States for much of its history, and darker-skinned people of African heritage did suffer inexcusable injustices, this deplorable legacy was the consequence of an egregious and intellectually dishonest double standard applied by the majority of citizens to their fellow human beings. It was not an inherent flaw of the Natural Rights philosophy that animated the American revolution and championed the essential equality of all people.

When Thomas Jefferson penned the immortal words in The Declaration of Independence that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” he was not excluding the equality of slaves of African heritage from his thinking. Although his personal holding of slaves represents a conflict between his idealized view for humanity and his transgression in the real world, Jefferson brilliantly articulated the agenda to eventually see all men become free.  Truly radical for his age, Jefferson originally proposed to condemn the entire practice of slavery in the original drafting of The Declaration. Eleven of thirteen colonies agreed with him; but alas, the passage was not entered into the agreed-upon version.

It took two centuries for the nation to overcome its legacy of slavery and legal bias towards blacks, but the left is not content to left the issue be resolved through national unity because it politically has so much at stake in keeping us divided. The radical left preys upon the visual circumstances of racial differences by twisting them into de facto evidence of racism under the condition of inequality. But the left has done more to promote inequality in the black segment of the population through its purposeful perpetration of welfare dependency and its subsidization of self-destructive behavior than the free market ever has. To argue contrary would be racist in one’s presumptions that individuals are inherently unequal by race and can’t compete in a level economic playing field. Previously discriminated against peoples, such as Catholics, Mormons, Irish, Germans, Italians, the Chinese, and other immigrants, prove otherwise how individuals can overcome the animosity of other Americans to attain to the middle class lifestyle.

But the radical left does not want the narrative of immigrants and black Americans overcoming adversity told because the hard left doesn’t believe in the American Dream of working hard, supporting one’s family, and aspiring to personal happiness. Leftists seek a world dominated by the state, one where everyone is dependent upon the social engineers for one’s daily bread, or whatever else the statists deem just. In order to reach such an end-point, the institutions of liberty must be deconstructed, including all those conducive to self-reliance, initiative, and independence from the state. If the statists on the left can frame such a drive as “progress” towards ultimate freedom or racial justice or economic equality, that is what they will do. But it our duty as Americans to keep focus on what really matters: liberty, individual rights, and limited government.

The War on Women: Faceless Casualties at the Frontlines of the Right-Wing’s Evil Crusade

By Vanessa M. Kyllove, embedded girlilla journalist with the Feminists for Freedom brigade, second battalion, reporting from America’s frontlines for Gender Neutrality Journal.

It has been a long, joyless 342 days since the hard right announced its crusade to eradicate womyn’s rights and to throw civilization back into the dark ages. The Wellsley college campanile sounded shrill in the frigid wintry air at ten a.m. – a harsh reminder of the places in the world where freedom does not ring.

Awakening in the hostile sunlight, I logged into my Facebook. Hysterical reports had flooded into my inbox of a Socon conspiracy to protest neonatal infanticide at Planned Parenthood headquarters at high noon. The revelation jolted me more than any mocha half-caf cappuccino. Here was a spur to action that instantly shook off the hangover of those strawberry wine coolers I drank last night. So I threw on my rainbow leg warmers and laced up my combat boots. Time to return to the grisly profession of war.

My blackberry was abuzz with nervous Tweets about the potential implications of ending late term abortions and infanticide. Would life go on as we know it? How would womyn cope with the knowledge that a lady could not whimsically spread her legs and then snuff out the unfortunate results of the tryst later? If we radical feminists gave the frothing-at-the-mouth “pro-life”sociopaths late-term abortions, or heaven forbid, neonatal infanticide, the next thing you know it’s the return of the malleus maleficarum and the Salem witch trials. Not on my watch.

Strolling out onto the campus courtyard, my sisters were already congregated and ready for action. I was the tallest of the group, and sensitive to the impressions of my sisters, I strove not to flaunt my lithe, lanky body and brown flaxen hair, which I kept tucked in a bun under my Che-style beret. My lengthy army green field jacket also guaranteed no wandering predatory masculine eyes could take in my feminine assets.

As I approached on the white paved walkway, I encountered a stocky girl of the athletic type dressed in a gray Wellsley sweatshirt and black stretch pants, taking in the cool mist of the evaporating dew and the warm scent of the radiant morning sun. It was Becky, my best gal pal. She was wielding a sign “Stay Out of My Womb!” while our nerdy, whip-smart friend Sandra, a diminutive red-haired girl of modest persuasion, had taken up the plight of the condomless with her custom T-shirt “Fluck You, Where’s Our Condoms?!”

We assembled at the pavilion with the Structural Feminist Society and countenanced our plan of attack. Social conservatives were not to be trifled with, having been raised on red meat and possibly harboring communicable diseases like rabies. We imagined the best tactic would be to yell as piercingly as we could, repeating the same chants over and over until we got our way.

“What about… racists, sexists, homophobes, leave those abortion docs alone?” Sandra meekly proffered to the group of seventeen college girls and the Gender Studies professor Ms. Shwarthely.

“What does that have to do with abortion and reproductive rights?” I asked, slightly confused.

“Yes, exactly,” Ms. Shwarthely muttered dryly, a wry smile creasing on her thin, pursed lips.

After forming en masse, we stridently took to the streets, armed only with our witty placards and a ray of hope. What we were fighting for was a more just world for all of us. And we would be damned if some redneck, teabagging socons were going to take away our right to partial birth abortion or neonatal infanticide.

The clack of heavy black Sketchers pounded on the pavement like an advancing army. Seventeen raucous warriors fighting for the cause of all adult womyn ready to do battle with our worst of enemies – the ignorant right-wing reactionary.

The Planned Parenthood office was a flurry of activity, as dozens of white, middle-aged, trailer park trash had gathered on the sidewalk, carrying Bibles and other mysogynistic hate literature. Horribly graphic pictures of healthy infants shocked and stirred us to engage.

“Sisters, let’s mobilize!” Ms. Shwarthely yelled through a bull-horn. The short-haired, bespectacled professor led the charge to the head of the protest group, a priest who was mumbling some Bible verses. She got right in his face.

“What do you think you’re doing here?” she bellowed in righteous fury. “Protesting abortion? Neonatal infanticide? What business of yours is this?”

“Why…” the idiotic preacher splurted out, “I just think it’s morally wrong…”

“Morally wrong?” Ms. Swarthely howled magnificently. “Why these…” she wrapped her hand against a placard bearing an image of a fetus “…are just blobs of protoplasm, inconsequential bits of matter, and it is up to we womyn to decide if they live or die!”

“But…” the bumbling fool struggled to make out, “Don’t you see that all life is precious?”

“Precious? Precious?!? How many children will starve to feed this drain on society that you would like to see the light of day? Womyn, enough! Time to chant!”

Our voices raised to the sky, we chanted in unison. Our hymn flooded over our enemies gloriously, more potently than any Christian choir. One suburban WASP female burst into tears because of our stirring chorus. I gave my friend Becky a high-five and took out my camera phone. My friends would not believe the ridiculous teabagging rednecks who dared to mess with our girl power.

An hour of our brigade, nicknamed “Task Force Vagina,” chanting “racist, bigot, homophobe” wore down our adversaries. At last, bittersweet victory. One of the hateful hillbillies yelled, “You are all going to hell!”- only proving they were a bunch of crazy hatemongers. Then finally, the coup de grâce.  The invariable “baby killer!” meme was uttered. I caught it all on my camera phone, which brought an irresistible grin to my face. But Sandra was visibly upset.

“Hey, lady!” she cried. “I don’t like being called names!”

This was unacceptable. One of my sisters had been emotionally wounded in combat. I folded up my cellphone and rushed to comfort my wounded comrade by putting my arm around her shoulder. Just then, a womyn showed up to enter the clinic, bravely making her way through the crowd of contorted faces. Meekly, shuffling her way through, she lifted her eyes only to parse the meaning of the confrontation. Her expression was grave.

Awkwardly, I smiled at the young black woman with a reassuring look on my face that communicated ‘just ignore the signs.’ The obviously lonely and afraid girl seemed to pluck up for a moment and then returned to her grim state after she walked by.

Why was this world so cruel? What good were all these protests if a womyn like her was forced to bear the curse of an unwanted child, and left no choice but to terminate it? If only the world were one collective, sharing all, no one would go without want, no one would go hungry, and no one would be shamed for the unavoidable results of free love…

“Hey, you!” a ferocious masculine shout snapped me back to attention. “Whores of Babylon!”

Back to the fray. Back to the cause of fighting for womyn everywhere.

The above is satire. It is a fictionalized account intended to elucidate certain ideas and principles by taking them to absurd lengths. It is not intended to be taken literally.

Kyle Becker blogs at RogueGovernment, and can be followed on Twitter as @RogueOperator1. He writes freelance for several publications, including American Thinker and BeatObamaPac, and is a regular commentator on the late night talk show TB-TV.